K10 Scores starting to surface

Printable View

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

08-30-2007, 10:08 AM
terrace215

Quote:

Originally Posted by duploxxx

and no penryn is not faster then conroe, it's just when the program is affected by cache or not it will be faster clock/clock and the magic sse4.

You're forgetting some other Penryn improvements. Take a look at throughput and latency improvements to various SSEx operations, for instance. (Super-shuffle engine)

But in most apps, most of what Penryn brings will be higher speeds & lower power. Assuming AMD provides any pressure at all for the higher-speeds part...

In terms of a 2-socket comparison, one near-term boost for Clovertown (and Yorkfield) will be the transition from Blackford --> Stoakley. Much better snoop-filter & throughput up 25%... should give the spec_rate benchmarks and performance-related apps a nice boost.
08-30-2007, 10:13 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Periander6

I say they will be. Slide 16 here was a dead giveaway:

http://www.sunmicrosystems.se/virtua...f_Nordlund.pdf

That's not "up to 15% IPC gains" against C2D, it's 15% against K8.

Add to that keeping a tight lid on benchmarks when there was no reason to do so if they were good, the change in emphasis from performance to performance/watt, the Henri Richards resignation, low launch clockspeeds, the focus on Specfp_rate (which is really little more than a memory bandwidth bench), the rumors out of Computex, and the "simulated" benchmark scores.

Really, the writing has been on the wall for months, just like it was for the R600 and for many of the same reasons. The only thing keeping the hype alive were the AMD forum boosters and their relentless efforts to shout down anyone who pointed out inconvenient facts.

Excellent post . :up:
08-30-2007, 10:14 AM
[XC] flat-four

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Bus speed is the HTT. HT is different than the bus speed/FSB/HTT.

Shouldn't CPUZ show "HT Link" link instead of "Rated FSB" like usual AMD cpus? If the HT link is actually running at 200 instead of 1000+, this would be a huge bottleneck as Mad Man said.
08-30-2007, 10:23 AM
informal

Isn't it very convinient this info comes from the intel exclusive place(coolaler forums),and that it is coming only a day after Theo's post??It could be that Theo's results were in some way inflated(since the score is really hard to believe),but this avalanche of "poor K10 results" comes after he wrote this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theo Valich

This statement warrants at least three hatemails from Intel's R&D lads, but all that we will disclose here are results we have in our possession
08-30-2007, 10:24 AM
Mad_Man

2 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Bus speed is the HTT. HT is different than the bus speed/FSB/HTT.

i was talking about this:
cpuz 1.41 should be barcelona compatible, if i can call it that.
so cpu-z should show bus speed as 200mhz, and HT link 1000mhz for stock system??
08-30-2007, 10:26 AM
Sparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] flat-four

Shouldn't CPUZ show "HT Link" link instead of "Rated FSB" like usual AMD cpus? If the HT link is actually running at 200 instead of 1000+, this would be a huge bottleneck as Mad Man said.

Should, don't know why it says FSB since AMD doesn't use a FSB. Should have the bus speed (the HTT, has been 200MHz on K8) and the HT link (1000MHz on K8). Tells me that CPU-Z still doesn't detect K10 properly.
Unless that is a fake screenshot, with an intel chip in there and things mspainted or something like that ;) :p:
08-30-2007, 10:28 AM
terrace215

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Isn't it very convinient this info comes from the intel exclusive place(coolaler forums),and that it is coming only a day after Theo's post??It could be that Theo's results were in some way inflated(since the score is really hard to believe),but this avalanche of "poor K10 results" comes after he wrote this:

Conspiracy theories? The results fit with AMD's OWN DOCUMENTS on K10 performance vs. K8. Why can't you accept that AMD knows how the K10 performs? :shrug:

Don't tell me you listened to the non-technical hype from Pat Patla and the now-fleeing Henri Richard?
08-30-2007, 10:32 AM
SEA

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

...
And try to disable L2 - you will see slide show instead of your windows

If L2 disabled but L3 is enabled - this will change things from slideshow significantly.
08-30-2007, 10:38 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrace215

Conspiracy theories? The results fit with AMD's OWN DOCUMENTS on K10 performance vs. K8. Why can't you accept that AMD knows how the K10 performs? :shrug:

Don't tell me you listened to the non-technical hype from Pat Patla and the now-fleeing Henri Richard?

Lmao.With all the NDAs around,somehow Sun's got leaked and spilled out the all hush hush about K10 performance and summed it up to poor "up to 15% IPC improvement":rolleyes:

Can you post anything positive about AMD,ever?
08-30-2007, 10:42 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEA

If L2 disabled but L3 is enabled - this will change things from slideshow significantly.

Oh sure , the magic 38 cycle latency L3 will come to the rescue.

Sorry , but only an idiot could believe any of the caches or execution units to be disabled when the chip performs +/- 10% of C2D.

Reality is this : the chip is perfectly fine, but it's "bugs" prevent it from scaling , that is reaching higher clockspeed while maintaining data integrity.In other words ; you're fine at 2GHz , but at 2.3GHz* due to speedpath problems you get silent data corruption or other nasty surprises.

* Example.
08-30-2007, 10:44 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Lmao.With all the NDAs around,somehow Sun's got leaked and spilled out the all hush hush about K10 performance and summed it up to poor "up to 15% IPC improvement":rolleyes:

Can you post anything positive about AMD,ever?

I have the same number from a Cray presentation ; 15% better IPC ( that is for HPC code , which K8/10 likes most ) + extra % due to higher clock ( didn't happen ).

Can you post something anything true about AMD , ever ?
08-30-2007, 10:45 AM
Sparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Oh sure , the magic 38 cycle latency L3 will come to the rescue.

Sorry , but only an idiot could believe any of the caches or execution units to be disabled when the chip performs +/- 10% of C2D.

Reality is this : the chip is perfectly fine, but it's "bugs" prevent it from scaling , that is reaching higher clockspeed while maintaining data integrity.In other words ; you're fine at 2GHz , but at 2.3GHz* due to speedpath problems you get silent data corruption or other nasty surprises.

* Example.

Reality is this:
You, nor I, nor most people here know enough to say for certain how the chip is going to perform. We have conflicting benchmarks from different sources. Just wait until after Sept. 10th and then we'll know for sure.

And no reason to be calling people idiots :rolleyes: just gonna raise tempers and not do any good. Geeez why can't people be respectful enough of each other to refrain from name-calling.... :rolleyes:
08-30-2007, 10:49 AM
SEA

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Oh sure , the magic 38 cycle latency L3 will come to the rescue.

Sorry , but only an idiot could believe any of the caches or execution units to be disabled when the chip performs +/- 10% of C2D.

Reality is this : the chip is perfectly fine, but it's "bugs" prevent it from scaling , that is reaching higher clockspeed while maintaining data integrity.In other words ; you're fine at 2GHz , but at 2.3GHz* due to speedpath problems you get silent data corruption or other nasty surprises.

* Example.

L2 is still twice faster than memory.
Also it has some smart prefetch.

Is there any such test showing how much performance would degrade with L1 and L3 enabled for other chips that already on market?

And finally, why K10 having lots of improvments against K8 shows exactly same performance per core? Where is 15% over K8???
08-30-2007, 10:49 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

Oh sure , the magic 38 cycle latency L3 will come to the rescue.

Sorry , but only an idiot could believe any of the caches or execution units to be disabled when the chip performs +/- 10% of C2D.

Reality is this : the chip is perfectly fine, but it's "bugs" prevent it from scaling , that is reaching higher clockspeed while maintaining data integrity.In other words ; you're fine at 2GHz , but at 2.3GHz* due to speedpath problems you get silent data corruption or other nasty surprises.

* Example.

+1
I don't understand why ppl thinks that it must be faster then C2D/C2Q in non-bandwidth dependent aplications.
08-30-2007, 10:50 AM
red

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEA

If L2 disabled but L3 is enabled - this will change things from slideshow significantly.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=173

Quote:

Originally Posted by duploxxx

the benches are from a 2 socket opteron socket and as additional info the memory is running 667 speeds cas5. what superpi perfromance do you expect.
the performance can't be compared with the phenom. try to bench a k8 with memory 667 cas5 and then change it to 1066 cas5 like the demo system AMD is showing. even at the same speed it will be a huge performance difference.

looking and comparing the cpu-z from Coolaler to mine it is a fact that his sample is a dvt or early bird from oem. so it will be the chip that launches within a few days. All features are enabled, K10 is no INT miracle it will be as fast as core and no penryn is not faster then conroe, it's just when the program is affected by cache or not it will be faster clock/clock and the magic sse4. k10 will increase the gap on fpu and IO even more not to mention virtualization. How well it scales will be depending on the new stepping coming in oktober and you'll see how well it does when people get phenom es in there hands.

informal's information about the bios is correct, it is changing alot, systems with b0 had no CPU options in BIOS available except changing HT speed.

The chips aren't bugged??? it's the BIOS at worst. Or maybe this is K10 performing at its best lol
08-30-2007, 10:51 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEA

And finally, why K10 having lots of improvments against K8 shows exactly same performance per core?

Actualy it is faster than K8 per core (if these tests are true).
08-30-2007, 10:52 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

Actualy it is faster than K8 per core (if these tests are true).

Yeah the whole 3-8%.
08-30-2007, 10:58 AM
SEA

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

Actualy it is faster than K8 per core (if these tests are true).

Actually it is within 4% difference for me.
Need screeny?
08-30-2007, 11:05 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoc

there are details that are still missing here...what motherboard(chipset), what ddr2 ecc single or dual channel? etc...
a lot of people giving opinions but what's the platform that this was tested...

So why were folks being flamed for suggesting old boards would suck with new processors? So, why bother with all of the BS about Socket Continuity? Guys, you can't have it both ways. It's either great with old boards and it's all good or its only so so and a new board is needed anyway. Ibet a new board is needed.

Rumor! A guy in Germany told me one tester is running Penryn on an i865, I told him I'd believe it when I see it. Yet, I wouldn't touch that setup with AGP, SATA1 and all of yester-year's tech. In fact, I'm already wanting to upgrade my GA-965 DS3.
08-30-2007, 11:06 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Yeah the whole 3-8%.

I doubt we can expect more in non-SSE2-vectorized aplications. As was said before it is only up to 15% IPC improvements.
08-30-2007, 11:10 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Rumor! A guy in Germany told me one tester is running Penryn on an i865, I told him I'd believe it when I see it. Yet, I wouldn't touch that setup with AGP, SATA1 and all of yester-year's tech. In fact, I'm already wanting to upgrade my GA-965 DS3.

Same here. :D

whatever is out in Nov-Dec and is the fastest, I'll buy. :)
08-30-2007, 11:17 AM
PetNorth

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

Actualy it is faster than K8 per core (if these tests are true).

not really. In Cinebench is exactly the same, what doesn't make any sense, keeping in mine K10 improvements.
08-30-2007, 11:23 AM
jabway

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetNorth

not really. In Cinebench is exactly the same, what doesn't make any sense, keeping in mine K10 improvements.

Somehow the massive core improvements amount to a 3-4% increase against K8.:rolleyes:

Doesn't make any sense at all.
08-30-2007, 11:23 AM
Nedjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by savantu

What's to laugh about ?

Have you heard of Fusion , Silverthorne ?

The purpose of such devices is to move the PC as we know it on the cellphone. Current cellphones are slowly going uphill into PC territory ; this will advance at a very rapid pace once system-on-a-chip devices appear next year.The whole point is to move x86 down , into cellphone territory and this is the purpose of Silverthorne early next year. ( Iphone 2 will use it according to rumours )

This is real and is happening now ; both Intel and AMD are preparing for the 2010-2012 generation , by that time , cell phones will be more powerfull than current PCs.Add 3D glasses to them and all my multimedia needs are satisfied.

/End off topic.

so you're SUN guy:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8658
:)
08-30-2007, 11:23 AM
uOpt

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetNorth

not really. In Cinebench is exactly the same, what doesn't make any sense, keeping in mine K10 improvements.

The numbers are about 7% better per-core with the clockspeed normalized.

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