- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 1,163 (0.21/day)
- Location
- Republic of Texas
System Name | [H]arbringer |
---|---|
Processor | 4x 61XX ES @3.5Ghz (48cores) |
Motherboard | SM GL |
Cooling | 3x xspc rx360, rx240, 4x DT G34 snipers, D5 pump. |
Memory | 16x gskill DDR3 1600 cas6 2gb |
Video Card(s) | blah bigadv folder no gfx needed |
Storage | 32GB Sammy SSD |
Display(s) | headless |
Case | Xigmatek Elysium (whats left of it) |
Audio Device(s) | yawn |
Power Supply | Antec 1200w HCP |
Software | Ubuntu 10.10 |
Benchmark Scores | http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1780855 http://www.hwbot.org/submission/2158678 http://ww |
What people expect is irrelevant, only that product matches advertisement, which it does.
AVX support is irrelevant, even current cpu's have unequal avx support even throughout intel's server linup.
Even assuming FPU support is now expected as part of a cpu core. A bulldozer 8 core cpu can do 8 int or 8 independent fpu calculations at the same time.
AMD said we tried something different, we tried to make a more efficient cpu to give you 8 real cores instead of 4 cores and 4 hyperthreads.
They in fact did what they said.
Lets look at this again since you all clearly missed it.
Look at that sandybridge with Hyperthreading for a grand 4x speadup. 4cores 8 threads for 4x performance.
990x 6 cores 12 threads for 6x performance. (also 1k)
AMD 8 cores 8 threads for a little over 6x improvement.
Is their scaling bad? IPC worse? absolutely.
But did they deliver what they promised? Absolutely.
BTW this is a FPU benchmark. That is not 4 FPU cores quite clearly it is 8 poorly scaling ones.
Also for those clearly not understanding CPU core architecture history and WHY FPU does not a core make...
Here is Thuban... what's that, only 1 128-bit fpu? So is it also not a core?
AVX support is irrelevant, even current cpu's have unequal avx support even throughout intel's server linup.
Even assuming FPU support is now expected as part of a cpu core. A bulldozer 8 core cpu can do 8 int or 8 independent fpu calculations at the same time.
AMD said we tried something different, we tried to make a more efficient cpu to give you 8 real cores instead of 4 cores and 4 hyperthreads.
They in fact did what they said.
Lets look at this again since you all clearly missed it.
![](/forums/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKNGsUWJ.png&hash=f1bc54d37ebb9e77dbe124364f4a7e7d)
Look at that sandybridge with Hyperthreading for a grand 4x speadup. 4cores 8 threads for 4x performance.
990x 6 cores 12 threads for 6x performance. (also 1k)
AMD 8 cores 8 threads for a little over 6x improvement.
Is their scaling bad? IPC worse? absolutely.
But did they deliver what they promised? Absolutely.
BTW this is a FPU benchmark. That is not 4 FPU cores quite clearly it is 8 poorly scaling ones.
Also for those clearly not understanding CPU core architecture history and WHY FPU does not a core make...
Here is Thuban... what's that, only 1 128-bit fpu? So is it also not a core?
![](/forums/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Ftechreport.com%2Fr.x%2Fllano%2Fstars-core-block.jpg&hash=4eb35c4785d42bcc4eb6869c81e0ef53)
Last edited: