Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Bulldozer Dual-Interlagos Benchmarks On Linux

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

  • [Knuckles]
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sylarr
    replied
    Originally posted by Raven3x7 View Post
    It's a typo, the 2500k is a i7 not a i5.
    No, it is not. The 2500k is an i5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raven3x7
    replied
    Originally posted by Sylarr View Post
    The i5 does not have hyperthreading.
    It's a typo, the 2500k is a i7 not a i5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Goderic
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    32 core bulldozer = 32 integer cores, 16 fpu cores, and 16 "front-ends" dispatching instructions and everything.

    So it's sort of a super-hyperthreading, that actually doubles some of the execution units instead of waiting for pipeline stalls.

    AMD claims it gives all the benefits of an extra core with only 10% or so of the die space, but it remains to be seen how true that actually is in practice.
    They claim +90% performance and +50% extra die space.
    All the benefits of an extra core with only +10% extra die space is never going to happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sylarr
    replied
    compared to the Intel Core i5 2500K (quad-core + Hyper Threading; 3.3GHz + 3.7GHz Intel Turbo Boost)
    The i5 does not have hyperthreading.

    Leave a comment:


  • cb88
    replied
    Indeed performance per watt is far more important...

    Leave a comment:


  • frostwyrm333
    replied
    Core efficiency probably doesn't matter now because its hard to say what is a core.
    I find the whole thing confusing, more bulldozer benchmarks would be great.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    The way i understand it is

    32 core bulldozer = 32 integer cores, 16 fpu cores, and 16 "front-ends" dispatching instructions and everything.

    So it's sort of a super-hyperthreading, that actually doubles some of the execution units instead of waiting for pipeline stalls.

    AMD claims it gives all the benefits of an extra core with only 10% or so of the die space, but it remains to be seen how true that actually is in practice.

    Leave a comment:


  • thalin
    replied
    Hey, awesome, you referenced one of my benchmark runs!

    A Dell PowerEdge server that's packing four Intel Xeon X7550 CPUs that each have six-cores and Hyper Threading with a 2GHz base frequency with 2.4GHz Turbo Frequency and 18MB of L3 cache, is the current winner in that category as shown by doing this dynamic comparison.
    That system is quite a beast.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    "32 cores running at 1.8GHz indicates that its C-Ray time is a mere 25 seconds"
    vs
    4 cores Intel Core 2500K in astounding 61 seconds.
    Now let's calculate per core efficiency:
    Code:
    1/(32*25) = 1/800 (32 cores bulldozer)
    1/(61*4)  = 1/256 (4  cores SB)
    1 / 800 vs 1 / 256 = SB is more than 3 times more efficient.
    OK, Bulldozer runs at 2GHz, SB runs @ 3.2GHz, let's take it into account.
    1 / 800 / 2 vs 1 / 256 / 3.2 -> SB is still 2(!) times more efficient.
    I guess we'll have to see the desktop version of Bulldozer to draw any conclusions. I doubt any existing computational test today can scale to 32 cores without some major performance loss.
    you calculate wrong because: an 16 core bulldozer do only have 8 real-full-featured-cores.

    the OS only count 32cores in this test because its much better to use this 16 cores as a 32core.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X