Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD FX-8150 With The Open64 5.0 Compiler

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
    This is plain wrong!
    http://ark.intel.com/products/52213/...he-3_40-GHz%29
    Look down to the "Advanced Technologies".
    Fair enough. It looks like the Core i7's get VT-X and VT-d, and that the Core i5's get just VT-X. Still, AMD gives you full virtualization acceleration up and down all of their products lines, not just at CPUs north of $200.

    Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
    No, the demonstration just was, that those CPU-intensive tasks made KWINs Compositing perform bad. Everything runs fine without Compositing. I think the problem is, that the iGPU does not have its own memory (your 5450 has its own), and if the cpu pushes quite a lot of data through the memory bus, iGPU will suffer. Managing textures for many windows and of course rendering to pixmap for each cursor blink will probably go slower, hence the "lag". Turning off compositing and everything went fine, remember? Even the animation of yakuake goes fine: With compositing turned on, yakuake uses kwin for the animation, which goes not that smooth, when CPU is under extreme load; without compositing, it has to calculate it on its own - on the CPU! And that goes smooth as if there was no task running! So the "lag" is not a problem of bad CPU-Design, but of GPU not having its own, fast memory.
    No, the point was that it's not that hard to make all of your real and fake threads hit 100%. I think for your testing to have any real value, you'd have to try it on something other than the perpetually-broken KDE. However, I do stand by my point, I'd rather have 8 real-ish cores than 4 real and hyperthreading.

    Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
    BTW. I decided to go with SB, because Bulldozer consumes way too much power under load. If the powerconsumption was some percent above sandybridge, and performance 20% below, I would have bought a bulldozer (even if i would have had to go mATX or ATX instead of mITX as I did with Sandybridge) - but with THAT powerconsumption... Even if BD would perform better then sandybridge, I would not buy it :/
    That's really a poor rationale unless the machine you're running it on does rendering tasks 24/7 and will actually stay at that TDP constantly. If that's how you feel about it, why not take it one step further and get a 65w dual core? If, hypothetically speaking, my Bulldozer and your Sandy both spend 5 or 10% of the day at 100% load, and the rest of the time at idle, your power savings will be negligible at best. 95w is Intel marketing speak for "of course TDP went down if we did a die shrink, but still refuse to throw you a couple more cores." BTW, AMD does also have 95w 6 cores from this generation and even the 45nm generation.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by leeenux View Post
      Fair enough. It looks like the Core i7's get VT-X and VT-d, and that the Core i5's get just VT-X. Still, AMD gives you full virtualization acceleration up and down all of their products lines, not just at CPUs north of $200.
      Are you capable of doing any basic research on your part before joining a discussion?

      Core i5 2400, VT-x VT-d
      http://ark.intel.com/products/52207/...he-3_10-GHz%29

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by leeenux View Post

        No, the point was that it's not that hard to make all of your real and fake threads hit 100%. I think for your testing to have any real value, you'd have to try it on something other than the perpetually-broken KDE. However, I do stand by my point, I'd rather have 8 real-ish cores than 4 real and hyperthreading.
        Proven lower-performing and power hungrier 8 cores better than 4 energy efficient and much faster ones? What kind of sorcery is this?

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Sidicas View Post
          The Bulldozer chips do very well against the Intel chips in integer performance... You certainly get your money there. Things like compiling apps and general desktop multitasking is helped a lot by integer performance and it's why Intel tries to cram Hyperthreading into their CPUs wherever they can (ie: LGA-2011). You can see that in Dhrystone benchmarks done by every review site.. The Bulldozer FX-8150 chips are no more than 10% slower in Integer performance than a 2600k and the 2600K is 18% more expensive ($50).


          What most review sites show as Bulldozer lacking on is it's floating point performance. Bulldozer is a bit weak in floating point because of the shared FPUs. To make up for the shortcoming in floating point, AMD built these Bulldozer chips to support FMA4 accelerations, an optimization that isn't available until apps are compiled with such optimizations.. Those benchmarks that show Phenom II being anywhere near the performance of Bulldozer is because they're running apps that haven't been compiled with FMA4 accelerations, it's as simple as that. When FMA4 accelerations is compiled into the binary, floating point on Bulldozer goes up a solid 30% across the board leaving Phenom II CPUs a long way behind.. You're not always going to see that 30% comparing the compiled binaries of Open64 v5 to Open64 v4, but they show up when you compare Open64v4 to -O2 GCC or Open64v5 to -O2 GCC for floating point apps. In Open64v4, Pov-Ray jumped up a solid 30% and in Open64v5 you can see some other floating point apps that didn't jump up 30% in Open64v4 to get their 30% boost in floating point performance in Open64v5 instead.

          If people want to pay 18% more money for <10% more performance, then that's up to them. Intel has been targeting the enthusiast market for a long time and they continue to do so. With AMD, you continue to get more bang for your buck, as has always been true for many years. You might have to jump through a hoop or two to get that floating point performance on these Bulldozer chips up (recompiling floating point heavy apps with FMA4 accelerations), but really there's not much there to argue about. Especially considering with OpenCL, floating point apps should be pushing their floating point work to the GPU as it's over 1000x faster at it. Even the Fusion Integrated GPUs (ie: Radeon 6550D) are dozens of times faster at floating point than the fastest $999 Intel CPUs are. The days of doing floating point on the CPU are coming to an end. A modern GPU has got several hundred shader "cores" that can all process floating point calculations in parallel, there's no reason to run them on a 4 or even 8 core CPU.
          That's so true. But we won't see those optimizations soon I guess. I really hope the next version of GCC (and other compilers, including VS) include better optimizations for Bulldozer.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Tgui View Post
            Are you capable of doing any basic research on your part before joining a discussion?

            Core i5 2400, VT-x VT-d
            http://ark.intel.com/products/52207/...he-3_10-GHz%29
            Nice one, buddy. You found a mobile part with both enabled, and it's just barely under $200. I was using the logical choice, the Core i5 2500 desktop part as a point of reference. I wonder how much research you had to do to figure out that some of those mobile parts did have both enabled? At any rate, being a mobile part, the laptop vendor will probably take the liberty of disabling that VT-whatever for you, and removing the BIOS option to enable it, so it's kind of a moot point. Let's stick to desktop CPUs.

            Willy the Pimp:

            While it's nice to act like the power consumption matters, it really doesn't. Lets look at some household appliances:

            Electric Furnace: 5000w
            Electric Water Heater: 3000w
            Electric Oven: 3000w
            Electric Air Conditioner: 1500w
            Coffee Pot: 800w
            Vacuum Cleaner: 300w

            So you're telling me that maybe 5w of idle power savings, and maybe 30w of load power is actually important? Besides, I care about the overall performance of the CPU, not some per-core metric. According to Phoronix (and my own personal experience), the performance of Bulldozer in my favorite OS is actually pretty f'ing good. Thanks anyways for mindlessly parroting those Intel talking-points to me.

            Comment


            • #26
              Regarding Intels and virtualization, at least for the 2500/2600 the normal models have both vt-x and vt-d, the k models only vt-x.

              Comment


              • #27
                At least nowadays they have the decency to include vt-x in most models. In the C2D range the exact same model came with all three combinations:

                http://ark.intel.com/products/36500/...-1066-MHz-FSB)

                Comment


                • #28
                  And telling people, they have to buy AMD, is no terrorism?
                  Power consumption is a matter. I live in Germany, I pay 0.25?/kWh (~0.338USD). I did many calculations on currently (say: august until mid of october) available data, including the first BD-benches on those "bad" sites (anadtech, tomshardware etc.) - Taking the (at that moment) current workload, only the additional costs for electricity would give me a new SandyBridge i7, if things get worse even a i7 + Mainboard! This calulation was done for the usage time of 5 years (that's the minimum). So running the SNB for 5 years instead of BD gives me a new CPU for free! This calculation was based on the hope, that I would get a AM3+-Board with onBoard-GPU. As there is nothing like that ATM, There are further ?30++ for a dGPU, further costs for power consumption. The i7 95W TDP are CPU+GPU, BDs 125 are CPU-only. So there are not only 30W more on the BD-side (read: by TDP, the actual plus in consumption is a different story), but >50W (depending on the GPU chosen).
                  And saying "hoo, the rest of my household appliances isn't powerefficient, so buying a power efficient PC is useless" is sort of stupid. If I can save good money with only one machine, I will do it.
                  BTW: 3000W for your oven is quite a lot. Mine (a Miele) uses 1000W, only takes ~5min. from 20?C to 250?C, and the big rest of the usage time it "idles". Using SB instead of BD gives me 1-2 big loafs of bread (self-baken) per week for free - incl. ingredients.

                  And now, I stop this useless discussion. Never wanted to start a flamewar, my first post in this thread was only about the uselessness of both "benchmarks" (running only one app vs. running as many CPU/GPU-intensive tasks as you can). It was last year, when I said, I need a new PC in 2011. All the months, I said "wait for BD...". BD was not what I expected, so I went for SB... i7 for 245?, and BD? 230? for the 8150. And it is not available. So even if I would have gone for BD, I would not have been able to buy one... (Only the 4100 is available here, some shops also offer the 6100. All others are "Ohne Liefertermin"). It was my decision, I am happy with it, nevertheless I will recommend AMD-based systems when it is appropriate.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by schmalzler View Post
                    And telling people, they have to buy AMD, is no terrorism?
                    Power consumption is a matter. I live in Germany, I pay 0.25?/kWh (~0.338USD).
                    Of course you do now that Merkel was stupid enough to shut down Germany's nuclear power plants. (no offense)

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by leeenux View Post
                      Nice one, buddy. You found a mobile part with both enabled, and it's just barely under $200. I was using the logical choice, the Core i5 2500 desktop part as a point of reference. I wonder how much research you had to do to figure out that some of those mobile parts did have both enabled? At any rate, being a mobile part, the laptop vendor will probably take the liberty of disabling that VT-whatever for you, and removing the BIOS option to enable it, so it's kind of a moot point. Let's stick to desktop CPUs.
                      You're a fool. Read the fucking page I linked you. Socket 1155 which is *gasp* a desktop part!

                      Core i5 2400, another resource.
                      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115074

                      Core i5 2500, with VT-x and VT-d
                      http://ark.intel.com/products/52209/...ache-3_30-GHz)

                      Its obvious you're getting torn up in here because you're just too stupid to hang. ;-)


                      FWIW, I have a Core i5 2400 in my media server right now. Without any copious amounts of research, I easily determined it supported the VM functionality I wanted.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X