Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 118

Thread: Bit-tech AMD six core review

  1. #51
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,806
    Why does the desktop keep coming into the discussion?

    a) this is a server CPU
    b) the test was done poorly (performance wise at least) I'm sure we can agree on that. Look at the data Hans de Vries posted for example.

  2. #52
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Little Rock
    Posts
    7,206
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    Donnie,Hans was talking about server workloads where BW means a lot,not client one where it means very little. Give more BW to Istanbul and it will surely get better scores in a lot of workloads.How much better?Nobody knows until DDR3 server platform launches(my guess is quite good speed-up in spec rate tests at least,since these are mostly BW bound).
    In the end,customers mostly look for perf/watt and AMD is doing very good at the moment. New SE 6core Opty at 2.8Ghz is already listed at HP's site,so the launch is imminent.With DDR3 things can only get faster for Istanbul,and with Magny Cours ,AMD will use simple yet effective tactic of core pair matching in direct connected MCM in order to get 2x more cores,2x more cache and almost 4 times more mem. BW than current Istanbuls(DDR3 vs DDR2 and 4 vs 2 channels).
    Informal, I was talking about Servers, Conroe version of Xeon and Penryn version of Xeon, NOT limited to their Desktop brothers. More bandwidth would make this test look better. That will not translate to that much better performance in a lot of other apps. I agree no one knows how much better things would get. More bandwidth will help but IMHO, it will not change the outcome anytime soon. Sure I'm no expert.

    I'll say it again, HPC folks aren't to worried about perf/watt and if that's what AMD is pinning their hopes on, they are in Deep DooDoo! There are already TV ads running for Intel/Dell/IBM/ and HP SERVERS guys. They're showing one blade rack replacing a whole room full of older servers. They've already planted the savings for Space, Power Draw, Temps and where are the AMD ads? This is one of the reasons AMD lost server market share.

    Yes, I know Hans meant GB and not MB.
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman
    With the two approaches to "how" to design a processor WE are the lucky ones as we get to choose what is important to us as individuals.
    For that we should thank BOTH (AMD and Intel) companies!


    Posted by duploxxx
    I am sure JF is relaxed and smiling these days with there intended launch schedule. SNB Xeon servers on the other hand....
    Posted by gallag
    there yo go bringing intel into a amd thread again lol, if that was someone droping a dig at amd you would be crying like a girl.
    qft!

  3. #53
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    1,940
    i don't get it how people can defend this review?

    it has so many obvious errors in component choice and offers no detailed information on the test setup...


    you better take a look at the anandtech review published over a month ago:

    http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3571


    Much bette insight in the hardware and benchmarks for the server market (who cares about GAMING performance on a server cpu )


    bit-tech should stick to gaming hardware and try to improve their test setups instead of wasting their time on server hardware
    Core i7 2600k|HD 6950|8GB RipJawsX|2x 128gb Samsung SSD 830 Raid0|Asus Sabertooth P67
    Seasonic X-560|Corsair 650D|2x WD Red 3TB Raid1|WD Green 3TB|Asus Xonar Essence STX


    Core i3 2100|HD 7770|8GB RipJawsX|128gb Samsung SSD 830|Asrock Z77 Pro4-M
    Bequiet! E9 400W|Fractal Design Arc Mini|3x Hitachi 7k1000.C|Asus Xonar DX


    Dell Latitude E6410|Core i7 620m|8gb DDR3|WXGA+ Screen|Nvidia Quadro NVS3100
    256gb Samsung PB22-J|Intel Wireless 6300|Sierra Aircard MC8781|WD Scorpio Blue 1TB


    Harman Kardon HK1200|Vienna Acoustics Brandnew|AKG K240 Monitor 600ohm|Sony CDP 228ESD

  4. #54
    Xtreme X.I.P. Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by saint-francis View Post
    Using avisynth? If so the bottleneck is there, before x264. People get 100% usage from 16 core with x264. There is something wrong with your process that causes this.
    That must be it then. Yes, I use avisynth. Take note that I don't so much benchmark as look at the performance of actually useful tasks, and that means using avisynth to convert video into one of the like two formats the x264 encoder supports.

    Example of AviSynth Script "File.avs":
    Code:
    DirectShowSource("Some File.avi")
    ConvertToYV12()
    Example of Encode Script "Encode.bat":
    Code:
    del "Temp Stats.log"
    
    x264.exe --bitrate 7500 --pass 1 --stats "Temp Stats.log" --progress --threads 6 -o "Output.mkv" File.avs
    
    x264.exe --bitrate 7500 --pass 2 --stats "Temp Stats.log" --progress --threads 6 -o "Output.mkv" File.avs
    
    x264.exe --bitrate 7500 --pass 3 --stats "Temp Stats.log" --progress --threads 6 -o "Output.mkv" File.avs
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  5. #55
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by generics_user View Post
    i don't get it how people can defend this review?

    it has so many obvious errors in component choice and offers no detailed information on the test setup...


    you better take a look at the anandtech review published over a month ago:

    http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3571


    Much better insight in the hardware and benchmarks for the server market (who cares about GAMING performance on a server cpu )


    bit-tech should stick to gaming hardware and try to improve their test setups instead of wasting their time on server hardware
    qft
    " Business is Binary, your either a 1 or a 0, alive or dead." - Gary Winston ^^



    Asus rampage III formula,i7 980xm, H70, Silverstone Ft02, Gigabyte Windforce 580 GTX SLI, Corsair AX1200, intel x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb, hp zr30w, 12gb corsair vengeance

    Rig 2
    i7 980x ,h70, Antec Lanboy Air, Samsung md230x3 ,Saphhire 6970 Xfired, Antec ax1200w, x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb,12gb Corsair Vengence MSI Big Bang Xpower

  6. #56
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    Not to mention the MB/sec that should be GB/sec just as another obvious error...
    It was a typo obviously .The man is writting a high level physics book btw,think 100 times before you point out "mistakes" such as this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post
    Since when was the X5570 3.33GHz?
    Since X5570 does run all 4 cores with turbo(iirc).There are limits to it,but if the temps are below the specced limit ,all 4 cores run turboed.

    Quote Originally Posted by generics_user View Post
    i don't get it how people can defend this review?

    it has so many obvious errors in component choice and offers no detailed information on the test setup...


    you better take a look at the anandtech review published over a month ago:

    http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3571


    Much bette insight in the hardware and benchmarks for the server market (who cares about GAMING performance on a server cpu )


    bit-tech should stick to gaming hardware and try to improve their test setups instead of wasting their time on server hardware
    Hit the nail on the head
    Last edited by informal; 07-08-2009 at 06:05 AM.

  7. #57
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by kl0012 View Post
    Since when X5570 has became 3.33 GHZ? Last time I checked it was 2.93. Turbo Bust is very unlikely since all cores are active&busy in this bench.
    The latter would be probably correct for you or me if we would buy a
    single system, however,

    The 3.33 GHz is the maximum frequency allowed to use for Spec 2006
    when benchmarking an X5570 and there is nothing which forbids these
    multinationals to actually use systems and CPU's which can and do run
    at this frequency.

    From a marketing standpoint they are more or less obligated to do some
    cherry picking. If they wouldn't do so then their systems would look
    inferior compared to those of their competitors.

    Regards, Hans

  8. #58
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post
    The latter would be probably correct for you or me if we would buy a
    single system, however,

    The 3.33 GHz is the maximum frequency allowed to use for Spec 2006
    when benchmarking an X5570 and there is nothing which forbids these
    multinationals to actually use systems and CPU's which can and do run
    at this frequency.

    From a marketing standpoint they are more or less obligated to do some
    cherry picking. If they wouldn't do so then their systems would look
    inferior compared to those of their competitors.

    Regards, Hans
    You do know how turbomode works right? Or are we now running spec numbers in dual or singlecore? Plus with turbomode you kinda calculate that the needed TDP headroom is there.

    1-2 cores is 3.33Ghz in full turbomode on X5570. 3-4 cores is 3.2ghz. And with HT on and utilized its even harder to reach those. Unless its a "light" load.
    Last edited by Ashraf; 07-08-2009 at 06:37 AM. Reason: No need to insult a member. Last quote removed.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  9. #59
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post
    The 3.33 GHz is the maximum frequency allowed to use for Spec 2006
    when benchmarking an X5570 and there is nothing which forbids these
    multinationals to actually use systems and CPU's which can and do run
    at this frequency.
    Regards, Hans
    Isn't max turbo restricted by some kind of internal logic which has no magic switch "on/off"? Untill now I didn't saw any evidence that Nehalem/Xeon can run 4 cores full loaded with max turbo on. Otherwise it makes no sence to mark this CPU as 2.93GHz.

  10. #60
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Quote Originally Posted by kl0012 View Post
    Isn't max turbo restricted by some kind of internal logic which has no magic switch "on/off"? Untill now I didn't saw any evidence that Nehalem/Xeon can run 4 cores full loaded with max turbo on. Otherwise it makes no sence to mark this CPU as 2.93GHz.
    http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3536&p=2

    They say that x5570 usually works at higher clocks than def.,but 3.2GHz while achievable,is not seen that much.Also they stated the cores clock up to 3.06GHz usually.But if one would make the ambient and case temps lower,cores could theoretically clock up to 3.2Ghz as their table shows.

    Xeon model Speed (GHz) Max. Turbo Max. Turbo(4 cores busy ) L3 Cache (MB) TDP (W)
    X5570 2.93 3.33GHz 3.2GHz 8MB 95

  11. #61
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by kl0012 View Post
    Isn't max turbo restricted by some kind of internal logic which has no magic switch "on/off"? Untill now I didn't saw any evidence that Nehalem/Xeon can run 4 cores full loaded with max turbo on. Otherwise it makes no sence to mark this CPU as 2.93GHz.
    the x5570 model can increase the multiplier by 2 with 3core/4core as long as it stays in TDP or increase multiplier by 3 for 1core/2core as long as it stays in TDP this is set in the CPU logic.

    The Value(80W) series don't have turbo
    The Volume(80W) series have +1 for 3c/4c and +2 for 1c/2c
    The Perf(95W) series have +2 for 3c/4c and +3 for 1c/2c
    The W (130W) series have +1 for 2c/3c/4c and +2 for 1c

    so that is the reason why Hans stated upto 3.33GHZ on the x5570 since the x5570 falls into the 95W series
    and Shintai, I am sure he knows....
    Last edited by duploxxx; 07-08-2009 at 06:48 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
    Fanboyitis..
    Comes in two variations and both deadly.
    There's the green strain and the blue strain on CPU.. There's the red strain and the green strain on GPU..

  12. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by duploxxx View Post

    so that is the reason why Hans stated up to 3.33GHZ on the x5570 since the x5570 falls into the 95W series
    Hans didn't state up to, he just stated 3.33Ghz as though it was a guaranteed constant.

    I guess like so many members of AMDZone, he needs to over state what Turbo is bringing to the table.

  13. #63
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by duploxxx View Post
    the x5570 model can increase the multiplier by 2 with 3core/4core as long as it stays in TDP or increase multiplier by 3 for 1core/2core as long as it stays in TDP this is set in the CPU logic.

    The Value(80W) series don't have turbo
    The Volume(80W) series have +1 for 3c/4c and +2 for 1c/2c
    The Perf(95W) series have +2 for 3c/4c and +3 for 1c/2c
    The W (130W) series have +1 for 2c/3c/4c and +2 for 1c

    so that is the reason why Hans stated upto 3.33GHZ on the x5570 since the x5570 falls into the 95W series
    and Shintai, I am sure he knows....
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3536&p=2

    They say that x5570 usually works at higher clocks than def.,but 3.2GHz while achievable,is not seen that much.Also they stated the cores clock up to 3.06GHz usually.But if one would make the ambient and case temps lower,cores could theoretically clock up to 3.2Ghz as their table shows.

    Xeon model Speed (GHz) Max. Turbo Max. Turbo(4 cores busy ) L3 Cache (MB) TDP (W)
    X5570 2.93 3.33GHz 3.2GHz 8MB 95
    So guys, you both support my argument that x5570 can't run 3.33GHz with 4 cores busy. So how Hans can be right with his statement?

  14. #64
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    324
    Hm, there is one thing that would allow to run 4 thread task at 3.33. That would depend on how windows would dispatch loads, e.g. this way: 2 real cores + 2 virtual ones.
    So in case of windows it would run almost half of time @ 3.33 and rest at 3.2Ghz (if TDP allows, of course)

    And apparently bit-tech used mostly 4 or less threaded tasks.
    Windows 8.1
    Asus M4A87TD EVO + Phenom II X6 1055T @ 3900MHz + HD3850
    APUs

  15. #65
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by SEA View Post
    Hm, there is one thing that would allow to run 4 thread task at 3.33. That would depend on how windows would dispatch loads, e.g. this way: 2 real cores + 2 virtual ones.
    So in case of windows it would run almost half of time @ 3.33 and rest at 3.2Ghz (if TDP allows, of course)

    And apparently bit-tech used mostly 4 or less threaded tasks.
    Windows loads the cores correctly. The extra logical cores per real core is loaded last.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  16. #66
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Well the max turbo of 3.33Ghz is achievable on less than 4 cores and I believe there are tests that don't fully load all 4 cores in spec rate suit.So yes,the CPU could run two active cores at 3.33GHz if the load on the cores allowed it. The top scores we see posted are usually tuned to the max(ie. used low ambient and case temps,max. tuned via compiler switches etc.).It's legit of course,people use everything they can without breaking the rules in order to take the top spot.

  17. #67
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    Windows loads the cores correctly. The extra logical cores per real core is loaded last.
    They used Windows Vista Ultimate x64 SP1
    I'm not sure if it is correct for non-server versions of windows.

    Anyway, 3.2 or 3.33 Ghz - not a big difference vs 2.6 Ghz
    Windows 8.1
    Asus M4A87TD EVO + Phenom II X6 1055T @ 3900MHz + HD3850
    APUs

  18. #68
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by SEA View Post
    They used Windows Vista Ultimate x64 SP1
    I'm not sure if it is correct for non-server versions of windows.

    Anyway, 3.2 or 3.33 Ghz - not a big difference vs 2.6 Ghz
    Vista and Windows Server 2008 is the same kernel and codebase.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  19. #69
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    3,423
    I wonder if they bothered to change number of render threads in LightWave 3D.
    The software is auto-configuring that option depending on number of cores at the installation (or during startup), then writes it to cfg file. It only allows 1,2,4,8,16 threads, so it's highly possible that 12 core machine was still rendering using 8 threads! Manually adjusting that value to 16 threads would surely improved Istanbul score.

    Still 16 render threads are not enough for 12 real cores! I'm basing that statement on personal experience with various 3D scenes on my Quad CPU. For my Quad best setting depending on scene was 8 or 16 threads! Almost always 4 threads was slower than 8! Reason being that render screen is split in equal parts (horizontal bands) according to number of render threads. Given that your scene is consisting of blue sky up to half of the picture and massively complex city/forest for the other part, then with 4 threads rendering top part utilizing 2 cores would finish way ahead of bottom part. There is no dynamic thread utilization as seen in Cinebench!
    Granted, my findings were on LW 8.5, so NewTek could change the way renderer works, but they still kept 16 threads max. count in version 9.6 so I doubt it!
    RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W

    RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU

    SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
    XBONE paired with 55'' Samsung LED 3D TV

  20. #70
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Shintai View Post
    Vista and Windows Server 2008 is the same kernel and codebase.
    Sure, like windows XP and Windows 2003 server. Which do dispatch DIFFERENTLY....

    btw I'd like to learn how vista and other OS do scheduling... Any link to this? I could not find, particularly could not find anything on how windows makes difference on virtual and real cores task scheduling. Can you support your words with some useful link to MS?
    Windows 8.1
    Asus M4A87TD EVO + Phenom II X6 1055T @ 3900MHz + HD3850
    APUs

  21. #71
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by SEA View Post
    Sure, like windows XP and Windows 2003 server. Which do dispatch DIFFERENTLY....

    btw I'd like to learn how vista and other OS do scheduling... Any link to this? I could not find, particularly could not find anything on how windows makes difference on virtual and real cores task scheduling. Can you support your words with some useful link to MS?
    XP and 2003 is only the same for x64. x86 is different.

    Its no diffrent than when you do SMP and Multicore scheduling. Today its mostly done via ACPI to tell the OS who is who. If you load a HT system. i7, Xeons etc. You will also see its 0, 2, 4 and 6 that gets loaded first. Windows 7/2008 R2 should further improve this. XP was the first Windows OS to be Hyperthreading aware. Or rather aware of the differences on logical cores.

    Ofcourse you can always mess it up by hardcoding affirmity in your app.
    Last edited by Shintai; 07-08-2009 at 08:06 AM.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  22. #72
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    324
    Shintai
    OK, I see.
    So every even core is counted as real core. And it assumes that BIOS enumerates them it this order. And if another BIOS would do differently? Or ACPI gets information on how they enumerated before starting scheduling?

    XP was the first Windows OS to be Hyperthreading aware.
    And since SP2 it is NUMA aware.

    Still i don't see how all this would garantee 3.2 rather 3.33 Ghz...
    Last edited by SEA; 07-08-2009 at 08:27 AM.
    Windows 8.1
    Asus M4A87TD EVO + Phenom II X6 1055T @ 3900MHz + HD3850
    APUs

  23. #73
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    235
    If a Spec_Int_rate or a Spec_FP_rate submission specifies that Turbo mode
    is used with speeds up to 3.33 GHz then this is what one (conservatively) has
    to assume. The submitter has the option to attach notes which specify any
    specific deviations.

    It's not the task of the reader to go into any unspecified and uncontrollable
    details here. The submitter is allowed to use any cherry picking, hardware-
    settings, bios or kernel programming tricks to get the frequencies as close to
    the maximum of 3.33 GHz as he can.


    Regards, Hans
    Last edited by Hans de Vries; 07-08-2009 at 08:35 AM.

  24. #74
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    7,745
    Quote Originally Posted by SEA View Post
    Shintai
    OK, I see.
    So every even core is counted as real core. And it assumes that BIOS enumerates them it this order. And if another BIOS would do differently? Or ACPI gets information on how they enumerated before starting scheduling?
    Thats how it worked long ago in XP32. In 2003 you got an API called GetLogicalProcessorInformation.

    GetLogicalProcessorInformation returns data that describes:
    The physical-to-logical relationship for each physical processor in the system.
    The logical processor mask for each NUMA node in the machine, if the system has a NUMA architecture.

    So now even your application and see if its a HT CPU or not. So if coded correctly it would simply make sure that the application only ran on 1 instance per physical core if HT results was proven to be bad.
    Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.

  25. #75
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    Well the max turbo of 3.33Ghz is achievable on less than 4 cores and I believe there are tests that don't fully load all 4 cores in spec rate suit.So yes,the CPU could run two active cores at 3.33GHz if the load on the cores allowed it. The top scores we see posted are usually tuned to the max(ie. used low ambient and case temps,max. tuned via compiler switches etc.).It's legit of course,people use everything they can without breaking the rules in order to take the top spot.
    Hardly belivable considering 8 instances of app runnig on 4 cores (+HT). I rather belive that most of the time it ran at 2.93 GHz with high CPU utilization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post
    If a Spec_Int_rate or a Spec_FP_rate submission specifies that Turbo mode
    is used with speeds up to 3.33 GHz then this is what one (conservatively) has
    to assume. The submitter has the option to attach notes which specify any
    specific deviations.
    It states that turbo mode was active. It doesn't mean that CPU was in turbo mode during the entire test.

    It's not the task of the reader to go into any unspecified and uncontrollable
    details here. The submitter is allowed to use any cherry picking, hardware-
    settings, bios or kernel programming tricks to get the frequencies as close to
    the maximum of 3.33 GHz as he can.


    Regards, Hans
    Care you to explain how it is possible to ajust bios settings/kernel in such way, that additional 133-266MHz of frequency will be equivalent to one cpu core (since we already know that 3.33GHz isn't possible when app loads all 4 cores of x5570).

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •