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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Movieman
qft!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.
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
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":
Example of Encode Script "Encode.bat":Code:DirectShowSource("Some File.avi") ConvertToYV12()
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.
" 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
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.
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.
Hit the nail on the head
Last edited by informal; 07-08-2009 at 06:05 AM.
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
~~~~ http://www.chip-architect.org ~~~~ http://www.physics-quest.org ~~~~
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.
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
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....
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
~~~~ http://www.chip-architect.org ~~~~ http://www.physics-quest.org ~~~~
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.
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.
It states that turbo mode was active. It doesn't mean that CPU was in turbo mode during the entire test.
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).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
Bookmarks