Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 117

Thread: AMD FX-8350 "Vishera" Linux Benchmarks

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjmcwill2003 View Post
    So how would a i7-3770 compare to the AMD 8350 on something like "make -j8" ?

    I was referring to what I paid for the i7-990X when I had my work PC built. Is the 3770 considered a high end Intel CPU? I thought only the 3930K and 3960X fit that category?
    3960X is the highest end, but it's also in a different league than 8350. The 3770 gives you 8 threads, same as 8350. And while I don't know the results of make -j8, here's a comparison using Visual Studio: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/3

  2. #82

    Default

    Thanks for the Visual Studio compile time benchmark link!

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    These are measurements from Anandtech:
    Dafuq Anandtech still manipulates graphs by picking base POWER value of 50 instead of 0 ??!

    Anyone doing his is *ALREADY* biased.

    Quote Originally Posted by sturmflut View Post
    Intel gets the same job done in about the same time, but the whole system consumes about half the power. Idle power consumption is also lower.
    From the graphs, Intel does the job 1/3 longer. Vishera comes first.
    Also, from many other tests, Vishera idle is on paar to SB - 60W vs 70W.
    And it costs less.
    And has much more features.
    And it overclocks.
    And fits old socket.
    And its better for multithreading.

    Its very attractive CPU. Eats more, yet costs less and offers more.

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    3960X is the highest end, but it's also in a different league than 8350. The 3770 gives you 8 threads, same as 8350. And while I don't know the results of make -j8, here's a comparison using Visual Studio: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/3
    Matter of buying CPU, installing PTS and performing timed kernel compile.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 10-24-2012 at 12:22 PM.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    I have corrected Anandtech fake graph.



    1) Added missing zero base. Nonzero base is very known statistic fallacy.
    2) Added arrow to point out where AMD CPUs are already done and idling, while Intel is still working.

    Granted the AMD is still NOT as efficient as Intel when it comes to LOAD, it is still efficient at idling and the unefficiency is *in acceptable range* now, unlike Bulldozer.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    I have corrected Anandtech fake graph.



    1) Added missing zero base. Nonzero base is very known statistic fallacy.
    2) Added arrow to point out where AMD CPUs are already done and idling, while Intel is still working.

    Granted the AMD is still NOT as efficient as Intel when it comes to LOAD, it is still efficient at idling and the unefficiency is *in acceptable range* now, unlike Bulldozer.
    Great. Now that you fixed the graph, let me help you read it:
    Vishera: 200W x 1,000s = 180,000Ws = 50Wh
    Ivy Bridge: 105W x 1,100s = 115,500Ws = 32.08Wh
    Enjoy.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjmcwill2003 View Post
    Thanks for the Visual Studio compile time benchmark link!
    PTS should automatically use a good -j option, I think it uses the common 2x + 1 (so 17 for this 8-core). Note I'm not sure what the exact formula is, but it's certainly better than -j1.

    In the linux kernel compile on page 8, 8350 beat the 3770.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    The average user will be playing Mp3s from a collection (probably being organised by a database backend) while browsing the web, which means 10 to 20 tabs open, which means 10-20 threads, many of them running flash or something and buffering from youtube while the user is reading something else. And they probably have an anti-virus running on the background and a chat program and a p2p client downloading 3-4 movies minimised somewhere in the taskbar. They might even sync their smartphone or MP3 player with their collection at the same time, which takes a while, so they minimise that. You don't need fluid dynamics to need good multi-threaded performance.

    The user who runs one process which then needs 300 GFLOPS of sustained single-thread performance is rather the exception. Browser, Word and Excel and most games run fine on 5-year old stuff.
    What you wrote goes without saying. My first comment was in address to the dullard who thinks professional work only happens at the office.

    Your scenario which is common amongst hundreds of millions of consumers will alone turn a system to a pile of goo real fast, especially those poorly developed Zynga games that are averaging over 2 GB each to run CityVille, CastleVille, Farmville, etc. Browsers eat system resources and the more threads to process the less the system has to wait for its turn.

    Most commonly used applications you note are all multi-threaded. To see graphs of single-thread performance is insulting. Intel recognizes the direction industry needs to go: Heterogeneous Systems Architectures.

    The Industry is jumping on board. When Intel does it will be just another vindication of AMD being ahead of the curve.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    Great. Now that you fixed the graph, let me help you read it:
    Vishera: 200W x 1,000s = 180,000Ws = 50Wh
    Ivy Bridge: 105W x 1,100s = 115,500Ws = 32.08Wh
    Enjoy.
    8350 Vishera ended at 900 seconds and used average of 200W, where a rival 3570K ended at 1100 and consumed 120W.

    200W x 900s / (60*60) = 50 Wh
    120W x 1100s / (60*60) = 36,7 Wh

    Thats 73,4% of Intel electro efficiency, intel is just 26% more efficient. Not 100% or 50%, but mere 26%.

    Minimum price in europe:
    3570k = 198,48€
    8350 = 179,16€

    8350 supports ecc ram, vtd and is unlocked. Also scales very well at load when downclocked.

    I think its VERY competitive CPU compared to Intel. My plan for AMD - cut management income and get more *good* engineers. They need only to improve power management at LOAD and probably add 16 minicores version for enthusiasts on this technology (with several cores to run at full speed and offload unimportant lowpriority tasks to lowerspeed cores) - they need engineers at linux and offtopicos kernel to implement this and they are back competitive.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Also scales very well at load when downclocked.
    downvolted. Fixed.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    8350 supports ecc ram, vtd
    amd-vi

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    I think its VERY competitive CPU compared to Intel.
    I still don't get why people get so worked up about the amd cpus being "nowhere near" intel cpus and that the performance is supposedly so immensely lacking and that it's "trash", etc.

    Imagine for a moment intel didn't exist. The AMD cpu would be considered quite good. It still is, even if there are intel cpus that are better by a slight margin.
    Why the idea that one product must have at least exactly the same performance as its competitors to be "competitive"? We get it, amd is a bit behind in terms of power consumption. But for me it's well in the region of being competitive.. Let's see what prices do in the next time, maybe they go down enough to make the difference?

    When bulldozer was new there was much talk about how since that was a completely new design it would be far more optimize-able than the intel cpus that have been there for quite a while.
    I think relatively speaking bdver2 is - relatively speaking - nearer at the recent intel cpus than bdver1 was at the intel cpus back then. And isn't power consumption better too?
    Of course intel's cpus get better too. But I don't see as much people talking about the trends as I thought I would see.

Posting Permissions

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