This is my source for those theoretical numbers:

If those numbers are off, that makes my job a bit easier.  And it looks like you're right. In the text above the table, it does mention 2-socket servers, and then below the table in fine print, it states

"For AMD Opteron Processors, theoretical FLOPS = Core Count x Core Frequency x number of processors per server x 4."

Why can't the table just show single socket performance? Grrrr....

Regardless of bad marketing and graphics design, I'm still at at square one. My system has 2 sockets, and the best I've been able to do is get ~115 GFLOPS. And that's one of the 'instaneous' values LINPACK spits out every few seconds. At the end of test, the actual GFLOPS  result is more like 77 GLOPS:

T/V                N    NB     P     Q Time                 Gflops
WR00L2L2       82775    40     4     8 4924.71              7.678e+01

This is a two socket system, so that's only 27% of theoretical max.


On 02/22/2018 01:18 PM, Dmitri Chubarov wrote:

not sure if the 282 GFLOPS number is correct.

We have 16 Bulldozer/Interlagos cores at 2.2 GHz. Each pair of cores forms a CMT module. The two cores in the module share an FPU with 2 128-bit FMAC units.

In terms of double precision FLOPS it should make
16 * 2.2GHz * 2 double precision scalars/SIMD register * 2 FLOPS / FMA op = 140.8 GFLOPS

It looks like 282 GFLOPS number is per a 2P node.


On 22 February 2018 at 21:37, Prentice Bisbal < <>> wrote:


    In your experience, how close does actual performance of your
    processors match up to their theoretical performance? I'm
    investigating a performances issue on some of my nodes. These are
    older systems using AMD Opteron 6274 processors. I found
    literature from AMD stating the theoretical performance of these
    processors is 282 GFLOPS, and my LINPACK performance isn't coming
    close to that (I get approximately ~33% of that).  The number I
    often hear mentioned is actual performance should be ~85%. of
    theoretical performance is that a realistic number your experience?

    I don't want this to be a discussion of what could be wrong at
    this point, we will get to that in future posts, I assure you!

-- Prentice

    Beowulf mailing list,
    <> sponsored by Penguin Computing
    To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit

Beowulf mailing list, sponsored by Penguin Computing
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit

Reply via email to