There are some comparisons on Phoronix from a while back... like these... http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_gcc47 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE5Mzk
there are so many classifications now what with rankings like Green Graph500 and HPEC Challenge... you can probably find a system of benchmarks that fit your programming model or architecture best. General Purpose computing seems to be disappearing as a priority... probably because most folks never used their architecture for more than one primary applications... On Mar 13, 2013, at 3:29 AM, Tom Metro wrote: > Federico Lucifredi wrote: >> Any nice comparison of per-core performance between AMD and Intel? > > Do you literally want a comparison that looks at the performance of an > individual core, in isolation? > > The comparisons I've seen uses the usual benchmarks, which attempt to > emulate real-world usage, and thus they're impacted by the imperfect way > tasks are distributed to multiple cores, and memory bandwidth, etc. > > What's your application? > > >> Because, looking at the FX processors six and eight core prices, they >> are nowhere near what a 6 core Intel chip costs… so i'd like to educate >> myself on the why. > > The short answer is they're cheaper because they perform considerably > worse. At least that's what I've read. > > I don't recall a specific comparison, but at some point I read one at > Anandtech or Tom's Hardware. > > Here's one: > http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested > > Last year's launch of AMD's FX processors was honestly disappointing. > The Bulldozer CPU cores that were bundled into each Zambezi chip were > hardly power efficient and in many areas couldn't significantly > outperform AMD's previous generation platform. Look beyond the direct > AMD comparison and the situation looked even worse. In our conclusion > to last year's FX-8150 review I wrote the following: > > "Single threaded performance is my biggest concern, and compared to > Sandy Bridge there's a good 40-50% advantage the i5 2500K enjoys > over the FX-8150. ..." > > Here's a thread linking to reviews comparing the FX-6300 to the i3: > http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1623327/6300-gaming.html > > > The problem with these sites is that they review with desktop or gaming > performance in mind. What I wanted to know about was VM performance. > Can, for example, you attain better performance per dollar running 8 VMs > on an AMD 8-core CPU than you can on a 4-core i7? > > > In other CPU news, I see... > > Calxeda's ARM server tested > http://www.anandtech.com/show/6757/calxedas-arm-server-tested > > At first sight, the relatively low performance per core of ARM CPUs > seems like a bad match for servers. The dominant CPU in the server > market is without doubt Intel's Xeon. The success of the Xeon family > is largely rooted in its excellent single-threaded (or per core) > performance at moderate power levels (70-95W). Combine this > exceptional single-threaded performance with a decent core count and > you get good performance in almost any kind of application. > [...] > Having four 32-bit Cortex A9 cores, each with 32 KB instruction and 32 > KB data L1 per-core caches, the processor block is somewhat similar to > what we find inside modern smarphones. One difference is that this SoC > contains a 4MB ECC enabled L2 cache, while most smartphone SoCs have a > 1MB L2 cache. > [...] > A dual Xeon E5 or Opteron 6300 server has much more processing power > than most of us need to run one server application. That is the reason > why it is not uncommon to see 10, 20 or even more virtual machines > running on top of them. > [...] > Each server node has one quad-core Cortex A9 with 4MB of L2 cache and > 4GB of RAM. With that being the case, the question "what can this > server node cope with?" is a lot more relevant. > [...] > The ARM based server is a pretty bad choice right now for memory > intensive workloads. Even with four cores and DDR3-1333, the useable > bandwidth is less than one sixth of what one Xeon core can sustain. > > In a similar vein, the ECX-1000 is not capable of providing more > bandwidth than an Atom system equipped with DDR2-667. However, both > the Atom and ARM cores are pretty bad when it comes to bandwidth. > [...] > Clock for clock, the out-of-order Cortex-A9 inside the Calxeda > EXC-1000 beats the in-order Atom core. A single A9 has no trouble > beating the older Atoms while likewise coming close to the much higher > clocked N2800. The N2800 and ECX-1000 perform similarly. > [...] > Looking at both decompression and compression, it looks like a quad > ARM A9 is about as fast as one Xeon core (without Hyper-Threading) at > the same clock. We need about six A9 cores to match the Xeon core with > Hyper-Threading enabled. The quad-core ECX-1000 1.4GHz is also close > to the dual-core, four-threaded Atom at 1.86GHz. This bodes well for > Calxeda as the 6.1W S1240 only runs at 1.6GHz. > [...] > We created 24 virtual machines on top of the Xeon server. ... > [Calxeda's] server gets the same workload, but instead of using > virtual machines, we used the 24 physical server nodes. > [...] > At the low concurrencies, the Intel machine leverages turboboost and > its exceptionally high per core performance. At the higher web loads, > the total throughput of the 96 (24x quad-core SoCs) ARM A9 cores is up > to 50% higher than the low power 32 thread/16 core (2x Octal core) > Xeons. Even the mighty 2660 cannot beat the herd of ARM SoCs. > [...] > ...each server needs about 8.3W (200W/24), measured at the wall. That > is exactly what Calxeda promised: about 6W (at 1.4GHz) per server node > (measured internally), up to 8.5W measured at the wall (again at > 1.4GHz). That is nothing short of amazing if you consider the > performance numbers. > [...] > Let's be clear: most applications still run better on the Xeon E5. Our > CPU benchmarks clearly indicate that any application that accesses the > memory frequently or that needs high per thread integer processing > power will run better on the Xeon E5. Compiling and installing > software simply feels so much faster on the Xeon E5, there is no need > to benchmark. > > (See the article for lots more details.) > > The 8-core AMD parts may be useful in a similar way to the ARM parts, > except the AMD parts tend to get dinged for power consumption, even > compared to the higher performing Intel parts. So even if they do make > sense in this context, it won't be long before the ARM servers take over > that space. > > -Tom > _______________________________________________ > Hardwarehacking mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/hardwarehacking
_______________________________________________ Hardwarehacking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/hardwarehacking
