NUMA is only relevant with AMD's 2 socket or higher platforms. A single-socket AMD system is still UMA.
And as evidenced by the QuadFX, NUMA tends to reduce performance in desktop type applications.
NUMA is only relevant with AMD's 2 socket or higher platforms. A single-socket AMD system is still UMA.
And as evidenced by the QuadFX, NUMA tends to reduce performance in desktop type applications.
Running one single desktop application on Intel will normally go faster than AMD, Intel processors is designed to run one single thread as fast as possible. Programming multithreaded applications is difficult. Applications that need this type of functionality has developers that know how to develop in order to take advantage of the processors capabilities. They know that it is a bad solution to have small threads that talk to each other, Intel processors doesn’t like that at all. The only x86 processor today that handles applications using small stateless threads well (e.g. small functions that are stateless could easily be runned in their own thread) is AMD’s K10. But this type of design isn’t done because the market is too small. When Intel will release their next generation Nehalem I think this will change.Originally Posted by accord99
Applications that use threads today is divided in big parts. Avoiding shared memory etc.
The problem arises when you run more than one application because this is a situation that the developer isn’t going to bother with.
Here is a test on the memory performance and scaling between Opteron and Xeon.
http://connexitor.com/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=191
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...adcore_ba.html
Perhaps multi-threaded compression application is good example for scaling:
http://www.techspot.com/review/93-am...ion/page7.html
Q6600 goes from 735 to 1253 (from 1 to 4 cores) - only 70% increase
Phenom 9850 goes from 684 to 1402 scales better - 105% increase
My 9850 at stock speed (2.5Ghz) with ddr2-1066 does 692 / 1951 - 182% increase
(Not sure why mine differs so much from review site...)
Memory is not the reason - single core intel has better score.
Multi-threading is handled a lot better on Phenom. 2.82x increase from 4x cores compared to 1.7x from 4x on Intel Q6600.
This may explain better responsiveness and "smoothness" on phenom - it handles better multiple threads
P.S. Funny explanation from the reviewer for the big difference (ignoring single thread results or platform differencess) - "perhaps using the 100MHz clock advantage"... btw, 2.4 to 2.5 is only 4% difference
AMD Phenom 9850 BE
DFI LP UT 790FX-M2R
Sapphire Toxic 3870
2x2gb OCZ Reaper HPC DDR2-1066
2xSamsung 320GB T-321 16MB cache (80% Raid 0/20% Raid 1)
Xigmatec MC751 750W 80 Plus Modular
Antec P182
That matches up with Cinebench as well. The multiprocessor speedup was notably higher on my 9850 than it was on my brother's Q6600.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_side_bus
In complex image, audio, video, gaming and scientific applications where the data set is large, FSB speed becomes a major performance issue. A slow FSB will cause the CPU to spend significant amounts of time waiting for data to arrive from system memory.
That diagram doesn't really depict how a K8 or K10 system works. It's more of a classical K7 and under/Intel model.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is meant to show how Intel works today, and the bottlenecks with that design. AMD is better
Here is some more about how the FSB slows performance on Intel
The need for an IMC and why the FSB is dead
AMD scales better then Intel when using more then 4 to 8 cores. I've heard this from some people who where using both systems that where used in university and some applications. Intel is sticking on it's FSB limitation while AMD has it's own HT offering way more bandwith.
AMD also created a true Dual & Quad core, Intel instead 'sticked' a few together, it works tho but what do you prefer, something truely or something hacked up?
I also switched from a 5600+ X2 to a Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz. And i have the same feeling. The AMD setup just felt smoother. I dont know what it is. Maybe i should play on my borther his Phenom 9850 for a wile. And compair it to my Q9450 on 3.5 GHz.
System Specs: -=Game PC=- | -=Lan Box=-
One test where a much slower AMD wins over Intel on high res. The reason could be that AMD has more I/O power and don't need to compete with memory doing I/O.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/
fps is irrelevant to the topic of this thread
Ryzen 9 3900X w/ NH-U14s on MSI X570 Unify
32 GB Patriot Viper Steel 3733 CL14 (1.51v)
RX 5700 XT w/ 2x 120mm fan mod (2 GHz)
Tons of NVMe & SATA SSDs
LG 27GL850 + Asus MG279Q
Meshify C white
not if you know why, the fsb on intel needs to handle I/O apart from memory and that slows it down. What was shown in that review was that one much faster Intel (3,2 GHz with 12 MB L2 cache) loses over one slower AMD ( 2,3 GHz with 2 MB L2 cache). Games love cache.
Last edited by gosh; 07-10-2008 at 03:20 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks