You mixing his pi results up with cinebench. that's what he was refering to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
Printable View
You mixing his pi results up with cinebench. that's what he was refering to.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
Yah, i will run it in some mins.Quote:
Originally Posted by zpdixon
Woohoo. I've finally found people willing to run it. Perseverance pays off ! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by linhvndiy
- Z
Are you on drugs? :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
No lies, we haven't even remotely seen the power of k10 as yet ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JohannesRS
Mr.Ass is clutching at straws :yepp:
Yeh he knows mate, he's merely trying to alleviate the trouble he has sleeping at night worrying about whether or not I'm right with my K10-SUPERPi predictions :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
yes but to predict is not the same has having the priviledge? for seeing a real result.
You enter the business of running benchmarks seldomly or never run by others but still offering nice informations. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by linhvndiy
While you are on it, please run the benchmarks in the most recent Prime95 32-/64-bit versions.
http://www.mersenne.org/gimps/p95v255a.zip
http://www.mersenne.org/gimps/p64v255.zip
(Options -> Benchmark)
To dresdenboy: I will do it tonight.
I just do the openssl. But i dont think it run well : only one cpu run. It should run on Linux. Please let me know how?
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md2 1449.00k 3054.78k 4214.85k 4665.85k 4804.30k
mdc2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
md4 15350.40k 54126.60k 157606.54k 298261.62k 405246.76k
md5 14174.73k 49422.88k 141059.09k 262657.00k 312424.88k
hmac(md5) 21801.33k 71048.50k 180837.68k 291207.91k 249707.40k
sha1 14510.02k 47249.78k 119463.93k 194800.77k 239247.29k
rmd160 11639.53k 34359.30k 76082.83k 109708.79k 125589.71k
rc4 224624.66k 256885.87k 263172.02k 267750.02k 269124.41k
des cbc 53687.09k 55342.95k 55489.39k 55784.59k 55924.05k
des ede3 19719.34k 19884.10k 19994.27k 20051.53k 19993.81k
idea cbc 36091.68k 38692.84k 39475.80k 39765.86k 39770.57k
rc2 cbc 20258.67k 20911.40k 21074.26k 21115.37k 21136.65k
rc5-32/12 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
blowfish cbc 81029.78k 85576.21k 86592.08k 86928.58k 86951.11k
cast cbc 75352.42k 79531.72k 80737.32k 81029.78k 81029.78k
aes-128 cbc 52766.84k 56660.64k 57723.09k 58032.57k 58042.61k
aes-192 cbc 45497.53k 49483.01k 50526.17k 50770.82k 50770.82k
aes-256 cbc 40900.09k 43919.41k 44644.00k 44924.93k 44930.95k
camellia-128 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
camellia-192 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
camellia-256 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
sha256 9979.01k 24648.36k 45642.97k 57999.97k 58674.42k
sha512 3135.02k 12525.45k 19688.10k 27898.67k 31767.51k
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.000535s 0.000044s 1869.0 22676.5
rsa 1024 bits 0.002409s 0.000118s 415.1 8472.5
rsa 2048 bits 0.013613s 0.000386s 73.5 2589.7
rsa 4096 bits 0.087500s 0.001354s 11.4 738.5
sign verify sign/s verify/s
dsa 512 bits 0.000397s 0.000478s 2517.8 2090.3
dsa 1024 bits 0.001103s 0.001329s 906.8 752.3
dsa 2048 bits 0.003602s 0.004389s 277.6 227.8
Thanks in advance. BTW, Prime95 will write its results into results.txt in the same dir where the exe file resides. It will automatically do tests on one and multiple cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by linhvndiy
My predictions are based on what I've seen already, from some people with a little inside help :). That's all there is to it I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
It sure seems you are talking bs, I mean, you some how seen a record breaking fast k10 preview when everone else only had the so called bugged k10s. Can you tell us where you seen this ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
WERD.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
He's all talk and no show.
I never claimed to have seen any record breaking fast k10's at all. I said that from benchmarks I've been priveledged (lucky enough) to see, that k10 cpu's will run SPi 1M in less than 23seconds...and when OC'd will manage to bring that down to 13seconds. I never said which K10 cpu's so I'm sorry if any of you managed to slide an exact model number in there :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
As for now, we have around 6 users on XS with a k10...all running bugged to the max in server boards/AM2 boards with ECC mem/no oc not to mention most guys have trouble trying to get theirs to boot and run properly.......yet you guys already seem to decide these are the final product???? :rofl:
Come on....:clap:
I never claimed to have seen any record breaking fast k10's at all. I said that from benchmarks I've been priveledged (lucky enough) to see, that k10 cpu's will run SPi 1M in less than 26seconds...and when OC'd will manage to bring that down to 17seconds. I never said which K10 cpu's so I'm sorry if any of you managed to slide an exact model number/revision/stepping in there :rolleyes:...I certainly didn't mean the first one's out the factory with no bios.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
What are you guys on......10yr old child pills?
As for now, we have around 6 users on XS with a k10...all running bugged to the max in server boards/AM2 boards with ECC mem/no oc not to mention most guys have trouble trying to get theirs to boot and run properly.......yet you guys already seem to decide these are the final product???? :rofl:
Come on....:clap:
Quote:
K10 cpu @ 3Ghz & DDR2 @ 1066+mhz 5,5,5,18 & AM2+ MOBO = <17s
K10 cpu @ 2Ghz & DDR2 @ 667mhz 5,5,5,15 & AM2 MOBO = 26
26 sec is K10's 3+GHz result.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
it is obvious. :)
the only reason Core2 achieves so amazing superpi results is its extremely fast cache. K10 is only 5-10-15 (depending on installed memory type) per cent faster than K8 when running superpi - it is a fact
Not a hijack whatsoever my friend....Get ready, the cpu's go in the mail tomorrow and should reach you by the weekend :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by kyosen
Strangely enough out of the 9 vendors he did contact the 8347 was the exact CPU 1 of them said he might be able to get hold of late October. Maybe it was you he contacted afterall :D (jk)Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
Thanks Ste but he's far up the ladder from me at the corp and the best I get to speak to is his secretary. :( They order batch servers directly from the like of HP, Sun, Dell and other server builders and never go to typical retail outlets for single CPU buys. Its gear for a research lab at a government funded hospital BTW, so the order would be quite large.
If you caught me a couple weeks ago, I could have supplied him as many 8350's as he needed ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Where did you witness these k10s running? And how come they were not also bugged? sorry if this sounds like i am interrogating you, I am genuinely interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
Btw: Soldner, didn't intend to say that you lied. Thats why said it "in between these signs"... ;)
a difference of nearly 20secs is just to much to coverup with faster mem.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
[edit: I updated my percentages after learning that linhvndiy was running his 2347's at 1950 MHz to obtain the above scores]Quote:
Originally Posted by linhvndiy
Thanks linhvndiy ! These scores are very interesting.
I have compared them with the scores of K8 at the same speed to do a clock-for-clock comparison between K8 and K10. Technically I ran openssl on a dual Opteron 280 (2.4 GHz), but I scaled its scores down to simulate a 1950 MHz K8 (all of the openssl speed tests scale linearly with the clock frequency, so that's a pretty good estimation, see the end of this post for my K8 results.) For the tests using different buffer sizes (16 to 8192 bytes), I only took into account the three larger buffer sizes (256, 1024 and 8192 bytes), because the overhead of the OpenSSL API with the 2 smaller buffer sizes (16 and 64 bytes) is too high and cripples the results on both K10 and K8 which makes any sort of direct comparison difficult.
So here is how K10 fares against K8 in the most popular encryption/hashing algorithms:
o md4: K10 is between 3% and 6% faster than K8 (+6%, +4%, +3% for the three different buffer sizes)
o md5: the throughput varies too much between the three buffer sizes (the K10 scores vary by +6%, +5%, -8% compared to K8), are you sure your machine was idle ?
o hmac(md5): the throughput varies too much here too (+7%, +5%, -18%)
o sha1: K10 seems to have a negligible advantage over K8 (+7%, +5%, and +4%)
o rc4: K10 is as fast as K8 (within 1% of each other)
o blowfish: K10 is consistently 5% faster than K8
o aes-128: K10 is between 16% and 17% faster than K8 with the three different buffer sizes (for example: 8192-byte test: 58042 kB/s vs. 49500 kB/s)
o aes-192: K10 is exactly 18% faster than K8 no matter what the buffer size is
o aes-256: K10 is also 18% faster
o sha256: the throughput varies too much here (+11%, +11%, +3%), weird
o sha512: K10 is between 4% and 5% faster than K8
o rsa 1024-bit: K10 is +12% faster than K8 on sign operations (415 vs. 370 sign/s)
o rsa 1024-bit: K10 is +10% faster than K8 on verify operations (8473 vs. 7730 verify/s)
o dsa 1024-bit: K10 is +9% faster than K8 (907 vs. 830 sign/s)
o dsa 1024-bit K10 is +9% faster than K8 (752 vs. 690 verify/s)
Overall, K10 is, clock-for-clock, 0% to 18% faster than K8 on these 32-bit (100% ALU) OpenSSL speed tests. (It would have been interesting if the guys who ported OpenSSL to Windows enabled the SSE2 assembly implementation of sha512...)
linhvndiy, you said you wanted to benchmark the 8 cores at the same time. This is possible with "openssl speed -multi 8" under Linux/*BSD/Solaris... But you should know that these tests all scale linearly with the number of cores and the frequency clock (they all fit in the L2 cache), so just multiplying your scores by 8 gives a very precise estimation.
Now, if I can have one more wish ( ;) ) I would ask you to run the same benchmark under 64-bit Linux/*BSD/Solaris. The RSA scores would jump by about x3 (the BN lib just loves 64-bit archs), and the RC4 and MD5 throughput would increase by 15-30% (at least that's what is observed with K8). Running openssl speed in 64-bit mode (and with -multi 8) is how the guys at http://www.tecchannel.de/server/proz...28/index9.html obtained their excellent RSA scores.
If you don't know what 64-bit distro to run, I recommend the 64-bit Ubuntu 7.10 (release candidate), the OpenSSL version they distribute is very recent (package named "openssl", version 0.9.8e).
- Z
Code:"openssl speed" using the 32-bit Windows port of OpenSSL 0.9.8e running on:
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 33
model name : Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 280
stepping : 2
cpu MHz : 2405.476
cache size : 1024 KB
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 1597.75k 3568.29k 4965.69k 5497.35k 5674.21k
mdc2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
md4 17908.11k 62660.00k 183608.38k 352740.42k 485592.36k
md5 16226.33k 56910.50k 163840.00k 308830.48k 417473.49k
hmac(md5) 24636.15k 81670.76k 208121.77k 341955.99k 425412.77k
sha1 16008.79k 52702.61k 137180.83k 228728.23k 283938.50k
rmd160 13354.47k 39887.58k 89472.52k 130245.25k 150081.32k
rc4 256140.70k 306881.58k 320910.79k 326595.60k 327808.05k
des cbc 60699.04k 63226.74k 63937.56k 64071.86k 64305.16k
des ede3 22338.35k 22840.12k 22980.88k 23171.21k 23027.67k
idea cbc 43123.55k 46596.91k 47527.52k 47798.34k 47798.34k
rc2 cbc 23512.32k 24422.76k 24637.96k 24690.53k 24692.35k
rc5-32/12 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
blowfish cbc 93077.48k 100013.21k 101526.27k 102144.39k 102144.39k
cast cbc 87267.70k 92820.01k 94121.83k 94626.15k 94920.60k
aes-128 cbc 57367.81k 59726.65k 61030.25k 61030.25k 60919.45k
aes-192 cbc 50541.39k 51949.89k 52675.72k 52849.95k 52849.95k
aes-256 cbc 44792.99k 46154.65k 46661.70k 46863.73k 46929.28k
camellia-128 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
camellia-192 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
camellia-256 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
sha256 10971.24k 27588.43k 50805.41k 64589.86k 70135.20k
sha512 3692.13k 14766.89k 23183.76k 32873.14k 37448.10k
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.000492s 0.000041s 2032.8 24127.0
rsa 1024 bits 0.002308s 0.000108s 455.2 9512.6
rsa 2048 bits 0.012288s 0.000333s 83.4 3055.7
rsa 4096 bits 0.077100s 0.001137s 13.0 879.7
sign verify sign/s verify/s
dsa 512 bits 0.000361s 0.000429s 2769.9 2331.6
dsa 1024 bits 0.000980s 0.001177s 1020.4 849.9
dsa 2048 bits 0.003127s 0.003701s 319.8 270.2
I did test at 1950mhz. And i feel this 32bit ssl is not the test for barcelona. I think barce will perform real in Linux and multi threads. But i have to research how to test under Linux.
Given that the OpenSSL assembly code is absolutely not optimized for the K10 architecture (yet) and that it is exclusively using the ALU unit which is the one that changed the less between K8 & K10 (compared to, say, the FPU and SSE units), I think that 5%-18% of perf improvements across the range of algorithms is pretty good (I'll edit my post with updated percentage numbers later now that I know the clock was 1950 MHz).Quote:
Originally Posted by linhvndiy
Doing 64-bit OpenSSL speed tests is very easy. Just follow my link to download the Ubuntu 7.10 64-bit DVD image. Burn it. Install it. Then in a terminal: "sudo apt-get install openssl", type in your user passwd, then "openssl speed".
- Z
I hope, there won't be K10 related problems while running Linux. Might sudo apt-get also work in a live system? Would make things easier I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by zpdixon
However, Prime95 benchmarking won't cause such troubles ;)