Also, Realstorm failed to detect SSE2 and SSE3.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Printable View
Also, Realstorm failed to detect SSE2 and SSE3.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
~30C after 5hours @ 100% load :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slay0r
Thanks for the information, s7. Really a shame these problems with ccNUMA and Dual-Channel
What's your ambient temperature??? And processor clock??:eek: :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
@Dave: Dave, could get something running in any mobo that included all HT links and the energy split?
Thanks a lot you both! Your information is absolutelly "unique" for all us! :) :up:
Dave got 1573KB/s with the 2347s back on page 7 for me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
winrar should be good on these chips. Irrc, Anand's review showed the 2350 to be equivalent to a Xeon at 2.7G. It was the Barcelona's best showing.
Hey Stephen, can you run kribibench? Here's from my T7400ES laptop with 2gb ram @ 533mhz 4-4-4-12. Will toss up a woodcrest score in a bit.
Kribibench: http://www.adeptdevelopment.com/
edit
Woodcrest 5120's @ 2709mhz with 4x1GB FB-DIMM's @ 386mhz 5-5-5-15, i5000x chipset snoopfilter enabled. (@2.33ghz scores were 2.88fps using a remote viewing application to bench)
What about some S&M running? It should rape those poor opterons to their max. ;)
(Not a bench, more like a CPU toaster)
http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/fclick/fclick.php?fid=301
s7e9h3n, since you don't appear to be a Linux guy, what about installing OpenSSL for Windows (light version: only 1 MB) ? Get it from [1]. Then assuming you install it in the default location (C:\OpenSSL), open a command prompt and run this (if you get an error "MSVCR71.DLL could not be found", install Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 [2] and copy C:\winnt\microsoft.net\framework\v1.1.4322\msvcr71 .dll to C:\openssl\bin\):
"openssl speed" should take about 10 min to complete (single threaded by default, the Linux version can be run in multi-threaded mode), it benchmarks:Code:C:\> cd openssl\bin
C:\> openssl speed
md2, md4, md5, hmac(md5), sha1, sha256, sha512, rmd160, rc4, des, triple des, aes-128, aes-192, aes-256, idea, rc2, blowfish, cast, 512-bit rsa, 1024-bit rsa, 2048-bit rsa, 4096-bit rsa, 512-bit dsa, 1024-bit dsa, 2048-bit dsa.
All these algorithms are 100% ALU code (except on Linux, where sha512 uses SSE2), some are coded in C, others are in assembly. They all scale pretty much linearly with the clock frequency. They should all easily fit in the Barcelona L2 cache so they should not be influenced by the memory subsystem at all. The only downside of the Windows version is that it is compiled as a 32-bit executable. Some algorithms would see a significant gain by running in 64-bit mode: RSA and DSA would be about 3 times faster, RC4 30% faster, MD5 15% faster, etc. Anyway see below for a table of results I obtain on a old Pentium M 1.2 GHz: the fastest hash algorithm is MD4 (240 MB/s) and the fastest symmetric cryptographic algorithm is RC4 (173 MB/s).
Others should run this benchmark on Intel Core-based CPUs so we can compare against Barcelona...
[1] http://www.slproweb.com/download/Win...ght-0_9_8e.exe
[2] http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...7-034D1E7CF3A3
- ZCode:--- openssl speed results for Pentium M 1.2 GHz on 32-bit Windows ---
OpenSSL 0.9.8e 23 Feb 2007
built on: Wed Feb 28 01:35:20 2007
options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(idx,cisc,4,long) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: cl /MD /Ox /O2 /Ob2 /W3 /WX /Gs0 /GF /Gy /nologo -DOPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32 -DWIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN -DL_ENDIAN -DDSO_WIN32 -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE -D_CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE -DBN_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DSHA1_ASM -DRMD160_ASM -DOPENSSL_USE_APPLINK -I. /Fdout32dll -DOPENSSL_NO_CAMELLIA -DOPENSSL_NO_RC5 -DOPENSSL_NO_MDC2 -DOPENSSL_NO_KRB5 -DOPENSSL_NO_DYNAMIC_ENGINE
available timing options: TIMEB HZ=1000
timing function used: ftime
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md2 858.35k 1797.09k 2502.85k 2744.40k 2863.25k
mdc2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
md4 9161.87k 31980.97k 92768.68k 175310.51k 240031.58k
md5 8152.99k 28237.34k 79240.60k 145100.25k 190056.26k
hmac(md5) 10780.19k 35380.04k 91967.75k 145100.25k 190056.26k
sha1 7774.79k 24811.94k 60322.57k 94813.31k 113321.28k
rmd160 6563.34k 19407.97k 42649.42k 61353.87k 70065.63k
rc4 139810.13k 164676.25k 171511.10k 173175.23k 172640.63k
des cbc 24185.12k 24973.53k 25206.15k 25934.79k 25747.72k
des ede3 9060.93k 9176.90k 9272.75k 9249.70k 9224.45k
idea cbc 17098.67k 18045.84k 18291.77k 18448.67k 18418.29k
rc2 cbc 8794.01k 9978.72k 10044.43k 10053.46k 10053.46k
rc5-32/12 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
blowfish cbc 40223.49k 42441.73k 43118.01k 43656.56k 43464.29k
cast cbc 38347.92k 40672.04k 41455.93k 41620.48k 41775.94k
aes-128 cbc 35091.44k 36897.33k 36033.54k 37282.70k 37282.70k
aes-192 cbc 31034.44k 31956.60k 32634.15k 32640.50k 32634.15k
aes-256 cbc 27535.23k 28787.26k 28941.20k 28941.20k 29021.30k
camellia-128 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
camellia-192 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
camellia-256 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
sha256 5540.33k 13459.46k 24542.45k 31236.67k 33872.84k
sha512 1843.35k 7146.39k 11545.61k 16405.63k 18504.62k
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.001189s 0.000100s 840.7 9986.3
rsa 1024 bits 0.005844s 0.000300s 171.1 3329.8
rsa 2048 bits 0.035111s 0.001049s 28.5 953.4
rsa 4096 bits 0.234300s 0.003362s 4.3 297.5
sign verify sign/s verify/s
dsa 512 bits 0.000940s 0.001159s 1063.5 862.5
dsa 1024 bits 0.002772s 0.003363s 360.7 297.3
dsa 2048 bits 0.009327s 0.010798s 107.2 92.6
--- end ---
Saw this from David Kanter over at RWT. Barc non _rate SPEC benches.
http://realworldtech.com/forums/inde...83478&roomid=2
Good god, those #'s make the Barcelona look exceedingly bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
The link doesn't seem to be working
worked for me.
wish it didn't. it'll make me have nightmares tonight. :P
Works fine for me. If you want you can try just going to the main RWT site then going to the forums. Not hard to find Kanter's post there about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilDoc
Beware guys, in these non-rate SPEC results, Intel actually make use of the Intel compiler auto-parallelization feature when AMD does not (AFAIK), meaning that you are comparing apples to oranges (code automatically multi-threaded by the compiler on Intel vs. mono-threaded code on AMD).
Besides, these non-rate AMD numbers have been available for about a month at [2].
It looks like Intel is working very hard at producing the best SPEC results possible. A few weeks ago the best SPECfp2006 score for a dual Xeon X5365 3.0 GHz was 16.9 [3], and just now they publish a score of 21.4 with the same CPUs [1] (which is the real news brought by this realworldtech.com post). Look at the peak score of the subtest 436.cactusADM for example: it jumped from 20.1 to 95.9 just by using the -parallel compilation flag (check it for yourself in [1] and [3]).
What Intel is doing does not violate the SPEC rules (they explicitely allow auto-parallelization), but it makes any sort of direct comparison of the performance of Opteron vs. Xeon impossible.
[1] http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...903-01960.html
[2] ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/b...cpu_091007.pdf
[3] http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...820-01861.html
- Z
I search the non-paralle single-thread test of intel. The search results of non-auto-paralle shock me:
SPECfp2006(base/peak)
AMD 1.9GHz - 10.7/11.2
Intel 1.86GHz - 12.3/12.5 (test data: 2007.6.25)
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...625-01332.html
Intel 3GHz - 18.7/19.3 (test data: 2007.7.23)
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...723-01537.html
To surprise, the non-paralle result of SPECint2006 is much faster than the paralle result.
SPECint2006(base/peak)
Intel 3GHz 20.2/22.6 (test data: 2007.7.23)
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...723-01539.html
Which does one rule the single-thread test?
hargen: you link to SPEC results of mono-processor machines (Xeon UP 3040 and C2D E6850). They use faster unbuffered DDR2 RAM, which give them an advantage compared to the 2P results (Opteron 23xx and Xeon 53xx) we have been discussing so far (most of the SPECfp2006 tests are very memory-intensive).
- Z
SPECfp2006 rates tests are very memory-intensive. But SPECfp2006 tests of non-paralle are single-thread floating-point tests,and more depend on the core raw power. Xeon 3040 1.86G uses ecc ddr2 ram, but opteron uses ecc ddr2 ram too. The difference isn't that large - 2% or less?
I have to agree that "AMD will need to increase the frequency substantially to keep competitive with Intel on the desktop", because single-thread or two-thread performance will rule the desktop in future 20 months.
Depends on the application. For the average desktop user, Quad Core is overkill. Browsing the web, spreadsheets and word-processing don't require anything other than duel core.Quote:
Originally Posted by hargen
For a gamer, quad core will rule the roost. All of the latest game coming out in the next 20 months will take advantage of multiple cores.
I've no doubt a 2.6-3.0ghz Phenom will be competitive with equally priced Intels but I very much doubt we will see a AMD take the performance crown for a long time to come.
Speaking of the Phenom. Are any of these chips actual Duel cores or are they all Quads but with two core disabled?
Do not use games to determine the performance of the desktop. game tests are favour of intel: games use too many branch, load/store-dependency-chain and so on. Only 10-20% of the instructoins in games are floating-point instructions. game tests are biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
Oh WOW, I love the Sig LOL!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
@hargen
Yes, games should be used since many of us here are Gamers and give our computers a good workout. When they brought up games, they were talking about Desktops, not Servers.
I'm waiting on Quad Core 45nm and that's why I didn't go with the G0 C2Q.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
Thanks, finally got it to work, don't know what the problem was. Yep, pretty sad, still haven't seen anything to turn me off or on either way. Besides, I still have a few months to decide.
What concerns me more is the inability to get the systems to run correctly
My post was in response to you saying single threaded will be the way forward to the next 20 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by hargen
This is not correct. Quad core will be the way forward from now on. Most applications other than basic Office apps, are making use of multicore. The more cores, the more it will use.
Dual core will be the norm for low spec machines but expect quad core to be mainstream.
I looked at the SPEC scores in details, and I don't understand where you see that the "non-paralle result of SPECint2006 is much faster than the parallel". Here is a SPECint2006 result with auto-parallelization for a 3 GHz Xeon [1]: 20.9/24.3. This is better than your non-parallel 20.2/22.6.Quote:
Originally Posted by hargen
[1] http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...916-02014.html