Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i7 5960X Haswell-E On Linux

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

  • Intel Core i7 5960X Haswell-E On Linux

    Phoronix: Intel Core i7 5960X Haswell-E On Linux

    With the X99 burned-up motherboard problem of last week appearing to be behind us with no further issues when using a completely different X99 motherboard, here's the first extensive look at the Core i7 5960X Haswell-E processor running on Ubuntu Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20887

  • #2
    Michael, why do all AMD CPUs use ondemand while all Intel's use performance? Is it fair comparison?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rakot View Post
      Michael, why do all AMD CPUs use ondemand while all Intel's use performance? Is it fair comparison?
      Unlike when GPU is tested with radeon driver, in CPU tests and particulary intensive ones there is no difference with ondemand/performance, so it can be max +5% in some cases but that is about it .

      So for CPUs i think it is fair, but for GPUs it is not
      Last edited by dungeon; 09-10-2014, 11:55 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rakot View Post
        Michael, why do all AMD CPUs use ondemand while all Intel's use performance? Is it fair comparison?
        It's all about the default... AMD CPUs on the mainline kernel only have CPUfreq driver and there it defaults to ondemand while modern Intel CPUs now use the Intel P-State driver instead and there for desktops it gets set to performance mode.

        I've already covered in this article from last week - http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20839 - for that AMD CPUs in these computational tests there is rarely any difference from ondemand vs. performance.
        Michael Larabel
        http://www.michaellarabel.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Not that Michael has any obligation to do this, but I'd be more interested to see some of the newer G34 Opterons than the FX series processors.

          But anyway, this CPU really demolished some of these charts. Everywhere it failed was because of software limitations. But honestly, I don't see any practical desktop use for this CPU. I'd rather get a quad core with HT and overclock it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
            Not that Michael has any obligation to do this, but I'd be more interested to see some of the newer G34 Opterons than the FX series processors.
            I'd love to test Opterons but unfortunately haven't got a new one in like ~6 years.
            Michael Larabel
            http://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              In this article no Core i7 5960X overclocking was done due to only resolving the X99 motherboard issue on Monday and being concerned about overclocking until investigation with my original motherboard failure and that of Legit Reviews' motherboard is complete, as theirs happened while adjusting DDR4 memory settings.
              Overclocking would be great, even on default cooling, and see how fast it can compile the kernel. Probably around 30s. Next question would be using LLVM, it can probably compile it in what, 20s? Insane!!
              Last edited by mendieta; 09-10-2014, 04:51 PM. Reason: (adding a reference to the article, i had missed that bit)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                Overclocking would be great, even on default cooling, and see how fast it can compile the kernel. Probably around 30s. Next question would be using LLVM, it can probably compile it in what, 20s? Insane!!
                Honestly I'd be more interested to see how it performs filling all channels with memory and seeing how kernel compiling runs with a RAM disk. This removes all bottlenecks that way.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                  Honestly I'd be more interested to see how it performs filling all channels with memory and seeing how kernel compiling runs with a RAM disk. This removes all bottlenecks that way.
                  Yeah, well, the more the merrier. I guess, anyone spending $300 on a mobo plus a grand on the CPU is probably willing to max out the RAM, so a RAM disk would not be out of the question. What would be the max capacity? 32x4 GB?

                  http://wccftech.com/samsung-launch-d...memory-sticks/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael View Post
                    It's all about the default... AMD CPUs on the mainline kernel only have CPUfreq driver and there it defaults to ondemand while modern Intel CPUs now use the Intel P-State driver instead and there for desktops it gets set to performance mode.

                    I've already covered in this article from last week - http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20839 - for that AMD CPUs in these computational tests there is rarely any difference from ondemand vs. performance.
                    But why is the amd fx-9590 consistently much slower than the fx8350 ?? its the same cpu only faster clock and that a faster clock would result in slower execution don't make much sens to me.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X