This is 3dmax 9 64bits render. Barcelona 2.0ghz result 2min4'.
Dual Xeon 5355 2.66ghz is about 1min4x'(It's not my test)
I will test this file with xeon 5320.
I thinks Barcelona equal or a lilte bit faster than xeon in 3dmax render.
And AMD x2 6000+ render this file in more than 6min.
But 3dmax is not optimized for 8 cores, i think. High clock Q6600 may have better result.
I want to test server app now, hic.
Last edited by linhvndiy; 10-15-2007 at 08:02 PM.
You have not read this graph right, it's not even a scaling graph, it is a comparitive graph. The values you quote also do not show scaling above 100% I'm afraid because they are comparitive too.Originally Posted by Viper666
the strait line is INTEL
anandtech
"Notice that the Intel CPU has the advantage when it comes to raw processing power: it is about 19% faster in a single CPU configuration. Once you add a second CPU in both systems, that 19% lead is turned into a 3% advantage for AMD"
What he didnt say here is the Intel is clocked 17% higher and still got beat by 3% on 2 processors
that would be scaling better than 100%
Sorry it wasnt the test using Intels compiler
My Barcelonas will be here Thursday and my KFSN4-DRE is on the table
I am sorry, you cannot get better than 100% scaling with cpu's. It's impossible. If you could then IPC at one frequency becomes IPC+N at a higher frequency which is ludicrous. It's even more ludicrous if you are talking about multiple cpu's which you seem to be doing above. CPU's work downwards from 100%, not up from it.
Unless of course the K10 has it's own laws of physics, maybe that is why they are in such short supply ?
Regards
Andy
Last edited by zakelwe; 10-15-2007 at 10:33 PM.
I think he's trying to use the intel performance factor to amd performance factor as his example for over 100% performance increase, which it is not. It is only an increase in performance per clock cycle.
Stephen, PM incomming.
All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
"Notice that the Intel CPU has the advantage when it comes to raw processing power: it is about 19% faster in a single CPU configuration. Once you add a second CPU in both systems, that 19% lead is turned into a 3% advantage for AMD"
What he didnt say here is the Intel is clocked 17% higher and still got beat by 3% on 2 processors
that would be scaling better than 100%
Sorry it wasnt the test using Intels compiler
ok on one processor(socket)intel won by 19% so on 2(sockets)it should have been 38%,(that would be perfect 100% scaling)but in fact the AMD ran more than twice as fast to WIN by 3%, thats more than 100% scaling on 2 processors,and yes it Phenomenal!! thats 122% scaling
the graff had nothing to do with the scaling comment. I was responding to two post.in one Ill be sure not to do it as it seems to confuse people
Last edited by Viper666; 10-15-2007 at 11:04 PM.
The s3992 has a bios option called "node interleave", if it's disabled numa support is enabled.
The focus should be moved from "100% scaling" vs. "122% scaling" (surely meant ironically) to something like 60% vs. 80%. Then all people here should be happyAs we all know, one type of CPU in a multi CPU setup is hampered more by FSB, inter core traffic and mem BW than another type of CPU with its direct connection links, a cache shared by 4 cores and so on..
Will a car run twice as fast by doubling the number of cylinders?
I can understand this result. Some one can explain to me?
I got 1000 point Cinebench R10 more with DDR2 667(better with old result with ddr2 800).And window2003 change to Winxp64
I think motherboard maker have a lot of work to do to tuning their bios to get the best performance of Barce.
And i think s2932 have somethings wrong with memory or not optimized for barce mem controller.
So it's can make these other review barcelona may be not correct.
linhvndiy, I kindly ask you to run "openssl speed"On Barcelona, and also your dual-Xeon 5320 if possible (for comparison). See http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...45&postcount=1
- Z
This could have been caused by the OS (different memory and CPU thread handling). CB might also not depend too much on memory latency/bandwith.
I looked at the older screenshot again, because this was my first thought. But he run Win 2003 64 bit edition as it seems. The older CB screenshot shows "(64 Bit)". See for yourself: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1048
But there is another problem with your argument. CB doesn't do calculations using the integer registers (GPRs) but SSE registers. But these are also doubled from 8 to 16 in 64 bit mode.
You mixing his pi results up with cinebench. that's what he was refering to.Oh nooooo.....It is very bad!!!!
Remember?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=536
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=522
Yah, i will run it in some mins.linhvndiy, I kindly ask you to run "openssl speed"
- Z
Woohoo. I've finally found people willing to run it. Perseverance pays off !
- Z
Are you on drugs?Oh nooooo.....It is very bad!!!!
Remember?
No lies, we haven't even remotely seen the power of k10 as yet
Mr.Ass is clutching at straws
Yeh he knows mate, he's merely trying to alleviate the trouble he has sleeping at night worrying about whether or not I'm right with my K10-SUPERPi predictions
yes but to predict is not the same has having the priviledge? for seeing a real result.
You enter the business of running benchmarks seldomly or never run by others but still offering nice informations.
While you are on it, please run the benchmarks in the most recent Prime95 32-/64-bit versions.
http://www.mersenne.org/gimps/p95v255a.zip
http://www.mersenne.org/gimps/p64v255.zip
(Options -> Benchmark)
To dresdenboy: I will do it tonight.
I just do the openssl. But i dont think it run well : only one cpu run. It should run on Linux. Please let me know how?
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md2 1449.00k 3054.78k 4214.85k 4665.85k 4804.30k
mdc2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
md4 15350.40k 54126.60k 157606.54k 298261.62k 405246.76k
md5 14174.73k 49422.88k 141059.09k 262657.00k 312424.88k
hmac(md5) 21801.33k 71048.50k 180837.68k 291207.91k 249707.40k
sha1 14510.02k 47249.78k 119463.93k 194800.77k 239247.29k
rmd160 11639.53k 34359.30k 76082.83k 109708.79k 125589.71k
rc4 224624.66k 256885.87k 263172.02k 267750.02k 269124.41k
des cbc 53687.09k 55342.95k 55489.39k 55784.59k 55924.05k
des ede3 19719.34k 19884.10k 19994.27k 20051.53k 19993.81k
idea cbc 36091.68k 38692.84k 39475.80k 39765.86k 39770.57k
rc2 cbc 20258.67k 20911.40k 21074.26k 21115.37k 21136.65k
rc5-32/12 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
blowfish cbc 81029.78k 85576.21k 86592.08k 86928.58k 86951.11k
cast cbc 75352.42k 79531.72k 80737.32k 81029.78k 81029.78k
aes-128 cbc 52766.84k 56660.64k 57723.09k 58032.57k 58042.61k
aes-192 cbc 45497.53k 49483.01k 50526.17k 50770.82k 50770.82k
aes-256 cbc 40900.09k 43919.41k 44644.00k 44924.93k 44930.95k
camellia-128 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
camellia-192 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
camellia-256 cbc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
sha256 9979.01k 24648.36k 45642.97k 57999.97k 58674.42k
sha512 3135.02k 12525.45k 19688.10k 27898.67k 31767.51k
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.000535s 0.000044s 1869.0 22676.5
rsa 1024 bits 0.002409s 0.000118s 415.1 8472.5
rsa 2048 bits 0.013613s 0.000386s 73.5 2589.7
rsa 4096 bits 0.087500s 0.001354s 11.4 738.5
sign verify sign/s verify/s
dsa 512 bits 0.000397s 0.000478s 2517.8 2090.3
dsa 1024 bits 0.001103s 0.001329s 906.8 752.3
dsa 2048 bits 0.003602s 0.004389s 277.6 227.8
Thanks in advance. BTW, Prime95 will write its results into results.txt in the same dir where the exe file resides. It will automatically do tests on one and multiple cores.
My predictions are based on what I've seen already, from some people with a little inside help
It sure seems you are talking bs, I mean, you some how seen a record breaking fast k10 preview when everone else only had the so called bugged k10s. Can you tell us where you seen this ?My predictions are based on what I've seen already, from some people with a little inside help
WERD.
He's all talk and no show.
I never claimed to have seen any record breaking fast k10's at all. I said that from benchmarks I've been priveledged (lucky enough) to see, that k10 cpu's will run SPi 1M in less than 23seconds...and when OC'd will manage to bring that down to 13seconds. I never said which K10 cpu's so I'm sorry if any of you managed to slide an exact model number in there
As for now, we have around 6 users on XS with a k10...all running bugged to the max in server boards/AM2 boards with ECC mem/no oc not to mention most guys have trouble trying to get theirs to boot and run properly.......yet you guys already seem to decide these are the final product????
Come on....
I never claimed to have seen any record breaking fast k10's at all. I said that from benchmarks I've been priveledged (lucky enough) to see, that k10 cpu's will run SPi 1M in less than 26seconds...and when OC'd will manage to bring that down to 17seconds. I never said which K10 cpu's so I'm sorry if any of you managed to slide an exact model number/revision/stepping in there
What are you guys on......10yr old child pills?
As for now, we have around 6 users on XS with a k10...all running bugged to the max in server boards/AM2 boards with ECC mem/no oc not to mention most guys have trouble trying to get theirs to boot and run properly.......yet you guys already seem to decide these are the final product????
Come on....
K10 cpu @ 3Ghz & DDR2 @ 1066+mhz 5,5,5,18 & AM2+ MOBO = <17s
K10 cpu @ 2Ghz & DDR2 @ 667mhz 5,5,5,15 & AM2 MOBO = 26
26 sec is K10's 3+GHz result.
it is obvious.
the only reason Core2 achieves so amazing superpi results is its extremely fast cache. K10 is only 5-10-15 (depending on installed memory type) per cent faster than K8 when running superpi - it is a fact
Not a hijack whatsoever my friend....Get ready, the cpu's go in the mail tomorrow and should reach you by the weekendI also have prepared KFSN4-DRE, now waiting arrival of rental Barcelona
Sorry for hijacking your thread, s7e9h3n...
I deeply appreciate your exclusive support
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks