Here's a little teaser....

Printable View

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

10-07-2007, 08:19 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

Aren't the CPU1 & CPU2 DCT0 & DCT1 the four memory controllers of the two CPUs?
What is your BIOS version?
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/al...3332303761.jpg

No, I believe the 667mhz is indicating the speed of his DDR2. DCT0 and DCT1 are memory channels 0 and 1 on each of the 2 onboard chipsets. My Bios version?

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3033/cpuzmobonw2.jpg

But note that the mobo I'm running isn't currently available anywhere. In fact, it hasn't yet officially been announced. My board is a Tyan s3993 built on the yet-to-be-released Serverworks/Broadcom HT2100 Chipset....;)
10-07-2007, 08:24 AM
s7e9h3n

Dunno if this is correct, but here's Winrar: (note this bench is single threaded)

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5550/winrarqm3.jpg

and here's that Realstorm bench - which, btw, isn't correctly identifying my hardware....

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2061/tssc1.jpg
10-07-2007, 08:27 AM
dave_graham

just thought i'd toss my 2 cents in here. there were two bios' floating around for the Barcelona before release...one offered significantly more performance than the other but it wasn't production. the actual pre-production bios was more consistent in performance (i.e. perf wasn't wildly across the spectrum) but was "slower" in measurable performance.

yes, BIOS' can have significant performance impact on CPUs.

in any case, i'm still trying to work through some day job work but if anyone's in Chicago on this coming wednesday night, let me know...I'll be in town.

dave
10-07-2007, 08:30 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

If all went perfect with the system then that shows B1 as representative of BA, simply put.

Now, that wasn't exactly what I was trying to prove as there ARE differences between BA's and B1's. But, like I've been saying, these differences are relegated to specific situations and seemingly don't appear in the tests that we currently are comparing....;)
10-07-2007, 08:35 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave_graham

just thought i'd toss my 2 cents in here. there were two bios' floating around for the Barcelona before release...one offered significantly more performance than the other but it wasn't production. the actual pre-production bios was more consistent in performance (i.e. perf wasn't wildly across the spectrum) but was "slower" in measurable performance.

yes, BIOS' can have significant performance impact on CPUs.

in any case, i'm still trying to work through some day job work but if anyone's in Chicago on this coming wednesday night, let me know...I'll be in town.

dave

Agreed about the Bios comment, but may I ask which bios you were running on your s3992?
10-07-2007, 08:42 AM
BenchZowner

Use the latest Beta version of WinRAR S7e9h3n ( 3.71 Beta 1 ), it's multithreaded and the fastest out there [ most optimized for newage cpus ].
10-07-2007, 08:45 AM
twilyth

I apologize if I missed it, because I have been trying to follow this thread as closely as I can. Have there been any results using WCG work units on either a 2P 2347 or 2350 - with or w/o oc? Even boinc benchmarks would be helpful. Just trying to get an idea for what a Phenom 4x4 rig might be able to do.
10-07-2007, 08:50 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by twilyth

I apologize if I missed it, because I have been trying to follow this thread as closely as I can. Have there been any results using WCG work units on either a 2P 2347 or 2350 - with or w/o oc? Even boinc benchmarks would be helpful. Just trying to get an idea for what a Phenom 4x4 rig might be able to do.

Yep, ran Bionc earlier today. While these aren't spectacular, expect the numbers to get better as support for this mobo appears...

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7123/wcg3tr5.jpg

EDIT: just noticed you're an XS cruncher....check the WCG lounge for a few more SS's ;)
10-07-2007, 09:03 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Use the latest Beta version of WinRAR S7e9h3n ( 3.71 Beta 1 ), it's multithreaded and the fastest out there [ most optimized for newage cpus ].

THx for the tip....Better, but still didn't load the cpu's up to 100%. Usage hovered around 60% max during the bench:

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2105/winrar2qz9.jpg
10-07-2007, 09:10 AM
nullface

That was, low had expected a bit more form a 4x4
Got 1330KB/s with X2 3600+ 'Brisbane'@2835MHz - Ram 472 mhz 4-4-4-8-11 T2.

Yeah i know bad BIOS, mobo, ram and so on, but still had expected over 2000 from a 4x4
10-07-2007, 09:15 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by nullface

That was, low had expected a bit more form a 4x4
Got 1330KB/s with X2 3600+ 'Brisbane'@2835MHz - Ram 472 mhz 4-4-4-8-11 T2.

Yeah i know bad BIOS, mobo, ram and so on, but still had expected over 2000 from a 4x4

Does your cpu usage reach 100%? I have a feeling the bench is optimized for 4 or less cores.....
10-07-2007, 09:23 AM
xPliziT

2 Attachment(s)

s7e9h3n could you please run this benchmark?

http://www.7-zip.org/

Download the beta and post some screenshots.
Since you can adjust the thread count you can see how well the system scales.
Press the stop button after the total rating appears.

Here are my results
10-07-2007, 09:23 AM
twilyth

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Yep, ran Bionc earlier today. While these aren't spectacular, expect the numbers to get better as support for this mobo appears...

EDIT: just noticed you're an XS cruncher....check the WCG lounge for a few more SS's ;)

So once you can overclock, you should be getting about 1800 mflops per core at 2.2ghz? That's assuming 10% over stock - but I'm sure you'll be pushing the envelope.

I don't know if I did the math right but if an oc'ed 6600 gets a boinc benchmark of 2400 mflops and 13,000 pts per day then a 2P 2350 getting 1800 mflops should do about 20,000 pts per day ((2400 * 4)/13000 = (1800 * 8)/x). I think that sounds about right.

Will stay tuned.
10-07-2007, 09:46 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by xPliziT

s7e9h3n could you please run this benchmark?

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/9997/7zipmw8.jpg
10-07-2007, 09:59 AM
MAS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

I am not sure if it is an INT test, but the test gives a 20% difference in score on the same setup with different RAM settings, DDR2-533 CL5 5-5-18 vs DDR2-800 CL3 4-4-9. For INT Core2 is at least 25% faster clock for clock than a Venice, so this test is not a pure INT for sure.

set "bench.exe" process priority to realtime in order to get true result - some processes obviously bother the bench

as to mentioned 25 per cent this is wrong
Conroe has only ~ 10 per cent advantage over K8 in INT instructions and up to 100 per cent in SSE instructions - in sum that gives Conroe AVERAGE advantage of 20 per cent over K8 - it's a well-known fact

Andrew
10-07-2007, 10:01 AM
JVguest

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Dunno if this is correct, but here's Winrar: (note this bench is single threaded)

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5550/winrarqm3.jpg

and here's that Realstorm bench - which, btw, isn't correctly identifying my hardware....

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2061/tssc1.jpg

The winRAR result is pretty good, and the realstorm result is bad - 1.87 GHz Conroe 2M: 6.88 fps, 3.01 GHz 10.9 fps. The matrix multiply results are really good and the 2 loads/cycle is fantastic, but something just isn't adding up. WinRAR performance would be severely affected by registered 667 Mhz single channel RAM.
10-07-2007, 10:03 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by JVguest

The winRAR result is pretty good, and the realstorm result is bad - 1.87 GHz Conroe 2M: 6.88 fps, 3.01 GHz 10.9 fps. The matrix multiply results are really good and the 2 loads/cycle is fantastic, but something just isn't adding up. WinRAR performance would be severely affected by registered 667 Mhz single channel RAM.

Could it be the fact that realstorm detects 0mb of system memory and doesn't recognize any l3 cache on the cpu? :p:

Edit: The SS doesn't show the L3 info, but trust me on this
10-07-2007, 10:09 AM
Start

Awesome job s7e9h3n. I would appreciate it if you can make a run with the Folding@Home SMP client below. :D If you get around to benchmarking it, be sure to post the Project #. Just let it run for 2% and we should be good.

Thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by JVguest

Folding @ home, SMP client: http://folding.stanford.edu/download.html

During install you'll need to be logged in as administrator and need to have a password. The install.bat file will request username and password, I think it needs to be the windows user/pass. You'll need a working internet connection to run F@H. A frame should finish in less than 25 minutes.
10-07-2007, 10:13 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by SP33DFR34K

Awesome job s7e9h3n. I would appreciate it if you can make a run with the Folding@Home SMP client below. :D If you get around to benchmarking it, be sure to post the Project #.

Thanks

Oh yeah...I actually had installed it, but never got around to running the bench since it required my login info for windows. I have that feature disabled on my OS, so I have to setup a new user account and password before I can get it to run.....I'll get it done....;)
10-07-2007, 10:19 AM
Start

Quote:

Originally Posted by s7e9h3n

Oh yeah...I actually had installed it, but never got around to running the bench since it required my login info for windows. I have that feature disabled on my OS, so I have to setup a new user account and password before I can get it to run.....I'll get it done....;)

Awesome! But just to warn you, if you didn't install the client recently, you are going to have to get the new copy. The beta for the last one expired Oct 1.
10-07-2007, 10:22 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by SP33DFR34K

Awesome! But just to warn you, if you didn't install the client recently, you are going to have to get the new copy. The beta for the last one expired Oct 1.

no worries as I ended up uninstalling the old one anyway as it kept running in the background. I must have installed @ least 20-30 progs in the last 24 hours so I can run these benches for u guys...hopefully, they'll all be just as easy to uninstall :)
10-07-2007, 10:28 AM
JohannesRS

s7, so, from your understanding:

BA are almost the same as B1?

and,

Still the same bios problems with ccNUMA and Dual-Channel?

Also, for curiosity: still nothing from the L1N front, correct?

Thanks a lot for all new info! :D
10-07-2007, 10:42 AM
Slay0r

Its gotta be a piss take to have the hardware but no bios option to overclock :(

how hot are these quads at load at their default voltage ?

thanks in advance
10-07-2007, 10:57 AM
s7e9h3n

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohannesRS

s7, so, from your understanding:

BA are almost the same as B1?

and,

Still the same bios problems with ccNUMA and Dual-Channel?

Also, for curiosity: still nothing from the L1N front, correct?

Thanks a lot for all new info! :D

Yep, pretty much so...I'd think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find some benchmarks which exploit the differences between the two. I don't doubt that there were changes made to the cpu between the steppings, but the problems which were fixed probably were rather insignificant in terms of most applications. Come to think of it, I recall a few times where I've had early stepping AMD's which never made it to production and they performed just as well/if not better than their retail counterparts (at least in the realm of the benchmarks which i ran).
Yep, still getting no support from AMD or Tyan. I really wish they would get on the ball as this board is being wasted in its crippled state....:rolleyes:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1386/ht3vq4.jpg

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

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:48 PM.

XtremeSystems