Me.. If I could find the systems..Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
'I wonder if Intel and AMD would trust me to give a honest comparision of the two?
Printable View
Me.. If I could find the systems..Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
'I wonder if Intel and AMD would trust me to give a honest comparision of the two?
Come on Dave, don't be greedy. Let's all have a go at it with our very subjective purchases, unbridled, unfettered; doesn't get any real world than that. Anyway, I have a head start: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=211079 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
http://www.au-ja.de/bilder/press/amd-k10.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
AMD's has a pseudo-exclusive cache ( data cannot be found in the two cache levels at the same time, although “pseudo” means that there are a few exceptions) relationship.Things are problematic when you have an L3 miss , you need to check what the other cores have in their caches.
By using an inclusive cache , with an L3 miss data is guaranteed not to be in the other caches and a memory request is sent.
Given Nehalem's inclusive relationship and the flag system they use to maintain coherency , gives them little to no headaches about coherency traffic.
AMD's caches burn more BW and latency for this problem , that's all.
That is simply not true.AMD isn't bottlenecked by interconnects, it is precisely the coherency traffic which kills it.Huge amounts of BW are wasted with maintaining coherency.Quote:
What's the cache coherency traffic like on Nehalem? It seems to me that AMD is interconnect-bound because they are still waiting for HT3. Intel has less of a problem because QuickPath is higher performance than AMD's current HT implementation.
Your argument is pinpointing the problem on the wrong component. The traffic caused by the exclusive caches is reasonable. It's just that AMD needs a bandwidth improvement for their intra-chip interconnects.
In a Nehalem multicpu system , you need to maintain the coherency of the L3s.Furthermore , Intel implemented a directory based coherence protocol which is point to point instead of broadcast.
Not so with the Opteron because data in L1/L2 is more or less guaranteed not to be in the L3 .Also they use a snoop based one protocol in which the caches listen in on transport of variables to any of the CPUs and update their own copies of these variables if they have them. Snooping logic in the processor broadcasts a message over the bus each time a word in its cache has been modified. The snooping logic also snoops on the bus looking for such messages from other processors.
Since K8/10 use 64bit lines , can you imagine the traffic in a 4 socket system to maintain coherency ? What about 8 sockets ? Yeah , HT 3.0 will help , but it is a band aid curing the symptoms by brute force ( more BW ) and not the disease ( a better cache coherency protocol ).
Why do you think Newsys tried to build Horus , a directory based chipset to overcome this ?
savantu:
Inclusive vs exclusive cache
Why is the L1 and L2 cache smaller on i7 compared to DENEB ?
What about redundant data in cache ?
What is the hitrate for the cache (assocativity) ?
Do you have any thoughts about manufacturing yields comparing i7 and DENEB
There has been some discussions on the internet that Intel did focus very much on servers with the i7 (performance), that was AMD's strong area where Intel was behind. With the i7 Intel may have been focused to much on server performance?
What AMD has done seems to be the opposite (if desktop is the opposite). I think they have some good news for gamers etc with this design for the deneb. Maybe Intel knows this and thats why they are releasing this type of information (let go of the NDA).
The reason why they didn't focused on performance on servers could be that it is enough now. Companies don't need more CPU performance there, they want CPU that draws less power and maybe they focused on that area.
They will love i7 for servers then, They will be able to cut there power usage in half. Through out those four socket systems and replace with duals. Lovely:DQuote:
Originally Posted by gosh
The problem (what I think) is that servers is on 24/7, and that isn't that many servers that need raw CPU performance. Fast disks is probably more important in general. Sometimes there might be high CPU loads but that is probably not a common scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
ahhh, So now server cpu performance is not important now, Well it can just join all those other things that become unimportant as soon as Intel excelled in them:rofl:.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Why does AMD do so well in server land atm and what will change to make cpu performance negligible once i7 comes to the server sector?
I only explained what I think is important and the same was important "yesterday" also. Power consumption has always been important for servers, but what happened is that the power consumption is much more important today. I read something about AMD when then was selling CPU's for servers, even with current opteron they sell more of the CPU's that draws less power with less speed compared to the more power hungry and faster CPU's (if what I read was right).Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
If you read in forums where people are looking for home servers etc. They always have power consumption as one very important attribute. My own server draws 52 watt on idle.
:ROTF: I just burst our in laughter when i read the sentence... :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
All we have heard for the last few years is that all that matters is server performance, It was so to speak the jewel in AMD's crown. It just seems that every time Intel dominates a new performance metric the goal posts shift on how important it is. It seem that since the launch of i7 all that matters is gpu limited gaming performance.
It was power/watt. And if you go back then CPU's wasn't that fast compared to CPU's today (the new opteron is of course faster compared to the old one).Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Yet still slower and has been slower for almost 2 years now. AMD's main advantage was Bandwidth from SOC and Point to Point. Dual Socket was lost to Xeon-Bensley as I showed you when you were Duby229. Not only was the Intel Platform Faster, but it drew less power as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
New Opterons are Faster than the old ones but still slower than their Intel Counterparts. Power Draw will make some, maybe a few pause but others will still get power savings from using Nehalem. Why? Look at power used during the time it took to finish the project? Let's say you're right, You take longer but with less power but overall time took longer. This also can mean overall time of the project/s could mean you used more power anyway.
http://www.reuters.com/article/techn...24573820080708
DreamWorks picks Intel over AMD for chip supply
They used to exclusively use AMD processors. A friend told me about DW testing a Nehalem long before Intel let the rest know about it. Just like with Apple, maybe they tell us just how long ago that way. Please don't say DW were duped by Intel's clever marketing:rofl:
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20...t-in-the-cold/
"He said that the studio’s recent offering, Kung Fu Panda, had its final touches done on computers using both Intel and AMD processors."Quote:
AMD’s dual-core Opteron processors will be replaced over the next 18 month – a move involving some 1,000 workstations and 1,500 server units. DreamWorks has agreed to buy Intel’s Nehalem 8-core processor for the high-end workstations, and Larrabee processors for the servers. Larrabee processors will have between 10 and 100 cores, according to Intel.
Maybe you know more than they do:up:
DO NOT TRUST FUDzilla to get anything right. His post on this point, and any point about a TLB, is complete and total hogwash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
AMD always preferred larger L1s with low associativity ; Intel went for small L1s with high associativity.I would assume the hit rate is larger on Intel's higher associative caches.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Intel choose based on extensive simulation a small but very fast L2.it had to be small because of the inclusive relationship with the L3.Results point out that their approach is outstanding performance wise.
Even so , there were serious debates inside Intel over the size of the L2s, many advocated a larger one.
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...2808015436&p=1
That's the drawback of the inclusive approach ; using smaller L1/L2 is one fix to the problem.The other is to increase the size of the L3.Quote:
What about redundant data in cache ?
Intel's is generally higher as can be seen from Aaron Kanter's review.Quote:
What is the hitrate for the cache (assocativity) ?
They have the same die size.Given Intel's prowess in manufacturing I'd assume their yields are better.I don't have hard data on this , it is just a hunch based on past performance.Quote:
Do you have any thoughts about manufacturing yields comparing i7 and DENEB
How so ? From all reviews , Nehalem stomps the desktop world with ease especially in multimedia benchmarks.It has superb all around performance.Quote:
There has been some discussions on the internet that Intel did focus very much on servers with the i7 (performance), that was AMD's strong area where Intel was behind. With the i7 Intel may have been focused to much on server performance?
Once graphic drivers are optimized for it , it will increase its lead in games.
Gamers are 1% of the market.Barely relevant and Deneb still has to prove that it can beat Kentsfield/Yorkfield as the same clock.Quote:
What AMD has done seems to be the opposite (if desktop is the opposite). I think they have some good news for gamers etc with this design for the deneb. Maybe Intel knows this and thats why they are releasing this type of information (let go of the NDA).
Gosh, I know you have no clue about servers but that's ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Everyone can now pick up dual socket Xeons to replace their quad socket Opterons and have same/better performance while using less than half the power.
I don't get it, i7 920 @ 2.66GHz is on par with a QX9650 @ 3GHz, how is that focusing too much on server performance? Seeing all the reviews for Deneb, it will still be slower than the current Core 2 Quads. So what's your argument then? AMD focused too much on server performance beginning?Quote:
There has been some discussions on the internet that Intel did focus very much on servers with the i7 (performance), that was AMD's strong area where Intel was behind. With the i7 Intel may have been focused to much on server performance?
I wasn't being greedy. I only asked for one of each!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Sure they can, if they plan to run synthetic benchmarks 24/7 with HT on.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Talking from first hand experience. That is not true. They really do have quad socket performance in dual socket.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
What type of server software needs this hardware speed? How many concurrent users (employees) do you think need to be using the server before it will have trouble to handle the load?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
What is the idle power for i7
Can Intel turn of one or more cores and sell it as X3, X2 etc with this design?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
There are some big english sites that has shown good results. But if you have read foreign reviews they are not so good (good but not super). It is very fast on memory intensive applications. That is also needed on server software, not on desktops (latency is much more important on desktops)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Obviously at 65nm AMD wern't able to give K10 sufficient die area in implement a fully inclusive L3 cache but that isn't the case at 45nm and lower.
I would assume comprehensive simulations would have been run to test such a design revision, but, given the change wasn't made would it be reasonable to conclude any performance gains were deemed not to warrant the required man hours of engineering effort? Granted the current time to market pressure has been great for Shanghai, the design choices would have been made most likely prior to Barcelona even launching.
My bad, Dave. I would be very interested in seeing results from trusted person like you. Hopefully AMD/Intel reps on this forum would accept the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
If I understand you right, you're saying Intel's latest dualcores for the server platform are so fast they're useless. Wow, that's dangerous talk. We don't want Intel's engineers to rest on their laurels. We need even faster chips, with ultra low power consumption. Don't you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Well, since AMD people have shouted virtualization sicne Core 2 Xeons. Lets try that. Else there is PLENTY of DB applications. Webservices, terminal services etc. Plus in all the cases where you would buy a quad socket machine. You just get a Xeon 5500 based one.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
And the idle power....seriously. You are trolling gosh.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3453&p=3
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15818/14
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._18.html#sect0
Its nothing you cant find on your own. But there is a reason you got 10% of the posts here.
I dont see why not. But Intel earlier said such things would be scrapped. AMDs reason to do so was horrible process manufactoring mixed with a very large diesize.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
And there is no such CPUs like those on Intels nehalem roadmaps. There are 3 core designs. Bloomfield, Lynnfield and Havendale.
yeah i dont think we ever will see S1336 dualcores. Thought on the other hand, i think we maybe see dualcore lynnfields without IGP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
The problem is that there are some sites (english sites) that allways say good things about intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Here is one review from another site in anothre country
http://sweclockers.com/articles_show.php?id=6125&page=5
http://sweclockers.com/imagebank/plo...rukning001.png
About cache hitrate
isn't the i7 L3 cache 16 way associative? And deneb has 48 way associative?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
What does that mean in hit rate?
I know that i7 has higher Hz on the cache (more power needed) and maybe they use that to compensate?