Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Bulldozer Dual-Interlagos Benchmarks On Linux

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

  • Goderic
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Source?

    I think you're thinking of Bobcat, which they claimed would provide

    For Bulldozer, the claims I've seen are 12% die space, and virtually double performance on the right kind of code. On the other hand, the wrong kind of code probably gives no speed up at all.

    This source is pretty good at explaining how it works, as well as passing on AMD's 12% die space claim: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3863/a...t-chips-2010/4
    You seem to be right, the article I remembered was this one: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2881
    But it's about a year older than your source so probably incorrect.

    Leave a comment:


  • popper
    replied
    Originally posted by mtippett View Post
    Ah.. So you are the owner of that system .

    I intend to do a openbenchmarking.org blog posting of that one.. Can you email me matthew @ phoronix.com to discuss?
    matthew why dont you and/or Michael write a openbenchmarking wrapper and use the generic checkasm --bench as supplied with a x264 git pull that use that wrapper to analyse the mass of real life data for the speed of each C and assembly routine you get there.

    in fact in this case these cores being new, its a very effective way to get working AVX speed result's for a given core today as x264/checkasm include that in the latest git now, can you do that ASAP and make it a default run option and make a section on openbenchmarking for the raw checkasm --bench output at least

    real life data from a current x264/checkasm git pull is far more interesting than any other app/benchmark as its the only one today that's got masses of fully tested assembly and is maintained and patched when bug's appear or new core's come on line.

    and its a simple report and give temporary remote shell access to the core x264 assembly dev's if you cant git format patch/fix it yourself, they like feedback and especially checkasm --bench result's for new cores too.

    Knuckles/thalin perhaps you two can also do a basic git pull of x264 compile and do a checkasm --bench and put them here/on a permanent http://pastebin.com link

    Leave a comment:


  • Ferdinand
    replied
    So does anybody have an idea where bulldozer will be in relation with sandybridge? Performance per core(half module) per watt per clock?

    Leave a comment:


  • d1saster
    replied
    One still can improve the c-ray performance if one uses opencc as a compiler (http://www.openbenchmarking.org/resu...D1SA-CRAYCOM20). The standard makefile deliverd by PTS isnt aware of the CC env-variable, so i patched the install.sh in ~/.phoronix-test-suite/test-profiles/pts/c-ray-1.0.0/ .

    Code:
    #!/bin/sh
    
    tar -zxvf c-ray-1.1.tar.gz
    
    patch -p0 << 'EOF'
    --- ./c-ray-1.1/Makefile.orig	2008-04-09 23:57:57.000000000 +0200
    +++ ./c-ray-1.1/Makefile	2011-03-23 00:49:20.413694037 +0100
    @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
     obj = c-ray-mt.o
     bin = c-ray-mt
     
    -CC = gcc
    -CFLAGS = -O3 -ffast-math
    +CC ?= gcc
    +CFLAGS ?= -O3 -ffast-math
     
     $(bin): $(obj)
     	$(CC) -o [email protected] $(obj) -lm -lpthread
    EOF
    
    cd c-ray-1.1/
    make -j $NUM_CPU_JOBS
    echo $? > ~/install-exit-status
    cd ..
    
    echo "#!/bin/sh
    cd c-ray-1.1/
    RT_THREADS=\$((\$NUM_CPU_CORES * 16))
    ./c-ray-mt -t \$RT_THREADS -s 1600x1200 -r 8 -i sphfract -o output.ppm > \$LOG_FILE 2>&1
    echo \$? > ~/test-exit-status" > c-ray
    chmod +x c-ray

    Leave a comment:


  • mirv
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    Its pretty interesting what AMD has done. Just forget about the number of cores!, they created the bulldozer module which contains 2 integer cores and 1 FP core. A CPU will contain various bulldozer modules.

    This redesign is aimed to increase performance on generic programs, which uses lot of integer operations (games included). Programs which makes use of a lot of FP operations (math, video encoders...) would probably not get performance boost.

    Indeed, it should be interesting to see more tests of this AMD CPU redesign.
    Agreed here. Also, from what I've read (including the usual marketing stuff), the aim of the Fusion line, and likely Bulldozer, is not single threaded performance, or even single program performance. It's multi-program, multi-threaded performance, with lower power usage that they're aiming for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Its pretty interesting what AMD has done. Just forget about the number of cores!, they created the bulldozer module which contains 2 integer cores and 1 FP core. A CPU will contain various bulldozer modules.

    This redesign is aimed to increase performance on generic programs, which uses lot of integer operations (games included). Programs which makes use of a lot of FP operations (math, video encoders...) would probably not get performance boost.

    Indeed, it should be interesting to see more tests of this AMD CPU redesign.

    Leave a comment:


  • bbordwell
    replied
    I just found this out and have not seen it come up yet in discussion, C-ray measures floating point performance which is bulldozers weak point as it only has one FP unit per module. Integer performance then should be about double which would put it on par with sandy bridge.

    Leave a comment:


  • mtippett
    replied
    Originally posted by thalin View Post
    As they said in the article, "my" R910 is the best on C-Ray so far, so I win. I have you beat by nearly 2 seconds.
    Ah.. So you are the owner of that system .

    I intend to do a openbenchmarking.org blog posting of that one.. Can you email me matthew @ phoronix.com to discuss?

    Leave a comment:


  • thalin
    replied
    Originally posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    Heh:

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322585
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322102

    I win

    But yeah, what's impressive is that you'll be able to get 4 of these on the same system, for a very reasonable price!
    As they said in the article, "my" R910 is the best on C-Ray so far, so I win. I have you beat by nearly 2 seconds.

    Leave a comment:


  • LinuxID10T
    replied
    Originally posted by bbordwell View Post
    I am going to have to agree with you, no way they would release a new arch that is slower than the last.
    Also, the new bulldozer cores are supposed to run way faster than the current stars cores.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X