Here's a little teaser....

[rogueagent6]

On my 37" Aquos, it's more than 1" below the AMD link, making it too far for my mouse to wander

LOL that was great!

[Motiv]

Oops....I was assuming one of the logical procs in socket #1 was running the bench, when in reality the process initiates with cpu1 and then is immediately handed off to cpu6 for some odd reason. Bound the bench to Cpu5 and it results in a 1m ranging from 39s - 41s. The memory is STILL being detected @ 159mhz single channel though. I tried to install Sandra to check other stats on the board, but it flat out wouldn't even run after installation. Upon reboot, I can't even get back into the OS. The rig still posts, but just doesn't enter the OS. When I try to re-install windows, I get a BSOD in the middle of the setup process. I'm tired and frustrated with screwing around with this config which AMD had claimed should work without a problem. I'm going to have this setup swapped out for another which I should have in a couple of days.......

Such a shame s7e9h3n. Was really looking forward to some benchies. Looks like I'll have to wait till you get another rig next week. Lets hope it is a bit better

[massman]

Dave for me please:
- Cinebench 9.5 x64 Cinebench
- 3DMark06 CPU Test
- Everest4.0 Latency tests and FPU tests Everset Trial
- mBench memory subsystem benchmark mBench.exe
- anything else you will like (including server benchmarks, kernel compilation, etc...)


THANKS!

Maybe 3DMark01?

[s7e9h3n]

Maybe 3DMark01?

Does 3dMark even install on x64 based OS's? I've tried to install PCMark on my 2x2218's running 2k3 x64 and it won't work. The only way I can run PCMark is to use a separate XP 32-bit install.

[hawkeyefan]

Does 3dMark even install on x64 based OS's? I've tried to install PCMark on my 2x2218's running 2k3 x64 and it won't work. The only way I can run PCMark is to use a separate XP 32-bit install.

Have you tried running the installer in XP SP2 Compatibility Mode? Might have to do the same with the .exe once it's installed.

maybe I'll give this a try myself, haven't run that in years

[Lightman]

Does 3dMark even install on x64 based OS's? I've tried to install PCMark on my 2x2218's running 2k3 x64 and it won't work. The only way I can run PCMark is to use a separate XP 32-bit install.

It's running very well under XP x64 in contrary to stupid PCMark...

[s7e9h3n]

It's running very well under XP x64 in contrary to stupid PCMark...

Ahhh, ok....good to know as I should be getting an 8800ultra (or two) early next week.

OT: Noticed you have a T-mobile MDA in your sig. I've got the MDA pro and when I get bored of messing with computers, I just OC my phone :p.

[KTE]

s7e9h3n & dave_graham

SiSoftware Sandra: http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.ht...buy&langx=en&a
-Arithmatic, Multimedia, Multi-core efficiency, Mem Bandwidth, Mem Latency, Cache and Memory Latency benchmarks.

Include EVEREST Memory Read/Write bandwidth please.

CrystalMark: http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/S...stalMark.shtml
- ALU, FPU, MEM test. Not bothered about HDD, GDI, D2D, OGL.

wPrime: http://www.wprime.net/download.html
- 32M and 1024M if you overclock.

WinRAR: http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm
- Tools> Benchmark and hardware test.

ScienceMark: http://www.start64.com/index.php?opt...d=72&Itemid=76
- (couldn't find any more recent x64 Windows edition) File > Run all benchmarks.

TrueCrypt: http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads.php
- Tools . Benchmark > 100MB and 1GB buffer size.

You can do PassMark two CPU and one Mem test aswell: http://www.start64.com/index.php?opt...id=34&Itemid=1

SuperPi 1M and 32M would be good too for comparison please.

Just run whatever the damn you can I'd ask for server benches but I damn well know how costly they are. All above should run on x64 Windoze though and gives us a good allround indication.

Gaming benchmarks? That wouldn't interest me unless you wade through which games at what stage/settings are CPU bottlenecked and then test to compare. Cheers.

EDIT:
I forgot POV-Ray rendering: http://www.povray.org/download/
QX6850 gets 98 seconds in 3.7 and E6850 gets 196 sec.

Valve Map Compilation, Particle Simulation bench would be good.

If you can, run a single/dual core only to see the power and scaling of that in comparison to quads/octal. News outlet bloggers are going on about Core 2 being more powerful as in single core efficiency because of its 4-execution engine, so I'd like to see how this compares.

As always, thanks!

[Lightman]

Ahhh, ok....good to know as I should be getting an 8800ultra (or two) early next week.

OT: Noticed you have a T-mobile MDA in your sig. I've got the MDA pro and when I get bored of messing with computers, I just OC my phone :p.

OT: Heh! I was OCing my previous MDA based on OMAP CPU (from 180 up to 240MHz ) mainly because of Worms WP but with this new one I can't find app which will run slow on it !
BTW what is powering your phone and how you OC it?

Back on topic: So you'll get Ultras together with new (hopefully working) board for K10! Looks like it will be interesting week . This weekend I will chill out watching F1 on TV so no rush with testing please !

It was a joke of course!!! Bench new stuff 24/7 or die!!

[KTE]

Just to clarify it for others:

What he meant by performance scaling, is processor frequency scaling efficiency.

i.e. performance change/speed change x 100

Speed bump was 25% so maximum expected linear scaling is 100% of that 25%.

OT: Heh! I was OCing my previous MDA based on OMAP CPU (from 180 up to 240MHz ) but with this new one I can't find app which will run slow on it !

OT: Is it one of the HTCs?

[PetNorth]

Just to clarify it for others:

What he meant by performance scaling, is processor frequency scaling efficiency.

i.e. performance change/speed change x 100

Speed bump was 25% so maximum expected linear scaling is 100% of that 25%.

yes

[s7e9h3n]

I decided to give this system one more shot at booting up before having to trade her in. To my surprise, I was able to get into windows on the first attempt. I installed a newer version of Sandra and ran a couple of the benchmarks. Needless to say, the results seemed WAAY off base as Sandra had this Barc. setup ~400% slower than a dual Xeon 3220 system. I've got some SS of some other slightly less embarassing benches (but not by much) which I'll post later as I'm writing from my phone ATM.

OT: @ KTE and Lightman - my phone's a qtek9000 -> a rebadged HTC Universal powered by an Intel XScale 520Mhz cpu

[KTE]

That's quite sad. Now I just want to see when the first OEM K10 system is up for grabs and if that suffers from the same problems. Its kinda obvious K10 is not in platform stability mode yet. Whether its the chip, MB, BIOS, can't really tell from here.

Worst thing is, everyone can get differing results and not know if the results are accurate, underperforming 1%, or by 500%.

s7e9h3n: Is there any way to underclock the CPUs through BIOS? If you do that, like to 1.5GHz, would they run?
I'm thinking maybe the earlier chips have clock instabilities here. That's usually how a failed overclock reacts.

Ahh well, let me make note of a few related things I've seen around, just to show you what can happen. Just be careful that these server benchmarks vary very widely depending on how optimized you tune the software running (and in this case, your BIOS/CPU rev)

Techreport benching: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13176/4

These first chips run at rather low clock frequencies, with even lower memory controller/L3 cache speeds.

Anandtech benching: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=5

Specjbb2005
TR: Dual Opteron 2350 (2GHz) = 88949 Bops
AT: Dual Opteron 2350 (2GHz) = 70363 Bops
TR: Dual Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) = 87718 Bops
AT: Dual Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz) = 68303 Bops

Get me? And the SPEC submitted results are usually higher than these, especially for Xeons they are submitted as the authors mention, with all tweakings and so on.

[dave_graham]

s7e9h3n & dave_graham
wPrime: http://www.wprime.net/download.html
- 32M and 1024M if you overclock.

under windows xp pro, sp2, on a 3992 (single plane) with 2 x 2347 B1 processors and 4 x 1GB DDR2-667 (CAS 5) ECC/Reg modules:

8 total threads

32m: 11.406 seconds
1024m: 364.062

4 total threads

32m: 23.015 seconds
1024m: 742.875

1 total thread

32m: 84.578 seconds
1024m:

also, CPU-Z is inaccurately reporting clock speed but wPrime IS accurate. weird, i guess.

I'll have the untouched WPS result files available after everything is tested.

[dave_graham]

see below

[dave_graham]

s7e9h3n: Is there any way to underclock the CPUs through BIOS? If you do that, like to 1.5GHz, would they run?
I'm thinking maybe the earlier chips have clock instabilities here. That's usually how a failed overclock reacts.

i have 2 x 2344 (HE processors) rated at 1.7ghz that I can test against as well.

dave

[Piotrsama]

I'm thinking maybe the earlier chips have clock instabilities here. That's usually how a failed overclock reacts.

You mean as if they were throttling???
I don't think AMD CPUs can do that.

[dave_graham]

You mean as if they were throttling???
I don't think AMD CPUs can do that.

AMD processors make use of dynamic multiplier manipulation to enter into different power stages...it's MUCH more flexible than Intel's currently (which, iirc, is 3 different states).

cheers,

dave

[s7e9h3n]

Here's a few Sandra shots. I guess I didn't save as many as I had first thought

Here's what Sandra says about the entire config. Note how off some of the numbers are:




Here's the CPU Info:




Memory Bandwidth: Note the Bandwidth efficiency




Here's the Cache and Memory bench:




One thing weird I did notice with these cpu's is how they're seemingly handing off workload to each other. If I don't set the affinity for a bench, say like Spi, the cpu's will randomly hand off the calculations one another every so often. It's quite odd and it also causes the bench to run slower. In all of the Sandra benchmarks I ran, it seemed that only the cache and memory bench from above gave the cpu's a consistent workload. With the other benches, the cpu usage was erratic and unpredictable. I guess it's a possibility I have a bad install of windows, but hopefully with some new HW, this will all be sorted out.....

[JohannesRS]

Dave: Have you installed just windows on that? If linux, would mind in making some trials for gromacs gcc compiled benchs, with the assmble loops on it (specfp disable those).

If possible, let me know, and send you a few "guidelines".

[m411b]

Yep, Yep!!
Looks like Barcelona's bitten the BIG 1....
So much for AMD!

[perkam]

We need desktop parts, and pronto.

Perkam

[dinos22]

It's interesting how things turn sour as soon as a couple of members that regularly post in AMD section joined here

I've got some SS of some other slightly less embarassing benches (but not by much) which I'll post later as I'm writing from my phone ATM.

OT: @ KTE and Lightman - my phone's a qtek9000 -> a rebadged HTC Universal powered by an Intel XScale 520Mhz cpu

showoff j/k
what size screen is the phone and how many hours did it take you to write a couple of sentences .....i tried surfing the net on a phone once and it was the most frustrating experience i've ever endured lol




Perkam yeah desktop parts PLS

[GenTarkin]

Yep, Yep!!
Looks like Barcelona's bitten the BIG 1....
So much for AMD!

We need desktop parts, and pronto.

Perkam

WAIT WAIT.....are you being sarcastic XC? lol
I hope so cuz aint that cache and memory bench like AMAZING?...or am I reading the numbers all wrong...lol

and perkam you saying that in desperation or in seriousness cuz of the excitement of the above performance...rofl

Im confused!!!!
I think that bottom screenie is AMAZING............

[dave_graham]

WinRAR: http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm
- Tools> Benchmark and hardware test.

1573 kb/s
0 errors
over 1.1GB processed
12:02 minutes

TrueCrypt: http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads.php
- Tools . Benchmark > 100MB and 1GB buffer size.

interesting thing to note about this is that a Via EDEN could probably do a GREAT job on this one.

Buffer size:

200mb:
Encrpyt, Decrypt, Mean (mb/s)
Twofish: 46.7, 48.1, 47.4
AES: 46.3, 40.5, 43.4
Serpent: 35.2, 35.7, 35.4
AES-twofish: 23, 21.6, 22.3
Twofish-Serpent: 20.5, 20, 20.2
Serpent-AES: 20.3, 18.3, 19.3
Serpent-AES-Twofish:14.7, 13.5, 14.1
AES-Twofish-Serpent: 14.4, 13.5, 14

1GB:
Encrpyt, Decrypt, Mean (mb/s)
Twofish: 46.8, 48.2, 47.5
AES: 46.3, 40.6, 43.4
Serpent: 35.3, 35.7, 35.5
AES-twofish: 22.9, 20.8, 21.9
Twofish-Serpent: 20.2, 19.4, 19.8
Serpent-AES: 20.1, 18, 19
Serpent-AES-Twofish:14.5, 13.2, 13.8
AES-Twofish-Serpent: 14.2, 13.1, 13.6