Barcelona Opteron 2350(B1) arrived

[cpuz]

Memory clock = NB Speed / memory divider

Hi Tictac !

Are you use the memory clock is computed from NB speed ?
I'd rather assume that :
Memory clock = HTT Speed / memory divider
But it's just a guess ...

If you're correct, that would mean that memory clock also depends on the single/dual plane setting (the NB speed depends on it).

[tictac]

yeah.. memory speed computed from nb speed.. ht link speed use from nb to chipset or other cpu.. nb speed use to bridge nb to the 4cpu core... so i go with nb speed..

[QuietIce]

So SRI, XBAR, MCT, L3 DCT0 and DCT1 all run on NB speed?
Or do the DCT's run on ram clock?

If I'm understanding the AMD K10 Dev Guide correctly the DCTs run on the NB at NB speed.




As a side note for video BMs: Setting the DCT/DRAM to 128-bit mode will not support 32-byte bursts - only the 64-bit mode will support 32-byte bursts. May make a big difference when running video benches ...

.

[Quintero]

As a side note for video BMs: Setting the DCT/DRAM to 128-bit mode will not support 32-bit bursts - only the 64-bit mode will support 32-bit bursts. May make a big difference when running video benches ...

Yes, K10 won't support 32-byte granularity in dual channel (single controller), just like any other AMD DDR2 rig. Of all the K8 systems only socket 939 rev E supports 32-byte mode, but none of the earlier 939 revisions or any AM2 CPUs do. Remember that the channels are accessed in perfect parallel (lockstep), and that DDR2 has a minimum prefetch width of 4 columns.

1 4n-prefetch x 2 ch = 8 columns = 64 bytes.

[QuietIce]

On the K10s unganged mode (2x 64-bit independent) supports the 32-byte burst, ganged mode (2x 64-bit parallel) does not. That might explain some discrepancies in the benches.



Bits and bytes - original post edited ...

[kyosen]

I tried Vcore&Vnb mods, and got 2.6G@Vcore=1.38V, Vnb=1.35V.
I pushed it further, and saw 2.67G SuperPI1M run and then,
the system freezed...it's dead as prepared for arrival of Intel 45nm

Last screenshot:
http://www.oohashi.jp/c-board/file/S...K10B1-2.6G.png

[Charles Wirth]

Sad news indeed.

One or both cpu's dead? mobo?

[kyosen]

Sad news indeed.

One or both cpu's dead? mobo?

CPU is safe, still alive
Just mobo is dead...
...one night removal of CMOS backup battery can't help her

[STEvil]

digital vrm per chance?

[informal]

CPU is safe, still alive
Just mobo is dead...
...one night removal of CMOS backup battery can't help her

Damn,bad luck man,sorry for your mobo.How is Asus quadFX mobo doing?Is "she" alright ?

[cdawall]

when you get your rig going again any chance we could get a sciencemark run?

[Boschwanza]

@kyosen

Due to the optimization of Cinebench 10 for the Intel Core architecture, is it possible to run a test on Cinebench 9.5 to get a fair comparision between K10 and Core2Q ?

[JohannesRS]

@kyosen

Due to the optimization of Cinebench 10 for the Intel Core architecture, is it possible to run a test on Cinebench 9.5 to get a fair comparision between K10 and Core2Q ?

Wait! That's something I wasn not aware of. What heck of optimization for Core2 does Cinebench 10 implements??

[Boschwanza]

-------------------------------------------
"One major improvement in CINEMA 4D has been the fine-tuned optimization for the Intel® Core™ microarchitecture, which took advantage of MAXON’s ten-years experience in multi-threading. [...] On the next-gen Intel® Core™ 2 processor codenamed Yorkfield, CINEMA 4D performs twice as fast as on an Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor. CINEMA 4D takes advantage of various multi-core processors from Intel, e.g. Intel® Xeon®, Intel® Core™ 2 Duo and Intel® Core™ 2 Quad processors."


"In order to fully exploit the power of Intel processors, MAXON keeps improving its software code using Intel® C++ Compiler. [...] The Intel®
VTune™ Performance Analyzer and Intel® Threading Tools support MAXON’s developers in controlling performance improvements and identify performance
related issues.

Thanks to the accurate software tuning and the latest Intel technology advancements, CINEMA 4D now runs more than twice as fast as it did only one year ago - comparing the CINEMA 4D performance on the next-gen Quad-Core processor codenamed "Yorkfield" and on the Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme X6800 Dual-Core processor running at the same frequency - as measured by MAXON's benchmarking tool CINEBENCH."

-------------------------------------

[haylui]

My finding on benchmarking is that certainly the software optimization is a little bias. Intel always releasing new C++ compiler which can greatly optimized for their own processor. Performance gain is doubtful (real performance gain vs scores gain).

Anyway, it's like back into the old day of AMD which a few benchmark can keep up with Intel but the price are much low. I don't see running an AMD platform is like riding a car traveling at 60km/h while Intel's platform is at 60mph.

[QuietIce]

-------------------------------------------
"One major improvement in CINEMA 4D has been the fine-tuned optimization for the Intel® Core™ microarchitecture, which took advantage of MAXON’s ten-years experience in multi-threading. [...] On the next-gen Intel® Core™ 2 processor codenamed Yorkfield, CINEMA 4D performs twice as fast as on an Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor. CINEMA 4D takes advantage of various multi-core processors from Intel, e.g. Intel® Xeon®, Intel® Core™ 2 Duo and Intel® Core™ 2 Quad processors."


"In order to fully exploit the power of Intel processors, MAXON keeps improving its software code using Intel® C++ Compiler. [...] The Intel®
VTune™ Performance Analyzer and Intel® Threading Tools support MAXON’s developers in controlling performance improvements and identify performance
related issues.

Thanks to the accurate software tuning and the latest Intel technology advancements, CINEMA 4D now runs more than twice as fast as it did only one year ago - comparing the CINEMA 4D performance on the next-gen Quad-Core processor codenamed "Yorkfield" and on the Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme X6800 Dual-Core processor running at the same frequency - as measured by MAXON's benchmarking tool CINEBENCH."

-------------------------------------

That certainly holds true for this hardware comparison of Barcelona 1.9GHz v Xeon 1.86GHz:
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...?cid=2&id=2411

[nemrod]

@kyosen

Due to the optimization of Cinebench 10 for the Intel Core architecture, is it possible to run a test on Cinebench 9.5 to get a fair comparision between K10 and Core2Q ?

Where did you see a fair comparision. Not using fully capabilities of new architecture is suppose to show something or you believe maxon have just discovered vtune?
look at slide around 25:
http://www.securitytechnet.com/resou...2/PCS027PS.pdf

So the conclusion is if you're interessed in CINEMA 4D performance you take the fastest and compare plateforms. If not, and your case is to do something really fair, you do your own code optimized on one side for intel next gen cpu and one the other side for amd next gen cpu.

[nemrod]

My finding on benchmarking is that certainly the software optimization is a little bias. Intel always releasing new C++ compiler which can greatly optimized for their own processor. Performance gain is doubtful (real performance gain vs scores gain).

Is it doubtful?
http://www.trustedreviews.com/images...e/5887-mp3.gif

[STEvil]

Used to be a program that would disable Intel processor checks to allow optimized code to run on processors other than "GenuineIntel" ... might help, might not..

EDIT

Wow, the harper and clover system in that hardwarezone writeup are like apples and oranges... 8x 533mhz FB-DIMM's in the Clover and 4x 667mhz FB-DIMM's in the Harper.. best to use 4 sticks (8 is slower) and not matched for speed at all..

[JohannesRS]

Is it doubtful?
http://www.trustedreviews.com/images...e/5887-mp3.gif

It's the proof of the compiler bias. Intel Compiler improves performance against ms-compiler only on intel machines. That's why I always stated that real benchs are compiled benchs with information on compiler and flags released. And no, it doesn't mean that specs are the only bench to be trusted, but yes it means that there will be more trustable benchies on linux than on windows.

But let's avoid a flamme war on OSes here.

[Cronos]

It's the proof of the compiler bias. Intel Compiler improves performance against ms-compiler only on intel machines.

Not true in general. Intel compilers gives best code on Intel CPUs, thats true, but also gives very very good code on AMD CPUs -probably best as well. Its just AMD CPUs not seeing much benefit from SSE2/3 optimizations, which is not Intel's fault anyway.

[JohannesRS]

Not true in general. Intel compilers gives best code on Intel CPUs, thats true, but also gives very very good code on AMD CPUs -probably best as well. Its just AMD CPUs not seeing much benefit from SSE2/3 optimizations, which is not Intel's fault anyway.

Yes and no. Because then why other compilers would give rise to higher performance increasements when told to use SSE2 and SSE3 on AMD machines?

I mean, if icc gives an increase performance from "do not use SSE extensions" to "use SSE extensions" of, lets say, 15% on an intel cpu and of just 10% on an AMD cpu, then that would mean that you are right. But when the same code, compiled with MS compiler, sun compiler, portland group compiler or even gcc shows that turning on the SSE on both architectures yelds similar increasements (say, 15% and 14%), then you have to begin to consider that, yes, intel compiler is giving problem for AMD machines, consciously.

[nemrod]

I mean, if icc gives an increase performance from "do not use SSE extensions" to "use SSE extensions" of, lets say, 15% on an intel cpu and of just 10% on an AMD cpu, then that would mean that you are right. But when the same code, compiled with MS compiler, sun compiler, portland group compiler or even gcc shows that turning on the SSE on both architectures yelds similar increasements (say, 15% and 14%), then you have to begin to consider that, yes, intel compiler is giving problem for AMD machines, consciously.

If you take the previous case I have give on lame compiled with intel or with ms, you see that with Intel compiler, it's faster for Intel but even for AMD this is a little bit faster than MS compiler. The increasements could not be only consider in terms of % if with AMD cpu the best compiler is the Intel one... So I'm agree that Intel compiler is optimized for intel cpu but not for "intel compiler giving problem for AMD machines, consciously".
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34799/118/
Do you believe that when AMD releases new math library to support barcelona, it will increase by the same ratio computing power on intel cpu? Obviously not but I will not say AMD is giving problem for Intel machines, consciously.
"And no, it doesn't mean that specs are the only bench to be trusted, but yes it means that there will be more trustable benchies on linux than on windows."
At least, spec allow to compare best performance for a given set of software at optimum speed, this is probably a better bench to compare 2 architectures. But you will not ask software developper like maxon to sell slower software because it will be most fair for amd. And this is an other side of the problem.

[indiana_74]

sorry.. indiana i cant get back to you.. i am viewing this from opera mini mobile phone.. each processor have it own MSR.. 64 stand for p-state0.. 65 p-state1.. and so on..

yeah you did it right.. change cpu id from crystal spui than open MSR editor for each processor...

other p-state than 0 used for power saving CnQ implementation..

It´s me again

I think that this don´t work.

I try to push my 2344HE to 2GHz but it was not stable, 1.9GHz = not stable, 1.8GHz = not stable

I use this methode to give more Vcore.

I push it to 1.8GHz with 1.2V Vcore (original is 1.1 and 1.15V) and it was not stable.

No i use a voltmeter to check the wattage of the complete system and it shows me that there is NO difference between 1.1V and 1.25V Vcore when the system is running at 100%

That is not possible, there must be a difference!

The CPU does not change the Vcore

What can i do now?

[karbonkid]

No i use a voltmeter to check the wattage of the complete system and it shows me that there is NO difference between 1.1V and 1.25V Vcore when the system is running at 100%

That is not possible, there must be a difference!

The CPU does not change the Vcore

OK, let's take a look at this.
note. these calculations are by no means accurate. i have assumed the current a CPU draws is constant, etc. But at least it provides an indication
At stock, the procecessor's TDP is 68W. Stock is 1.1V, so 68/1.1=6.18A. Now if you feed it and extra 0.15V, that mean 6.18*0.15=0.93 extra watts, a lot of which isnt actually being used (TDP is a theoretical maximum), and therefore the difference is not large enough to show up when measuring power, especially not of the whole system.