Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: AMD FX-8150 With The Open64 5.0 Compiler

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sidicas View Post
    Are you running a Sandy Bridge chip? You know Intel doesn't put VT-X or other virtualization accelerations into their Desktop CPUs anymore? So it's pretty much a given that AMD CPUs would be better for virtualization compared to the Intel equivalents.
    he do have a PhenomII x6.,.. full virtualization accelerations support

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sidicas View Post
    You know Intel doesn't put VT-X or other virtualization accelerations into their Desktop CPUs anymore?
    This is plain wrong!
    http://ark.intel.com/products/52213/...he-3_40-GHz%29
    Look down to the "Advanced Technologies".

    Quote Originally Posted by leeenux
    I cannot forsee a real world scenario that could bring my Bulldozer to it's knees, whereas you demonstrated that 3 simultaneous CPU-intensive tasks on your Intel CPU can grind the rest of your desktop to a halt.
    No, the demonstration just was, that those CPU-intensive tasks made KWINs Compositing perform bad. Everything runs fine without Compositing. I think the problem is, that the iGPU does not have its own memory (your 5450 has its own), and if the cpu pushes quite a lot of data through the memory bus, iGPU will suffer. Managing textures for many windows and of course rendering to pixmap for each cursor blink will probably go slower, hence the "lag". Turning off compositing and everything went fine, remember? Even the animation of yakuake goes fine: With compositing turned on, yakuake uses kwin for the animation, which goes not that smooth, when CPU is under extreme load; without compositing, it has to calculate it on its own - on the CPU! And that goes smooth as if there was no task running! So the "lag" is not a problem of bad CPU-Design, but of GPU not having its own, fast memory.

    BTW. I decided to go with SB, because Bulldozer consumes way too much power under load. If the powerconsumption was some percent above sandybridge, and performance 20% below, I would have bought a bulldozer (even if i would have had to go mATX or ATX instead of mITX as I did with Sandybridge) - but with THAT powerconsumption... Even if BD would perform better then sandybridge, I would not buy it :/

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    BTW. I decided to go with SB, because Bulldozer consumes way too much power under load. If the powerconsumption was some percent above sandybridge, and performance 20% below, I would have bought a bulldozer (even if i would have had to go mATX or ATX instead of mITX as I did with Sandybridge) - but with THAT powerconsumption... Even if BD would perform better then sandybridge, I would not buy it :/
    Oh well... This thread is off-topic to the point of no-return already, so: and whatever intel comes up with, I really doubt I'll ever buy anything from them, due to the strong-arming of OEMs that was going on during the Athlon64 days. No matter which camp you root for, that kind of backstage fuss benefits no one (aside from intel themselves of course...).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    This is plain wrong!
    http://ark.intel.com/products/52213/...he-3_40-GHz%29
    Look down to the "Advanced Technologies".
    Fair enough. It looks like the Core i7's get VT-X and VT-d, and that the Core i5's get just VT-X. Still, AMD gives you full virtualization acceleration up and down all of their products lines, not just at CPUs north of $200.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    No, the demonstration just was, that those CPU-intensive tasks made KWINs Compositing perform bad. Everything runs fine without Compositing. I think the problem is, that the iGPU does not have its own memory (your 5450 has its own), and if the cpu pushes quite a lot of data through the memory bus, iGPU will suffer. Managing textures for many windows and of course rendering to pixmap for each cursor blink will probably go slower, hence the "lag". Turning off compositing and everything went fine, remember? Even the animation of yakuake goes fine: With compositing turned on, yakuake uses kwin for the animation, which goes not that smooth, when CPU is under extreme load; without compositing, it has to calculate it on its own - on the CPU! And that goes smooth as if there was no task running! So the "lag" is not a problem of bad CPU-Design, but of GPU not having its own, fast memory.
    No, the point was that it's not that hard to make all of your real and fake threads hit 100%. I think for your testing to have any real value, you'd have to try it on something other than the perpetually-broken KDE. However, I do stand by my point, I'd rather have 8 real-ish cores than 4 real and hyperthreading.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    BTW. I decided to go with SB, because Bulldozer consumes way too much power under load. If the powerconsumption was some percent above sandybridge, and performance 20% below, I would have bought a bulldozer (even if i would have had to go mATX or ATX instead of mITX as I did with Sandybridge) - but with THAT powerconsumption... Even if BD would perform better then sandybridge, I would not buy it :/
    That's really a poor rationale unless the machine you're running it on does rendering tasks 24/7 and will actually stay at that TDP constantly. If that's how you feel about it, why not take it one step further and get a 65w dual core? If, hypothetically speaking, my Bulldozer and your Sandy both spend 5 or 10% of the day at 100% load, and the rest of the time at idle, your power savings will be negligible at best. 95w is Intel marketing speak for "of course TDP went down if we did a die shrink, but still refuse to throw you a couple more cores." BTW, AMD does also have 95w 6 cores from this generation and even the 45nm generation.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leeenux View Post
    Fair enough. It looks like the Core i7's get VT-X and VT-d, and that the Core i5's get just VT-X. Still, AMD gives you full virtualization acceleration up and down all of their products lines, not just at CPUs north of $200.
    Are you capable of doing any basic research on your part before joining a discussion?

    Core i5 2400, VT-x VT-d
    http://ark.intel.com/products/52207/...he-3_10-GHz%29

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leeenux View Post

    No, the point was that it's not that hard to make all of your real and fake threads hit 100%. I think for your testing to have any real value, you'd have to try it on something other than the perpetually-broken KDE. However, I do stand by my point, I'd rather have 8 real-ish cores than 4 real and hyperthreading.
    Proven lower-performing and power hungrier 8 cores better than 4 energy efficient and much faster ones? What kind of sorcery is this?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sidicas View Post
    The Bulldozer chips do very well against the Intel chips in integer performance... You certainly get your money there. Things like compiling apps and general desktop multitasking is helped a lot by integer performance and it's why Intel tries to cram Hyperthreading into their CPUs wherever they can (ie: LGA-2011). You can see that in Dhrystone benchmarks done by every review site.. The Bulldozer FX-8150 chips are no more than 10% slower in Integer performance than a 2600k and the 2600K is 18% more expensive ($50).


    What most review sites show as Bulldozer lacking on is it's floating point performance. Bulldozer is a bit weak in floating point because of the shared FPUs. To make up for the shortcoming in floating point, AMD built these Bulldozer chips to support FMA4 accelerations, an optimization that isn't available until apps are compiled with such optimizations.. Those benchmarks that show Phenom II being anywhere near the performance of Bulldozer is because they're running apps that haven't been compiled with FMA4 accelerations, it's as simple as that. When FMA4 accelerations is compiled into the binary, floating point on Bulldozer goes up a solid 30% across the board leaving Phenom II CPUs a long way behind.. You're not always going to see that 30% comparing the compiled binaries of Open64 v5 to Open64 v4, but they show up when you compare Open64v4 to -O2 GCC or Open64v5 to -O2 GCC for floating point apps. In Open64v4, Pov-Ray jumped up a solid 30% and in Open64v5 you can see some other floating point apps that didn't jump up 30% in Open64v4 to get their 30% boost in floating point performance in Open64v5 instead.

    If people want to pay 18% more money for <10% more performance, then that's up to them. Intel has been targeting the enthusiast market for a long time and they continue to do so. With AMD, you continue to get more bang for your buck, as has always been true for many years. You might have to jump through a hoop or two to get that floating point performance on these Bulldozer chips up (recompiling floating point heavy apps with FMA4 accelerations), but really there's not much there to argue about. Especially considering with OpenCL, floating point apps should be pushing their floating point work to the GPU as it's over 1000x faster at it. Even the Fusion Integrated GPUs (ie: Radeon 6550D) are dozens of times faster at floating point than the fastest $999 Intel CPUs are. The days of doing floating point on the CPU are coming to an end. A modern GPU has got several hundred shader "cores" that can all process floating point calculations in parallel, there's no reason to run them on a 4 or even 8 core CPU.
    That's so true. But we won't see those optimizations soon I guess. I really hope the next version of GCC (and other compilers, including VS) include better optimizations for Bulldozer.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgui View Post
    Are you capable of doing any basic research on your part before joining a discussion?

    Core i5 2400, VT-x VT-d
    http://ark.intel.com/products/52207/...he-3_10-GHz%29
    Nice one, buddy. You found a mobile part with both enabled, and it's just barely under $200. I was using the logical choice, the Core i5 2500 desktop part as a point of reference. I wonder how much research you had to do to figure out that some of those mobile parts did have both enabled? At any rate, being a mobile part, the laptop vendor will probably take the liberty of disabling that VT-whatever for you, and removing the BIOS option to enable it, so it's kind of a moot point. Let's stick to desktop CPUs.

    Willy the Pimp:

    While it's nice to act like the power consumption matters, it really doesn't. Lets look at some household appliances:

    Electric Furnace: 5000w
    Electric Water Heater: 3000w
    Electric Oven: 3000w
    Electric Air Conditioner: 1500w
    Coffee Pot: 800w
    Vacuum Cleaner: 300w

    So you're telling me that maybe 5w of idle power savings, and maybe 30w of load power is actually important? Besides, I care about the overall performance of the CPU, not some per-core metric. According to Phoronix (and my own personal experience), the performance of Bulldozer in my favorite OS is actually pretty f'ing good. Thanks anyways for mindlessly parroting those Intel talking-points to me.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leeenux View Post
    Nice one, buddy. You found a mobile part with both enabled, and it's just barely under $200. I was using the logical choice, the Core i5 2500 desktop part as a point of reference. I wonder how much research you had to do to figure out that some of those mobile parts did have both enabled? At any rate, being a mobile part, the laptop vendor will probably take the liberty of disabling that VT-whatever for you, and removing the BIOS option to enable it, so it's kind of a moot point. Let's stick to desktop CPUs.
    intel is really good in this kind of terrorism against the customer.

    and a regular customer do not have any chance to check this out.


    Quote Originally Posted by leeenux View Post
    Willy the Pimp:
    While it's nice to act like the power consumption matters, it really doesn't. Lets look at some household appliances:
    Electric Furnace: 5000w
    Electric Water Heater: 3000w
    Electric Oven: 3000w
    Electric Air Conditioner: 1500w
    Coffee Pot: 800w
    Vacuum Cleaner: 300w
    So you're telling me that maybe 5w of idle power savings, and maybe 30w of load power is actually important? Besides, I care about the overall performance of the CPU, not some per-core metric. According to Phoronix (and my own personal experience), the performance of Bulldozer in my favorite OS is actually pretty f'ing good. Thanks anyways for mindlessly parroting those Intel talking-points to me.
    don't come with Logic to these Intel people.

    don't use the Electric Air Conditioner: 1500w use instead an adiabatic-heat-recovery-air-ventilating-system you can save 1450watt.
    don't use these "Electric Furnace: 5000w Electric Water Heater: 3000w" use a micro heat and power power plant then you save money on the fuel and you save even more money on the electric power costs. then you save another round of 14400 watt because fore every single 1watt you need 2,8watt to make this electric power.


    overall you can save 15850 watt and an intel system only can save 30 watt LOL!

    Thats intel fanboy logic don't buy a adiabatic-air-conditioner and don't buy a heat and power power plant buy intel instead LOL

  10. #30

    Default

    Regarding Intels and virtualization, at least for the 2500/2600 the normal models have both vt-x and vt-d, the k models only vt-x.

Posting Permissions

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