Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: More AMD FX-4100, FX-8150 Bulldozer Linux Details

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hermiti View Post
    Yeah that's my system, still working on it trying to tweak it quite a bit.
    Welcome and thanks for the submission, I'm actually starting to get really interested in that particular BD chip.

    Quote Originally Posted by hermiti View Post
    I flashed the bios with 1.11 on my 890fxa-gd70 motherboard, and it seems to be working fine so far. One thing of interest, it's actually an AM3 motherboard, not an AM3+ motherboard. Ram is running at 6-8-6 @ 1600mhz as well, which may be the reason why I am slower than the other reviewer.
    I think 1866MHz is one of the things the extra pins on AM3+ provide, correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by hermiti View Post
    I started with a clean Gentoo install running -march=native -O2 and GCC 4.6.1. I did a trial run at 4.8ghz, and I had it up to 5ghz last night. I don't seem to be hitting any thermal barriers as I ran through the pts/compression benchmark at 4.8ghz and my cpu was at 29C (water cooled).
    Neat! Can you poke around the cores to forcibly turn them off? There's likely to be extra punch to be had on lightly threaded programs.
    Last edited by PsynoKhi0; 10-17-2011 at 12:28 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skies View Post
    I would love to see a run of the benchmark suite using AMD reference compiler Open64 (a forked version of GCC with features from SGI's MipsPro).

    It's free and open source just like GCC. Available here http://developer.amd.com/tools/open6...s/default.aspx

    As far as I know the stock GCC can not do any optimizions for AMD's new AVX/FMA3/FMA4/XOP instruction sets, you need Open64 for that.
    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01792.html


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
    Welcome and thanks for the submission, I'm actually starting to get really interested in that particular BD chip.


    I think 1866MHz is one of the things the extra pins on AM3+ provide, correct?


    Neat! Can you poke around the cores to forcibly turn them off? There's likely to be extra punch to be had on lightly threaded programs.
    My motherboard supports up to 2133MHZ overclocked. I will try turning off the cores as discussed in that thread once I finish tweaking my system.
    Last edited by hermiti; 10-17-2011 at 01:37 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AgY! View Post
    but its not a 990FX board ;(
    MT performance seems to suffer .. a bit.
    Shouldn't make any difference since a 990FX is a rebranded 890FX and identical in every way.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skies View Post
    I would love to see a run of the benchmark suite using AMD reference compiler Open64 (a forked version of GCC with features from SGI's MipsPro).

    It's free and open source just like GCC. Available here http://developer.amd.com/tools/open6...s/default.aspx

    As far as I know the stock GCC can not do any optimizions for AMD's new AVX/FMA3/FMA4/XOP instruction sets, you need Open64 for that.
    I did some benches (amds open64 vs gcc 4.6.1) and in Multithreaded programs you can see a large improvement. But Singlethreaded programs run slower.
    And i realized that Open64 is a pita if it comes to regular stuff. Still trying to compile any version of glibc ;P Using it as system compiler is almost impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Shouldn't make any difference since a 990FX is a rebranded 890FX and identical in every way.
    Oh didnt know that*hides* thx for pointing that out.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AgY! View Post
    I did some benches (amds open64 vs gcc 4.6.1) and in Multithreaded programs you can see a large improvement. But Singlethreaded programs run slower.
    Thats john/stream:

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AGY-COMPILER21

    It doesnt really reflect what i saw/experienced earlier. ;P Maybe i only saw what i wanted to see.

    Anyway, a compiler cant fix bulldozer.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hermiti View Post
    My motherboard supports up to 2133MHZ overclocked. I will try turning off the cores as discussed in that thread once I finish tweaking my system.
    I stand corrected: http://whatswithjeff.com/amd-black-am3b-socket/

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AgY! View Post
    Thats john/stream:

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AGY-COMPILER21

    It doesnt really reflect what i saw/experienced earlier. ;P Maybe i only saw what i wanted to see.

    Anyway, a compiler cant fix bulldozer.
    Thanks for the benchmark, interesting with the Stream tests.

    I do think it is a compiler issue, I believe if proper optimizations are done the Zambezi is in par with the Sandy Bridge in speed (and SB is like +6 months old by now).

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    42

    Default

    According to this http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-FXCOMPILE20 optimized with Open64 compiller Bulldozer is dream for rendering and multithreaded aps.
    Stil no real programs like Blender with internal/Cycles render, LuxRender but its a start.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunweb View Post
    According to this http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-FXCOMPILE20 optimized with Open64 compiller Bulldozer is dream for rendering and multithreaded aps.
    Stil no real programs like Blender with internal/Cycles render, LuxRender but its a start.
    +
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-GCCLLVMCL67
    +
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...AR-FXCOMPILE51

    Just saw those tests. Awesome work Michael.
    However please take a closer look at the compiler flags.

    http://developer.amd.com/assets/x86Open64QuickRef.pdf

    Open64 (amd and the other one) support the following parameters:

    -mp enable the multiprocessing directives (basically like -fopenmp)
    -mso Optimize for multicore scalability
    -lno Loop Nest Optimizations
    -apo Enables automatic parallelization

    The -mp flag is a important one because it seems gcc activates this on -O2/-march or maybe it is somehow detected.
    Also there is -ipa .. which i cant get to work because of various system specific issues...

    Apo and ipa are things amd seems to be proud of while -mso and -lno are actually "cool" optimizations.
    I think its important to include those in the test so nobody can say "but hey you didnt test with .."

Posting Permissions

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