50% to C2DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
80% to K8
Duh....
At least read something before posting...
Printable View
50% to C2DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
80% to K8
Duh....
At least read something before posting...
but 8 cores K8 vs 16 cores K10, and only 80% faster the last machine (with a heavy multithreaded app), doesn´t make sense at all, because we know K10 features, and with them in mind, it's obvious K10 will be a lot faster than K8 with same number of cores and same clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
1. You haven't understood what he said. 4 K10 CPUs are performing a little beat more than 4000 pixels/s, while 4 K8 CPUs are performing 2200 pixels/s. The 4 K10 CPUs finished one task for 56s, while the K8 finished the same task for 112s. That is 2X performance, not 4X.Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
2. If something is said by the_INQ it is BS or FUD by default.
again, 16 K10 cores performed a task in half the time as 8 K8 cores, at twice the performanceQuote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
assuming POVray scales like most say it does, that would mean you would need 32 K8 cores to match the 16 K10 cores (double the K8 cores to match the pixels/s, then double that to match the time)... theoretically
No, you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
It is 2x performance. The task is to process n pixels. K10 processing 4000+(it is said more than 4000, not exact number. So I assume 4400 pixels/s according to the times) pixels per second and finishes the processing for 56 seconds. For the same task the K8 needed 112 seconds because it was processing 2200 pixels/second.
It is like you have two cars on a drag race and the faster car finishes the race after 56 seconds with average speed of 200km/h. The slower car finishes the race after 112 seconds with average speed of 100km/h. The faster car is 2 times faster than the slower car, not 4 times.
Got it?
and BTW, K10 server will continue be calling "Opteron". So the fact Randy Allen calls Opteron to the dual core machine, doesn't mean it is a K8.
Again, I think tht two machines are K10, one 4S dual core, the other 4S quad core. So they are only showing scalability between them.
"twice the performance"
?
pixels/second isn't similar to frames per second. I think it just means how much pixels are processed in a second. For example, if a scene has 50,000 pixels and CPU A finishes in 10 seconds, it processed 5000 pixels/second, and if CPU B finished in 30 seconds, it processed 1667 pixels/second.
He labeled one machine "Opteron", one "Barcelona".
http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05/...ce_as_fast.php
"Anyway, the demo compared two AMD 4-sockets systems: one with the Barcelona quad core chip and the other with a shipping dual core processor."
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39756
Inq mentions everything similar except BIOS... K10 would need a new BIOS. ding
besides, won't all future Opterons based on K10 be quad-cores? I doubt the "Opterons" in this test were K10
the drag strip is not a good example, because they both have 1 engine, but what you are saying is that one car has a better motor, so it not only finishes in a faster time, but accelerates faster which helps it get the better timeQuote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
so, is the ~4000 pixels/s due to more cores, or better cores?
is the less time due to more cores, or better cores?
i assume the more pixels/s and less time are due to both more cores and better cores
if you were to pit 8 K8 cores against 16 K8 cores, would it still perform more pixels/s at a ratio of 2:1 AND less time at a ratio of 2:1 like this?
red, Have you heard in the video to Randy Allen calling the quad core as Barcelona? I'm not. He says dual core solution, and quad core solution. Why do you give credit to written sources (Inq between them), and not to Randy Allen mouth?
VulgarHandle, there will be dual and quad Opteron K10.
I thought I heard him call the dual solution Opteron and the quad Barcelona... His statement can go both ways but uberpulse clearly says they used a dual core solution shipping today, Inq says Barcelona machine requiring a new BIOS. And I have a birdie telling me it's 16 K10 vs 8 K8. The "poor" scaling could mean
a) News are wrong and it is dual K10 vs quad K10 (decent scaling of 80%)
b) K10 needs HT3
c) If that demo was with HT3, HT3 is insufficient
d) POV-Ray not a good indication of K10 improvements
e) K10 is a dud
I guess this has been discussed already, but what do you make of the guy's analysis:
....Quote:
AMD's official Barcelona show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGiv9Dtrc5Q
In POV-Ray, 4 Barcelona (16cores total) got about 4000 pixs /sec.
while the 4 Opteron DC(8 cores total) in the same frequency got about
2200 pixs /sec.
Compare with the test provided by xbitlabs:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/intel-v8/povray.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0
Two X6365(Quad Core Xeon @3.0GHz), 8 cores total can do 4677 pix/sec.
And two FX74 (Dual core K8 @ 3G, 4Cores total) can do 2020.
combine all the facts above together, we can find out that the test
systems in AMD's show are running at about 2GHz. At these frequency,
the 16 cores Barcelona system even can't beat current 8core Xeon
system.
Remember the Quad core Barcelona will top at 2.5GHz! And Intel's
Harpertown in on the way.
the problem with that is that all his analysis points to the scaling of POVray to be completely dependent on core speed, not number of coresQuote:
Originally Posted by Sumanji
so in his analysis, 8 3.0ghz intel beats 16 2.0ghz barcelona, which tells us nothing
based on his analysis we would need either 2.0ghz intel's or 3.0ghz barcelona's....
I don't think they were running the same POV-Ray bench. There are different scenes and settings and whatnot.
I really wonder what's wrong with the idiot "journalists" and "analysts" who didn't have the sense to ask a simple question to clarify. It just boggles the mind how stupid and ignorant these people are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumanji
Exactly red.The previous results (from Xbit etc.) cannot be compared to these results.To my knowledge,they used 4x opteron HE dual core that ran at 2.2Ghz.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5992
This conclusion might be a bit off because of recent FUD about better steppings but DailyTech says only 1.9/2.0GHz HE parts for K10. And the Youtube said equal frequency.
The photo shows the default benchmark image used in Povray 3.7. The image is 512x512, which matches up with the score; 4000+ pixels/s at 62s.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Core 2 QX6700 gets ~2700. 8 K8 cores get only 2200 and 16 K10 get 4000? lol
Perhaps because AMD doesn't want to answer clearly because there barcelona is buggy...Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepThought86
It 's fantastic, since months we have only bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:, AMD doesn't want to provide something else than "estimate" or look this is faster and this will be not our faster cpu... And there is still blind people...
In fact, this bench is 1 barcelona with 3 cores desactivates, underclock at 100 Hz versus 32 opteron K8 overclock at 5 GHz...
Don't you see that they try deseperatly to show something but have nothing to show...
They were using 68W models, so somewhere around 1.8GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_quadfx/11.shtml
From here, Opteron 280 2.4GHz to FX74 3GHz is a 25% difference, which is directly reflected in score...
Lowest clocked 4 socket Opteron HE is 8212 with 2GHz...2/2.4=0.83. 0.83*1711=1426, or 356 per core for a 2GHz deduced POVray score.
Score would be 2900 for 8 K8 2GHz cores or 5700 for 16 K8 2GHz. Nah.
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?new...VzaWFzdCwsLDE=
Wouldn't middle of the year be like next month?
This is just 65nm facilities...Quote:
Originally Posted by XeRo
About barcelona and phenom:
With those high expectations in mind, AMD is preparing to launch its quad-core desktop processors, which will go by the name "Phenom," later this year and just after the company unveils its quad-core Opteron processor "Barcelona" for servers.
And again something look bad with barcelona:
Quote:
In addition, Sonderman said AMD will start delivering 45-nanometer processors by the middle of 2008 to compete with Intel's "Penryn" family of 45-nanometer chips, which are scheduled to hit the market late in 2007.
Wow. Comparing 2007 Barcelona with 2006 Clovertown now comparing 2008 45nm Barcelona with 2007 Penryn?
No products, no comparison. BTW, if AMD continue this trend of delaying products, then their 45nm K10 will compete against 32nm Nehaleem. This thread is tiresome and I am tired of waiting for K10.