Barcelona Opteron 2350(B1) arrived

Printable View

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

10-25-2007, 10:40 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

My son,
didn't you have a RD790 board?:shrug:

Hammerhead is an AM2+ platform, not socketF. I'm waiting for a Phenom to run on the board. I could run an AM2, but what's the point?
10-25-2007, 10:40 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

My son,
didn't you have a RD790 board?:shrug:

His Phenoms are not there yet (at least that's what i think he said),so the board sits waiting for its master :D
10-25-2007, 10:40 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

His Phenoms are not there yet (at least that's what i think he said),so the board sits waiting for its master :D

jinx :D
10-25-2007, 10:42 AM
BeardyMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Hammerhead is an AM2+ platform, not socketF. I'm waiting for a Phenom to run on the board. I could run an AM2, but what's the point?

Are you expecting them soon or???:D
10-25-2007, 11:04 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

Are you expecting them soon or???:D

Yes...very soon...along with B2 Barcelonas ;)
10-25-2007, 11:12 AM
PhilDoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightman

All you guys comparing SuperPi scores seems forgetting that he is running Registered RAM! Only comparision to Opteron 2xxx with same memory will be valid. Still it is nice to know how relatively better Barcelona is compared to desktop K8...

Yes, I know. Thats why I said my comparison probably wasn't valid. But. considering all the disadvatages, K10, still appears quicker even when compaired to more advantageous memory systems.
10-25-2007, 12:16 PM
akaBruno

If AMD built them to run SuperPie they would have named them Kobayashi. :D
10-25-2007, 01:11 PM
Cronos

32sec at 2.4GHz in SuperPi, that means -at the very best - 21sec at 3.6 GHz.
Much much slower than Core2 can do.
K10 is not going to be new SuperPi King for sure:)

Can the respected owner run some more SMP benches, like Frits Chess Benchmark, wprime, 9.1 Cinebench ?
10-25-2007, 01:28 PM
Kasparz

AMD never been spi king. Even when Intel had netburst. But this is one of signs that K10 will be beast for sure.
10-25-2007, 01:45 PM
Lastviking

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cronos

32sec at 2.4GHz in SuperPi, that means -at the very best - 21sec at 3.6 GHz.
Much much slower than Core2 can do.
K10 is not going to be new SuperPi King for sure:)

Can the respected owner run some more SMP benches, like Frits Chess Benchmark, wprime, 9.1 Cinebench ?

Hmmm how can you get 21s @ 3.6 ghz?

The memmory are still runing at very slow speed 401mhz 5-5-5
And 400mhz more core speed give 7.078s improvement in super pi.

2.0 ghz = 39.750
2.4ghz = 32,672 -7.078s
2.8ghz = 25,594 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)
3.2ghz = 18,516 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)
3.6ghz = 11,438 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)

This is what it will give if the scaling is linear, but i dont think it is. And Core2Duo will giving more boost in super pi1m becuse of larger L2.

We will still need to see how fast it is @ 2.8ghz in super pi 1m, and super p1m is not evry thing.
10-25-2007, 01:47 PM
JacKz5o

Nice chips :D
10-25-2007, 01:51 PM
Cronos

Cinebench score is better, although again not as good as on Core2. Single Core 2 Quad 3600MHz scores 14700 here.
It is more-or-less obvious that k10 is not going to reach Core2 performance level per clock. Superior memory subsystem can give it significant advantage on server platform, but the desktop is still ruled by Intel Core2. Lets hope AMD will be able to overcome GHz shortage and compete here.
10-25-2007, 01:58 PM
Cronos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lastviking

Hmmm how can you get 21s @ 3.6 ghz?

The memmory are still runing at very slow speed 401mhz 5-5-5
And 400mhz more core speed give 7.078s improvement in super pi.

2.0 ghz = 39.750
2.4ghz = 32,672 -7.078s
2.8ghz = 25,594 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)
3.2ghz = 18,516 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)
3.6ghz = 11,438 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)

Too bad you missed your math classes in the school. Sometimes, you can learn something really usefull there :)
50% increase in CPU clock speed (2.4->3.6) gives you 50% improvement in execution times. That is, provided the memory is speeded up accordingly, which is not the case here.
32/1.5=21.3, thats the best we can expect from K10 at 3.6 GHz. Faster memory can win, maybe, 1-2 seconds here -no more.
10-25-2007, 02:05 PM
Andi64

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lastviking

Hmmm how can you get 21s @ 3.6 ghz?

The memmory are still runing at very slow speed 401mhz 5-5-5
And 400mhz more core speed give 7.078s improvement in super pi.

2.0 ghz = 39.750
2.4ghz = 32,672 -7.078s
2.8ghz = 25,594 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)
3.2ghz = 18,516 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)
3.6ghz = 11,438 -7.078s (dont think this is correct)

This is what it will give if the scaling is linear, but i dont think it is. And Core2Duo will giving more boost in super pi1m becuse of larger L2.

We will still need to see how fast it is @ 2.8ghz in super pi 1m, and super p1m is not evry thing.

And at 4.4Ghz we can expect -2.718s 1M Super Pi! Phenom can travel through time :) before you click you have the answer!
10-25-2007, 02:47 PM
Lastviking

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cronos

Too bad you missed your math classes in the school. Sometimes, you can learn something really usefull there :)
50% increase in CPU clock speed (2.4->3.6) gives you 50% improvement in execution times. That is, provided the memory is speeded up accordingly, which is not the case here.
32/1.5=21.3, thats the best we can expect from K10 at 3.6 GHz. Faster memory can win, maybe, 1-2 seconds here -no more.

Is the scaling same on all cpus?K8, Core2Duo, K10? . And like i wrote before you see the ( ) next time you dont skip your read classes :)

We need more tests before we can make how much it will scale, and if all stuff works likes it should be working.

Writing 21,3s is wrong before we know.

2.0ghz = 39.750
2.4ghz = 32,672 ~7.0s
2.8ghz = 27,672 ~5.0s (dont think this is correct)
3.2ghz = 23,672 ~4.0s (dont think this is correct)
3.6ghz = 20,672 ~3.0s (dont think this is correct)

Correcting abit...after some testing, but i think this is fair away from right. The show before was if evry 400mhz of K10 give 7s like someone write before thats not are correct(like Andi and one more before wrote it will give -times to early ^^
10-25-2007, 03:47 PM
PhilDoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cronos

Cinebench score is better, although again not as good as on Core2. Single Core 2 Quad 3600MHz scores 14700 here.
It is more-or-less obvious that k10 is not going to reach Core2 performance level per clock. Superior memory subsystem can give it significant advantage on server platform, but the desktop is still ruled by Intel Core2. Lets hope AMD will be able to overcome GHz shortage and compete here.

Thats strange I just looked at the Anand article on the G0 stepping q6600 and at 3.33G it scored 1792 for cinebench. That was on cinebench 9.5, but I can't see the score jumping that much on version 10. I would bet the 14700 is the muticore score and we are talking about 2.4G vs 3.6G. What does the q6600 score stock is the question.
10-25-2007, 03:58 PM
Cronos

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilDoc

Thats strange I just looked at the Anand article on the G0 stepping q6600 and at 3.33G it scored 1792 for cinebench. That was on cinebench 9.5, but I can't see the score jumping that much on version 10. I would bet the 14700 is the muticore score and we are talking about 2.4G vs 3.6G. What does the q6600 score stock is the question.

Q6600 G0 @3600MHz
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/907...4q36co8.th.png

At 3.6GHz, the K10 will score no more than 7709*1.5=11563
10-25-2007, 04:02 PM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilDoc

Thats strange I just looked at the Anand article on the G0 stepping q6600 and at 3.33G it scored 1792 for cinebench. That was on cinebench 9.5, but I can't see the score jumping that much on version 10. I would bet the 14700 is the muticore score and we are talking about 2.4G vs 3.6G. What does the q6600 score stock is the question.

Cinebench R10 is significantly different. The stock Q6600 in 32-bit Cinebench R10 scores a bit higher than 2400/8600.
10-25-2007, 04:07 PM
PhilDoc

Agreed from looking at the q6600 scores cinebench 10 is different, but the single core score for the q6600 at 3.6G is 4471 not 14700. Just as I thought that was the muticore score. Certainly still quicker, but I'd still like to see its score at stock.
10-25-2007, 04:10 PM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Yes...very soon...along with B2 Barcelonas ;)

How come no one shouted out OMGZ !!! when steven said B2 Barcelonas...are people THAT disconnected when it comes to amd 0_o...

B2 Barcelonas = penryn fighting power people.

Perkam
10-25-2007, 04:12 PM
Cronos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lastviking

Is the scaling same on all cpus?K8, Core2Duo, K10? . And like i wrote before you see the ( ) next time you dont skip your read classes :)

The scaling is different of course, but can differ only to the lower numbers, not higher. I.e.
50% more clock speed can give you anywhere from 0 to 50% improvement in scores/exec times.
10-25-2007, 04:33 PM
KTE

Thanks kyosen-san. :)

Here's the crack so far.

Tech Report review showed Barcelona scaling more than 100% in performance in comparison to core speed in a few cases. Because it's not just core speed we're talking about, but L3 cache speed/latency and IMC speed.

SPI/Cinebench 10 (incl. S7s old 8-core CB tests)

2GHz K10 39.750s - 2.4GHz K10 32.672s
(2GHz) 8 cores/DDR2-667/NB1.6GHz CB 1907/12941 - 4 cores/DDR2-800/NB1.8GHz CB 1984/7709

SPI Scaling
20% clock change ((2400-2000)/2000 x 100)
17.8% performance increase ((39.750-32.672)/39.750 x 100)

17.8/20 x 100 = 89% scaling
10-25-2007, 05:18 PM
Cronos

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

SPI Scaling
20% clock change ((2400-2000)/2000 x 100)
17.8% performance increase ((39.750-32.672)/39.750 x 100)

17.8/20 x 100 = 89% scaling

Actually it should be ((39.750-32.672)/32.675 = 21.7%.

The speedup is higher than 20%, but this is just withing error margin.
There is one reason there speedup may be higher than increase in clock speed -if there are some background application(s) clogging the cpu.
Higher CPU clock will leave more resources for the main application.
10-25-2007, 05:34 PM
PhilDoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cronos

Actually it should be ((39.750-32.672)/32.675 = 21.7%.

The speedup is higher than 20%, but this is just withing error margin.
There is one reason there speedup may be higher than increase in clock speed -if there are some background application(s) clogging the cpu.
Higher CPU clock will leave more resources for the main application.

KTE's equation is correct. you use the higher score on the bottom.

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