Another Look At Intel's Lynnfield Linux Performance

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Another Look At Intel's Lynnfield Linux Performance

Earlier this month we provided a launch-day preview of the P55 Chipset on Linux along with benchmarks from the Core i5 750 and Core i7 870, which are the new quad-core Lynnfield processors. We noticed some odd performance issues under Linux when testing out these new processors, but Intel has since chimed in and we are in the process of running an updated set of tests.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14203

[0e8h]

Good to see someone doing reviews on these processors on gnu/linux.

Personally I'm a little confused by the i7/i5 series on our platform. Are these cpu's optimised for the kernel? Why si that major distros force people on AMD64 opcodes when both AMD and Intel have unique abilities that surely can make a difference in cpu operations.

Maybe someday I'll have to learn how to build my own kernel, like I did in early days when I tried linux.

[loll]

Hi Phoronix men,

It's my first post and it's a pleasure to visit you almost every day.

I have just a remark about the test suite articles : they miss a summary graphic at the end to recall all tests in a quick view look...

I hope you will provide this one day.

Thanks for your work !
Good luck !

[nanonyme]

It probably doesn't mean what you think it does. AMD64 pretty much means "the 64bit CPU architecture that AMD designed and which Intel's desktop 64bit CPU's are based on too" afaik. It has nothing at all to do with CPU optimizations. It just says that the system is 64bit x86 computer (and not Itanium or Sparc64 or whatever), nothing more.

[smitty3268]

Yep, AMD64 is just AMD's brand name for the x64 architecture, which Intel calls IA64. Both have the exact same intsruction set, just like they both implement the same x86 instruction set to remain compatible with each other. AMD64 is sometimes used instead of x64 simply because they were the ones who designed it and were the first to implement it. IIRC, Intel was thinking of creating their own competing 64bit architecture, but MS had already started working on an AMD64 port of windows and said they wouldn't support a 2nd 64bit architecture.

[nanonyme]

IIRC, Intel was thinking of creating their own competing 64bit architecture, but MS had already started working on an AMD64 port of windows and said they wouldn't support a 2nd 64bit architecture.

Not exactly accurate, I think. Intel had 64bit Itanium processors long before AMD thought of doing 64bit. The problem was that Intel's processors couldn't run 32bit code as far as I've heard.

[jpiszcz]

Does anyone who has this board know if you can put a raid controller in the adjacent x8 slot?

[jpiszcz]

In the manual:

• Intel® Core™ i7 and Intel® Core™ i5 processors in an LGA1156 socket:
― 1 x16 PCIe 2.0 Graphics interface (operates in x8 mode when second slot
is populated)
― 1 x8 PCIe 2.0 Graphics interface

So one would presume(?) that the x8 slot cannot be used for anything else but a graphics card?

[lem79]

Yep, AMD64 is just AMD's brand name for the x64 architecture, which Intel calls IA64. Both have the exact same intsruction set, just like they both implement the same x86 instruction set to remain compatible with each other. AMD64 is sometimes used instead of x64 simply because they were the ones who designed it and were the first to implement it. IIRC, Intel was thinking of creating their own competing 64bit architecture, but MS had already started working on an AMD64 port of windows and said they wouldn't support a 2nd 64bit architecture.

No that is wrong. IA64 is Itanium. Intel's AMD64 implementation is called EM64T.

[Kano]

Those vendor provided results look resonable, the others have been really to slow to show the real speed of the cpu.