Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: AMD FX-8350 Linux Performance-Per-Watt

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Meh, is there anything I calculated correctly?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    312

    Default

    @Michael:
    Reading the article, every test result my brain stretched and wondered what was wrong. Yet, as mcgreg already said, the only really valid number to compare the processors' efficiency is to calculate the energy which is needed to get the job done. And this, Michael, should be sone by calculating the integral of your W(t) curves... As you have discrete measurements with a fixed step size in time, dt, it's nothing more than a sum over all measurements, multiplied by dt.

    dt * \sum_{i=0}^{N} W_i

    If you know how many floating point operations this task needs, you can calculate the energy per floating point operation -- which is the same as the average number of Watts per Speed (measured in flop / sec).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,103

    Default

    Hm, right. There's still the discrepancy of the idle and load numbers though (at stock), in Win reviews 8350 was lower in both, here the other way around.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Hm, right. There's still the discrepancy of the idle and load numbers though (at stock), in Win reviews 8350 was lower in both, here the other way around.
    Would it be the first time power saving on Linux didn't work right?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    Would it be the first time power saving on Linux didn't work right?
    It could just as well be 8150 power-saving not working well on Windows. Don't jump to conclusions.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default

    I'm sorry but the performance per watt graphs are wrong, that is assuming the power consumption graphs are correct, for example in the C-Ray test the blue line is both higher and longer than the green line, so the system in blue (AMD FX-8150 @ 4.00 Ghz) took more power at each moment in time and also took more time to complete the test than the system in green (AMD FX-8350) - yet the performance per watt says that more is better and green is lower than blue (which from the other graph should green should have more) ... so either less is better in the performance per watt graphs or the formula used for the calculation is wrong.

    Numbers
    - green took 31.45 seconds @ 220 Watts
    - blue took 33.03 seconds @ 262 Watts
    So in performance per watt, green is the obvious winner - less time to finish, less average power.
    Last edited by xception; 10-28-2012 at 06:33 AM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xception View Post
    I'm sorry but the performance per watt graphs are wrong
    No need to apologize, since you are correct as most of the posts in this thread confirm. The one who should be giving an explanation is Michael, but I don't even know if he realizes the formulas he used to calculate performance per watt are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by xception View Post
    Numbers
    - green took 31.45 seconds @ 220 Watts
    - blue took 33.03 seconds @ 262 Watts
    So in performance per watt, green is the obvious winner - less time to finish, less average power.
    That's pretty obvious. It's not like Phoronix has a ton of credibility anyway so no real harm done.

Posting Permissions

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