From my past experiences with WCG, Intel CPU has always had 5 ~ 10% performance advantage over AMD cpu. In some cases, AMD CPU suffered more performance loss.
If you are after pure points generation, it might be better to stick with Intel.
Printable View
From my past experiences with WCG, Intel CPU has always had 5 ~ 10% performance advantage over AMD cpu. In some cases, AMD CPU suffered more performance loss.
If you are after pure points generation, it might be better to stick with Intel.
I've had my 1090T running since yesterday too, most results still pending validation though. Heres the CPU benchmark results. When I get a better idea of how its going to produce I'll let you all know
OS: Ubuntu 9.10 64-bit
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/459...inccpubenc.jpg
What clock speeds is that at?
If you run HFCC or FAAH exclusively for a few days you'll get your exact output as they have quorum 1. Aka, no PV.
I have made no changes to BIOS so it should be running stock, but they are all running at 3.6. I suspect there is something wacky going on with ubuntu and the turbo mode on these chips. CPU-Z does not work on Ubuntu Linux so I ran CPUINFO and took screenies. Hope thats good enough for you all. I took screenies of all 6 cores so I could make sure it wasn't throttling 2 of them(like its supposed to...)
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1...tcpu0speed.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/720...tcpu1speed.jpg
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1...tcpu2speed.jpg
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9...tcpu3speed.jpg
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/9...tcpu4speed.jpg
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4...tcpu5speed.jpg
I have done no over clocking with it yet, not intentionally anyway. I wanted to get it on for the supercomputer challenge and I will play with it after.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say 25,000 ppd. If it ends up being more than that, my interest in these new Phenoms increases a lot.:D
I find disabling "Cool 'n Quiet" in the BIOS is worth the minute or so to do. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Someguy1982
I would be happy to see this, I was hoping for 23k or so. I would definatly take 25k tho :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
Its already been disabled, I'm wondering if that is what is keeping it from underclocking a few cores. It's supposed to be running at 3.2... The fact that is running at the "turbo mode" speed without underclocking a few cores had me a little worried at first, but it seems like all cores are running at 3.6Quote:
Originally Posted by D_A
Hard to say with a totally new CPU which is why I said I was taking a wild guess. Yes, 25K would be very good. Anything on top of that would be gravy. If it's above 27K, then I'm driving to the nearest Fry's right away.:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Someguy1982
I like your estimate better then mine, and I hope you are closer to the truth then I! :)
At this point I'm guessing that "turbo mode" is just a more aggressive version of Cool 'n Quiet, or at least uses some of it's functionality. Regardless, that's a 400MHz overclock for free.
Yep, I wont complain about that. I think it's supposed to boost some cores and slow the other cores. It just isn't working right.
AMD's turbo mode is similar to Intel's version. This is what Anandtech said about it:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3641/a...o-core-enabledQuote:
Turbo Core kicks in when 3 or more cores (on a 6-core part) are idle. When this happens, the frequency of those three cores is reduced to 800MHz, the voltage to the entire chip is increased, and the remaining three cores are turboed up by as much as 500MHz. It doesn’t get any more granular than this. If you have 3 or more cores idle, then the remaining turbo up. In any other situation the CPU runs at its normal clocks.
Looks like that chip is running at full "turbo" with all six cores then.
Just a thought ... CPUinfo might be reporting the LISTED speed of the cores rather than the actual running speed.
Yeah that's what it looks like. Only change I made in BIOS(besides setting the time) is turning CnQ off.
I would think the listed speed should be 3.2 though. You're a more experianced linux user then I, D A, you have any suggestions on better programs to use to monitor core speed? Its also reporting 3.6 at the system monitor.
Could be, in Windows you can get the CPU speed from the registry but its the max speed, not real time.Quote:
Originally Posted by D_A
fwiw, heres an X6 @ 4138 scoring 3414/10815 in bionc on win7-64.
SS is in second post... http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=250930
There's a CPU frequency scaling applet that you can run in your task bar. I've used it before to let me monitor the CPU frequency but with the CnQ type stuff enabled it also lets you UNDERclock your CPU from the desktop. I disabled that part. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Someguy1982
Attachment 103741
Attachment 103742
There's also an app called "Perlmon" which just gathers all that kind of info from the various system files.
I run that one too, it says 3.6. Is that real-time though? In BIOS it says 3.2 Ghz but in Ubuntu everything says 3.6. I get a warning message when Ubuntu starts saying "cannot use CPU scaling" and I assume It's from disabling CnQ. I suppose I could Reboot and see if it changes. Do I REALLY want to lose that 400mhz though...
Well ... it's only supposed to be for when you're running a heavy single threaded load and it down clocks the other cores to help keep the heat down. Now I'm not gonna take any responsibility if you cook your shiny new hexa-core chip, but I'd GUESS that if you can keep the heat under control it SHOULD be ok.
Enabling Cool 'n Quiet in BIOS brought the speed down to 3.2. Now to restart and set it to run at 3.6, since I know that works.
Here is the BOINC benchmark at 3.2ghz
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2...chmark3200.jpg
What are you using to monitor your temperatures and what cooler are you using?
I've got a TRUE on it, and LM-sensors but I haven't gotten it working yet.
have you run sensors-detect? (sudo sensors-detect)