Trang 1 của 4 123 ... CuốiCuối
Kết quả 1 đến 10 của 36
  1. #1
    Ngày tham gia
    Aug 2015
    Bài viết
    105

    Tin nóng - Những nghi ngờ xung quanh performance của Conroe !

    Tại IDF vừa qua Intel đã giới thiệu thế hệ CPU dual core mới của mình là Conroe và đã setup một system dùng Conroe và một system dùng AMD Athlon 64 FX-60@FX-62 (2.6@2.8GHz dual core) và benchmark để so sánh performance giữa 2 hệ thống và kết quả ra sao chắc mọi người đã biết (Conroe thắng rất ấn tượng). Tuy nhiên khi những người của các trang web phần cứng nổi tiếng trên mạng như AnandTech muốn xem phần Device manager trong Windows thì phía Intel không cho phép dẫn đến một số nghi ngờ xung quanh sự công bằng trong các benchmark này !
    Tuy nhiên đã có người có được Conroe 2.4GHz và đã benchmark một cách độc lập giữa Conroe và Athlon 64 2.8GHz. So về clock thì A64 có lợi thế 16.7% (2.8 so với 2.4).
    Dưới đây là kết quả benchmark ScienceMark 32 bit được tối ưu cho Pentium :

    Molecular Dynamics
    A64: 1872.68
    Conroe : 2133.38 -- 14% faster

    Primordia (Energy calculations for 1 atom)
    Athlon64: 1506.83 -- 10% faster
    Conroe: 1365.85

    Cryptography
    Athlon64: 1345.05 -- 26.3% faster
    Conroe: 1065.59

    STREAM
    Athlon64: 1512.55 -- 21.7% faster
    Conroe: 1242.94


    Để so sánh clock <> clock, giả định rằng performance của Conroe tăng một cách tuyến tính với clock (điều này chưa chắn chắn vì ai biết về cpu cũng biết là performance tăng một cách tuyến tính với clock là rất khó và nếu đạt được điều đó thì sẽ rất tuyệt)
    Dưới đây là kết quả benchmark với giả định trên (Conroe 2.8GHz) :

    Molecular Dynamics
    Athlon 64 2.8GHZ: 1872.68
    Conroe 2.8GHZ : 2133.38 * 2.8/2.4 = 2489 -- 32.9% faster

    Primordia (Atom)
    Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1506.83
    Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1365.85 * 2.8/2.4 = 1593.49 -- 5.7% faster

    Cryptography
    Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1345.05 -- 8.2% faster
    Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1065.59 * 2.8/2.4

    STREAM *
    Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1512.55 -- 4.3% faster
    Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1242.94 * 2.8/2.4 = 1450

    ScienceMark là một trình benchmark chỉ bị ảnh hưởng bởi CPU/RAM, không liên quan gì đến video, nhập xuất HDD, ... "raw speed test".

    Tại sao lại có sự thay đổi từ 32.9% nhanh hơn đến 8.2% chậm hơn của Conroe ?

    Molecular Dynamics và Primordia đều là các tính toán dấu phẩy động !

    Nhưng trong setting benchmark Molecular Dynamics chỉ cần từ 2-4MB memory (vừa khít với dung lượng cache L2 của Conroe) chính vì thế mà Conroe điểm Conroe rất cao (hơn đối thủ đến 32%)

    Nhưng setting benchmark Primordia cần hơn 4MB memory nên Conroe ít điểm hơn đối thủ !

    Molecular Dynamics chỉ cần 2-4MB memory nên dữ liệu dùng để test nằm toàn bộ trong cache L2 và được truy cập với tốc độ rất nhanh nên điểm rất cao, nhưng trong Primordia cần hơn 4MB cache nên dĩ nhiên Conroe cần phải truy cập RAM nên điểm thấp hơn A64 chỉ bởi A64 có memctrl tích hợp !
    => nếu chỉnh setting Molecular Dynamics sao cho dùng hơn 4MB cache thì có thể Conroe sẽ ít điểm hơn A64 !

    KL : xét về clock <> clock thì Conroe không = A64 khi chạy các ứng dụng cần hơn 4MB để chứa "working set". Sau đây là nguyên văn :




    The conclusion is: clock for clock, Athlon 64 will beat Conroe in real application environments that require a working set of larger than 4MB, or in other words, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache. This means in any real multi-tasking or server environment the Core architecture will be an underdog. Even worse, for Intel's shared cache architecture, cache thrashing is a distinct possibility under heavy loads.
    Một chú ý nữa : tất cả các benchmark để test Conroe vs A64 đều là 32 bit ! với 64 bit thì performance của A64 sẽ tăng 10-40%.

    Người thực hiện test này đã test ScienceMark 64 bit và thấy điểm của phiên bản 64 bit hơn điểm của phiên bản 32 bit 50% (test = A64 2800+ sk754) => nếu dùng sk939 thì điểm còn dữ hơn !

    Khi đưa ra nhân định : Conroe sẽ nhanh hơn A64 20% thì Intel đã không xem xét các kế hoạch của phía AMD. Với việc chuyển sang công nghệ 65nm và SSOI của IBM, clockspeed của CPU AMD có thể đạt đến 4GHz và công nghệ Z-RAM cho phép mật độ cache tăng 500% chúng ta có thể đoán là AMD vẫn chưa tung ra hết chiêu !

    Source : http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/04/conroe-performance-claim-being-busted.html

  2. #2
    Ngày tham gia
    Mar 2016
    Bài viết
    0
    Tình hình này có vẻ giống như Yonah của INtel vậy
    Yonah 2 nhân có 4 MB cache bench super PI 1 MB rất cao nhưng phần lớn ứng dụng là thua dothan ( cùng lock )
    Tuy nhiên khó mà nghi ngờ điểm Fear, HL2 , hay farcry của conroe ................ nó thật sự rất ấn tượng
    mấy soft 3d mark 2003, 2005 ,2006 hay sysmark trước giờ tui ko quan tâm mấy ............. tui thích đánh giá CPU dựa trên ứng dụng thực tế hơn .......... fear, HL2 , farcry chính là loại đó những bench mark về Rip , encode cũng rất thực tế

  3. #3
    Ngày tham gia
    Aug 2015
    Bài viết
    4
    @Tầm Hoan : tui cũng nghi nghờ như bro vậy ! bro hãy xem link source và nghe tác giả giải thích (phần reply ở phía dươi) những câu hỏi như của bro vậy !

  4. #4
    Ngày tham gia
    Apr 2016
    Bài viết
    70
    Hãy để thời gian trả lời.

  5. #5
    Ngày tham gia
    Dec 2015
    Bài viết
    6
    Nếu là thực, thì kiểu test này tui thấy hao hao cách bench CPU của 1 cha trong forum :24:
    Tui ko vô cái link đc, ai đó paste nguyên văn dùm đi :degai:

  6. #6
    Ngày tham gia
    Dec 2015
    Bài viết
    0
    sau đây là nguyên văn link :



    Conroe performance claim being busted

    FUD is like ghost movies, you don't get scared by seeing a ghost, you get scared by not seeing one -- Sharikou


    Recall Intel's Mooly Eden said Con-roe will be 20% faster than AMD's future chips without even knowing AMD's plans? During the Spring 2006 IDF, Intel setup a Conroe and an Athlon 64 box, then directed benchmarkers such as Anand to push buttons*, but peaking into Windows device manager of the alleged Conroe wasn't allowed.

    During the IDF, I emailed various Intel execs, AMD execs and Anand, I pointed out that such a pre-arranged blackbox Intel setup against AMD was unfair and challenged Intel to lend the Conroe box to Anand for a real drill. However, Intel dared not to answer such a simple challenge based on the rules of fair competition. The INQ sharply criticised this kind of guerilla benchmarketing.

    Now, for the very first time, someone actually got hold of a Conroe chip in their own lab and did some tests. It was a 2.4GHZ Conroe (Link: CPU-Z) against an Athlon 64 overclocked to 2.8GHZ. The overclocked Athlon 64 had a 2.8/2.4 -1 = 16.7% clockspeed advantage.

    The following results were obtained by running 32 bit ScienceMark binaries optimized for Intel Pentium:

    Molecular Dynamics
    A64: 1872.68
    Conroe : 2133.38 -- 14% faster

    Primordia (Energy calculations for 1 atom)
    Athlon64: 1506.83 -- 10% faster
    Conroe: 1365.85

    Cryptography
    Athlon64: 1345.05 -- 26.3% faster
    Conroe: 1065.59

    STREAM
    Athlon64: 1512.55 -- 21.7% faster
    Conroe: 1242.94

    The above results were for an Athlon overclocked to 2.8GHZ and a Conroe at 2.4GHZ, with the Athlon having a 16.7% clockspeed advantage. For a direct comparision at the same clockspeed, we normalize the Conroe scores by taking into account the frequency difference. Assuming the best scenario in which Conroe scores scale linearly with clock speed, we multiply the Conroe scores by a factor of 2.8/2.4. Thus, with a 2.8GHZ Conroe, we would have

    Molecular Dynamics
    Athlon 64 2.8GHZ: 1872.68
    Conroe 2.8GHZ : 2133.38 * 2.8/2.4 = 2489 -- 32.9% faster

    Primordia (Atom)
    Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1506.83
    Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1365.85 * 2.8/2.4 = 1593.49 -- 5.7% faster

    Cryptography
    Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1345.05 -- 8.2% faster
    Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1065.59 * 2.8/2.4

    STREAM *
    Athlon64 2.8GHZ: 1512.55 -- 4.3% faster
    Conroe 2.8GHZ: 1242.94 * 2.8/2.4 = 1450



    ScienceMark is a strictly CPU/memory test, it doesn't involve video or disk I/O, it is basically a raw speed test. The ScienceMark is freely available from http://www.sciencemark.org/ for both Windows XP and Windows XP x64.

    However, the above results showed a violent CPU performance fluctuation for Conroe, from it being 32% faster to being 8% slower. How can this be explained?

    The cause of the Conroe performance fluctuations can't be the types of computation involved. We notice that MolDyn is a floating point computation while the Cipher is an integer computation. However, both MolDyn and Primordia are floating point calaculations on quantum mechanical properties of matter, yet, the Primodia showed a 27% relative performance drop.

    As we look deeper in the ScienceMark, we notice that in the default MolDyn benchmark setting, there are only 4 cells with a simple cubic lattice, no more than 32 molecules are involved, about 2MB to 4MB memory is needed. The Primodia calculation for a single Ag (silver) atom with 47 electrons needs just a bit more memory than MolDyn. However, both the Cipher and STREAM tests involve a lot more than 4MB.

    The reason why Conroe did so well in the MolDyn test is simple: Conroe has a huge 4MB of unified cache, for such single threaded tests that can fit in 4MB*, Conroe can just run off the cache with very high speed -- another cheap gimmick at the expense of very large die size.

    However, once you go over the 4MB limit, Conroe is slower than Athlon 64 at the same clock. Both the Cryptography and STREM tests use a lot more than 4MB, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache, and Conroe immediately falls below Athlon 64 on the performance curve.

    I can bet on this: if one increases the number of cells in the MolDyn test to 9, thus increases the working set to larger than 4MB, Conroe will perform worse than Athlon 64 at the same clockspeed.

    The conclusion is: clock for clock, Athlon 64 will beat Conroe in real application environments that require a working set of larger than 4MB, or in other words, larger than Conroe's 4MB cache. This means in any real multi-tasking or server environment the Core architecture will be an underdog. Even worse, for Intel's shared cache architecture, cache thrashing is a distinct possibility under heavy loads.

    Frankly, I am really disappointed by Intel's decisions. This gimmick of using 4MB cache to get unreasonably good scores on the most simplistic tests is cheap from design point of view but expensive for manufacturing. Mooly Eden kept talking about the 4 Meg cache in the technology analyst meeting, and promised to add even more cache, however, the 4MB cache is definitely eating a lot of die area and Intel's limited capacity. It is almost like using Netburst's ridiculous hyperpipeline to pump up GHZ at the expense of power consumption and real performance. I wouldn't accuse Intel of benchmark fraud, but people need to know the 4MB limitation of the Conroe.

    So far, Athlon 64 is being tested under 32 bit mode with executables optimized for the Pentium. Athlon 64 gets 10-40% performance improvement running in 64 bit mode, a benchmark under Windows x64 or Windows Vista should show the real strength of AMD64 architecture.

    As a test drive, I downloaded the 64 bit version of ScienceMark and ran it on my Athlon 64 2800+(Socket 754, 130nm, 512K L2, at 1.799GHZ stock frequency, with 1GB PC3200 DDR) under Windows XP x64. For the 64 bit MolDyn test, I got a score of 1479.12 ScienceMarks, almost 50% faster than the 32 bit result on the same old PC. I suspect that on a Socket 939 Rev E6 platform with SSE3 support, the 64 bit result will be even better.

    AMD should work with benchmark creators to ensure that application benchmarks have a working set larger than the cache size of Conroe -- 4MB.

    AMD's Rev F socket AM2 will be available for system builders on May 15, 2006. At 65nm, using Stress Memorization Technology co-developed with IBM, AMD will be able to increase clockspeed to 4GHZ. AMD is also working on Z-RAM, a SOI based technology that may increase cache density by 500%.

    *For those who question this authenticity of this Conroe benchmark, the person who posted the result had shown at least some CPU-Z screen captures indicating the various properties of the Conroe CPU. Anand wasn't even allowed to look at the Windows device manager, all he did was pushing some buttons as directed by Intel IDF staff. All the system specs of the Conroe system was provided by Intel. Anand had no verification of the setup. Also, unlike Anand, who receives a lot of ad money from Intel, this person who posted the Conroe results had nothing to gain financially either way. Clearly, this test has more credibility than Anand's. Anand's failure to mention that he was merely a button pusher and his obvious pumping style made his credibility very much in doubt.

    *Intel touted its 1 cycle SSE execution, but the STREAM results weren't impressive. Henri Richard mentioned Conroe is more like K8.

    *To verify this, you can download ScienceMark, then run the MolDyn, Primordia, Cipher and STREAM benchmarks on your own PC. You will find that the default MolDyn test uses very little memroy, Primodia uses a bit more, but Cipher and STREAM use a lot more than 4MB. To check this, you launch the ScienceMark program, then launch the dialog box for running MolDyn benchmark, at this point, the simulation hasn's started, two threads are created for this task, using a process viewer program, you note the memory used for the task so far is about 7MB. Then you click at the Run Simulation button, you will notice that another thread is created to run the simulation, now the memory used by whole task is smaller than 11MB for most of the time, meaning the benchmark thread uses less than 4MB and thus can fit in the 4MB cache of a Conroe.


    posted by Sharikou, Ph. D @ 6:10 PM

    53 Comments:
    Anonymous said...
    conroe is dual core 32 bit right?

    also doesnt combined cache between 2 cores lead to thrashing?

    4/08/2006 9:32 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    So far, there is zero sign from Intel or elsewhere that Conroe can run 64 bit Windows. Cache thrashing is definitely a possibility for heavy multi-tasking loads. Thought it may not happen on desktops, but I expect Woodcrest will suffer from cache thrashing in applications such as databases.

    4/08/2006 10:13 PM
    Anonymous said...
    there is aboslutely no information on the system used. How can you even post about these benches. At least we knew something of the machines that anand ran, there is NO information on these systems. I say BS.

    4/08/2006 11:22 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    See my comment added at the end of the article. This test is far more credible than Anand's report. Anand didn't have any chance to look inside the IDF Conroe box, he wasn't even allowed to look at the Control Panel of the IDF Conroe box. If Intel put Pentium D overclocked to 5GHZ there, Anand had no way to tell. Such restrictions were reported by others, but Anand hid this critical detail from his readers. This Victor Wang has provided CPU-Z screen captures, which our Anand never got a chance to see himself.

    4/09/2006 12:01 AM
    Anonymous said...
    Sharikou,
    Did you even read the blog you are linking to? Conroe got amazing results. The test you are talking about was with optimizations made for a P4, as Conroe optimizations are unavailable. I'm excited by these results as you should be. Its a great thing for all of us when Conroe arrives.

    4/09/2006 1:08 AM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    The conclusion here matches my previous conclusion that Woodcrest will be slower than Opteron 280. Clock for clock, Conroe will be slower than Athlon 64 for applications that can't fit into Conroe's 4MB cache. Please note, the Athlon 64 was running code optimized for Intel Pentium, basically, Athlon 64 was fighting with one hand tied to the back. Once we have Windows Vista optimized for AMD64, we should see Conroe cluster fragged.

    4/09/2006 1:19 AM
    Anonymous said...
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95021
    this is the original post site of conroe's benchmark, done by Victor Wang.
    data show that conroe performed super Pi calculation @ 21 secs.

    4/09/2006 1:54 AM
    Anonymous said...
    found this website through google. no idea about their credibility though but they sort of seem to know where intel is headed.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040316084519.html

    4/09/2006 4:05 AM
    Anonymous said...
    If science test are done on very small portion of data, why you question 4MB cache used as an advantage? If it's small it should fit 1MB A64 cache.
    For me the question is - how far Intel and AMD can extend the speed for CPUs.
    If A64 can reach 3Ghz at 90nm, I think that 3.4-3.6 is possible at 65nm.
    Intel had problems with netburst 3.46 at 90nm, and cannot reach 4Ghz with 65nm.
    If we assume that Conroe has 10% advantage over A65, the 3Ghz AMD CPU will beat any Conroe clocked at 2.4GHz.
    P3 construction was not able to reach 1.13GHz, so these problems may comeback.

    I'm waiting for dual core X2 3.0/3.2Ghz X2@65nm.

    4/09/2006 4:51 AM
    Anonymous said...
    That is a good point. If the data set is small enough(< 1MB), cache size should not be matter to either chips. Having said that, those bench marks do not mean much in real life applications. One way to look at this, Conroe is simply another HYPER version of Pentium 4 (with even larger cache size to boost performance).

    My feeling is : INTEL is getting desperate to impress people now.. That is just another gimmick, I am sure there are more..

    4/09/2006 6:29 AM
    Anonymous said...
    How much does AMD pay you to come up with the garbage you do????

    4/09/2006 7:44 AM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    First, anything done at IDF was a setup by Intel cowards.

    On memory usage, if the working set is smaller than 1MB, then Athlon 64 should perform extremely fast also. However, since 1M is the normal cache size, most benchmark tests are designed to have a working set greater than 1MB. For MolDyn, the working set is between 2MB to 4MB, won't fit in Athlon 64's cache but fits in Conroe's 4MB cache. Once we go beyond 4MB, as we saw from the Cypher and STREAM tests, Conroe falls behind immediately.

    If I worked for AMD, I would crush the Intel cheaters right now: I would ask the Benchmark writers to modify their benchmarks to use a working set greater than 4MB, I would pay good money to get a Conroe chip from folks like Victor Wong, then I would give the Conroe to Tomshardware for tests but with one condition -- excluding those benchmarks that fit in 4MB cache of Conroe.

    4/09/2006 8:49 AM
    Anonymous said...
    Thats cool sharky but how do you explain all the other results by victor where an AMD 4600+ OC to 2700mhz is pwn by a conroe running at 2400mhz is that the 4mb L2 cache as well.....

    pi_1m=39.6sec(conroe 2.4G=21.25sec)
    pcmark05 cputest=5510(conroe 2.4G=6101)
    3dmark03 cputest=1073(conroe 2.4G=1413)
    3Dmark05 cputest=5582(conroe 2.4G=9015)
    scienmark2.0=1454(conroe 2.4G=1550)
    pi_fast=46.03/58.44(conroe 2.4G=32.55/40.41)

    And why are you

    "Frankly, I am really disappointed by Intel. This gimmick of using 4MB cache to get unreasonably good scores on most simplistic tests is so cheap!"

    When the test you are pointing to was not done by intel but by Victor wang who is not affiliated with intel at all???

    Its like me doing an intel test with an amd optimized software and saying i am ashamed at amd for pulling this scam.

    4/09/2006 9:12 AM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    0) Those benchmark suites are many individual sub tests in a weighted average.

    1)ScienceMark is a pure CPU/Memory test. Unlike other benchmarks, which involves a lot of other stuff. For instance, in 3D tests, you got the issue of viedo cards and their drivers, etc,etc.

    2)I can easily get the code for ScienceMark and see what kind of memory usage pattern its sub tests have.

    3) I chose the best ScienceMark result posted by Victor Wong on the Conroe.

    My analysis pin pointed the origin of some of the extreme numbers of the Conroe - 4MB cache. If you take a Super PI 1M test and conclude Conroe is 2x the speed of Athlon64, you are doped. For the same reason, if you take the default ScienceMark MolDyn test and conclude Conroe is 30% faster, you are also kidding yourself. Both these tests fit in Conroe's 4MB cache, and that's why they look too good. Once you go to more memory intensive ones, Conroe falls below like a rock.

    That's why a final ScienceMark score is not good enough. You have to dig a bit deeper to analyse the results.

    4/09/2006 9:29 AM
    netrama said...
    It is easy to fool those benchmarks with a slightly bigger caches ..why all those benchmarks uses daxpy's and ddot's..
    I am sure Athlon will blast the hell out of conroe ..when it comes to I/O and Bandwidth related apps live those used in real life !!

    4/09/2006 12:20 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    Memory is a bottlneck in system performance. Consider the Conroe, with a ~ 1333GHZ FSB, the bandwidth is about 10GB/s. To move 1KB of memory into the CPU, it takes 1.0e+3/(10* 1e+9) = 100 ns. For a 2GHZ CPU, this is 200 clock cycles. Then you add a latency of 200 clock cycles for Conroe. That's 400 cycles of idling time. Moroever, if there are other bus activity going on, then the memory request hit a collision and must wait. You can see an application that can sit inside the cache enjoys a huge advantage.

    4/09/2006 1:22 PM
    Anonymous said...
    I think that Conroe is better chip than Athlon64.
    Does it have 4MB cache? So what? 1333Mhz FSB - for sure not 1333GHZ .
    For sure AMD has a lot of advantages over Intel in the future, so AMD chip will be my next:

    - HT 3.0 gives 22Gb/s with DDR3 controller
    - Licensed ZRAM will give a 2-4-8MB of cache L3
    - K8L will bring more computing power
    - 64-bit instruction set is better optimized than Intel implementation
    - 65nm production
    - Video, gravity etc. HT co-processors and other fun stuff will help AMD bringing more power and flexibility to the platform.

    CONROE is needed! It must be fast, because AMD will be forced to give us more of this nice things sooner than later...
    So in two months we will get miserable 2% of performance difference for DDR2 memory in AM2.
    Sounds like monopoly..don't you think?

    4/09/2006 2:54 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    My mistake, of course it wasn't 1333GHZ. Actually, Conroe has a 1066MHZ FSB, only Woodcrest is going to have 1333MHZ FSB. Both Conroe and Woodcrest don't have enough FSB bandwidth for dual channel DDR2 at 800MHZ, which requires 12.8GB/s. Basically, when the memory starts pumping 12.8GB/s, the 10GB/s FSB of Intel has to say "slow down, too fast".

    AMD's HT3.0 is not related to DDR3 at all. AMD64 doesn't have a FSB. The memory channels are dedicated to the CPU. A rev F AMD2 has thus a dedicated 12.8GB/s memory interface. AMD has licensed various memory technologies from RAMBUS to improve its IMC.

    As for AM2 performance, we will know all about it next month. INQ reported a rumor of 10+% improvement clock/clock. There was also report that latency issues on DDR2 will be improved. As for Conore, right now, the only marginally reliable info is this Victor Wong's results. I hope the 3.07V voltage on the CPU-Z was an a bug in CPU-Z.

    4/09/2006 4:28 PM
    NuaN said...
    AMD is going to sky.. fly high

    4/09/2006 7:57 PM
    Anonymous said...
    If we are going to criticize Intel for pre-benching Conroe, then we better stop guesstimating K8L performance. Its way to far in the future whereas the Conroe is 3 months away. Also, there is a 100% likelyhood that Intel is working on follow-ups to Conroe, so the K8L better bring it.

    4/09/2006 9:58 PM
    Anonymous said...
    Regarding to my previous post about bandwidth and HT 3.0.
    Of course - HT is not related to DDR3, but HT 2.0 gives us 14.4 GB/s link.
    To get performance advantage over 1333MHz bus and 4MB of cache AMD must move to lower-latency/faster memory type (like DDR3)
    or setup L3 cache. Today, we have situation where 939 chip beats Intel on every field combining AMD64 strenghts but with Conroe the situation will change till AMD will not gives us better processor or bandwidth.
    I have read the Inquirer, but I have seen some AM2 benchmarks made during Cebit in Germany. 10% improvment is a hoax.
    There is no reason why 800MHz DDR2 CL4 memory should be faster than 400MHZ CL2.5 if we talk about AMD memory controler.
    Or maybe the secret is a software driver which will be delivered in June and will unlock some functions in the CPU.
    Everything is possible...

    4/09/2006 10:15 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    DDR2 has higher latency(delay), however, the higher bandwidth (from 6.4GB/s to 12.8GB/s) cuts the time of moving memory into cache by half.

    Intel's 1333MHZ (64 bit) bus (10GB/s) is not fast enough to handle DDR2 800MHZ (128 bit). AMD2 has a total bandwith of 12.8GB/s (IMC) + 8GB/s (HT).

    4/09/2006 10:43 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    I read some comments saying the 4MB cache is not a gimmick but can be a real boost for performance in some cases. In some sense, that's true, if you are running something like Super Pi 1M for fun. Even for large apps, more cache is better. But considering the complexity of today's applications, 4MB cache will only bring a small increase in performance, definitely not something like 10-20%. If you look at some of today's typical usage

    1) Web Browsers: todays web pages are very rich in content (gifs, jpegs, flash, CSS, JavaScript, DHTML, AJAX), each web page needs a lot of memory.

    2) Office: big memory needs.

    3) Photo editing: a 4 mega pixel digital photo needs 16MB in memory.

    4) Server: huge throughput needs.

    5)......

    In general, it's hard to find an application environment where 4MB cache can give you a big boost.

    4/09/2006 11:07 PM
    Anonymous said...
    What version of Science Mark was used ?
    If its using FPU for math, its highly possible that half of FPU resources on Conroe are idling (ie if the binary is compiled with iP4 as target)

    4/09/2006 11:30 PM
    Anonymous said...
    4MB is not a gimmick, its a feature. We are playing a game of symantics. Its like saying an on-board memory controller is a gimmick. Let's stop kidding ourselves.

    4/09/2006 11:35 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    Integrated memory controller is an architectural advantage, it boosts perfotrmance for all application loads and it improves system scalability. 4MB cache only produce visible enhancements for small apps.

    4/09/2006 11:51 PM
    Anonymous said...
    are games small apps? In mean, the performance difference in FEAR is enormous. The Conroe simple blows AMD away.
    How do you explain that?

    4/10/2006 5:19 AM
    DBA said...
    No doubt, this is an interesting topice. However, if we take 1 step back, we can see that we are comparing some future chip with an existing chip. At the end of the day, we simply do not have the answer.

    The simple fact is, If INTEL does not want us to know, we could only now if when the Conroe is out.

    4/10/2006 7:08 AM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    The gaming benchmarks from IDF has zero credibility. Gaming performance depends on a lot of factors such as video card, motherboard, video driver, OS settings, game binary, even hard drive speed...

    4/10/2006 7:58 AM
    Anonymous said...
    Anand has published today AM2 vs 939 comparision. The bandwidth is higher, but the overall score is practically the same.
    I think that AMD is feeling very confident about Conroe - it looks like they know something more than we do.
    X2 939 specification was complete in January 2005. This is 15 months advantage over Intel/Conroe and I don't belive that they only achieved DDR2 controller and Revision F Opterons during this time. Capacity and 65nm conversion are the most important now and Conroe has very low impact till end of 2006 - Intel is just not ready to switch production for this chip. Conroe impact can cause only margins eroding and lower AMD income. In 2007 K8L should solve the Conroe problem.

    4/10/2006 9:19 AM
    Anonymous said...
    cache does improve gaming performance in many games, as was seen in the intel 955 and 965 xtreme edition gaming benchmarks vs 800 series processors with less cache. (Still crap compared to amd though) Sure more cache has its uses, and undeniably gaming is one of them. I have no doubt that when one game can use all of that 4 megs of cache, it will fly. In many other real world apps though, the gains from cache will be minimal. It will be interesting to see intel claim the gaming benchmarks and AMD the real world apps, especially the 64 bit ones. Then their "Serious gamers need intel extreme edition" ads may actually have some merit.

    4/10/2006 9:20 AM
    Anonymous said...
    If an integrated memory controller is an architectural advantage, then 4MB is also an architectural advantage. Same thing.

    4/10/2006 9:42 AM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    4MB cache is not an architectural advantage, you can change the cache size without changing the architecture.

    4/10/2006 10:10 AM
    Celebrandil said...
    You only benefit from a larger cache if you are able to make your program fit into it. For memory-bound applications, where the size is too small anyhow, the cache size won't matter much at all. I'm working on real-time computer vision and for our particular applications the speed is directly dependent on the memory speed. Unlike the L1 cache, the L2 cache size hardly matters. However, as the cache size increases more and more applications are likely to fit into the cache. Some applications will make a sharp transition in speed as the cache size is increased, whereas the majority is unaffected. Thus one has to be very careful when interpretting benchmark results.

    4/10/2006 10:48 AM
    Anonymous said...
    Question: If you claim 50% marketshare for the end of 2006. What you think what will happen next year with FAB30?
    Current capacity is only viable for 90nm and AMD doesn't talk about 65nm of FAB30 conversion.
    FAB36 will be converted next year. AMD says that new fab is going to produce 20,000wspm in 2008.
    So this is 30-50% more than Fab30 alone. But this is it - 21.4%*1.5 that's about 30% of the marketshare.
    Without FAB30 converted also to 65nm AMD is going to live with one FAB...

    In the begining 2008 they are going to have one 65nm facility and good old one 90nm...

    4/10/2006 10:56 AM
    Anonymous said...
    There are rumors that AMD will convert FAB30 into 65nm.

    4/10/2006 10:59 AM
    netrama said...
    2 things Intel has used as marketing tools are GHz and Cache size ..they gave up GHz race ..we all know it..
    But any basic Comp Arch book explains the relation between cache size and law of diminishing returns ...there is an
    upper limit to the cache size and performance. But then a few benchmarks might exclusively take advantage of a bigger cache like
    this case with Conroe.

    4/10/2006 11:03 AM
    Anonymous said...
    I got some interesting sciencemark results on a 3ghz Opteron 146.
    32 bit scores
    http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/922/sciencemark325zs.jpg
    64 bit scores (some of the benches don't work properly in SMx64 apparently)
    http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/1935/sciencemark647va.jpg

    If conroe performance scales then even a 2.8ghz conroe won't be anything compared to AMD even in apps like the Molecular Dynamics benchmark while running XPx64 or Vista in 64 bit.

    4/10/2006 11:21 AM
    Anonymous said...
    Sciencemark isn't very cache dependent, a 1.8 GHz Sempron with 128KB of L2 scores within 1% of an A64 with 512KB.

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/sempron-3000_7.html

    Sciencemark 64-bit also shows big gains on the P4, I doubt it will be any different for Conroe.

    How do you explain the 32M SuperPi scores? Its score would require a 3.3+ GHz A64 to match.

    And nice of you to ignore BLAS, while mentioning STREAM which is more of a memory test. Conroe's BLAS scores destroy the A64, no surprise considering Conroe has more than double the FP power.

    4/10/2006 11:55 AM
    Anonymous said...
    what puzzels me is that intel released conroe in way back in Feb, and intel decided to release after amd's M2 socket? from their marketing strategy, wouldn't it be logical to release the processor now so that intel can gain market shares lost to amd?
    another point Sharikou points out is that conroe's performance was all over the place, from 32.9 faster to 8.2 slower than AMD64 @ 2.8 GHz. if conroe is a better processor in general, then its performance would be pretty consistent.
    Michael Dell, intel's biggest customer, didn't even endorse intel's NGMA when conroe's test was out.
    maybe conroe has a better architecture, but there is definately fishy about it.

    4/10/2006 12:32 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    I think we all understand that if cache is much smaller than the working set, then doubling the cache doesn't help. The Conroe results proved this point. Even though Conroe has 4MB cache and Athlon 64 only has 1MB, Athlon 64 still beats Conroe in Cipher and STREAM tests. However, if you can put the whole working set inside the cache, you see huge boost.

    If you try applications with working set at a size greater than 256KB of the Sempron but smaller than the 1MB of the Athlon 64, you will see a huge difference. However, if the working set is much greater than 1MB, then you see very small difference.

    The important concept is the working set, which is always smaller than required total virtual memory. Even with Super PI 32M, the working set is still quite small.

    The BLAS benchmark performs matrix multiplications, the maximum size of the matrix is only 1536x1536. If Conroe did extremely well on this test, that will be additional proof that the 4MB cache is the all the difference. Try a matrix size of 8096x 8096, you will see Conroe slower.

    STREAM is not just memory copying. It performs addition and multiplications on large vectors. It's a raw performance test.

    4/10/2006 1:57 PM
    Anonymous said...
    First, Conroe will have 64-bit extensions. I'm not sure why you question that or act like it won't benefit the same way AMD64 does when running 64-bit code (purely due to more registers, by the way, nothing magic about the architecture).

    Second, your conspiracy theories and rabble rousing about Intel's "cowardly" benchmarks are laughable.

    Third, Dothan matches/exceeds AMD64 chips on these same benchmarks, clock for clock. Yonah exceeds AMD64 chips on these same benchmarks.

    So Intel already has the AMD64 architecture beat, you honestly think that Conroe is a step _back_? Humorous.

    The simple fact is that it's destroying, at stock speeds, much higher clocked AMD CPU's, and it's doint it on a pre-release, barely supported motherboard.

    It will be fun to come back here and gloat when the 965P motherboards hit the scene, and you're proven completely, utterly wrong.

    4/10/2006 2:25 PM
    Anonymous said...
    I did a test on amount of memory used in Super Pi. for 1M, the program uses nearly 10MB of memory.

    4/10/2006 2:30 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    The numbers speak for themselves, the conclusion is very clear -- Conroe's 4MB cache is the main trick. Its 14 stage pipe may be less efficient than Pentium M's 10-12 stage pipe.

    I certainly hope Intel can get AMD64 correctly implemented. From my MolDyn test under Windows x64, A64 gets a 50% performance boost under native AMD64. I am in the process of getting Windows Vista x64 installed and do a MolDyn test under that. So far, Intel's EM64T runs slower in 64 bit mode.

    4/10/2006 2:37 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    Super Pi 1M allocates 8MB memory. However, what matters is the size of the working set.

    4/10/2006 2:41 PM
    Anonymous said...
    my testing has shown a 150% performance increase in the Molecular Dynamics test under 64 bit mode. My screenshots are 8 or so posts up.

    4/10/2006 2:48 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    Thanks for this test result under Windows x64. I notice you had the same problem as I did with the 64 bit version of ScienceMark: the Cipher tests failed to run, and the BLAS test doesn't use SSE. However, the performance boost for MolDyn is very visible.

    4/10/2006 2:56 PM
    Anonymous said...
    BLAS is specifically designed to not be cache dependent or matrix size dependent. Once BLAS implementations get optimized, you can expect Conroe to sustain close to 4 DP flops/cycle, leaving everything else in x86 land in its dust.

    4/10/2006 5:45 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    Please note, other benchmark scores (such as PCMark) have already been posted in the comments, and were discussed. Please refer to earlier discussions, unless you have anything new to add.

    According to Intel's IDF presentations, Conroe's main strength of its ability to analyse and optimize x86 code on the fly. However, from the STREAM test, which is basically one line of code a(i) = b(i) + q*c(i). The Conroe's four FP units should have no problem running the data in paralell. Howver, Athlon 64 beat Conroe in this test.

    4/10/2006 5:56 PM
    Anonymous said...
    Sniff... Sniff...

    I smell a fanboi!

    4/10/2006 6:13 PM
    Anonymous said...
    This is my first (and last) post ever on your blog.

    You accuse Anand of malicious bias and of selling out, even though when you look at things with a historical perspective Anand has always been a proponent of the best performance per dollar contender - which for three years has been AMD.

    To quote their most recent article (AMD Socket-AM2 Performance Preview)
    "...the fastest X2 chips still outperform the fastest Pentium D chips - but it looks like after three years K8 may finally get some competition for the performance crown." [Emphasis is mine]

    Also, if you actually read Anand's article on Conroe, not only did Anand have physical access to the Conroe system (and it's Control Panel and driver configuration, they also took the time to correct some of their own self admitted errors in benchmarking the games.

    You can also complain all you want about benchmark sets fitting under 4mb, and even try and make a case that games are dependant upon drivers and external factors (all of which were identical between Anand's two test systems), but if you look at the original and updated benchmark page you'll realize that Anand benchmarked not only games (Quake 4, FEAR, HL2, UT2k4), but Windows Media, Divx, and iTunes encoding times - all of which are real world applications.

    4/10/2006 7:49 PM
    Anonymous said...
    well at least that poster at least showed he was using the real "conroe" processor, rather than anandtech.
    sharikou got a point here. that anandtech guy was never allowed to look into the device manager or control panel. how did he know he was using the real "conroe" processor? did he take a picture of that processor? did he have a CPU-Z screenshot?
    sharikou may be an amd fanboy alright, at least he backs his claims up with something solid.

    4/10/2006 7:51 PM
    Sharikou, Ph. D said...
    All comments without substance or merely repetition of previously discussed material will be deleted to save space.

    I wrote this reagarding Anand's credibility. Anand is very suspicious in this Conroe business.

    1) Anand didn't see the Conroe CPU, nor did he have the chance to peak into the device manager, nor was he allowed to run CPU-Z. In fact, Anand had no way to tell what kind of CPU was running the Intel box. Victor Wong had his hands on Conroe, he got CPU-Z screens to show.

    2) Anand's pumping of Conroe is very suspicious. The title of his article was "Intel regains performance crown", which was false. Conroe is months away, may be delayed as such delays have become common with Intel's launches. There is nothing certain about it gaining performance crown against AMD's future products.

    3) Anand willfully hid the fact from his readers that he was merely a button pusher.

    As reported by TechReport:
    "We used test systems pre-configured by Intel before the show, and we had very limited time to conduct testing or inspect the systems. We were not allowed to look inside of the case of either PC, and the scope of the benchmarks we were allowed to run was defined by Intel. We weren't given the leeway to record our own custom timedemos for the games, and we didn't have enough time to run each test three times or even reboot between the tests....
    our role really was confined largely to clicking a few icons and menu items to kick off a test and then writing down the results."

    4) After the public suspicion on Intel. I emailed Pat Gelsinger and others at Intel requesting for a fairer test environment. Intel invited Anand back for another test. This made Anand even more suspicious. Others didn't get such treatment. Remember, Intel setup the Conroe box and FX box for a very specific purpose. Intel knew their setup had zero credibility, so they desperately needed someone like Anand to smear some credibility on their "setup".

    5) If Intel really has something, answer AMD's challenge for a public duel. Intel should follow the basic rules of ethics, even if it's in a time of massive market share and revenue loss.

  7. #7
    Ngày tham gia
    Aug 2015
    Bài viết
    3
    Thời gian sẽ trả lời nhưng kì này Intel không làm ra hồn sẽ bị AMD kick ass...nếu AMD win nữa thì giá nó không còn rẻ cho mấy fans mừng đâu

  8. #8
    Ngày tham gia
    Nov 2015
    Bài viết
    0
    giờ cứ hiệp này intel thắng, hiệp kia AMD thắng thì vui nhỉ năm chẵn update inteo, năm lẻ update AMD

  9. #9
    Ngày tham gia
    Aug 2015
    Bài viết
    43
    Cứ nghĩ là Intel đang làm nên những điều khủng khiếp chứ hóa ra không phải à.

  10. #10
    Ngày tham gia
    Nov 2015
    Bài viết
    3
    Cái này có phải là chơi cheat không nhỉ???

Quyền viết bài

  • Bạn Không thể gửi Chủ đề mới
  • Bạn Không thể Gửi trả lời
  • Bạn Không thể Gửi file đính kèm
  • Bạn Không thể Sửa bài viết của mình
  •