Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 90

Thread: First Linux Benchmarks Of AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    You are unprofessional if you put too much personality into your work. Have a look at the occasionally-mentioned lwn.net, usually you can spot different writers by their style, but they don't have scheiße in their articles (and if you're offended by me mentioning the word scheiße that often, why not at Michael as well?). To quote from Mediawriting: print, broadcast, and public relations: "[...] the media writer instead writes without a conspicuous personality" (note that it doesn't say "no personality").
    Professional only means you earn money from your doing and being and Michael earn money from his work this makes him a Professional.

    You can not be unprofessional just because you do have a strong personality.

    And yes i think you are Guilty in insult Michael you violated his personal rights.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcirsta View Post
    well who exactly stopped AMD from pushing this
    Linus Torvalds stopped AMD.


    Quote Originally Posted by mcirsta View Post
    That may be so but I would be glad to see Bulldozer perform well under Linux and gcc, I don't really care that much about Windows. You say it needs improvements in the kernel, well who exactly stopped AMD from pushing this 1 year ago when they had their first Bulldozer samples ready, could test and all of that. That's how you do things, not wait till it's out, then say, oh but it will work better with these.
    The CPU is just not that good and I doubt performance will improve more than 5% even with all the patches and stuff which should have been in the kernel for quite some time now if they were professional about it. I love AMD but they screwed up big time with Bulldozer.
    and you don't get the point that the instruction set for hand optimization code isn't a compiler problem the GCC can't magic do the job for you. you have to rewrite the software to benefit from AVX and FMA4 and SSE4.2

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcirsta View Post
    That may be so but I would be glad to see Bulldozer perform well under Linux and gcc,
    What I'm curious to see is how it does with LLVM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Professional only means you earn money from your doing and being and Michael earn money from his work this makes him a Professional.

    You can not be unprofessional just because you do have a strong personality.

    And yes i think you are Guilty in insult Michael you violated his personal rights.
    heh, socialists....

    Look he has just as much right to state his opinion, which is perfectly valid btw, as you have to state yours, and as anyone else has to state theirs.. Nobody violated anybodys rights.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    and you don't get the point that the instruction set for hand optimization code isn't a compiler problem the GCC can't magic do the job for you. you have to rewrite the software to benefit from AVX and FMA4 and SSE4.2
    Wow, I'm impressed Q. That's a point that I have been trying to beat into some peoples heads for a long time.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Linus Torvalds stopped AMD.
    Nah, he accept anything that is clean code. Its as simple as that. So far nothing has stopped AMD from "contributing", or to be more spesific "upstreaming such a thing".

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    heh, socialists....

    Look he has just as much right to state his opinion, which is perfectly valid btw, as you have to state yours, and as anyone else has to state theirs.. Nobody violated anybodys rights.
    sure he do have the right to violate michael but its not nice.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Wow, I'm impressed Q. That's a point that I have been trying to beat into some peoples heads for a long time.
    Yes sure. but i think its like fighting again brain-death zombies they never understand the True nature.

    Compilers only work for Integer and Floating point calculations but not for SIMD SSE,SSE2,SSE3,SSE4.2,AVX,FMA3,FMA4,XOP calculations.

    Because these SIMD operations are not logical and not causality but a Compiler only abstract the Logical and Causality from a Logical program language construct to an 01 Computer code for the Integer or Floating point unit.

    In a world of 100% compiler makes the work there is no SIMD(SSE-unit)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcirsta View Post
    What you say has some basis, the compilers can be optimized to favor Intel, at least on Windows. On Linux though gcc is open source, no one stops AMD from contributing. Also being beaten by your old CPU in some benchmarks while having 110% more transistors is unforgivable. This is not Intel or the compilers, you're losing to your own older generation.
    I disagree. Intel regularly uses it's monopoly to force it's technology on everybody, and the constant influx of SSE instructions are what keep the x86 monopoly going. AMD could come up with their own instructions, but how well do you think they would do with incompatible instructions and significantly less marketshare? Furthermore, there's only so many instructions that are actually useful, Intel could sue them for IP infringement if anything was deemed to similar.

    If AMD were to start doing their own thing with instructions, then AMD's x86 would quickly turn into a fringe server architecture that only runs operating systems specially compiled for it with GCC, like any other number of CPUs from IBM, Sun, etc... So following Intel's lead is still their best option, and things won't change until regulators grow a pair and decide to break up the Intel monopoly racket.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Yes sure. but i think its like fighting again brain-death zombies they never understand the True nature.

    Compilers only work for Integer and Floating point calculations but not for SIMD SSE,SSE2,SSE3,SSE4.2,AVX,FMA3,FMA4,XOP calculations.

    Because these SIMD operations are not logical and not causality but a Compiler only abstract the Logical and Causality from a Logical program language construct to an 01 Computer code for the Integer or Floating point unit.

    In a world of 100% compiler makes the work there is no SIMD(SSE-unit)
    Well even with Integer and Floating point calculations you can still get even better performance with fine tuned hand written optimizations. But I will still give you a gold star. ;D


Posting Permissions

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