Page 118 of 181 FirstFirst ... 1868108115116117118119120121128168 ... LastLast
Results 2,926 to 2,950 of 4519

Thread: AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

  1. #2926
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    127
    OBR must be some very skilled guy to judge out Bulldozer performance with his testing of ES samples, especially when he does test cache speeds and don't realize that those numbers are pretty throttled... a little notice is too compare it to Phenom II cachespeeds and also remember that Bulldozer is a cachehungry architecture in many situations, and also ALOT of more powerful cacheprefetchers.
    Ivy Bridge 3770K @ ????MHz
    6c Intel Xeon X7460 24MB cache 16GB RAM 22TB HDD fileserver
    Dual Intel Xeon E5620 workstation
    SB 2600K @ 5016MHz 1.37v HT on AIR primestable
    AMD Athlon X3 425 @ B25 4GHz+ AIR
    AMD Athlon X2 6400+ @ 3811MHz AIR
    AMD Athlon X2 3600+ @ 3200MHz AIR
    AMD Athlon XP 1700+ @ 2714MHz AIR
    Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme
    Corsair 8GB XMS3 2000MHz
    ATI Radeon HD5850 @ 1000MHz+/1200MHz+
    Windows 7 Enterprise x64
    Corsair HX750W

  2. #2927
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Angeles/ HK/ Shenzen
    Posts
    443
    i was thinking about BD when i left the airport in the Philippines on the 18th

  3. #2928
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,764
    lol, for interesting, BD thread in Czech is very impressive in reaction, maybe most discussed thread in CZ forums all times...
    bulldozern.jpg
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i7-6950X, i7-5960X, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  4. #2929
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by FlanK3r View Post
    maybe some BIOS problem???
    Nope. 8150p At DDR3-1866 Stock setting, Cinebench 11.5: 5.95 when OC to 4.8 Ghz/ 2.2 Ghz NB it goes to 7.8.

    So...?

  5. #2930
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    169
    FlanK3r Even if you say so, half of It is still comparison between Thuban and SB or SB glorification so Its not really impressive but rather a thread with too much unrelated stuff.

  6. #2931
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    169
    hiepgia
    Nope. 8150p At DDR3-1866 Stock setting, Cinebench 11.5: 5.95 when OC to 4.8 Ghz/ 2.2 Ghz NB it goes to 7.8.

    So...?
    And? What does it have in common with flanker's question about cache speed being possibly a bios problem. RAM doesn't affect cache.

  7. #2932
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12
    I can't answer this! Ask AMD!

  8. #2933
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    169
    hiepgia
    I can't answer this! Ask AMD!
    Why should I ask AMD when you were the one who quoted flanker yet gave negative answer(nope) with some unrelated stuff as proof.

    P.S. Even if I asked AMD won't say anything.
    Last edited by TESKATLIPOKA; 09-20-2011 at 12:42 AM.

  9. #2934
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,764
    hiepgia: do u onyl found OBR results? Because u talk about this...?!

    in table


    because, this must not be right as retails results...
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i7-6950X, i7-5960X, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  10. #2935
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    169
    FlanK3r didn't you want to link to Aida64 results instead?
    Last edited by TESKATLIPOKA; 09-20-2011 at 01:02 AM.

  11. #2936
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by FlanK3r View Post
    hiepgia: do u onyl found OBR results? Because u talk about this...?!

    in table


    because, this must not be right as retails results...
    Nope. you will see performance shortly! You have choice belive it or not!

  12. #2937
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    And check out the L1 write. If those caches were where they should the performance would be much better.
    That is totally ok, BD's L1 is write through, i.e. writes to the L1 go directly to the L2, thus the L1 and L2 write performance should be more or less the same.
    However, I wonder what is happening with the L2 read performance, for some strange reason it seems to depend on uncore clock:

    2.0GHz: 11.9 GB/s
    2.2GHz: 35.8 GB/s
    2.4GHz: 12.5 GB/s
    2.6GHz: 36.8 GB/s

    That's a big difference ...

  13. #2938
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron146 View Post
    That is totally ok, BD's L1 is write through, i.e. writes to the L1 go directly to the L2, thus the L1 and L2 write performance should be more or less the same.
    However, I wonder what is happening with the L2 read performance, for some strange reason it seems to depend on uncore clock:

    2.0GHz: 11.9 GB/s
    2.2GHz: 35.8 GB/s
    2.4GHz: 12.5 GB/s
    2.6GHz: 36.8 GB/s

    That's a big difference ...
    Looks like a bug. And I guess the will be some interesting results if you starts playing with the core frequency as well. Could it be problems with the sync?

    And the whole write through idea looks like crap to me. What is the advantage? I think I can see some drawbacks.

  14. #2939
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron146 View Post
    That is totally ok, BD's L1 is write through, i.e. writes to the L1 go directly to the L2, thus the L1 and L2 write performance should be more or less the same.
    However, I wonder what is happening with the L2 read performance, for some strange reason it seems to depend on uncore clock:

    2.0GHz: 11.9 GB/s
    2.2GHz: 35.8 GB/s
    2.4GHz: 12.5 GB/s
    2.6GHz: 36.8 GB/s

    That's a big difference ...
    Looks like a bug. And I guess there will be some interesting results if you starts playing with the core frequency as well. Could it be problems with the sync?

    And the whole write through idea looks like crap to me. What is the advantage? I think I can see some drawbacks.

  15. #2940
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    And the whole write through idea looks like crap to me. What is the advantage? I think I can see some drawbacks.
    Mainly clock speed due to a less complex design. Maybe also some power constraints, they only use parity check, no ECC, for the L1 that saves some transistors, too.

  16. #2941
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by hiepgia View Post
    Nope. you will see performance shortly! You have choice belive it or not!
    I believe MovieMan, as credible source....He saw final stepings/retail in action and u can find some indications on XSnews from him...But otherwice, this coolaler result can be truth with his BIOS, boards and revision of BD...(but not must be the same or simillary as after launch date!)
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i7-6950X, i7-5960X, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  17. #2942
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron146 View Post
    Mainly clock speed due to a less complex design. Maybe also some power constraints, they only use parity check, no ECC, for the L1 that saves some transistors, too.
    Is that worth the loss of IPC? IPC usually is a better route than frequency from a power perspective. And frequency gains seems to be small no matter what nowadays so the possibly higher frequencies doesn't seem to make a big impact on the end performance.

  18. #2943
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    Is that worth the loss of IPC? IPC usually is a better route than frequency from a power perspective. And frequency gains seems to be small no matter what nowadays so the possibly higher frequencies doesn't seem to make a big impact on the end performance.
    IPC is just as bad as frequency from a power perspective. ipc cannot be scaled up without huge power drawbacks. Both ipc/frequency should have a good relation to have proper performance. If the difference is to big you can expect bad performance. None of those extremes are at work for SB, BD, K8, nehalem, CoreDuo.

    Also the write through concept isn't really an issue because the stores should be stored in a buffer and are written out more bandwidth driven (bundled if possible) to have less latency impact. (Whether or not it turns out that way needs to be seen).

    it will have an impact if the l2 cache is extremely slow as results above indicate. However Aida64 also reported that Brazos has 0MB/s write on Brazos... so if te tested version doesn't support it properly strange result are common.

  19. #2944
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    Is that worth the loss of IPC? IPC usually is a better route than frequency from a power perspective. And frequency gains seems to be small no matter what nowadays so the possibly higher frequencies doesn't seem to make a big impact on the end performance.
    That's traditional, old thinking, it was true until the leakage went through the roof. For IPC you need lots of transistors, hence the fat cores of e.g. intels current architecture, but leakage will be worse and worse with every shrink. Thus the new idea is to cut as much transistors when it does not hurt that much. It's like with a car engine, you can easily construct an 8 cylinder engine with ~500 hp, but if you around 800 hp and up it gets tricky and you have to use lots of time & money to find and build some really complicated tricks. In short: the return of investments gets less and less.
    So in future it is easier to build smaller cores. Bulldozer is just the first generation. I expect some IPC improvments in later versions again, but they won't cost too much transistors ;-)

  20. #2945
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Opteron146 View Post
    That's traditional, old thinking, it was true until the leakage went through the roof. For IPC you need lots of transistors, hence the fat cores of e.g. intels current architecture, but leakage will be worse and worse with every shrink. Thus the new idea is to cut as much transistors when it does not hurt that much. It's like with a car engine, you can easily construct an 8 cylinder engine with ~500 hp, but if you around 800 hp and up it gets tricky and you have to use lots of time & money to find and build some really complicated tricks. In short: the return of investments gets less and less.
    So in future it is easier to build smaller cores. Bulldozer is just the first generation. I expect some IPC improvments in later versions again, but they won't cost too much transistors ;-)
    That's exactly how I look at high frequencies. Leakage grown lineary with transistors but exponentially with frequency, and exponentially with voltage.

  21. #2946
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    That's exactly how I look at high frequencies. Leakage grown lineary with transistors but exponentially with frequency, and exponentially with voltage.
    Sure, you could use more power consuming logic or drive the single transistors faster to reach higher clockspeeds. But you could just use less logic, thus less transistors, which need to switch during a clock phase. So you get higher clocks w/o increasing power consumption, maybe even lowering it. This is what's AMD's way of going to lower FO4 delays (per pipelinestage).
    Now on Twitter: @Dresdenboy!
    Blog: http://citavia.blog.de/

  22. #2947
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,747
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    That's exactly how I look at high frequencies. Leakage grown lineary with transistors but exponentially with frequency, and exponentially with voltage.
    i dont think leakage is exponential with clock speed, ive done the tests with thuban and it seemed power draw was near linear with clock speed, but exponential with voltage. but you need volts for higher clocks so they practically go hand in hand.
    2500k @ 4900mhz - Asus Maxiums IV Gene Z - Swiftech Apogee LP
    GTX 680 @ +170 (1267mhz) / +300 (3305mhz) - EK 680 FC EN/Acteal
    Swiftech MCR320 Drive @ 1300rpms - 3x GT 1850s @ 1150rpms
    XS Build Log for: My Latest Custom Case

  23. #2948
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,534
    As some of you know OBR was banned here sometime ago. We do not allow reposting of material from banned members.

    Take this as a warning, anymore posting of OBR screens or links pointing to his materal will/may result in a vacation.

  24. #2949
    Banned Movieman...
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    illinois
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    As some of you know OBR was banned here sometime ago. We do not allow reposting of material from banned members.

    Take this as a warning, anymore posting of OBR screens or links pointing to his materal will/may result in a vacation.
    you are going to have to start acting on this because it has been said so many times in this thread before.

  25. #2950
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,534
    Quote Originally Posted by stangracin3 View Post
    you are going to have to start acting on this because it has been said so many times in this thread before.
    Thats why I made the post

Page 118 of 181 FirstFirst ... 1868108115116117118119120121128168 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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