Shanghai Results (Opteron 2384, 2.7GHz)

Printable View

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

11-11-2008, 06:57 PM
Macadamia

There's an issue with normalizing the scores though.

For example, see MySQL. It doesn't scale with clockspeed that much even with the Opteron. I suspect that interconnect matters more in this area.

And normalizing power load is also wrong, since other components don't scale down. What we can do though is compare power deltas for respective setups and work out relative power usage instead. :)
11-11-2008, 07:04 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by justthefax

I hope I didn't mess up the calculations! :D

But IPC doesn't seem to be improved much. Perf/watt is greatly improved though

I can't think of any way that performance would drop, though, so hopefully these are the minimum amount of improvements.

Just glancing, I did the quick compare with CB10 ... your numbers look sane.

However, look at the simple raw performance -- and if you are interested in DT, CB is very close to a Harpertown clock for clock as is the valve map compile ... these are DT like apps where it looks like AMD has pulled close to Penryn based cores.

This is a good achievement by any measure for just a shrink with tweaks.

Jack
11-11-2008, 07:11 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by justthefax

Here we go:

thx, so shanghai is in the up to 10% range, as expected. Means is a good shrink and power figures look also very good to. :yepp:

This should put deneb between kentsfield and yorkfield. If they price them right amd will have a good portofilo up to the midend segment. :up:
11-11-2008, 07:21 PM
mAJORD

Interesting results, Looking pretty good. Be good to see what Deneb brings.

Hard to make IPC assumptions with thsoe results though for sure, since xeon only scales 16% in perf with 25% clock speed thanks to SQL and a few of the others.
11-11-2008, 07:43 PM
demonkevy666

anyone got a clue as what the L3 cache speed is set to I know old Barcelona only got 1400mhz-2400Mhz
11-11-2008, 07:52 PM
Macadamia

Anyway, back on topic. VRAD and Cinebench, both of which JJ mentioned, seem to have benefited quite a lot from cache, especially just by raising L3.

VRAD: Yorkfield 6M led Agena by 16%, 12M led by 20. Now it leads by 5%.

CB: YF 6M led Agena by 11%, YF 12M by 13.5%. Now it has 3.3% and of course, 33Mhz handicap. :p:

This might be more optimistic for the AMD chips as they scale better in multi-CPU cases, but I don't think that's the case for 2P mostly. Xeon still does a great job there. And even if it did scale better on 2P for AMD, the desktop chips still have HT3.0 and probably higher L3/NB clocks.
11-11-2008, 08:01 PM
demonkevy666

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macadamia

No, all you did was astroturf and insult- on several discussions I might add. You don't seem to be interested in any smidgen of civilized discussion, so you might as well do yourself/us (mainly yourself) a favor and stop posting.

Anyway, back on topic. VRAD and Cinebench, both of which JJ mentioned, seem to have benefited quite a lot from cache, especially just by raising L3.

VRAD: Yorkfield 6M led Agena by 16%, 12M led by 20. Now it leads by 5%.

CB: YF 6M led Agena by 11%, YF 12M by 13.5%. Now it has 3.3% and of course, 33Mhz handicap. :p:

This might be more optimistic for the AMD chips as they scale better in multi-CPU cases, but I don't think that's the case for 2P mostly. Xeon still does a great job there. And even if it did scale better on 2P for AMD, the desktop chips still have HT3.0 and probably higher L3/NB clocks.

deneb 2.2ghz-2.4ghz. is what I've seen

Ht 3.1 will boost that (3.2ghz) like how HT 3.0 can get to 2.6ghz on some chips and boards.
11-11-2008, 08:19 PM
nn_step

Go more L3 and core tweaks
11-11-2008, 08:28 PM
justthefax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

thx, so shanghai is in the up to 10% range, as expected. Means is a good shrink and power figures look also very good to. :yepp:

This should put deneb between kentsfield and yorkfield. If they price them right amd will have a good portofilo up to the midend segment. :up:

Yup. Basically if your AM2+ board is going to support Deneb it looks like the difference in performance with Yorkfield is not enough to be worth switching over given the cost advantage. My guess is for a new system unless you need Nehalem level power it's a tossup between 775 and AM3 now. This is certainly the most competitive AMD has been since late 2006.
11-11-2008, 10:57 PM
gallag

disappointing performance but great power benefits.
11-11-2008, 11:30 PM
largon

Quote:

Originally Posted by justthefax

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1226458213

I bet it's better than that when at same clocks as power consumption never scales linearly.
11-11-2008, 11:44 PM
Cooper

Can you cut the whining and offtopic ?
11-12-2008, 01:05 AM
duploxxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliG

hmm with that in mind I think AMD has done a tremendous job with shanghai, but they will still definitely have to get their clockspeed up.

this is the normal shanghai launch, q1 will give additional HE and SE cpu's

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eson

Memory Latency = L3 Latency + Memory Latency?
I mean can you somehow see if L3 got better latency on Shanghai vs. Barcelona?

L3 Latency = Intercore Latency?

l3 latency goes with NB speed, barcelone NB = 1.8, shangai has 2.0 and 2.2 depending on the model. The one tested has 2.2

Quote:

Originally Posted by justthefax

Here we go:

your calculations on power consumption are wrong, for now the 2,3ghz shangai is rated in the 75W ACP platform, so it will be less then 65nm but not that much.

also the MYSQL is not scaling linear, just check the differences between Xeon

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

disappointing performance but great power benefits.

lol nice crap post, check the benches again against 2,66ghz xeon and 2,7 shangai, i would say nice performance, yeah the 3,33ghz is better but so is it price and power and it has minimal volume against the other parts.

btw 45nm prices are also way lower then current barcelona. you'll get 2,5 for the same price as 2,3 so that also brings them back in competition.
11-12-2008, 01:51 AM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

will someone bother to figure how much is improvement in the most important aspect of servers - the power/performance ratio

About 30% ... 25% improvement in power and ~ 5% per clock for various items (but I am weary that the clock for clock compare is accurate -- not intentionally, justthefax simply scaled according to clock, however we know that it is not always the case that 10% clock bump translates to exactly 10% performance).
11-12-2008, 02:14 AM
Bellisimo

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOE

will someone bother to figure how much is improvement in the most important aspect of servers - the power/performance ratio

do you want the perf/watt benches? ;)

Performance/Watt Cinebench
AMD Opteron 2384: 98.3
AMD Opteron 2356: 68
Intel Xeon X5470: 88.9
Intel Xeon L5430: 88.1

Performance/Watt HWI MySQL
AMD Opteron 2384: 42.8 trans/W
AMD Opteron 2356: 29.8 trans/W
Intel Xeon X5470: 29.3 trans/W
Intel Xeon L5430: 25.7 trans/W
11-12-2008, 02:21 AM
gosh

For servers the most important attribute is mostly power efficiency, that's is my experience from companies anyway. Maybe they have clocked (clocked parts on the processor) this shanghai in order to be as power efficient as possible?
11-12-2008, 02:21 AM
Jacky

Quote:

Originally Posted by duploxxx

lol nice crap post, check the benches again against 2,66ghz xeon and 2,7 shangai, i would say nice performance, yeah the 3,33ghz is better but so is it price and power and it has minimal volume against the other parts.

No, he is right. In the face of hype the results are disappointing. Some people took AMD's word (marketing!) at face value: 15-20% IPC gains, and even insulted the sceptics, I believe some people need to apologise. :p:

Expected IPC gains and great power consumption if those benches are to be trusted.

In this test-suite (workstation/sever workloads mostly) IPC is about equal to Penryn with better power consumption. :clap: For desktop, though, Penryn is still untouchable - no fb-dimms and no need for high bandwidth.
11-12-2008, 02:23 AM
Bellisimo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

In this test-suite (workstation/sever workloads mostly) IPC is about equal to Penryn with better power consumption. :clap: For desktop, though, Penryn is still untouchable - no fb-dimms and no need for high bandwidth.

dont forget the server parts of amd always have downclocked NB/L3 and lame memory

too bad there arent any desktop benches available :(
11-12-2008, 02:37 AM
Jacky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bellisimo

dont forget the server parts of amd always have downclocked NB/L3 and lame memory

too bad there arent any desktop benches available :(

You have posted most of their results, maybe you could post their testbeds and configuration?
Is it really the norm that Intel's low power xeon draws 60W more than the 2356, I know there's a clock difference, but the difference in power draw is huge nonetheless.
I guess it's because K10's power saving features are superior + fb-dimm power draw?
11-12-2008, 02:42 AM
Slay0r

Promising data, I don't mean to sound :banana::banana::banana::banana:y but I'd like to see the very benchmarks before I place a proper judgement. If it's anything like the op describes, it's a good step ahead for AMD.
11-12-2008, 02:47 AM
Lastviking

I know this is not right but a fun compair only...

Opteron 2356/2384 2.3 to 2.7 = 0.4ghz more clock speed(gives about 19,54% more with some core improve ment to)
Xeon 2.66 to 3.33 = 0.67ghz more clock speed(gives about 15,95% more with some core improve ment to)

I wanted to compair how much 0.4ghz more clock speed on the Shanghai give vs Xeon in increase performence.

15.95/0.67 = 23,80
23,80*0.4= 9.52%

So 0.4ghz more clocks gives about 9.52% more performence in the tests on the Xeon
And 0.4ghz more clocks gives about 19.54% more performence in the test on the 2356/2384

Vs the old 65nm cpus..

But this is only stupid numbers.....they may not scale same also.

Sry for my bad english.
11-12-2008, 02:51 AM
Bellisimo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

You have posted most of their results, maybe you could post their testbeds and configuration?
Is it really the norm that Intel's low power xeon draws 60W more than the 2356, I know there's a clock difference, but the difference in power draw is huge nonetheless.
I guess it's because K10's power saving features are superior + fb-dimm power draw?

thats not accessible through URL tricks, sorry
11-12-2008, 02:53 AM
duploxxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

No, he is right. In the face of hype the results are disappointing. Some people took AMD's word (marketing!) at face value: 15-20% IPC gains, and even insulted the sceptics, I believe some people need to apologise. :p:

Expected IPC gains and great power consumption if those benches are to be trusted.

In this test-suite (workstation/sever workloads mostly) IPC is about equal to Penryn with better power consumption. :clap: For desktop, though, Penryn is still untouchable - no fb-dimms and no need for high bandwidth.

if you use hyping=truth yes then you are right, you will see in many released benchmarks (mainly spec since those are the preferred supplier benchmarks for both intel and amd) that the gains are fully within there marketing hype.

it is like it is already been for a long time, you buy certain servers for specific application types and group them, if you don't do that you have no idea about IT. Although Intel was able to regain some market share on that ground because of the much higher clock speed against barcelona, this is now gone again.

desktop is another discussion, at least they will be able to regain some market share and competition.

for desktop they
11-12-2008, 03:03 AM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by duploxxx

for desktop they

they WHAT? :p:

Anyway, @ Jacky, my stance on Deneb was that it would be win/lose partial WRT Yorkfield, and I'm probably going to maintain it. Those who asked for a complete win without a revamp of at least the caches would be delusional.

If what Johan of Anandtech referred to in his VM testing was indeed the Shanghai CPU, AMD was spot on in their promises there. As far as I remember, the 25+% promise was always focused on serverside, desktop never mentioned.

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