SPECint_rate2006 (outdated?) scores for Barcelona

Nedjo..for a 4way server...100$ is nothing. And your worldfastest link is heavily biased. Look on all their previous stuff.

Also i´m getting somewhat bored of these rates benches.

Rates=throughput, non rates=speed.

Is K8 faster than Core 2? I´m just curious because its faster in rates...

And backwards compability is a joke. I can also throw in harpertowns in my servers...so what? By the time there is a new CPU I would much rather get a new server. Because the I/O and such is old! And you would need new memorya swell to maximize the gain wouldn´t you? Not to talk about HT3 later on when they fix that.

Marketing FUD ftl.

Now try to post the non rates benchmarks..just to compare!

ffs it's not superior, ffs AMD would price it higher if it was superior and they COULD (they NEED higher margins ASAP), but it seems that they can't... (don't forget gaining marketshare is useless if you go bankrupt)
if this pricing won't change, it look's like their margins will take another dive... because Intel can change prices whenever they want.

btw is someone willing to answer my question? :)
"does the HPC crowd use off the shelf cpus with custom interconnects, chipsets, etc" - if yes, how is AMD going to differentiate their products. if they price them high (for the HPC people) no one is going to buy AMD for normal servers (which would be a HUGE loss), so do they have to price barcelona low (cause of its sucky int/general use performance..)?

Can someone explain what is so bad here to me. On a 2p system the AMD opteron is 4% slower in SPECint_rate.

While in the SPECfp_rate the AMD is 40%+ quicker. Surely this just shows it's a competative processor across the board.

Granted, the clockspeeds are low and until they speed up I will stick with the Xeons but it doesn't look too bad to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

Oh yes it does:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/images/4p-...amd-server.png
....

if this is slower, then there is no point to this discusion:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/images/2p-...ptember-fp.png

---

rates!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Rates=throughput, non rates=speed.

Is K8 faster than Core 2? I´m just curious because its faster in rates...

---

:fact:

non-rate benchmarks should be available in a couple of days, then we'll talk performance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Motiv

Can someone explain what is so bad here to me. On a 2p system the AMD opteron is 4% slower in SPECint_rate.

While in the SPECfp_rate the AMD is 40%+ quicker. Surely this just shows it's a competative processor across the board.

Granted, the clockspeeds are low and until they speed up I will stick with the Xeons but it doesn't look too bad to me.

---

Not really. The rates are a very bad bench in itself. Because its mainly memory bandwidth dependent.

If rates was a sign of actual speed. K8 would beat Core 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Not really. The rates are a very bad bench in itself. Because its mainly memory bandwidth dependent.

If rates was a sign of actual speed. K8 would beat Core 2.

---

sorry I'll explain a little better.

Surely the figures that are shown, does not put AMD in a bad light. I agree, the benchmark itself is of little importance but saying it makes AMD look bad (by the original Author) is no more than FUD?

Ou has updated September SPEC scores. AMD 2GHz K10 now loses by 4.2 points in int_rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

Once the Seaburg chipset launches in Q4, Intel's 2P specINT score will also beat Barcelona clock/clock.

Tigerton runs on Clarksboro, which already has the updated snoop filter designed for quad core.

Seaburg will add this feature (vs. current Blackford).

---

page 20/21, I see around 7%+ for int_rate and 9.7% for fp_rate, with them supposedly just isolating fsb increase.

Quote:

---

On a 2p system the AMD opteron is 4% slower in SPECint_rate.

---

The problem is that you don't buy servers at a certain clock speed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red

The problem is that you don't buy servers at a certain clock speed

---

I don't understand what you mean by this.

It means it doesn't matter if it's clock for clock equivalent if it's clocked 2GHz to 3GHz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red

It means it doesn't matter if it's clock for clock equivalent if it's clocked 2GHz to 3GHz

---

But that would indicate I was after a 2p 3ghz system. Where I work, we have more than just speed to think of.

If AMDs 2ghz cpu is costed equivalent to Intels 2ghz Xeon. If the rest of the system is all based the same, then both CPUs have an equal amount of chance of being bought.

Granted, if I was after pure speed then the 3ghz Xeons are the best bet but other considerations are taken into account before purchasing.

On a clock for Clock basis (and going of the price points), the benchmark does not put the AMD at a disadvantage or am I wrong?

"clock for clock", it looks fine, but it's a pity that 2Ghz quad can only command top price of $372 (it's currently $873 for 2P dual 3GHz k8).

If you look at old numbers, you'll see that AMD wasn't much behind in int_rate per core/clock anyway
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...604-01203.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...803-01638.html

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...821-01887.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...820-01831.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...412-00810.html

So AMD has gone from a bit behind in int_rate, to creepily close, bravo! Now if you consider that AMD scales better, on nonrate speccpu... Just comparing Ou's 2P numbers, 88/(6.4 or 7.2 which is 80-90% scaling), gets you 12.2-13.8 nonrate specint score. 92 for Intel/(5.6-6.4) which is 70-80% gets you 14.4 and 16.4.

btw, specint is a single bench suite. specintrate and sorts is running multiple instances of specint, voila

Perhaps someone else can jump in here.

"Clock for clock" it seems on par with intel. If that is the case and the prices are equal. Surely it doesn't make the CPU a bad buy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Motiv

Perhaps someone else can jump in here.

"Clock for clock" it seems on par with intel. If that is the case and the prices are equal. Surely it doesn't make the CPU a bad buy?

---

Ofcourse not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

if this is slower, then there is no point to this discusion:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/images/2p-...ptember-fp.png

---

QFT :up:

Using rates benches is like using DiVX encoding with a Conroe vs Penryn and claim average performance of Penryn is double of Conroe.

Imagine if we didnt have to be feed with marketing spins and lies. So many people that would be unemployed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Using rates benches is like using DiVX encoding with a Conroe vs Penryn and claim average performance of Penryn is double of Conroe.

---

Not quite. Believe it or not, there are some people who like to know how a system performs when all cores are loaded. This is what the rate benchmarks test. Not everyone runs a single thread on a quad-core. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldblue

Not quite. Believe it or not, there are some people who like to know how a system performs when all cores are loaded. This is what the rate benchmarks test. Not everyone runs a single thread on a quad-core. ;)

---

Rates doesnt even reflect that either. Try do some rendering or the like. Rates is only useful for heavy bandwidth applications. And rates isn´t even multithreaded as such. Its more a bunch of singlethreaded applications running in its benching method to simulate alot of "clients".

So that somehow brings us back to 4x4 and "megatasking".

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...cpu_091007.pdf
2 socket, 1.9ghz k10s

SPECint2006 11.3
SPECint_rate2006 83.2
SPECint_rate_base2006 72.8
SPECfp2006 11.2
SPECfp_rate2006 73.0
SPECfp_rate_base2006 68.5

(1) Planned availability for the x3455 model using the AMD Opteron Model 2347 processor
(1.9GHz, 512KB L2 cache per core) is November 16, 2007.
------
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...yna_091007.pdf

The x3455 server achieved an elapsed time of 31,526 seconds, which is better than the 32,578
seconds of elapsed time achieved by a single-node 8-core blade system using the Quad-Core
Intel® Xeon® X5355 processor at 2.66GHz.

So according to the 2 PDFs,1.9Ghz DP Barcelona(2347) system is a little bit faster than 2.66 DP intel(X5355) quad system in this LS Dyna set of benchmarks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...cpu_091007.pdf
2 socket, 1.9ghz k10s

SPECint2006 11.3
SPECint_rate2006 83.2
SPECint_rate_base2006 72.8
SPECfp2006 11.2
SPECfp_rate2006 73.0
SPECfp_rate_base2006 68.5

(1) Planned availability for the x3455 model using the AMD Opteron Model 2347 processor
(1.9GHz, 512KB L2 cache per core) is November 16, 2007.
------
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...yna_091007.pdf

The x3455 server achieved an elapsed time of 31,526 seconds, which is better than the 32,578
seconds of elapsed time achieved by a single-node 8-core blade system using the Quad-Core
Intel® Xeon® X5355 processor at 2.66GHz.

---

nice.. K10 owned :up: :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...cpu_091007.pdf
2 socket, 1.9ghz k10s

SPECint2006 11.3
SPECint_rate2006 83.2
SPECint_rate_base2006 72.8
SPECfp2006 11.2
SPECfp_rate2006 73.0
SPECfp_rate_base2006 68.5

(1) Planned availability for the x3455 model using the AMD Opteron Model 2347 processor
(1.9GHz, 512KB L2 cache per core) is November 16, 2007.
------
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...yna_091007.pdf

The x3455 server achieved an elapsed time of 31,526 seconds, which is better than the 32,578
seconds of elapsed time achieved by a single-node 8-core blade system using the Quad-Core
Intel® Xeon® X5355 processor at 2.66GHz.

---

Interesting... the non-rate scores look like they will fall short of a 2.0 GHz clovertown....
Take for example, a 5335 http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...0301-00593.pdf

Barcey at 1.9 GHz SpecFP2006 -- 11.2
Clovertown at 2.0 GHz SpecFP2006 -- 13.6 (base)

It appears Barcy's key strength is BW driven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Using rates benches is like using DiVX encoding with a Conroe vs Penryn and claim average performance of Penryn is double of Conroe.

Imagine if we didnt have to be feed with marketing spins and lies. So many people that would be unemployed.

---

qft, I mean come on people, does it not seem a bit funny that the only semi official leaked benches are rate benches that k8 already fears well in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by red

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...cpu_091007.pdf
2 socket, 1.9ghz k10s

SPECint2006 11.3
SPECint_rate2006 83.2
SPECint_rate_base2006 72.8
SPECfp2006 11.2
SPECfp_rate2006 73.0
SPECfp_rate_base2006 68.5

(1) Planned availability for the x3455 model using the AMD Opteron Model 2347 processor
(1.9GHz, 512KB L2 cache per core) is November 16, 2007.
------
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...yna_091007.pdf

The x3455 server achieved an elapsed time of 31,526 seconds, which is better than the 32,578
seconds of elapsed time achieved by a single-node 8-core blade system using the Quad-Core
Intel® Xeon® X5355 processor at 2.66GHz.

---

Those Specint2006 and Specfp2006 scores are very very weak, well behind what Clovertown offers on a clock for clock basis. This bodes quite badly for what K10 will offer in terms of desktop performance.

So when we stop using bandwidth/rates benches. K10 suddenly drops behind...how funny...and how predictable.

Quote:

---

So when we stop using bandwidth/rates benches. K10 suddenly drops behind...how funny...and how predictable.

---

no one in the industry who buys these CPUs gives a damn about how well
a single core performs. System performance is what matters period.

your bashing of the _rate benchmarks and aproval of the nonrates is really
hard to understand and makes no sense. For your information the _rates
run the same nonrate benchmarks but on all the cores of the system, thus
giving us a good clue of how the whole system works on certain type of
applications. hard to pick your logic... seriously...


1 more day to go till our new rendering monster;)