Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: AMD Vishera Multi-Core Scaling Performance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,558

    Default AMD Vishera Multi-Core Scaling Performance

    Phoronix: AMD Vishera Multi-Core Scaling Performance

    For some additional benchmarks to share this weekend, here are some multi-core scaling numbers from the AMD FX-8350 Vishera that launched a few days ago.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18080

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Impressive results. Would've been nice to have those "normalized" to a "per core" value so one can directly see the overhead

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Michael, Can you show the settings used for libvpx encoding?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    I wonder whether all these are testing the scalability of the CPU or the software...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    I wonder whether all these are testing the scalability of the CPU or the software...
    Gotta say that a normalised per-core comparision with the Ivy Bridge 3770K (or similar) would have been nice...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Also, power consumption?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jannis View Post
    Impressive results. Would've been nice to have those "normalized" to a "per core" value so one can directly see the overhead
    As I read I did go through with a calculator and do just that without saving the results. Basically the results seemed to be 95-105% (estimated without a percentage calculation) scaling to using more cores. I started calculating at the compile times, but after the reading the forum I took a look at libvpx and it looks to be a very serial task were each addition core dropped per core performance badly. Showing seconds and fps are terrible for per core efficiently. I don't fps at all, time per frame is better.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,253

    Default

    I'd say this CPU scales quite nicely, a hell of a lot better than i7 when turning off HT. Id say AMD did a pretty good job with their module idea, i just think they should've stuck with a longer pipeline rather than higher clock speed. However, even though going from 6 to 8 cores does seem to scale properly in most of the tests, the overall performance addition you get doesn't quite seem worth it, although I'm not sure how much the FX61xx series will cost. The dumb part is the phenom II x6 is likely going to be still faster than the FX hex cores.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I'd say this CPU scales quite nicely, a hell of a lot better than i7 when turning off HT. Id say AMD did a pretty good job with their module idea, i just think they should've stuck with a longer pipeline rather than higher clock speed. However, even though going from 6 to 8 cores does seem to scale properly in most of the tests, the overall performance addition you get doesn't quite seem worth it, although I'm not sure how much the FX61xx series will cost. The dumb part is the phenom II x6 is likely going to be still faster than the FX hex cores.
    longer pipelines with slower clocks will make a poor performing CPU. If there is a branch prediction mismatch, the entire pipeline has to be flushed and filled with new data. AFAIK, longer pipelines go hand in hand with faster clocks.
    What AMD can definitely do to improve performance, is to improve their branch prediction algos. But that is already a diminishing result problem. The predictions algos are already highly fine tuned. And any more fine tuning is workload dependent.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mayankleoboy1 View Post
    AFAIK, longer pipelines go hand in hand with faster clocks.
    This is correct. Longer pipelines exist to increase clock speed, with the downside of doing less work per-clock.

Posting Permissions

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