Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Building The Linux Kernel In 60 Seconds

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    much like intel fanboys.. just as bad as apple fanboys. just stfu and admit that while neither are perfect they both (brands) can do any job wonderfully

    Comment


    • #32
      Nice. I see the so called "fail of the century" Bulldozer doing extremely well, beating the comparably priced Intel CPUs in every benchmark. If you toss in the $1000 Operton 6282 SE into the mix(16 cores, 2.6ghz), and extrapolate the results assuming that these benchmarks will scale approximately linearly with clockspeed and core count vs. the FX8150, then it's pretty much going to tie the 3960X in every benchmark. The only important measures of performance are performance per dollar, and performance per socket, and AMD is doing as well or better than Intel in both.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        many windows7 tests but the windows7 scheduler can't handle the bulldozer correctly
        I wonder: if AMD were to present the cores to the OS as SMT (hyperthreading), rather than as full cores... would that help the performance?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DanaG View Post
          I wonder: if AMD were to present the cores to the OS as SMT (hyperthreading), rather than as full cores... would that help the performance?
          That is highly unlikely, AMD's SMP variant of SMT is theoretically going to be improved more by thread pairing to CPUs while Intel's is going to be better improved by spreading threads across each of the true cores, and then adding into the stalling spots.

          AMDs variant actually has real computational assets and so can not only do actual processing but will appreciate shared information and ability to turbo-core.

          the more typical SMT (Intel) thing however is having multiple threads per core processing one at a time and waiting for a thread to stall out to compute on the other. Obviously you can only run one thread at a time in this configuration and thus it helps for the threads to be spread across the actual computational assets.

          Of course the AMD design can also in some situations where lots of cache is needed by a particular thread be improved by singly assigned a tread to a module

          So no... Intel's "Hyperthreading" software stuff would likely not help AMD that much..

          Comment


          • #35
            So just for fun, I ran this kernel compile test on an Opteron 6128. For the record, thats an 8 core 2.0 GHz part, TDP 115 watt. Its a magny-cours, NOT a bulldozer.
            Came to 1m49.265s. I did 3 runs, they all came to within about 0.150 seconds.


            Now, obviously that isn't directly comparable, so lets try to adjust.
            109.265 seconds
            Apparently, a reasonable scaling factor for magny-cours to bulldozer is 1.3x
            So w/bulldozer 8 core @ 2.0 GHz, we would be looking at 84.05 seconds.
            Now we scale number of cores,
            84.05x8/6=112.1s with a 6 core 2.0 GHz bulldozer.
            Now bump up the clock rate....
            3.0 GHz: 74.73s
            3.3 GHz: 67.94s
            3.9 GHz: 57.48s
            4.0 GHz: 56.05s

            Yeah yeah, I know... there's more than just CPU time involved.
            For reference, the system has 2 Seagate Constellation ST32000444SS running in RAID 0 (hardware), 32 GB ECC/REG in 4-channel, I forget how fast.

            Anyway, to make a little more sense.... bulldozer FX-8150 is an 8-core 3.6 GHz....
            109.25/1.3=84.03s
            And at 3.6 GHz...
            84.03*2/3.6=46.69s <--- hmm, when you're doing something like this, it tends to scale fairly linearly, doesn't it? Right... the disk part doesn't scale at all. Well I'm running magnetic disks, which are obviously at a tremendous disadvantage here. I think the bulldozer will do fine.

            Comment


            • #36
              @droidhacker, see the link above.

              It gave 89.17s for the FX-8150 kernel compile.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                Anyway, to make a little more sense.... bulldozer FX-8150 is an 8-core 3.6 GHz....
                109.25/1.3=84.03s
                And at 3.6 GHz...
                84.03*2/3.6=46.69s <--- hmm, when you're doing something like this, it tends to scale fairly linearly, doesn't it? Right... the disk part doesn't scale at all. Well I'm running magnetic disks, which are obviously at a tremendous disadvantage here. I think the bulldozer will do fine.
                I'm pretty sure that compiling the Linux kernel is pretty CPU limited, disk bandwidth isn't important because it's not reading large contiguous files, but many small ones, which is much slower and varies by which filesystem you are using. Even though the ability to read small files may be important, the compiler should be able to buffer them in memory before the CPU actually needs them, so memory bandwidth and parallelism is probably more important. I think if you were compiling the kernel in sub-30 second time with a 4 x 16-core Interlagos system, that you might hit a disk bottleneck.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I was under the impression that AMD recently announced that, for now, it gives up trying to compete with Intel since they can't touch Intel's performance:

                  http://www.techspot.com/news/46479-a...ed-to-x86.html

                  So what exactly is the discussion in this thread about?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    I was under the impression that AMD recently announced that, for now, it gives up trying to compete with Intel since they can't touch Intel's performance:

                    http://www.techspot.com/news/46479-a...ed-to-x86.html

                    So what exactly is the discussion in this thread about?
                    Could you please add some more FUD to your interpretation of that?

                    The only thing AMD said was that x86 is a proprietary Intel architecture, and that they'd be willing to consider focusing on ways to beat Intel, rather than a never ending battle to out-clone Intel on x86, considering Intel adds new patents to the architecture every year to prevent anybody from catching up too fast.

                    Besides, AMD has been competitive on price/performance for 30 years running, and there's no reason to think they won't be anytime soon. What exactly are you talking about?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by leeenux View Post
                      Besides, AMD has been competitive on price/performance for 30 years running, and there's no reason to think they won't be anytime soon. What exactly are you talking about?
                      "Although AMD says they are still committed to x86, at the very least it would seem they are done trying to go head to head with Intel at the top end. They haven't been able to produce a high-end processor to match Intel's enthusiast offerings for quite a while, and though many had hoped to see AMD back in the game after the company revived its much-ballyhooed FX brand, that clearly wasn't the case."

                      There's really not many ways I can interpret the above. Unless you go to great lengths in order to beat your own meaning into it using a sledgehammer.
                      Last edited by RealNC; 12-18-2011, 07:16 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                        "Although AMD says they are still committed to x86, at the very least it would seem they are done trying to go head to head with Intel at the top end. They haven't been able to produce a high-end processor to match Intel's enthusiast offerings for quite a while, and though many had hoped to see AMD back in the game after the company revived its much-ballyhooed FX brand, that clearly wasn't the case."

                        There's really not many ways I can interpret the above. Unless you go to great lengths in order to beat your own meaning into it using a sledgehammer.
                        Jeez man, you need help. You are not quoting anything that AMD said, you're quoting some journalist's interpretation.

                        You're interpreting the author of the articles interpretation of the AMD rep's statement, and then you're suggesting that I'm trying to shoehorn my own thoughts into the article by directly interpreting AMD's statement instead of interpreting your interpretation of the author's intrepretation of the AMD rep's statement. Just wow... I'll draw this out:

                        ________AMD reps statement
                        ________/______________ \
                        My Interpretation ___Author''s Interpretation
                        _______________________|
                        __________________RealNC's interpretation


                        Yup, there's no doubt about it, they definitely said what somebody else thinks they said that you believe knows what he's talking about.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by leeenux View Post
                          Jeez man, you need help. You are not quoting anything that AMD said, you're quoting some journalist's interpretation.

                          You're interpreting the author of the articles interpretation of the AMD rep's statement, and then you're suggesting that I'm trying to shoehorn my own thoughts into the article by directly interpreting AMD's statement instead of interpreting your interpretation of the author's intrepretation of the AMD rep's statement. Just wow... I'll draw this out:

                          ________AMD reps statement
                          ________/______________ \
                          My Interpretation ___Author''s Interpretation
                          _______________________|
                          __________________RealNC's interpretation


                          Yup, there's no doubt about it, they definitely said what somebody else thinks they said that you believe knows what he's talking about.
                          Just love fanboyism. Even though it's in black and white in front of you, you refuse to see it. As if AMD would admit themselves that they currently can't offer the same performance. Man, nobody does that. A corporation doesn't admit defeat. They always word it carefully and in a generic way.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                            Just love fanboyism. Even though it's in black and white in front of you, you refuse to see it. As if AMD would admit themselves that they currently can't offer the same performance. Man, nobody does that. A corporation doesn't admit defeat. They always word it carefully and in a generic way.
                            Dude, you are a piece of work. Now you're saying that "we all know what they really meant", which means that you interpreting what they said to suit your own fanboyism == truth, and me taking what they say at face value and cross-referencing it with real world facts == fanboyism.

                            Pot.. kettle.. black.. etc... but with an extra handful of hypocrisy thrown in.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X