Here's a little teaser....

Printable View

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

10-06-2007, 01:04 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by hargen

lol. Now, I can talk with you in this thread, and my account is activated as hargen. I can upload the test file here. In this test. Whether B1 have some performance bugs, such as lack of out-of-order loading or lack of two 128-bit sse loads/cycle?

The source file and executable files are include in the following zip file.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6676/id2ep6.jpg
10-06-2007, 01:27 PM
BrowncoatGR

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6676/id2ep6.jpg

I dunno if im misinterpreting the numbers but those results seem slow to me
10-06-2007, 02:14 PM
xPliziT

1 Attachment(s)

I think it does not that bad.

This is from a Athlon 64 @ 3500 MHz.
Especially the sse load operation seems to be much much faster than the Athlon 64's. 2 loads/cycle vs 0.5 loads/cycle....
10-06-2007, 08:30 PM
DeepThought86

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by xPliziT

I think it does not that bad.

This is from a Athlon 64 @ 3500 MHz.
Especially the sse load operation seems to be much much faster than the Athlon 64's. 2 loads/cycle vs 0.5 loads/cycle....

That's FANTASTIC. This is what I get on a Sempron 3000+ :D :
10-06-2007, 08:36 PM
Carfax

Those scores seem accurate for the K10, as it can do 2 128-bit loads per cycle.

The Core 2 can only do 1 load per cycle I believe.
10-06-2007, 08:46 PM
PhilDoc

1 Attachment(s)

Looks great to me, here's one from a Opteron 185.
10-06-2007, 09:03 PM
MAS

s7e9h3n, what about

http://slil.ru/24945619

http://slil.ru/24945621

to test?
10-06-2007, 09:28 PM
Mad_Man

1 Attachment(s)

only problem with this bench is that its non coherent. by a high margin, not just variation between runs.

here is ss from my 5200+@3.17Ghz, everytime it gives way another results lol...

i would preffer to see PCmark05 CPU tests results
10-06-2007, 10:00 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAS

s7e9h3n, what about

http://slil.ru/24945619

http://slil.ru/24945621

to test?

Dunno what these benches prove as they're single threaded tests ;)

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6938/mashn3.jpg
10-06-2007, 11:03 PM
MAS

whether they single or multythreaded - that doesn't matter

they show the raw power of a core

here is K8 2GHz result

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3...6987987ag9.jpg
10-06-2007, 11:12 PM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAS

whether they single or multythreaded - that doesn't matter

they show the raw power of a core

here is K8 2GHz result

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3...6987987ag9.jpg

I was referring more to the bench that told me my Barcelona performed like a k8 venice @ ddr400 =P.
10-06-2007, 11:15 PM
MAS

here is an old coolaler's ss
you can compare results
conroe is obviously a little faster
the program generates and verifies electronic signature on elliptic curves, this is pure INT test
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4773/image001fg0.gif
10-07-2007, 12:08 AM
SOLDNER-MOFO64

Tisk tisk, where are PC MARK cpu scores?

Where are 3D MARK cpu scores?

Where are NUCLEARUS runs?

Where are WINRAR benches?

Where is CINEBENCH scores?

This SSE drivel is all fine and well for the truely boring people, but REAL-WORLD users wanna see REAL-WORLD numbers.

C'mon.....lets run a benchmark that people know and can relate to.
10-07-2007, 12:57 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64

Tisk tisk, where are PC MARK cpu scores?

Where are 3D MARK cpu scores?

Where are NUCLEARUS runs?

Where are WINRAR benches?

Where is CINEBENCH scores?

This SSE drivel is all fine and well for the truely boring people, but REAL-WORLD users wanna see REAL-WORLD numbers.

C'mon.....lets run a benchmark that people know and can relate to.

In order:

Will run when I install 32bit XP

Thought I gave those already?

Ok...will put it + Winrar in the queue gonna finish this WCG bench first..

Thought I ran that as well?

TBH, I don't find anything interesting in a lot of these benches myself, but some people don't have their own Barcelona setups to bench for themselves. All I can do is try to accomodate as many requests as I can and when I finally get my L1n64 to work with these chips, I'll run what I want to run :yepp:
10-07-2007, 02:59 AM
pumero

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6676/id2ep6.jpg

I tested it with Core 1 and Core 2 for comparison and the results are always the same.

Core 1:
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8...ore1lh9.th.png

Core 2:
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4...ore2vu9.th.png
10-07-2007, 04:09 AM
KTE

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumero

I tested it with Core 1 and Core 2 for comparison and the results are always the same.

Core 1: http://img267.imageshack.us/my.php?i...d2core1lh9.png
Core 2: http://img524.imageshack.us/my.php?i...d2core2vu9.png

Do you mean not the same? :confused: Those results you posted are both different to one another, first one is worse than a P4 2.8GHz, second one is very slightly better.

These short tests seem to have a large inaccuracy when being run, since they're that quickly over - just look at the deviation.
10-07-2007, 05:30 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

Is this what AMDs been telling you? :confused:

I'd like to know bcause my uncles been working with AMD negotiating on behalf of his firm for quite a while, in particular for mass orders of Barcelona and they've repeatedly insisted to him quite the opposite (they had B1s for testing too and were not impressed). Only Friday was the last talk they had, and the guy working with him is manager of business development.

OK...finally found BA rig for comparison....take a look here:

http://www.google.com/translate?u=ht...&hl=en&ie=UTF8

Here's a summary of his results using a pair of BA 2347's on a Tyan board:

First bench mark results (syntetisch):

SiSoft Sandra IIX (tested under servers 2003 hr. 32-Bit)

and/or two CCUs put

49.800/24,726 Dhrystone ALU (MIPS)
48.612/24,363 Whetstone FPU (MFLOPS)
7.166/4,282 MB/s memory range
58.839/27,382 MB/s Cache/Speicherbandbreite

143.637/71,667 iit/s Multimedia Integer x4 aEMMX/aSSE
184.910/94,299 fit/s Multimedia floating point x4 iSSE2

Cinebench 10 (1-Core/8-Core, tested under Longhorn 32-Bit/64-Bit)

32-Bit CB 10064
64-Bit CB 1813/12383 points factor: 6.83

Cinebench 9,5 (1-Core/8-Core, tested under Longhorn 64-Bit)

64-Bit CB 271/1519 points factor: 5.61

SuperPi

superpi 1M = 43s

3DMark2006 (tested tied up with ATI X1900XT 256MB, over PCI-E x8)

5463 points

From those results, I guess it's fair to conclude that the BA's ARE different than the B!'s, BUT not in the way that everyone (besides me :p: ) has been ASSUMING to this point. I don't know about the Sandra Benches, but if you compare BOTH tsuehpsyde AND dave_graham's B1 Cinebench results from earlier in this thread with this guy's BA's, you'll see that the B1's results OBLITERATED the BA's. And for good measure, dave_graham even beat the BA's 1m score with his B1's. I know it's not exactly a mountain of evidence, but it's something ;)
10-07-2007, 05:37 AM
s7e9h3n

Upon further review, it looks like tsuehpsyde's B1's beat the BA's across the board in Sandra (with the exception of the memory bandwidth bench which is quite erratic.)

Also note that the guy is running the same mobo as Dave....;)
10-07-2007, 05:49 AM
PhilDoc

I'll have to look through the other results. Two things right off the top of my head though, I couldn't tell if he got it to run in dual chanel and He was running the 2347s not the 2350s you guys are running. He's also running the card in a X8 slot and my experience you'll lose score.
10-07-2007, 05:51 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilDoc

I'll have to look through the other results. Two things right off the top of my head though, I couldn't tell if he got it to run in dual chanel and He was running the 2347s not the 2350s you guys are running. He's also running the card in a X8 slot and my experience you'll lose score.

I'm the only one running 2350's here....everyone else has been running 2347's - that's why I wasn't using my results to compare to ;) And my PCIE runs @ x8 as well.....

EDIT: And IF he did happen to accomplish running in Dual Channel for those benchmarks, that would make it even more sad:p:
10-07-2007, 05:58 AM
PhilDoc

You're right, my mistake. Just assumed everyone got the 2350s for review. The results are sad.
10-07-2007, 06:48 AM
KTE

s7e9h3n that's awesome mate! :)

I have some evidence against him now to pass on (because he's been arguing like a child oppositely). Its enough to show the point quite clearly although I did see the guy talking about waiting for a new Tyan BIOS further on in the thread with sad faces, which in sign language would tell me something is not too perfect. :D

If all went perfect with the system then that shows B1 as representative of BA, simply put.
10-07-2007, 06:54 AM
Lightman

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

Do you mean not the same? :confused: Those results you posted are both different to one another, first one is worse than a P4 2.8GHz, second one is very slightly better.

These short tests seem to have a large inaccuracy when being run, since they're that quickly over - just look at the deviation.

KTE he put words properly... Basically he tested Core Duo (32bit Intel CPU) and then he tested Core 2 Duo (64bit Intel CPU) :p:
Besides this test is very consistent, at least for me! Maybe it has to do something with OS or BIOS that some of you are getting big result variations?:confused:

@pumero Thanks for your input! :up:

@s7e9h3n I'm really grateful for your work! If I would live in US then you've got a beer on me (or if you ever come to UK :))! Still waiting for some OC!
PS. Can you try RealStorm benchmark?

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