Printable View
I think this is really too early silicon:Quote:
Originally Posted by bbordwell
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322323
Single-threaded new architecture @ 1.8Ghz vs single-threaded old one @ 1.9Ghz and old one wins!? I wouldn't read too much into these results.
I am going to have to agree with you, no way they would release a new arch that is slower than the last.Quote:
Originally Posted by [Knuckles]
Also, the new bulldozer cores are supposed to run way faster than the current stars cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbordwell
As they said in the article, "my" R910 is the best on C-Ray so far, so I win. :) I have you beat by nearly 2 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by [Knuckles]
Ah.. So you are the owner of that system :).Quote:
Originally Posted by thalin
I intend to do a openbenchmarking.org blog posting of that one.. Can you email me matthew @ phoronix.com to discuss?
I just found this out and have not seen it come up yet in discussion, C-ray measures floating point performance which is bulldozers weak point as it only has one FP unit per module. Integer performance then should be about double which would put it on par with sandy bridge.
Its pretty interesting what AMD has done. Just forget about the number of cores!, they created the bulldozer module which contains 2 integer cores and 1 FP core. A CPU will contain various bulldozer modules.
This redesign is aimed to increase performance on generic programs, which uses lot of integer operations (games included). Programs which makes use of a lot of FP operations (math, video encoders...) would probably not get performance boost.
Indeed, it should be interesting to see more tests of this AMD CPU redesign.
Agreed here. Also, from what I've read (including the usual marketing stuff), the aim of the Fusion line, and likely Bulldozer, is not single threaded performance, or even single program performance. It's multi-program, multi-threaded performance, with lower power usage that they're aiming for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
One still can improve the c-ray performance if one uses opencc as a compiler (http://www.openbenchmarking.org/resu...D1SA-CRAYCOM20). The standard makefile deliverd by PTS isnt aware of the CC env-variable, so i patched the install.sh in ~/.phoronix-test-suite/test-profiles/pts/c-ray-1.0.0/ .
Code:#!/bin/sh
tar -zxvf c-ray-1.1.tar.gz
patch -p0 << 'EOF'
--- ./c-ray-1.1/Makefile.orig 2008-04-09 23:57:57.000000000 +0200
+++ ./c-ray-1.1/Makefile 2011-03-23 00:49:20.413694037 +0100
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
obj = c-ray-mt.o
bin = c-ray-mt
-CC = gcc
-CFLAGS = -O3 -ffast-math
+CC ?= gcc
+CFLAGS ?= -O3 -ffast-math
$(bin): $(obj)
$(CC) -o $@ $(obj) -lm -lpthread
EOF
cd c-ray-1.1/
make -j $NUM_CPU_JOBS
echo $? > ~/install-exit-status
cd ..
echo "#!/bin/sh
cd c-ray-1.1/
RT_THREADS=\$((\$NUM_CPU_CORES * 16))
./c-ray-mt -t \$RT_THREADS -s 1600x1200 -r 8 -i sphfract -o output.ppm > \$LOG_FILE 2>&1
echo \$? > ~/test-exit-status" > c-ray
chmod +x c-ray
So does anybody have an idea where bulldozer will be in relation with sandybridge? Performance per core(half module) per watt per clock?