Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

14-Way Intel/AMD Benchmarks On Ubuntu 17.04 + Linux 4.10

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

  • 7oby
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    Hey 7oby! I hadn't realized the OpenSSL release had introduced those improvements, so yes, will update the test profile -- probably to 1.1 now.
    Thanks for updating to 1.1.0:
    https://openbenchmarking.org/test/pts/openssl

    As you can see the hand crafted assembler optimizations do make quite a difference on different systems:
    CPU OpenSSL 1.0.1g OpenSSL 1.1.0f
    AMD EPYC 7601 3306.37 4598.47
    2x Intel Xeon Gold 6138 4826.70 7965.40
    see:
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...01-linux&num=5
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...pyc-xeon&num=3


    The AMD plattform gains factor 1.39 while the intel CPU in this specific scenario gains 1.65.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by VikingGe View Post
    But my point stands, it's slow, and often (again, not always) my 19W Kaveri notebook does a lot better, and totally blows it out of the water in single-threaded tasks when the 3.3 GHz turbo mode kicks in, which the Athlon simply doesn't have.
    It is not slow it is actually fastest in its design, Kabini and Kaveri were entirely different designs and different markets... only Kabini is real low power Desktop design and that Athlon is actually top performant of Cat design.

    Together with mobile so in whole Kaveri's types of APU are in range of 17W to 95W TDP chips, while Kabini or Cat type goes even from below 4W up to 25W. On mobile space Kaveri would be only mobile APU, but Kabini is ultra mobile design goes even into tablet space... different category is that

    I know you will beat on proper configuration top thier Cat against lowest powerd mobile Kaveri with turbo in singlethread tasks, that is expected But neither one of these APUs are into performance segment, you can always find more performant things than these when only performance matters.
    Last edited by dungeon; 03-02-2017, 11:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • VikingGe
    replied
    Originally posted by dungeon View Post
    kernel compile = 570 seconds > slower yes, but not quite far from X3 Athlon's 480 secs... and why you have 700 secs there i dunno
    Just checked my results and noticed that I had CFLAGS set to -O3 -march=native -fomit-frame-pointer for some reason. Not sure if it affects the kernel compilation test at all, or if it's just due to platform/compiler differences or whatever. I'm getting the same C-Ray numbers as you do, though.

    But my point stands, it's slow, and often (again, not always) my 19W Kaveri notebook does a lot better, and totally blows it out of the water in single-threaded tasks when the 3.3 GHz turbo mode kicks in, which the Athlon simply doesn't have.

    Originally posted by dungeon
    Or maybe just... bolded one text indicate how you are doing or something wrong happens for you What distro is that?
    Arch on all my machines. Now my kernel 4.9 build issues aren't limited to the PTS test, I also cannot build the kernel from the ABS or any patched kernel from the AUR. 4.10 works fine though, I really have no ideal what's going on there.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by VikingGe View Post
    it's a good chip for what it is, a low-budget, low-power chip well suited for my home server. It is not a good desktop chip.
    It is low power Desktop chip, quite usable for that if you don't compare it perfromance class and power sucking products of today or better at the time that was released... it is only not for gaming on crappy APIs as single is slow in comparison to performance or even mainstream products

    How something is good or not for gaming on crappy API and more CPU bound drivers, you can found by looking as let say on "libjpeg-turbo tjbench"

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...inux-feb&num=3

    Singlethreaded test and scale ideal, just like CPU bound gaming lets run that on 5350...

    57 M/sec, slow single - so not for gaming

    Thing is once low power Ryzen product appear that would replace all previous Bulldozer performance/mainstream based products or perform somewhere in between these... similar perf again but way less watts used, blah. blah...

    And final point is in about 2-3 years Michael should drop also these current non Ryzen CPUs as those will just suck power again
    Last edited by dungeon; 03-02-2017, 01:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    And here are my results on Athlon 5350 from that page to compare:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...inux-feb&num=5

    smallpt = 251 seconds > here it beat both X3 Athlon/Phenom!!!

    c-ray = 72 seconds > a bit slower, but quite there

    kernel compile = 570 seconds > slower yes, but not quite far from X3 Athlon's 480 secs... and why you have 700 secs there i dunno

    ....
    Yeah and this is on WD HDD probably that eats some seconds here and there also

    Again this is just 25W APU not just CPU, you can be sure these 95W X3 CPUs sucking 5-6 times!!! more power for similar results really

    Michael openssl test does not download , maybe you are updating it to 1.1 or something?
    Last edited by dungeon; 03-01-2017, 11:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by VikingGe View Post
    There are a lot of things that the 5350 is really *really* horrible at, though. Compiling code is unbearably slow with that thing, and anything relying on memory bandwidth is held back by the ridiculously inefficient memory controller, which is probably the worst one AMD has ever produced in terms of actual bandwith / maximum theoretical bandwidth and latency (even worse than that of the Phenom). The X3 won't always beat it, but when it does, it will be substantial.

    As for the Phenom, just double the cores, add a lot of clock speed, and those things are actually still quite usable and competitive to the FX lineup. The ones used in the article weren't exactly high-end models., but still fun to see lose every single test by a massive amount.

    Now for reasons I don't understand I cannot compile kernel 4.9 on my desktop no matter what I do (it just fails at the linking stage) so I can't run the timed kernel compilation test. Which is a shame because that one was always quite interesting.

    Edit: I'm running the tests from the article just now on my 5350, and it has yet to win a single test against these old X3 chips. Scored 700 seconds in timed kernel compilation.... it's a good chip for what it is, a low-budget, low-power chip well suited for my home server. It is not a good desktop chip.
    I didn't said you will beat these, just that it would be quite similar to these 25Wattage top low power AM1 Athlons... i don't think that would be far from X3 no and these yours 700 secs sounds somewhat too much to me, didn't test in a while 5350 so maybe you are right if something is borked curently... Well, i might try it now also on that machine also, have Debian 8 there hopefully test-suite will work there

    Or maybe just... bolded one text indicate how you are doing or something wrong happens for you What distro is that?
    Last edited by dungeon; 03-01-2017, 09:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kaseki
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    Do you not see them in the article?
    I saw only a single page that includes a list of CPUs. The only link was to the Pharonix Test Suite.

    However, I had failed to notice that my intent of allowing all scripts in NoScript for your site was somehow incomplete. Fixing that revealed your graphs. Sorry for the false alarm.

    kas
    Last edited by kaseki; 03-01-2017, 06:33 PM. Reason: Edited to replace "Script Sentry" by "NoScript"

    Leave a comment:


  • VikingGe
    replied
    Old least matter, but these both sucking 95W power for no reason... even 3 year old 25W Athlon 5350 has similar perf with these
    There are a lot of things that the 5350 is really *really* horrible at, though. Compiling code is unbearably slow with that thing, and anything relying on memory bandwidth is held back by the ridiculously inefficient memory controller, which is probably the worst one AMD has ever produced in terms of actual bandwith / maximum theoretical bandwidth and latency (even worse than that of the Phenom). The X3 won't always beat it, but when it does, it will be substantial.

    As for the Phenom, just double the cores, add a lot of clock speed, and those things are actually still quite usable and competitive to the FX lineup. The ones used in the article weren't exactly high-end models., but still fun to see lose every single test by a massive amount.

    Now for reasons I don't understand I cannot compile kernel 4.9 on my desktop no matter what I do (it just fails at the linking stage) so I can't run the timed kernel compilation test. Which is a shame because that one was always quite interesting.

    Edit: I'm running the tests from the article just now on my 5350, and it has yet to win a single test against these old X3 chips. Scored 700 seconds in timed kernel compilation.... it's a good chip for what it is, a low-budget, low-power chip well suited for my home server. It is not a good desktop chip.
    Last edited by VikingGe; 03-01-2017, 06:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by kaseki View Post
    "....here are benchmarks from 14 of the systems."

    Was there supposed to be a link to the results?
    Do you not see them in the article?

    Leave a comment:


  • kaseki
    replied
    "....here are benchmarks from 14 of the systems."

    Was there supposed to be a link to the results?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X