Personal computing discussed

Moderators: Flying Fox, morphine

 
KamikaseRider
Gerbil
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:24 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:24 pm

mikewinddale wrote:

Thanks for the Ryzen results. But I'm a little bit confused. I thought the Ryzen 5 1600 had a base clock of 3.2 GHz and a turbo of 3.6 GHz. (See AMD's product description: https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1600).

Can you please clarify? Is this an under-clock and an over-clock? Or did AMD change the specs at some point?



OP did a standard test, with all processors @ 2.4GHZ. He did the same, underclocking the Ryzen to match the others frequency for comparison's sake
Keyboard not detected, press F1 to continue...
 
thecoldanddarkone
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2354
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:35 pm

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:02 pm

Alright so I tried my laptop, but thanks to Speedstep it's difficult to get an exact cpu speed.

From looking at the cpu max clock I believe it looks like

9.406 at 3.8
9.828 at 3.7
10.281 at 3.6

Xeon 1505mv6 ddr4 2400 ecc @ 17,17,17,39,2t (it's a mobile Kaby Lake)
I7 4930k, 32 GB Ballistix DDRL3@2133 , 1.2 TB Intel 750 AIC, 500 GB mx200, Sapphire R9 Fury, asus x79 ws, HP ZR24w, edifier s730
HP Pro x2 612- i5-4302Y, 8 gigs of memory, 256 ssd
 
MileageMayVary
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:37 pm

mikewinddale wrote:
Can you please clarify? Is this an under-clock and an over-clock? Or did AMD change the specs at some point?


I underclocked it to 2.4 and normally have it overclocked to 3.75.
Last edited by MileageMayVary on Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Main rig: Ryzen 1600@3.75GHz, R9 290@1050MHz, 16GB@2933MHz, 1080-1440-1080 Ultrasharps.
 
MileageMayVary
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:39 pm

You wanted bulldozer? Well I have a piledriver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... 82013.29_2

Image

Image

Image

This is completely default stock. I'll recheck the bios to see if I can fix the speed.
Last edited by MileageMayVary on Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Main rig: Ryzen 1600@3.75GHz, R9 290@1050MHz, 16GB@2933MHz, 1080-1440-1080 Ultrasharps.
 
jackbomb
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:25 pm

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:40 pm

I love how that P3 is almost as fast as a P4 clocked nearly a GHz higher.
Have an old Athlon 800MHz I can dust off and test if anyone's interested.
Like a good neighbor jackbomb is there.
 
MileageMayVary
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:15 pm

Found a bios option to turn off "CPB" with that off it seemed to cap the CPU at 2125MHz.

While running CPUz and SuperPi, @ 2125 it took ~44 seconds.
turning CPB back on...
And running CPUz and SuperPi, @ 2825 it took ~31.5 seconds.
Main rig: Ryzen 1600@3.75GHz, R9 290@1050MHz, 16GB@2933MHz, 1080-1440-1080 Ultrasharps.
 
setaG_lliB
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:17 pm

MileageMayVary wrote:
Found a bios option to turn off "CPB" with that off it seemed to cap the CPU at 2125MHz.

While running CPUz and SuperPi, @ 2125 it took ~44 seconds.
turning CPB back on...
And running CPUz and SuperPi, @ 2825 it took ~31.5 seconds.

Thanks for the Piledriver results! So it looks like these are actually slower than K8 at x87, clock-for-clock. I had a hunch that the shared FPU would hurt Bulldozer in this type of benchmark; just didn't think it would be that bad.
 
Mr Bill
Gold subscriber
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1453
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Colorado Western Slope
Contact:

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:05 pm

setaG_lliB wrote:
I overclocked my Phenom II x6 1090T to just over 4GHz.
Phenom II (Thuban) at 4070MHz - 16GB CL9-9-9-24 1760MHz dual channel DDR3 - 512KB L2+6MB L3: 15.063s

Which is still slower than Haswell at 2.4GHz with a single channel of cheap (CL11 DDR3-1600) memory. :-?
It's nice to see that Ryzen is a good bit faster than Ph2 at SuperPi. Though I don't have one to confirm, I'm thoroughly convinced that a Bulldozer-derived chip would end up being well behind Ph2 at this particular benchmark.
I'd like to know what you did to achieve that overclock. I'm running an 1100T and would be interested.
X6 1100T BE | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ | XFX HD 7870 | 16 GB DDR3 | Samsung 830/850 Pro SSD's | Logitech cherry MX-brown G710+ | Logitech G303 Daedalus Apex mouse | SeaSonic SS-660XP 80+ Pt | BenQ 24' 1900x1200 IPS | APC Back-UPS NS-1350 | WinXP64 Pro
 
setaG_lliB
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:52 am

Mr Bill wrote:
setaG_lliB wrote:
I overclocked my Phenom II x6 1090T to just over 4GHz.
Phenom II (Thuban) at 4070MHz - 16GB CL9-9-9-24 1760MHz dual channel DDR3 - 512KB L2+6MB L3: 15.063s

Which is still slower than Haswell at 2.4GHz with a single channel of cheap (CL11 DDR3-1600) memory. :-?
It's nice to see that Ryzen is a good bit faster than Ph2 at SuperPi. Though I don't have one to confirm, I'm thoroughly convinced that a Bulldozer-derived chip would end up being well behind Ph2 at this particular benchmark.
I'd like to know what you did to achieve that overclock. I'm running an 1100T and would be interested.

I boosted the base clock to 220MHz and set the multi at 18.5x. I had to increase the voltage to just under 1.5v. 4070MHz was the most I could do with this CPU, and not all Phenom IIs will be able to do 4GHz. Even under a big Noctua NH-D14, the CPU was hitting 82C under Prime95.
 
seeker010
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 8:52 am

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:44 pm

I think it was alluded to earlier, but all the PI benchmarks are probably very to latency as much as FPU efficiencies. I think you drew the wrong conclusion from the K7 to K8 jump; the IMC vs NB probably contributed to most of that speedup. Otherwise the execution latencies at the instruction level are not too dissimilar between the two. I usually use Agner's x86 instruction latency tables if I'm handcoding some assembly. I don't know what is the x87 instruction mix for SuperPi though.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
 
CampinCarl
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:53 pm

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:48 am

I know this doesn't really contribute much, but as a related bit of history/trivia re: x87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323

Comment #109 is pretty humorous (it's actually taped on my wall out of frustration with floating point some days).
Gigabyte AB350M Gaming-3 | R7 1700X | 2x8 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4-3200 (@DDR4-2933)| Samsung 960 Evo 1TB SSD | Gigabyte GTX1080 | Win 10 Pro x86-64
 
seeker010
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 8:52 am

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:52 am

CampinCarl wrote:
I know this doesn't really contribute much, but as a related bit of history/trivia re: x87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323

Comment #109 is pretty humorous (it's actually taped on my wall out of frustration with floating point some days).

I thought this was quite well known behavior of the x87 unit. Well stepping out of the 80s and closer to the new millennium, I could have sworn there were discussion about this as well when 3DNow/SSE math functions were created back when those instructions first made their appearances.
(Speaking of which, the 8087 and 80287 were not completely IEEE-754 compliant; the first x87 chip to be compliant would have been the 80387 which was then backported to the 80287 and sold as the 80287XL; some of which ended up being paired with 80386s)
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 49673
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:14 am

Yeah, anyone who has done a significant amount of floating point programming on x87 is probably aware of the "long double" internal data type issue.

More generally (and this doesn't apply to just x87), it is a very bad idea to use tests for exact equality of floating point values. Unless the values were calculated via an identical code path, roundoff errors can cause values which should be identical (in a mathematical sense) to differ slightly in the least significant bits. For example, if you've assigned x = 1.0 / 3.0, then later compare the value of x * 6.0 for equality with 2.0, it may (and in fact probably WILL) compare NOT equal.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
jackbomb
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:25 pm

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:27 pm

I ran it on my Intel DX2-66 for kicks. 2 hours, 1 minute. :P
I used Win 3.1, I wonder if that makes a difference, being 16 bit?
Edit: never mind, forgot I had Win32s on it.
Like a good neighbor jackbomb is there.
 
setaG_lliB
Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: Let's party like it's 1999 and look at single-threaded x87 FPU performance

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:50 am

seeker010 wrote:
I think it was alluded to earlier, but all the PI benchmarks are probably very to latency as much as FPU efficiencies. I think you drew the wrong conclusion from the K7 to K8 jump; the IMC vs NB probably contributed to most of that speedup. Otherwise the execution latencies at the instruction level are not too dissimilar between the two. I usually use Agner's x86 instruction latency tables if I'm handcoding some assembly. I don't know what is the x87 instruction mix for SuperPi though.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf

If K8's IMC is what provided most of the boost in SuperPi, then Core 2's excellent Pi performance becomes even more interesting. It does extremely well with an old fashioned FSB. Moving the memory controller on-chip didn't give Intel much of a boost in this benchmark. Haswell is 4 generations ahead of Wolfdale.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests