Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
One of the early dual Interlagos results from the 32 cores running at 1.8GHz indicates that its C-Ray time is a mere 25 seconds. C-Ray happens to be one of our favorite multi-threaded ray-tracing benchmarks. What does this compare to? Well, running an easy OpenBenchmarking.org comparison shows just how fast AMD's Bulldozer is looking to be. While there are other software/hardware differences in play too, the 32-core 1.80GHz Bulldozer system's 25 seconds compared to the Intel Core i5 2500K (quad-core + Hyper Threading; 3.3GHz + 3.7GHz Intel Turbo Boost) at 61 seconds
sweatshopking wrote:But the long and short of it is "bulldozer isn't much faster than STARs". Not as fast as Sandy bridge.
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:sweatshopking wrote:But the long and short of it is "bulldozer isn't much faster than STARs". Not as fast as Sandy bridge.
Very funny. Stars is nowhere near Sandy Bridge. We see Bulldozer here matching the IPC of SB/Nehalem EX on a FP intensive benchmark, and I get this stupid quotation saying it's "still not much faster than Stars".
Single threaded wise, it's probably not as fast as Sandy Bridge. But I think it was kinda obvious that AMD wasn't aiming for that. If you had read the analysis on realworldtech.com, Kanter himself said that it wouldn't be faster than SB anyway...
sweatshopking wrote:But the long and short of it is "bulldozer isn't much faster than STARs". Not as fast as Sandy bridge.
flip-mode wrote:1.68 Interlagos cores = 1.0 SB cores at the same hertz
That's a seriously whacked way of looking at it, but it is a way. Hopefully it's extremely flawed because an Interlagos core ain't looking so hot.
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:I agree, and i have a theory about this.EDIT: On further thought, the last paragraph is the job of the marketing team at AMD. What the hell are they doing? Look at IBM: Synergistic Processing Elements, Power Processor Element. Look at Intel: Hyperthreading, Pentium, and god knows what they have these days. The least they could do at AMD to reduce disappointment when people realize that BD core aren't traditional cores is call them "thread paths", or "Hydra", or is that already taken? Nobody uses Hydravision anymore anyway. Instead they take the one thing that hasn't been split into two and call it "Flex FP", when FPU would suffice perfectly. I think this is maybe why AMD hasn't had such a great market share...
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:JF, remember back when you said on a post in this forum that as long as 128bit FP math was required, the Flex FP unit would effectively act like two floating point units matching the two cores in the module, which would act as one when higher precision was required, e.g. AVX. How does that tie in?
Also, are Phenom II units going to come out on AM3+ as well?