TechReport on Barcelona

Printable View

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

09-10-2007, 01:38 PM
Richie P

http://techreport.com/articles.x/13176

Table at the bottom of that page, and from my quote above, the cache latency is affected by the northbridge speed as it is incorporated into the package itself.

I may be wrong, please correct me if i am :)
09-10-2007, 01:42 PM
JVguest

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrace215

Of course. There's a slow L3 in the way on the K10. That's the trade off.

No, not of course. The L3 adds a L3 eviction and write back penalty on an L3 miss (in addition to L1 and L2), but the improved DRAM prefetchers, buffers and crossbar should be making up for it. It looks to me like 40 cpu clock cycles are being eaten up.
09-10-2007, 01:45 PM
DoubleZero

There's no website bias in SPEC scores.

http://www.techarp.com/article/AMD/B...ec_results.png
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=443&pgno=3
09-10-2007, 01:45 PM
v0dka

That tgdaily article forgets to mention the fact that the Xeon is clocked 233Mhz higher. Meaning that Barcelona is pretty good, especially being benched on such a new platform. For instance, the IMC wasnt overclocked.
09-10-2007, 02:02 PM
JVguest

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleZero

There's no website bias in SPEC scores.

http://www.techarp.com/article/AMD/B...ec_results.png
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=443&pgno=3

Given the spec rate numbers are so much better than the old Opteron, I think the latency is being traded for bandwidth, but the techreport 1 GB cache+mem sandra bench (11.5 gb/sec) is about 2/5th what my overclocked 3.08 GHz Allendale does. So I don't see the bandwidth..and the spec rate isn't translating into great app performance. I still think somethings screwy, BIOS, drivers or L3 cache.
09-10-2007, 02:12 PM
JVguest

Interesting thread at pcper, apparently not many barc samples about.. limited to non desktop apps?

http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=445374

I guess this means no reviews of barc on games other than the anand preview for a bit going forward.
09-10-2007, 06:39 PM
hollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie P

From what I understand, what Jacky was getting at with the cache latencies being reduced at a high clockspeed is actually correct. When going to RAM, the processor has to go through all the cache levels of the processor, including the 'slow' L3.

from what i've read the l3 cache is a spilloff cache, and the memory controller feeds the l2, so the CPU isn't held up by the l3 latency (which would result in a pretty bad performance hit).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie P

The latency of the L3 cache is proportional to a speed (not sure on the terminology) that is increased when the clockspeed is raised. Therefore, with figures quote on the Tech Report site, the cache latecies are 23ns on the slower 2.0Ghz chip and 19ns on the faster (2.5Ghz) chip.

Therefore, increasing the clockspeed could result in what would seem a higher IPC.

cache latency (seconds) = latency (clocks) * duration of a clock (seconds)

and duration of a clock (seconds) = 1/frequency (to get seconds per cycle instead of cycles per second)

so latency (clocks) = latency (seconds) / (1/frequency) = latency (seconds) * frequency

using 23ns @ 2ghz, 19ns @ 2.5ghz:
(23*10^-9)*(2*10^9) = 46 clocks
(19*10^-9)*(2.5*10^9) = 47.5 clocks

latency in clockcycles increased going to 2.5ghz, there's no way you'll get better than linear scaling... that was a myth
09-10-2007, 08:38 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollo

from what i've read the l3 cache is a spilloff cache, and the memory controller feeds the l2, so the CPU isn't held up by the l3 latency (which would result in a pretty bad performance hit). cache latency (seconds) = latency (clocks) * duration of a clock (seconds)

and duration of a clock (seconds) = 1/frequency (to get seconds per cycle instead of cycles per second)

so latency (clocks) = latency (seconds) / (1/frequency) = latency (seconds) * frequency

using 23ns @ 2ghz, 19ns @ 2.5ghz:
(23*10^-9)*(2*10^9) = 46 clocks
(19*10^-9)*(2.5*10^9) = 47.5 clocks

latency in clockcycles increased going to 2.5ghz, there's no way you'll get better than linear scaling... that was a myth

Thank you!!!! I don't think people really understand this concept.

Guys.... processors do not understand time, they are digital -- they know 'tick-tick-tick', the temporal spacing of 'tick-tick-tick' is what you and I understand.... IPC will not get better by simply raising clock speed.... not possible.
09-10-2007, 08:42 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by JVguest

No, not of course. The L3 adds a L3 eviction and write back penalty on an L3 miss (in addition to L1 and L2), but the improved DRAM prefetchers, buffers and crossbar should be making up for it. It looks to me like 40 cpu clock cycles are being eaten up.

There is a penalty for having L3 cache if the miss goes straight through and requires access to memory, no way around that.... you will spend the extra time snooping the L3 that normally would not have occured if L3 was not there.... so it gets in the way a little.... the net benefit should be positive though so long as the compounded latency is much less than a call to main memory for all the hits.
09-10-2007, 10:12 PM
MaxxxRacer

Well I must say, I'm not entirely surprised, but still disapointed that AMD couldnt come through with barcelona. I was hoping for atleast 1:1 performace clock for clock with core2, but that doesnt seem to be the case.

Unified core and lower power consumption will not win my heart when I design a new system.
09-10-2007, 11:01 PM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie P

Not correct.

From what I understand, what Jacky was getting at with the cache latencies being reduced at a high clockspeed is actually correct. When going to RAM, the processor has to go through all the cache levels of the processor, including the 'slow' L3. The latency of the L3 cache is proportional to a speed (not sure on the terminology) that is increased when the clockspeed is raised. Therefore, with figures quote on the Tech Report site, the cache latecies are 23ns on the slower 2.0Ghz chip and 19ns on the faster (2.5Ghz) chip.

Therefore, increasing the clockspeed could result in what would seem a higher IPC.

I think you need to read more about CPUs , somebody explained it nicely : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=107

I'll add this because hollo fails to account for the RAM latency :

Assuming RAM latency 40ns

At 2GHz we have total latency 63ns or 126 cycles.
At 2.5GHz we have a total latency of 59 or 147.5 cycles.

All of a sudden a cache miss isn't as minor as some think.You spend 17% more clock cycles time waiting for memory.As a result IPC is lower.

Quote:

Also, TG Daily slamming AMD with a pro-Intel bias? Well I'll be damned... :shakes:

EDIT: Also, after more careful reading,

And correct me if i'm wrong, but the motherboard doesn't support split power planes, so the memory controller would have been running at 1.6Ghz. Based on that fact alone, we should see improved performance from the new mobos.

The servers tested were supplied by AMD and used split power planes mobos.
09-10-2007, 11:27 PM
JVguest

Savantu, how is 40 ns out of 59 cycles only 17% slower? Anyway, typically L2 latency is 15 cpu cycles on core 2/K8 while going to main memory is 150+ cycles. It's 10 times slower going to main memory, fortunately with branch prediction and caches it doesn't happen often. Main memory access can be generalized as 10x slower than cache. A cache miss always causes a major slowdown, but AMD minimizes that with IMC.
09-11-2007, 12:29 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by JVguest

Savantu, how is 40 ns out of 59 cycles only 17% slower? Anyway, typically L2 latency is 15 cpu cycles on core 2/K8 while going to main memory is 150+ cycles. It's 10 times slower going to main memory, fortunately with branch prediction and caches it doesn't happen often. Main memory access can be generalized as 10x slower than cache. A cache miss always causes a major slowdown, but AMD minimizes that with IMC.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing ; I'm not comparing memory vs. cache access time , but how costly is a cache miss in clock cycles while running at different frequencies , hence lower IPC at higher frequencies.
09-11-2007, 12:44 AM
BeardyMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer

Well I must say, I'm not entirely surprised, but still disapointed that AMD couldnt come through with barcelona. I was hoping for atleast 1:1 performace clock for clock with core2, but that doesnt seem to be the case.

Unified core and lower power consumption will not win my heart when I design a new system.

It is the case actually, it's a lower clocked cpu vs a higher clockec cpu and it wins often so...
09-11-2007, 12:46 AM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

It is the case actually, it's a lower clocked cpu vs a higher clockec cpu and it wins often so...

Yes, the 2.33GHz Clovertown does win often against the 2.5GHz Barcelona in Techreport's review.
09-11-2007, 12:56 AM
saaya

nice, techrepot really does nice articles!
09-11-2007, 01:31 AM
BeardyMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord99

Yes, the 2.33GHz Clovertown does win often against the 2.5GHz Barcelona in Techreport's review.

Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz vs Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

1)Sandra Cache and memory bandwith
*11534 vs 5179
higher is better
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

2)Cpuz memory access latency
*91 vs 95
lower is better
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

3)SPECjbb
*88949 vs 87099
higher is better
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

4)Valve VRAD map build time
*121 vs 107
lower is better
Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

5)Cinebench
*12623 vs 14129
higher is better
Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

6)POV ray rendering
*77 vs 80
lower is better
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

7)Merimatch benchmark 8 threads
*372 vs 379
lower is better
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

8)Folding @ home
* 4 wins vs 2
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

9)The panorama factory
*23.05 vs 20.41
lower is better
Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

10)PicColor
8.09 vs 10.11
higher is better
Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

11)windows media encoder
*543 vs 510
lower is better
Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

12)Sisoft sandra
*296230 VS 335126
higher is better
Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

13)power consumption
* 2 wins vs 0
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

Is it me or is 7 more then 6...:rolleyes: :D
09-11-2007, 01:43 AM
Shintai

I wouldnt even look at 1+2+12.

Also for folding, almost all WUs are gromacs. The bench also takes old outdated WUs in place without SSE support. x87 is dead in 64bit too. Kinda like you also see a K8 beats a K10 in x87 tho 2.5 vs 2.6Ghz.

But all the rest, yes.
09-11-2007, 01:47 AM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz vs Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

1)Sandra Cache and memory bandwith
2)Cpuz memory access latency

These are characteristics of the platform, not benchmarks of performance.

Quote:

6)POV ray rendering
*77 vs 80
lower is better
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

There are two POV tests. The L5335 is faster in the second. I'd call this a draw.

Quote:

8)Folding @ home
* 4 wins vs 2
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

There are only 4 tests, with L5335 winning in the most important gromacs cores. Considering Tinkers and Amber units are hardly processed anymore the averaging score is suspect and it's a draw at best for the Opteron.

Quote:

12)Sisoft sandra
*296230 VS 335126
higher is better
Xeon L5335 2.0Ghz

I wouldn't even bother with synthetic tests like these.

Quote:

13)power consumption
* 2 wins vs 0
Opteron 2350 2.0Ghz

Not a test of speed.

By my count, the Opteron 2350 wins 2 tests, the Xeon L5335 wins 6 and there's a draw in 2 with the Sisoft test excluded.
09-11-2007, 01:47 AM
BeardyMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

I wouldnt even look at 1+2+12.

Also for folding, almost all WUs are gromacs. The bench also takes old outdated WUs in place without SSE support. x87 is dead in 64bit too.

Shintai it seems you and other don't get the point :)
It's not about it wins there and there and it gets pwned there and there..

it's about AMD being back with a nice and good competitive cpu.
Many l seem to trash it while i just prooved that it's uncalled for :)

If but i doub't it really, K10 scales on a different way other cpu's do, then i see them take more wins at 3.0ghz... but that can be wishfull thinking :D

K8 beating K10 is pretty sad yes, but aren't there test were P4 beats a C2D as well ....
09-11-2007, 01:48 AM
BeardyMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord99

T

Not a test of speed.

LOL weight your words carefully :)
Power consumption is very very important in teh server market.. or do you think electricty is free :D
09-11-2007, 02:42 AM
BeardyMan

SmartASS it doesn't matter really :)
It seems youre reading selective and only what you wanne read.

This is what i stated in a previous post

It's not about it wins there and there and it gets pwned there and there..

it's about AMD being back with a nice and good competitive cpu.
Many seem to trash it while i just prooved that it's uncalled for

period :)
09-11-2007, 03:11 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

SmartASS - the sandra score shows actual performance the same way memory bandwidth does, even less

Umh no...

It shows what the chip is actually capable of if its units are used to full extent.
09-11-2007, 03:45 AM
alayashu

Quote:

How nice and competitive is this alpha BIOS?

not at all
09-11-2007, 05:55 AM
JVguest

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nasgul

How nice and competitive is this? :confused:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...l/CRAPPOLA.png

That's one reason I think the Anand preview didn't really show the full performance of the K10. It also doesn't seem that AMD will be shipping a lot of these systems now if the AMD supplied Anandtech system has such problems. AMD was rushed to get barc out the door by their stated release date, and they didn't quite get it ready. Hopefully, yet again AMD will just manage to hang on.
09-11-2007, 10:37 AM
GoThr3k

after reading this thread with a lot of crap in it,thx to savuntu and mr smartass...

juste making a few point

Server <-> desktop
Desktop parts will be faster,do you really think with wider prefetch and 4 cores DDR2 667 ECC can provide enough bandwidth?

No clear winner
in the benches i've read,there is no clear winner here
barcalona sometimes beats a 2.33 clover, and sometimes it's the other way around.

AMD is back
looking at the benches,K10 isn't as bad as some people had wished for..
It's actually quite good imo
finally bringing quadcore to the scene,which is really important in the server market. They don't need high clocked parts,cause who is insane enough to buy the most expensive?
they just need fresh money,new better products provides this
2.5 ghz will be sufficient if you ask me, and those parts are coming real soon (i hope :) )
09-11-2007, 10:55 AM
Shintai

Actually Intel is only stronger in the desktop. K8 already do quite well against Core 2 in the server space. In the desktop it gets molested by the Core 2.

So if anything, its only gonna be worse when the Core 2 is released from FB-DIMMs and the 5000 platform. So if you are hoping for something..dont..it will just backfire as the K10 expectations alot had.

But again, highend is low volume.
09-11-2007, 11:17 AM
GoThr3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Actually Intel is only stronger in the desktop. K8 already do quite well against Core 2 in the server space. In the desktop it gets molested by the Core 2.

So if anything, its only gonna be worse when the Core 2 is released from FB-DIMMs and the 5000 platform. So if you are hoping for something..dont..it will just backfire as the K10 expectations alot had.

But again, highend is low volume.

dualcore against dualcore they went well,but AMD didn't have a quadcore for a very long time, now they have one,and its a decent product,not a miracle but a good and solid product with a wel thought concept.
I desktop AMD will need have more horsepower, so hopefully it will have higher clocked parts
and a better B3 revision soon
09-11-2007, 12:05 PM
StealthyFish

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordEC911

I would love to see a quote of any somewhat knowledgeable person who was being serious about an increase greater than ~40-70% over C2Q.
I'm guessing some noob in the 30k 3dMark06 K10 thread said the 170%.

I was expecting about equal to C2Q, hoping for a 10-20% advantage but we still have yet to see Phenom on an AM2+ board. Still won't push Phenom way ahead of C2Q but probably equal, possibly slightly ahead.

I'm still holding out to see how Phenom OCs and if Penryn is worth it over a Q6600.

I agree. I believe AMD's executives specifically said Barcelona would be 40% faster than the Xeon 51xx Clovertowns, and I've yet to see a 40% gain in performance over a clovertown in a benchmark, though, there haven't been many reviews or benchmarks run on their chips.

But, do keep in mind, there has to be a substantial overall performance gain over C2D for AMD to continue being competitive. It's much like the 8800 series vs HD 2900XTs. Yeah, the HD2900XT is a pretty good graphics card, but becuase it wasn't that much better than the 8800GTS//GTX//Ultras, their sales still suffered. If Phenom isn't going to be spectacular in comparison to a Q6600//QX6700//QX6800//QX6850, I really don't see any point in buying an AMD system. Price would be the final determining point; and seeing how AMD's in financial troubles and the whole "monolithic core" thing going on, I don't see how AMD can afford to play another price war unless they manage to live for another 2 years and hope to win that lawsuit against intel :rolleyes:
09-11-2007, 03:50 PM
cupholder2.0

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

Sure i'm not blind , i see and read what i see and read

It's clearly that AMD has regained the performance crown, it's just a hard pill for the intel boys to swallow.

:D

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry kid, K10 can't even touch Conroe let alone penyrn. K10 is much more expensive to manufacture than K8. It is inferior in performance even to the Conroe, so there is no hope of matching penyrn. The penyrn will be much cheaper to produce and it will have 5-10% performance increase along with the lower TDP and superior transistors. AMD is far from taking the performance crown. AMD right now needs to worry about staying alive more than trying to take the performance crown.
For 3 years AMD beat Intel, all it did was made Intel get a bloody nose. In one year, AMD ended up in the intensive care unit.
09-11-2007, 04:11 PM
iddqd

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard server mobos aren't the best choice for overclocking :yepp:

I also wonder what kind of chips are those - B1 or B2

The 3GHz CPU was obviously multiplier-unlocked, which makes it much easier to overclock in any old board..

IIRC, at launch, Opteron was only doing 1.8GHz, which of course was nowhere near as fast as 3.4GHz Xeons/P4s... oh, how the things changed a few months later. So, it's still too early to tell. Maybe they'll be able to compete with 2x2-core Pentium-M chips.

Also, I think their reverse-HT gambit might pay off to improve IPC on a single thread, once properly supported by the OS and enabled on the chips.
09-11-2007, 08:50 PM
GoThr3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

@Gothrak :slap:

After reading your poorly written BS without facts, data and logical explanations and my nick-name in the same post, it is my pleasure to respond. I don't believe that I can change your blind fanboyism about your favorite company, nor I think that you'll learn something. But its kind of fun to frustrate people like you. :D

is it my fault you're always full of BS,and sorry english is only my third language....

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

It is not the RAM that provides bandwidth, but it is the memory controller(s). For example K10 with DDR2-667 provides more bandwidth than K8 with DDR2-1000.
Memory bandwidth is not CPU performance. It can help in certain cases, but until we have a proof(backed up with DATA) we can't conclude anything.
The fact that K10 has two optimized(each much more advanced than the one on the K8) memory controllers and a shared L3(which all can be dedicated to a single core if needed) leads to the conclusion that K10 should perform well even with the high latency rDDR2-667.
In a case you didn't know, the cache memory reduces the impact of the RAM latency and bandwidth(i.e. Core2).

So anyone with some basic knowledge about CPU architectures won't expect a dramatical performance improvements from a faster RAM.

i have basic knowledge about cpu architectures :rolleyes:
indeed,we need proof backe up with data,so proof me there is no bandwidth difference between DDR2 667 ECC and DDR2 1066 on K10...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Then you must be blind. When you are talking about performance in 2P environment, the clear winner is Clovertown(X5365). You can cry as loud as you want about the clock advantage it has, but it is almost a year old CPU and blows away the Opteron 2350.
What makes the Opteron 2350 attractive is:
1) the overall system energy efficiency
2) overall system price
Thats why it will gain some market share for AMD. Those who are looking for a TOP performance are looking at Intel.
No matter how hard AMD tries with their K10 barely reaching Core2 IPC and their 65nm SOI they are not going to come close to the performance crown in 1P and 2P.

i was talking about 2GHz barcelona vs 2.33 ghz Clover,and there is no clear winner there...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

It is VERY important for AMD, but not for the mobile/desktop/workstation/server markets. Quadcores already exist for many years, and if you talk about x86 Intel have sold millions already.
If no body buys them, then no body will produce them. So, there are people and companies who need the best performance and are willing to pay a premium for that.

so you say quadcore isnt important for the server market?? :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Yes! AMD needs money or it'll die sooner than most people here expect. When AMD will make some profits and pay off the loans, we can say that they are saved from the disaster. Until then, we can only hope they survive.

Sufficient to compete in 2P and 4P environment until Nehalem.

Don't be surprised if AMD paper-launch the parts you hope to arrive soon.

so you have crystall ball and knows how nehalem will perform?
09-11-2007, 08:52 PM
xVeinx

Quote:

Originally Posted by iddqd

The 3GHz CPU was obviously multiplier-unlocked, which makes it much easier to overclock in any old board..

IIRC, at launch, Opteron was only doing 1.8GHz, which of course was nowhere near as fast as 3.4GHz Xeons/P4s... oh, how the things changed a few months later. So, it's still too early to tell. Maybe they'll be able to compete with 2x2-core Pentium-M chips.

Also, I think their reverse-HT gambit might pay off to improve IPC on a single thread, once properly supported by the OS and enabled on the chips.

reverse-HT.... reverse-HT... he said... *falls down to the floor laughing*

No offense, but that doesn't exist. There are no whitepapers, no evidence at all that sometone has even figured out how to do it much less implement it.
09-11-2007, 10:11 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by iddqd

The 3GHz CPU was obviously multiplier-unlocked, which makes it much easier to overclock in any old board..

IIRC, at launch, Opteron was only doing 1.8GHz, which of course was nowhere near as fast as 3.4GHz Xeons/P4s... oh, how the things changed a few months later. So, it's still too early to tell. Maybe they'll be able to compete with 2x2-core Pentium-M chips.

Also, I think their reverse-HT gambit might pay off to improve IPC on a single thread, once properly supported by the OS and enabled on the chips.

Reverse-HT???? Are you kidding?
09-12-2007, 01:30 AM
savantu

This is a must see... :D :D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F7LNUkHa7U8
09-12-2007, 02:18 AM
DoubleZero

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

i was talking about 2GHz barcelona vs 2.33 ghz Clover,and there is no clear winner there...

E5335 is only 2.0ghz not 2.33ghz. That's the one where's no clear winner in techport review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cupholder2.0

For 3 years AMD beat Intel, all it did was made Intel get a bloody nose. In one year, AMD ended up in the intensive care unit.

There's fantasy and then there's reality...

http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...sed/Page1.html

In the first-half of this year, AMD reached already the top10.

Not bad for "intensive care unit", imagine what will happen now, that AMD have a more competitive product.
09-12-2007, 09:00 AM
GoThr3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleZero

E5335 is only 2.0ghz not 2.33ghz. That's the one where's no clear winner in techport review.

There's fantasy and then there's reality...

http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...sed/Page1.html

In the first-half of this year, AMD reached already the top10.

Not bad for "intensive care unit", imagine what will happen now, that AMD have a more competitive product.

at anand there is no clear winner to me,and that is done with 2.33 ghz

you are completely right on your other statement
i will just sit and wait what higher clocked barca's and phenoms will bring us :)
if that doesnt do the trick i'll buy intel for my next setup
09-12-2007, 11:17 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoThr3k

at anand there is no clear winner to me,and that is done with 2.33 ghz

you are completely right on your other statement
i will just sit and wait what higher clocked barca's and phenoms will bring us :)
if that doesnt do the trick i'll buy intel for my next setup

I suggest you read this before you comment : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=97

Quote:

Of all the tests performed at AnandTech, Barcelona won 5 and Xeon won 3. The total percentages by which each one beat the other were 27.13 and 73.94. This means that when Barcelona won, it won by much less percentage-wise. And when Xeon won it, won by a a lot more. These tests do not demonstrate the performance AMD's website indicated they should, nor do they include the fastest Intel parts available today.

If we then look to a much more comprehensive benchmark at The Tech Report we find Barcelona winning 3 tests, and Xeon winning 23 tests. The total percentages were 123.63 and 634.26. It's also worth noting that the bulk of the large Barcelona percentage shown here comes from a single test which included a 121.14% improvement over Xeon in memory bandwidth using a 1 GB test set. If we remove that test, then Barcelona's three wins only total a 2.49% over Xeon's. And if that memory test had used data sets of anything at 64MB or below, then it would've shown Xeon winning by similar percentages at various data set sizes.

All told at both sites, Barcelona wins 8 and Xeon wins 26. The total percentages across 38 benchmarks were 150.76 and 708.2 values. The average winning percentages are 18.85% for Barcelona and 30.79% for Xeon. If we remove the one benchmark which had Barcelona winning by 121.14%, then the results are average winning percentages for Barcelona of 4.23% on only 22% of the benchmarks. And 32.19% for Xeon on 78%. This indicates that in those instances where Barcelona wins, it wins by a much smaller margin than Xeon. So small that it's hardly worth mentioning, especially when you consider there are two faster clocked processors available today from Intel.
09-12-2007, 11:23 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleZero

...

There's fantasy and then there's reality...

http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...sed/Page1.html

In the first-half of this year, AMD reached already the top10.

Not bad for "intensive care unit", imagine what will happen now, that AMD have a more competitive product.

Oh yes...did it ever occurred to you that AMD's rise was due to ATI's acquisition ?

Secondly , would you bet for AMD staying in top 10 this year ? ;)
09-12-2007, 11:30 AM
informal

And you should read this conclusion from AT early preview of K10:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=13

Quote:

Conclusion

It's close to a nightmare to try to review a server CPU in a few days, but we hope we have at least provided you with an idea what AMD's newest quad-core is capable of. We'll summarize our preliminary results with this small table.
The Opteron 2350 (2 GHz) vs. Xeon "Clovertown"
General applications Opteron 2350 (2GHz) equates to Xeon clock speed of:
WinRAR 3.62 2.7 GHz
Fritz Chess engine 1.8 GHz
HPC applications
Intel optimized Linpack 1.9 GHz
3D Applications
3DS Max 9 2 GHz
zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine 2.33 - 2.4 GHz
zVisuel 3D Kribi Engine (AA) 2.4 GHz
Server applications
Specjbb 2.4 GHz
MySQL 2.33 GHz

Considering that AMD prices this Opteron 2350 under the Xeon 5345, AMD has an attractive price/performance offering for most applications. The only exception is a chess engine and highly optimized Intel binaries. Although our testing is not finished yet, there is very little doubt that AMD's newest chip is very energy efficient
09-12-2007, 11:36 AM
Carfax

Don't judge the K10 by the benches seen at Tech-Report and Anandtech.

There is strong evidence suggesting that the chips used in those reviews, were bug ridden.

According to Dave Graham over at AMD Zone who has connections with AMD:

Quote:

i've been asked to pass this to my FAE @ AMD.

what people have been benching is the B1 chip stepping with a BIOS patch applied to get around errata #281 (conspicuously absent on that errata worksheet). BA is the production stepping that fixes this issue on the NB itself and will handle some of the performance "issues" people have been :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing about. B2 steppings are the "SE" or higher rated parts.

cheers,

dave

I knew something had to be wrong with those benches! The SSE performance in particular, was just too low considering the K10's enhancements in that area.
09-12-2007, 11:41 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

And you should read this conclusion from AT early preview of K10:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=13

ill take performance leader for energy efficienty leader on desktop any day :p:
09-12-2007, 11:45 AM
gallag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Don't judge the K10 by the benches seen at Tech-Report and Anandtech.

There is strong evidence suggesting that the chips used in those reviews, were bug ridden.

According to Dave Graham over at AMD Zone who has connections with AMD:

I knew something had to be wrong with those benches! The SSE performance in particular, was just too low considering the K10's enhancements in that area.

I cant understand how people believe AMD sent out bugged systems for review. I would near blindly accept this if they obtained them from a third party but AMD sent them, Seriously, Do you think this is likely?

Also it is pretty funny that a lot of amd fans are saying "I am not disappointed, k10 is great, I am very very happy with it,BUT ALSO DONT BELIEVE ANY OF THE REVIEWS i AM BASING THIS GREATNESS ON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DONE WITH BUGGED CHIPS AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD" LOL

What you see is what you get.
09-12-2007, 11:47 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

ill take performance leader for energy efficienty leader on desktop any day :p:

In case you missed it,look at what freq. intel quad must work to attain the same level of performance(i even bolded it for you).
09-12-2007, 11:50 AM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

I cant understand how people believe AMD sent out bugged systems for review. I would near blindly accept this if they obtained them from a third party but AMD sent them, Seriously, Do you think this is likely?

Also it is pretty funny that a lot of amd fans are saying "I am not disappointed, k10 is great, I am very very happy with it,BUT ALSO DONT BELIEVE ANY OF THE REVIEWS i AM BASING THIS GREATNESS ON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DONE WITH BUGGED CHIPS AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD" LOL

What you see is what you get.

They had to meet the launch date.

For God's sake, did you even read the reviews? In some benches, there was practically NO IMPROVEMENT over the K8, and in certain synthetic benches ie memory latency, the performance was worse compared to the K8.

These chips were bugged, thats a fact. The reviews were not done on retail samples.
09-12-2007, 11:52 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Don't judge the K10 by the benches seen at Tech-Report and Anandtech.

There is strong evidence suggesting that the chips used in those reviews, were bug ridden.

According to Dave Graham over at AMD Zone who has connections with AMD:

I knew something had to be wrong with those benches! The SSE performance in particular, was just too low considering the K10's enhancements in that area.

:ROTF:

Still playing the old disk ?

The systems were sent by AMD , secondly IBM published benchmarks too and they used a B1 chip , Anandtech used B2.So AMD screwed IBM and the public ? Mind you , AMD's own benchmarks were done on B1 or earlier.

Bx chips do not have performance bugs , they have only different scaling capabilities.End of story.
09-12-2007, 11:53 AM
informal

And the whole "testing" was done in a hurry and not in detail(plus some tests favored intel since they were compiled with highly optimized Intel binaries)
09-12-2007, 11:56 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

I cant understand how people believe AMD sent out bugged systems for review. I would near blindly accept this if they obtained them from a third party but AMD sent them, Seriously, Do you think this is likely?

Also it is pretty funny that a lot of amd fans are saying "I am not disappointed, k10 is great, I am very very happy with it,BUT ALSO DONT BELIEVE ANY OF THE REVIEWS i AM BASING THIS GREATNESS ON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DONE WITH BUGGED CHIPS AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD" LOL

What you see is what you get.

its easier to live with a lie, than live with the truth. :p:

anyways ill wait till november, till than solid numbers should have turned up.
09-12-2007, 12:02 PM
Periander6

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

I cant understand how people believe AMD sent out bugged systems for review. I would near blindly accept this if they obtained them from a third party but AMD sent them, Seriously, Do you think this is likely?

Also it is pretty funny that a lot of amd fans are saying "I am not disappointed, k10 is great, I am very very happy with it,BUT ALSO DONT BELIEVE ANY OF THE REVIEWS i AM BASING THIS GREATNESS ON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DONE WITH BUGGED CHIPS AND MAKE IT LOOK BAD" LOL

What you see is what you get.

Not only are they willing to believe that AMD is a bunch of brain-damaged clowns for sending out bugged and crippled chips and systems directly to reviewers only 3 days before launch, but also that they are so bloody brain-damaged that they don't even say anything about it in the days afterwards.

YOU WOULD THINK THAT BY NOW AMD WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AROUND TO SAYING "OH HEY, WE WUZ JUST JOKING SENDING YOU THOSE CRIPPLED CHIPS FOR YOU TO REVIEW FOR ALL THE WORLD, HERE ARE THE REAL PARTS NOW"

But no, the story doesn't have to make a bit of sense as long as it keeps the hope and hype alive and hey some guy on a message board said it was so. That's credible isn't it?

:rofl:
09-12-2007, 12:07 PM
DoubleZero

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Oh yes...did it ever occurred to you that AMD's rise was due to ATI's acquisition ?

lol, and your point is?
I guess AMD bougth ATI for something... :shrug:

Funny that when it comes to revenue ATI is relevant, but when it comes to debt it seems AMD never bought ATI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Secondly , would you bet for AMD staying in top 10 this year ? ;)

Well yes since AMD reached the Top10 THIS YEAR, with a 4 year old product, and now has a new one.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...p-10-list.html
;)
09-12-2007, 12:15 PM
gallag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

They had to meet the launch date.

For God's sake, did you even read the reviews? In some benches, there was practically NO IMPROVEMENT over the K8, and in certain synthetic benches ie memory latency, the performance was worse compared to the K8.

These chips were bugged, thats a fact. The reviews were not done on retail samples.

mabey using l3 is making latencys worse?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Periander6

Not only are they willing to believe that AMD is a bunch of brain-damaged clowns for sending out bugged and crippled chips and systems directly to reviewers only 3 days before launch, but also that they are so bloody brain-damaged that they don't even say anything about it in the days afterwards.

YOU WOULD THINK THAT BY NOW AMD WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AROUND TO SAYING "OH HEY, WE WUZ JUST JOKING SENDING YOU THOSE CRIPPLED CHIPS FOR YOU TO REVIEW FOR ALL THE WORLD, HERE ARE THE REAL PARTS NOW"

But no, the story doesn't have to make a bit of sense as long as it keeps the hope and hype alive and hey some guy on a message board said it was so. That's credible isn't it?

:rofl:

:rofl:
09-12-2007, 12:27 PM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleZero

lol, and your point is?
I guess AMD bougth ATI for something... :shrug:

Funny that when it comes to revenue ATI is relevant, but when it comes to debt it seems AMD never bought ATI.

Well yes since AMD reached the Top10 THIS YEAR, with a 4 year old product, and now has a new one.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...p-10-list.html
;)

Umh , that's for 2006.I'm asking about 2007.
09-12-2007, 12:31 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

:ROTF:

Still playing the old disk ?

The systems were sent by AMD , secondly IBM published benchmarks too and they used a B1 chip , Anandtech used B2.So AMD screwed IBM and the public ? Mind you , AMD's own benchmarks were done on B1 or earlier.

Bx chips do not have performance bugs , they have only different scaling capabilities.End of story.

The B2 chips still has the memory controller bugs.

According to Graham, the BA stepping solves the memory performance issues.

Just look at the review! You can tell something is wrong with the memory performance of these chips.

The latency benches that Tech-Report conducted were abismal.

The SSE optimized benches also weren't up to par, considering the doubled SSE throughput.

If this is the final performance we can expect from the K10, then AMD screwed up horribly.
09-12-2007, 12:58 PM
DoubleZero

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Umh , that's for 2006.I'm asking about 2007.

Nevermind it was retarded isupply saying AMD was top10 in 2006 when it was not... i thought they were saying 1H 2007, it was the only thing that made sense.

Real numbers:
http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...006/Page1.html
http://www.electronics.ca/presscente...ing/Page1.html

Both AMD and Intel raised from 1H 2006.
09-12-2007, 01:04 PM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

In case you missed it,look at what freq. intel quad must work to attain the same level of performance(i even bolded it for you).

About 1.9GHz with Techreport's review.
09-12-2007, 01:12 PM
gallag

Look, why don't people just accept what it is, K10 is nice, it has near the same ipc as conroe and is very thrifty with power usage, Its a nice chip but the main people hurting AMD at the minute are all the AMD fanboys hypeing the hell out of it and always raising expectations not only that but do you not think you are hurting the company you love so much by insisting that they have launched buggy chips, do you not want them to sell these bloody things?

Just accept it and look forward to higher clocks on phenom
09-12-2007, 01:30 PM
gallag

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

Ummm.... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the range of TDP for AMD's quad core from 80-120 watts, 120 being for the higher clocked parts that are not even out yet? While I agree... 80 watts is good for a quad, it certainly doesn't blow my skirt up. :D Come on now... Intel has 50watt quad cores at 2.13. Keep in mind that these are server CPUs therefore are binned, where as the desktop ones are not. I'm sure this will be the same case with AMD when they launch their desktop line.

At the same time though Intel is stuck with fb dimms and looking at the reviews so far amd has better performance per watt with k10 (at least till 45nm:) )
09-12-2007, 02:04 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

I agree... FBDIMMs kinda kill the power argument, well... that and the southbridge, northbridge. :D But this is a CPU discussion. :D

Oh, and BTW with San Clemente you'll lose all the craptastic power adders to Intel's platform. ICH9 + DDR2 FTW!!! :D

dual cpu platform with unreg ddr2? nice! :yepp:
09-12-2007, 04:21 PM
Hornet331

wow thats sure nice to hear. :)
09-12-2007, 05:15 PM
alfaunits

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho

I'm 90% certain there will be a UDIMM (non registered) version... 100% sure there is a RDIMM only version.

When and how much!? :-)
09-12-2007, 09:39 PM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaunits

When and how much!? :-)

November.

Cheap DP segment.
09-12-2007, 09:56 PM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

The B2 chips still has the memory controller bugs.

According to Graham, the BA stepping solves the memory performance issues.

Just look at the review! You can tell something is wrong with the memory performance of these chips.

What ? From what I see they are better than the K8 with the same memory.

http://techreport.com/r.x/opteron-23...-cache-1gb.gif

Quote:

The latency benches that Tech-Report conducted were abismal.

Well , my dear Watson , there is an L3 on chip now which can add up to 38ns of latency.Did you expect no trade offs whatsoever ?

Quote:

The SSE optimized benches also weren't up to par, considering the doubled SSE throughput.

I think you need to visit an eye specialist.

~3.7x with 2x the cores
http://techreport.com/r.x/opteron-23...dra-mm-int.gif

~3x with 2x the cores
http://techreport.com/r.x/opteron-2300/sandra-mm-fp.gif

Where does it say that K10s SSE units must have the same throughoutput as Core's ?

IIRC , K10 has 2 SSE units and Core has 3.In other words Core has better INT/FPU power and it shows .

K8/10 show better FPU power than Core sometimes , not because they have more resources , but due to better memory BW+latency.FP apps like huge memory BW.

Quote:

If this is the final performance we can expect from the K10, then AMD screwed up horribly.

Don't tell me you believed there's some magic dust inside ?
09-13-2007, 01:58 PM
Richie P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richie P

I may be wrong, please correct me if i am :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollo

from what i've read the l3 cache is a spilloff cache, and the memory controller feeds the l2, so the CPU isn't held up by the l3 latency (which would result in a pretty bad performance hit). cache latency (seconds) = latency (clocks) * duration of a clock (seconds)

and duration of a clock (seconds) = 1/frequency (to get seconds per cycle instead of cycles per second)

so latency (clocks) = latency (seconds) / (1/frequency) = latency (seconds) * frequency

using 23ns @ 2ghz, 19ns @ 2.5ghz:
(23*10^-9)*(2*10^9) = 46 clocks
(19*10^-9)*(2.5*10^9) = 47.5 clocks

latency in clockcycles increased going to 2.5ghz, there's no way you'll get better than linear scaling... that was a myth

Sorry to dig a mildly old thread, but I wanted to thank hollo for teaching me in such a nice and informative way. I didn't claim to know everything and wanted to be corrected if there was something I missed, so thank you :up:
09-13-2007, 02:14 PM
Shintai

Just because AMD aint super crown of the CPUs doesnt mean they are screwed. Try ask Intel how many 3Ghz quads they sell. Its not alot.

What you need is a product you can make with competitive price/performance in the high volume segments.

Ofcource K10 aint looking good on that due to its monolithic diesize. But atleast AMD got the hint for the next time and going the MCM way with all its designs.

K10 now needs better yields and faster speed. There is no magic steppings, broken SSE/FP or whatever. Its also a demonstration on there is a difference between a 1-1.5B$ R&D budget and a 5.5-6B$ R&D.

Only 2 things to blame, native design and the now doubleedged sword of SOI that strikes back.

Had AMD started with MCM K8 quads and then later on MCM K10s from the start they would be in an alot better situation on that alone. 150$ 2X2 brisbanes with a higher margin that would sell like ice melts in mexico. Along with staying with the bulk design and forget IBMs more or less exotic approaches. Just like Sony got caught in the Cell nightmare. Then AMD would simply sit with better cards today.

In short, fire Hector :p:

Oh, and left ATI to die slowly as they were. What a waste of cash. Else they could have picked ATI up today for 1/3th of the price.
09-13-2007, 02:51 PM
doompc

Quote:

using 23ns @ 2ghz, 19ns @ 2.5ghz:
(23*10^-9)*(2*10^9) = 46 clocks
(19*10^-9)*(2.5*10^9) = 47.5 clocks

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7812

NB clock doesn't increase equal to CPU clock.
L3 cache latency must increase @ higher CPU Clock.
09-13-2007, 03:10 PM
xlink

i see later revisions offering 5-20% greater performance per clock and scaling to 3Ghz. let's see if AMD can have that within 6months ... because that's when I'm upgrading...
09-13-2007, 03:17 PM
Zytek_Fan

Sign me up for 2 of the 2.4ghz ones.
09-13-2007, 03:23 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlink

i see later revisions offering 5-20% greater performance per clock and scaling to 3Ghz. let's see if AMD can have that within 6months ... because that's when I'm upgrading...

20% higher ipc.... :shocked:

even intel only claimed an avarage 10% ipc increase with penryn (which is in reallity between 5-<10%) and that thing is by far more then a core revision...

your quite optemistic. :yepp:

i can see higher clocks and the lower voltages and maybe a moderate ipc advantage in the 1-3% range, but 20%... wow.

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

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:49 PM.

XtremeSystems