Barcelona Opteron 2350(B1) arrived

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-05-2007, 05:28 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Hmm strange,i went by HKEPC numbers here for yorkfield:
http://www.hkepc.com/?id=171&page=3#view
It seems your kentsfield is ~10% faster than Penryn quad used in HKEPC with 3% higher clock(2.4Ghz for your Kentsf. vs 2.33Ghz HKEPC Yorkf.)

It's all about the chipset and RAM used. ( DDR3 > DDR2 )
What's the config on Hkepc ?
11-05-2007, 05:53 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyosen

You should choose proper word:cool:

Ahhh.......Yes, Sorry....... :D
11-05-2007, 05:57 AM
indiana_74

Hi there,

i have two questions.

1. Where can i get the Bios Version 1004 for my KFSN4-DRE?
2. What is the version of clockgen you use?

I try to overclock my Opteron 2344 and the system freeze when i apply the settings in clockgen.

Greetings from germany

indiana_74
11-05-2007, 06:17 AM
kyosen

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

Ahhh.......Yes, Sorry....... :D

You are welcome:)

And indiana_74, I've just read your private mail...give a moment;)
11-05-2007, 06:31 AM
LowRun

Quote:

Originally Posted by indiana_74

Hi there,

i have two questions.

1. Where can i get the Bios Version 1004 for my KFSN4-DRE?
2. What is the version of clockgen you use?

I try to overclock my Opteron 2344 and the system freeze when i apply the settings in clockgen.

Greetings from germany

indiana_74

Welcome aboard dude :welcome:
11-05-2007, 06:41 AM
Morais

Welcome indiana_74, we are grateful to have you here (and your chips too ;) )
11-05-2007, 06:44 AM
macci

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAS

are you sure? then how CnQ will work with IMC?

CnQ lowers both CPU and IMC multi in idle, on the fly :confused:

that would be NB DID (divides the clock by 2). but the actual multiplier (NB FID) can not be changed (on the fly).

Quote:

WHY did you run the Barchie with HIGHER fsb than it's default (200MHz)...?...

George,
I know your not an AMD guy (:D) but please note that the HT Multiplier in this benchmark is at X4 mode. So the "FSB" is actually underclocked (960MHz vs 1000MHz which is default for that CPU).
The HT ref. clock (240MHz vs 200MHz) makes absolutely no difference in terms of performance.
HT Link (1GHz by default on this example) is the "FSB" of AMD world and it depends on HT Link multiplier and HT ref. clock. so 240x4 (960MHz) is slower than 200x5 (1GHz) (assuming that the Memory bus and CPU core clock would be at the same frequency).
11-05-2007, 06:49 AM
Morais

very helpfull comment macci, thanks for posting
11-05-2007, 07:42 AM
ozzimark

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

High fsb and high rams frequency helps a bit CPU score in 2k6....;)

surely you're joking. i know you've messed around with plenty of amd chips during K8's reign, and have seen first hand how the htt (or fsb if you want to call it that) does NOTHING for performance ;)

edit:
should have read the rest of the thread before posting :lol:
good explaination macci, though i'd like to add something else to that: the 'HT Link' speed, or 'FSB" (i get frustrated by how things get multiple names that sometimes overlap) does very little for performance as well, except in multi-cpu situations when running multithreaded apps that require lots of communication between the cpus :D
11-05-2007, 07:52 AM
Lightman

Thakn you Kyosen for answering on my question (about 0.5 multipliers)! :up:

One thing which strikes me is Barcelona scaling under Win XP x64. It is more than 4x!:confused: How come?

Is this because of the way memory controller is working (unganged mode) or L3 Victim Cache is helping here? Any reasonable explanation??
11-05-2007, 08:37 AM
hipro5

Well......I asked a friend (user) to our forums who owns a Q6600 and a 8800GT to bench 2k6 at 2400MHz and VGA 600/900......

There you go..... :)

He used "bios defaults"....Ram "by default" , etc.....As a "regular user" is going to buy a system like this and bench 2k6 without overclocking, playing with the rams, etc.....

Barchie 2400MHz (with higher fsb than default - edit: OK HT lower :D ) : 10926 marks...

Core 2 Duo QUAD Q6600 ALL DEFAULT : 12073 marks...

SO:

Barchie
SM2 = 4439
SM3 = 4672
CPU = 3553

Q6600
SM2 = 5052
SM3 = 5056
CPU = 3857

Now what?.... :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by macci

George,
I know your not an AMD guy (:D) but please note that the HT Multiplier in this benchmark is at X4 mode. So the "FSB" is actually underclocked (960MHz vs 1000MHz which is default for that CPU).
The HT ref. clock (240MHz vs 200MHz) makes absolutely no difference in terms of performance.
HT Link (1GHz by default on this example) is the "FSB" of AMD world and it depends on HT Link multiplier and HT ref. clock. so 240x4 (960MHz) is slower than 200x5 (1GHz) (assuming that the Memory bus and CPU core clock would be at the same frequency).

:D I know........BUT I see "FSBs" all over the place....... :D :rofl:
11-05-2007, 08:58 AM
KTE

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

[B]Core 2 Duo QUAD Q6600 ALL DEFAULT : 12073 marks...

That's about right where it should be. Odd that CPU/MB made so much difference to SM2/SM3 scores though, 1000 points.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1210/5
http://www.bootdaily.com/index.php?o...1&limitstart=1
http://vr-zone.com/articles/Nvidia_G...w/5369-13.html
11-05-2007, 09:04 AM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

That's about right where it should be. Odd that CPU/MB made so much difference to SM2/SM3 scores though, 1000 points.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1210/5
http://www.bootdaily.com/index.php?o...1&limitstart=1
http://vr-zone.com/articles/Nvidia_G...w/5369-13.html

It's not that odd......The other user used Windows Vista......;)
11-05-2007, 10:32 AM
tictac

wow.. in 64bit windows barcelona speedup.. 4.0x.. thats 100% efficiency.. would be interesting to see other benchmark running on 64bit windows.. 3dmark ?
11-05-2007, 10:45 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by tictac

wow.. in 64bit windows barcelona speedup.. 4.0x.. thats 100% efficiency.. would be interesting to see other benchmark running on 64bit windows.. 3dmark ?

Nah , that's impossible.

The only explanation is IMO that something is wrong/suboptimal when running only one thread.Which is weird since one thread should have all the L3 for itself.
Moreover , one thread has both IMCs working for it.

In the multithreaded scenario , data BW from both L3 and memory is shared => welcome to Amdahl's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
11-05-2007, 11:00 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Nah , that's impossible.

The only explanation is IMO that something is wrong/suboptimal when running only one thread.Which is weird since one thread should have all the L3 for itself.
Moreover , one thread has both IMCs working for it.

In the multithreaded scenario , data BW from both L3 and memory is shared => welcome to Amdahl's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

Hate to say it, but you're right......here's my Cinebench on Server 2k3 x64. Kyosen-san's single threaded score is unusually low....

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1...ench64akl3.jpg

*BTW, K10 has only ONE IMC, not two ;)
11-05-2007, 11:04 AM
tictac

i guess 3.1ghz phenom b2 could break 12k on cinebench under 64bit mode...
11-05-2007, 11:06 AM
KTE

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

welcome to Amdahl's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

A theoretical prediction used only as an estimate of expected performance which has been disproven in many computing scenarios well known among scientists, especially when you integrate caches and variate sub-components in a given processor, and even more so with multi-core technologies. Microprocessors depend on how well they are utilized by a given application and we do not know how to utilize 100% perfect working power and resources of a CPU in all scenarios since the application coding is not CPU specific, but rather wildly generic. Hence, if you could make the coding very optimized and processor specific, you are bound to see a speedup even at the same frequency. It's more about processor resource efficiency.
11-05-2007, 11:34 AM
JohannesRS

Disagree. Amdahl is an estimate, but it's maximum performance estimate. if that thing would go 4 times faster in 4 cores, that would need to mean perfect scalling, coding, and even worst, parallel from the first to last line of code.

I really don't see it happening.
11-05-2007, 12:09 PM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

..
*BTW, K10 has only ONE IMC, not two[/B] ;)

Umh...there are actually 2 64 bit channels which put together act as a 128 one.This improves performance when multiple threads access memory.
This is something Intel chipsets have done since the I865.
11-05-2007, 12:11 PM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

A theoretical prediction used only as an estimate of expected performance which has been disproven in many computing scenarios well known among scientists, especially when you integrate caches and variate sub-components in a given processor, and even more so with multi-core technologies. Microprocessors depend on how well they are utilized by a given application and we do not know how to utilize 100% perfect working power and resources of a CPU in all scenarios since the application coding is not CPU specific, but rather wildly generic. Hence, if you could make the coding very optimized and processor specific, you are bound to see a speedup even at the same frequency. It's more about processor resource efficiency.

Give 2 examples which respect the conditions imposed by the law.
11-05-2007, 12:34 PM
siyah

@s7e9h3n

hi my Quad 6600 B3 :D is faster your barci:rofl:

http://s6.directupload.net/images/071105/fd5j463u.jpg
11-05-2007, 01:26 PM
Dagalidis

Quote:

Originally Posted by siyah

@s7e9h3n

hi my Quad 6600 B3 :D is faster your barci:rofl:

http://s6.directupload.net/images/071105/fd5j463u.jpg

Dear friend....
I will not ask about your age...:D
But DO YOU REALLY know what means COMPARE?:cool:

Try again with more equal speeds & FSB and post again....
Don’t fire if you don’t know how to use a gun....(you can kill yourself and our sense of humor):rofl:
11-05-2007, 02:51 PM
Lastviking

Hmmm is it becuse the lower speed for the K10 thats make it to have Multiprocessor speedup 6.79x instead of low 3.46x like the Q6600 have? or do i see big improvement with more cores on K10?
11-05-2007, 02:52 PM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lastviking

Hmmm is it becuse the lower speed for the K10 thats make it to have Multiprocessor speedup 6.79x instead of low 3.46x like the Q6600 have? or do i see big improvement with more cores on K10?

6.79x is with 8 cores.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page