Barcelona Opteron 2350(B1) arrived

Printable View

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

10-25-2007, 06:05 PM
PhilDoc

The score I saw was 39.750 and I just looked again. His math is fine, I get the same 17.8% increase in spi time.
10-25-2007, 06:15 PM
Cronos

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilDoc

The score I saw was 39.750 and I just looked again. His math is fine, I get the same 17.8% increase in spi time.

For dual-channel mode Spi 1M time was 38.968, and it is clear that overclocked results were taken with memory in dual-channel mode.
So, 38.968 / 32.672 = 1.1927 = 19.3% it is.
10-25-2007, 06:28 PM
mrcmtl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cronos

For dual-channel mode Spi 1M time was 38.968, and it is clear that overclocked results were taken with memory in dual-channel mode.
So, 38.968 / 32.672 = 1.1927 = 19.3% it is.

can't you see the Single word written on cpu-z at the ram tab?
10-25-2007, 06:41 PM
Sparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

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

I'm just not getting my hopes up, I'd love B2 to be much better, but if I don't get my hopes up then there isn't the chance of me crashing to the ground in case my hopes were in vain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrcmtl

can't you see the Single word written on cpu-z at the ram tab?

It was set to dual channel in the bios, CPU-Z seems to be reporting it wrong (as it is the HT link as well).
10-25-2007, 06:42 PM
perkam

Quote:

I'd love B2 to be much better

Then let me tell you in advance, it will :D

Perkam
10-25-2007, 06:44 PM
freeloader

Quote:

Originally Posted by quake6

It is 7 second faster in super pi with just 400mhz up:eek:
Awsome :D

I noticed that too. Quite a good showing for a small clock speed increase.
10-25-2007, 07:07 PM
PhilDoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cronos

For dual-channel mode Spi 1M time was 38.968, and it is clear that overclocked results were taken with memory in dual-channel mode.
So, 38.968 / 32.672 = 1.1927 = 19.3% it is.

Yep, I finally saw it. I was just looking at the screen shots. Not totally sure he's actually running dual channel as cpu-z show single. It could be that cpu-z needs an upgrade for Barcelona. The difference in times may be just fluctuation in the spi test. We'll find out soon I suppose.
10-25-2007, 07:25 PM
tictac

3.88 speeup on cinebench.. is it good enough compare to c2q?
10-25-2007, 08:23 PM
KTE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cronos

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

That's 108% scaling. Its incorrect because you're not working out percentages here, but percentage change. The formula is as follows

Maths:
http://www.gcseguide.co.uk/percentages.htm
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/63055.html

New - Old / Old x 100 = Percentage Change

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

KTE, your math is wrong. Also, the SuperPi 1M time is 38.968s for 2GHz. Read the first post.

For single channel it's 39.750s for dual channel its what you said: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...22&postcount=1

For simplicity, we swap the top figures around or it would become a minus change this time because of importance is decreasing values, not increasing (which is practically untrue i.e. to us 7 sec dropped is not 7 disadvantage but 7 advantage). The base always stays the same as its "new" relative to "old". What matters is the change.

38.968s - 32.672s (change) / 38.968s (relative to old) x 100 (percentage) = 16.157%

If you use that first general formula it would be -16.157% change which is perfectly true from the original time. But to us that's a +16.157% performance gain.

Now we can use a simple percentage formula:

16.157 / 20 x 100 = 80.8% scaling.
10-25-2007, 08:48 PM
Cronos

Quote:

Originally Posted by tictac

3.88 speeup on cinebench.. is it good enough compare to c2q?

It is unreachable for С2Q. The main reason is Core2 shared cache.
This is also one of the main reasons for excellent single-threaded performance of Core2 cpu's, which -in turn - is unreachable for comparatively clocked K10, regardless of stepping.
The net result is that C2Q is excellent CPU with very high SMP performance. It's
"untrue" nature does not hurt its performance to any noticeable extent. No reason for Intel to hurry up with "native" solution -at least, not from performance stand point.
10-25-2007, 08:56 PM
metro.cl

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?

Yep, you actually want a Wahoo board for dual f1207 sockets :)
10-25-2007, 08:57 PM
kyosen

Update

FELIX kindly pointed out to me about K10's memory controller:)
According to AMD's document, BIOS and Kernel　Developer’s Guide,
K10's has 2 DCTs(DCT: Dram ConTroller!?), and it can work different two mode, i.e.,
(1) to behave as a single dual-channel DCT; this is called ganged mode;
(2) to behave as two single-channel DCTs; this is called unganged mode.

My understanding is:
Ganged mode reads or writes with 2 DCTs at the same time.
Unganged mode also can reads with 1 DCT and writes with another 1 DCT at the same time,
if the system requests as so.
Unganged mode is more flexible than ganged mode,
and ganged mode is equal to "conventional" dual channel mode.

Then, I noticed the BIOS setting, "Unganged Mode support".
http://222.151.153.254/c-board/file/...S_unganged.jpg

So I tried SuperPI 4M in 3 case as below, and results:
with 1 memory module: 3m27.141s
with 2 memory modules, ganged mode: 3m24.438s
with 2 memory modules, unganged mode: 3m22.953s
and we can see CPU-Z and FELIX's test program properly detects
"conventional" dual channel mode:up:
Default BIOS setting is "Unganged Mode = Enabled", and at least,
unganged mode looks faster than ganged mode for SuperPI.
http://222.151.153.254/c-board/file/...m_unganged.png
http://222.151.153.254/c-board/file/...mem_ganged.png
http://222.151.153.254/c-board/file/...m_unganged.png

And these are latecy test results with Everest Ultimate v4.20:
at 2.0G=200x10: 76.0ns
at 2.2G=220x10: 69.0ns
at 2.4G=240x10: 63.4ns
The latest Everest detects Barcelona properly:)
http://222.151.153.254/c-board/file/...10_latency.png
http://222.151.153.254/c-board/file/...10_latency.png
http://222.151.153.254/c-board/file/...10_latency.png

Thanks to everyone for many comments and suggestions:)
...but don't be bullying poor small AMD, hipro5:D (yeah, just kidding;) )
10-25-2007, 08:57 PM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

38.968s - 32.672s (change) / 38.968s (relative to old) x 100 (percentage) = 16.157%

What if the faster score is 20s? With your equation, it's only a 49% increase in performance.

Or look at it this way, the 2GHz does 1M digits in 38.968s = 25,662 digits/s; the 2.4GHz does 1M digits in 32.672s = 30607 digit/s. The 2.4GHz does 19.2% more digits/s.
10-25-2007, 09:12 PM
kyosen

Please calm down about scaling for SuperPI time...
I'll try it again, with K8 Opteron 2212 and K10, with same OS:yepp:
10-25-2007, 09:14 PM
Cronos

We are all calm. Somebody just needs to learn their math lessons, thats all :)

It is much more interesting to see multi-threaded scores of dual-cpu K10 system,
as it is there AMD is going to compete and win against Intel -not on single-socket platform.
10-25-2007, 09:29 PM
zakelwe

ny chance of a pifast bench? That was always more favourable to AMD than SuperPi and also seemed a bit more relevant to general useage.

Regards

Andy
10-25-2007, 09:51 PM
JumpingJack

Quote:

Originally Posted by quake6

It is 7 second faster in super pi with just 400mhz up:eek:
Awsome :D

Actually, it is about 20% faster for a 20% faster clock... this is expected... if it didn't something is very wrong.
10-25-2007, 10:06 PM
RedBull78

Wow, not bad actually. I get 32sec @ 2.9ghz on opty 165. So that means a 3ghz barc. should do around 25 sec, not bad at all.

Interesting though, how a 6000+ A64 is par with a C2d 6600 model in real time performance but in SuperPi the 6600 smokes it. But in this case a 2.4ghz Phenom should smoke the hell out of the 6600 out the water in real time applications.
10-25-2007, 10:07 PM
RedBull78

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Actually, it is about 20% faster for a 20% faster clock... this is expected... if it didn't something is very wrong.

It depends how you benchmark each application, most of these here are singel threaded. :up:
10-25-2007, 10:08 PM
STEvil

how about kribibench?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...89#post2476489
10-25-2007, 10:59 PM
KTE

Great results kyosen. Keep 'em coming. :)
10-25-2007, 11:03 PM
mongoled

Quote:

Originally Posted by KTE

Great results kyosen. Keep 'em coming. :)

Agreed, now we want higher clocks :D
Higher clocks = Answer to the important questions
;)
10-25-2007, 11:07 PM
tictac

can you do same comparison on the memory mode with 64bit cinebench
10-25-2007, 11:19 PM
mAJORD

These are quite promising, Thanks aswell Kyosen
10-25-2007, 11:40 PM
hipro5

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyosen

Thanks to everyone for many comments and suggestions:)
...but don't be bullying poor small AMD, hipro5:D (yeah, just kidding;) )

I won't for sure.....:D :p:

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