Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: Intel vs. AMD Performance-Per-Watt On Ubuntu 14.04 Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,378

    Default Intel vs. AMD Performance-Per-Watt On Ubuntu 14.04 Linux

    Phoronix: Intel vs. AMD Performance-Per-Watt On Ubuntu 14.04 Linux

    To complement the many Intel vs. AMD CPU/APU Linux benchmarks published earlier this week as part of our AMD A10-7850K "Kaveri" APU coverage, here's some results mostly examining the performance-per-Watt and overall system power consumption of the many different Intel and AMD processors running Ubuntu Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19685

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    349

    Default

    Yikes! I know there is a 65W version of the chip (7800k) that's 100mhz less. I would like to see if there's any difference there.

    As it stands that's really surprising....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightmarex View Post
    As it stands that's really surprising....
    Is it really? We all know AMD is a power hog, it's always been that way and it will be that way for a while.

    Does that stop me from buying AMD? No. I don't game much or do many other power-intensive tasks, so it stays relatively low for me for the cost.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Kansas.
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Actually, these results impress me with amd.

    On the CPU test the A10 was in between the i5-3470 and the i5-4670.
    the i5-3470 costs $190 (on Newegg)
    the A10-7850K costs $190.

    So, if we compare the two that cost the same, the A10 gives you better CPU performance per watt and better graphics.

    Other prices:
    i7-4770K $340
    i7-3770K $330
    i5-4670 $210

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Kansas.
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Huh. Unless the other posters are right and the charts have something wrong with them. I'm gonna do some math here quick.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Kansas.
    Posts
    291

    Default BUG phoronix test suite.

    Ok the formula the power efficiency chart seems to use is this:
    Watts / time
    (using this gives me similar results to what is written in the article.)

    which means that the longer the computation took, the smaller the number. The formula used for the charts is backwards.

    It needs to be time/watts.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Why did you use the ondemand governor for the AMD cpu whereas the intel processors all have the performance governor set?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dr4go View Post
    Why did you use the ondemand governor for the AMD cpu whereas the intel processors all have the performance governor set?
    Just to repost this as I still believe that - nevertheless which formula you use - the scores are pointless, because of that mistake.

    Also how is it possible, that in Unigine Tropics v1.3 the i7 3770 is faster than any of the Haswells? Could it be, that there is something wrong with the gpu turbo or the Haswell driver?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dr4go View Post
    Also how is it possible, that in Unigine Tropics v1.3 the i7 3770 is faster than any of the Haswells? Could it be, that there is something wrong with the gpu turbo or the Haswell driver?
    Haswell graphics regressed in kernel 3.13 (I think), so that's why all Haswell CPUs have lower performance than Ivy Bridge in terms of graphics, even though it should be the other way around. There were already some articles stating that, but no explanation why it happens.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    These results are all wrong again.

    Let's take the case of the Timed Kernel Compilation with the i3-4130 and the A10-7850. They both take about the same time to finish the test, but the i3 uses 40W less power on average to do so! That's about 34% less used by the i3 to do the same job in the same amount of time, which means the i3 is more power efficient than the A10. However on the bogus "performance-per-watt" chart the A10 appears with a much better score.

    The C-Ray test is also clearly wrong. The i5-3470 and the i7-3770K have a very small difference in performance, but it's also accompanied by a similar difference in power usage, where the i7 uses a bit more power, so their performance-per-watt is very similar (as would be expected from two very similar CPUs using the same architecture), however on the obviously wrong "performance-per-watt" chart the i7 appears to be a lot more power efficient than the i5...

    TL;DR

    Everybody ignore this article because all the performance-per-watt numbers are wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •