Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: AMD Bulldozer Dual-Interlagos Benchmarks On Linux

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbordwell View Post
    the core counts are arbitrary I just think it would be interesting to see how it scales up, if this test is scaling with 99% efficiency that is not so good for bulldozer, but if there is a large decline as cores go up then that could be good news.

    Thought this test may have already answered my question as it is single threaded (http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...IV-HIMENUBUL97)

    That is bad news for bulldozer as that shows about 1/2 the single threaded performance compared to sandy bridge. (2600k gets about 345 in that test where as a 3.6ghz bulldozer would get ~180)
    I think this is really too early silicon:
    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    U.S. Iowa
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    I think this is really too early silicon:
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bbordwell View Post
    I am going to have to agree with you, no way they would release a new arch that is slower than the last.
    Also, the new bulldozer cores are supposed to run way faster than the current stars cores.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    Heh:

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322585
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...KNUC-110322102

    I win

    But yeah, what's impressive is that you'll be able to get 4 of these on the same system, for a very reasonable price!
    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thalin View Post
    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.
    Ah.. So you are the owner of that system .

    I intend to do a openbenchmarking.org blog posting of that one.. Can you email me matthew @ phoronix.com to discuss?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    U.S. Iowa
    Posts
    13

    Default

    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    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

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    157

    Default

    So does anybody have an idea where bulldozer will be in relation with sandybridge? Performance per core(half module) per watt per clock?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •