AMD Bulldozer Dual-Interlagos Benchmarks On Linux

[[Knuckles]]

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!

[Sylarr]

It's a typo, the 2500k is a i7 not a i5.

No, it is not. The 2500k is an i5.

[Raven3x7]

The i5 does not have hyperthreading.

It's a typo, the 2500k is a i7 not a i5.

[Goderic]

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.

[Sylarr]

compared to the Intel Core i5 2500K (quad-core + Hyper Threading; 3.3GHz + 3.7GHz Intel Turbo Boost)

The i5 does not have hyperthreading.

[cb88]

Indeed performance per watt is far more important...

[frostwyrm333]

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.

[smitty3268]

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.

[thalin]

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.

[Qaridarium]

"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:

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.