backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by jazkat.. on Jun 28 at 10:35 PM


Cinebench ran AMD "Barcelona" 1.6 GHz in 27 seconds. (Source: DailyTech, Anh Huynh)

Cinebench ran Xeon X3220 2.4 GHz in 17 seconds. (Source: DailyTech, Anh Huynh)
An early AMD "Barcelona" revision gets its first non-simulated benchmark

Earlier today, AMD announced that it successfully demonstrated Barcelona across the server market.  The company did not publically state how fast the processor was running, the stepping of the processor, the processor thermal envelope or the eventual ship date.

We had the opportunity to benchmark the AMD Barcelona, native quad-core on an early stepping. We only had a few minutes to test the chip, but we were able to run a quick Cinebench before we were instructed to leave.

The AMD benchmark ran on a single-socket, K10 CPU running at 1.6 GHz on NVIDIA's nForce Professional 3400 chipset.  According to the system properties, the AMD system used 4GB of DDR2-667.

The most similar Intel system we could muster up on such short notice was an Intel Xeon 3220.  The Xeon X3220 is clocked at 2.4 GHz, and ran on Intel's Garlow platform (Intel X38).  This system property profile stated the system utilized 4GB of DDR2-800.

Cinebench completed the default benchmark in 27 seconds for the 1.6 GHz K10; 17 seconds for the Intel Xeon X3220.  The Kentsfield Xeon was 58% faster with a 50% higher clock frequency for Cinebench.

Both systems ran Windows 2003 R2, 64-bit.

AMD partner engineers tell DailyTech the chip we tested was the latest revision silicon.  The same engineers claim 2.0 GHz Barcelona chips are making the rounds, with 2.3 GHz already on the desktop and server roadmaps. 

AMD's current guidance suggests a late July announcement for Barcelona.  However, when DailyTech tracked down the individual partners named in AMD's press release, all cited "optimistic September" ship dates for motherboards. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Am I understanding the math correctly?
By RussianSensation on 6/6/2007 6:19:21 AM , Rating: 0
If Xeon ran at 17 seconds and K10 ran at 27 seconds, thats 10 seconds faster off 27 seconds.

Or reduced 10/27 from K10's time which is 37% not 58%. Therefore, the performance increase is 37% given a 50% clock difference.

Had Xeon ran 58% faster than K10, its time to complete the task would have been more than half as fast (i.e. 11.34 seconds).




By RussianSensation on 6/6/2007 6:28:19 AM , Rating: 4
Nevermind, I don't know what I was thinking. Twice as fast would position a Xeon at 13.5 seconds (or 100% faster). The 58% makes sense actually. My bad...Time to re-learn grade 3 math :)


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By jpeyton on 6/6/2007 4:00:53 PM , Rating: 5
Just for comparisons sake (I know some of you were looking for this number), I ran CineBench 9.5 on a dual-Opteron workstation (4 cores total) with the processors running at 1.6GHz (Vista Ultimate 32-bit, 4GB DDR2 667, nForce Pro 3600 Chipset).

[b]29 seconds[/b] to render the scene in the multiprocessor benchmark.

DailyTech didn't mention what OS they used; if they do, I'll rerun the benchmark with it.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/6/2007 6:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it was Windows 2003 Server SP2, 64-bit. I updated that into the article.


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By jpeyton on 6/6/2007 4:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Just for comparisons sake (I know some of you were looking for this number), I ran CineBench 9.5 on a dual-Opteron workstation (4 cores total) with the processors running at 1.6GHz (Vista Ultimate 32-bit, 4GB DDR2 667, nForce Pro 3600 Chipset).

29 seconds to render the scene in the multiprocessor benchmark.

DailyTech didn't mention what OS they used; if they do, I'll rerun the benchmark with it.


By Proteusza on 6/6/2007 4:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Good god. may god have mercy on AMD if that is true, because Intel wont.


By Furen on 6/6/2007 4:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think the test system was running windows server 2003 x64. Notice that Cinebench was the 64bit version, which does make a big difference.


By w0mbat on 6/6/2007 6:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
27 : 0,17 = 158,82 -> The K10 needed 58% more time to finish the task.


By defter on 6/6/2007 6:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or reduced 10/27 from K10's time which is 37% not 58%. Therefore, the performance increase is 37% given a 50% clock difference.


1/(1-0.37) = 1.58 => Xeon is 58% faster given 50% higher clock.

Or alternatively: K10 is 37% slower given 33% lower clock.

quote:
Had Xeon ran 58% faster than K10, its time to complete the task would have been more than half as fast (i.e. 11.34 seconds).


No, you forgot that if A is 100% faster than B then B is 50% slower than A.

If the Xeon would compete the task in less than half time, then it would be over 100% faster.

Maybe it's easier to just look at the Cinebench scores:
K10 = 814
Xeon = 1274
=> Xeon about 58% faster.


By leidegre on 6/6/2007 6:37:01 AM , Rating: 4
Well, what you express with the ratio 27/17 is basically how much more work can I do given that I'm doing this task in 17 seconds and not 27.

27/17 ~= 1,5882

Which then actually would have been a 59% performance difference.

You are describing given the time difference in performance measured for this task how many of those can I perform given I have 27 seconds, which actually is 2,7 as you managed to invert the result.

However, this type of silly guessing doesn't give you anything. I'm satisfied with the early benchmarks as they are, and for now we should not try and read too much into it. Let's hold off the flame wars until we have a little more facts ey?


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By Awax on 6/6/2007 7:45:39 AM , Rating: 4
You have the choice :
* the K10 is clocked 33% slower than the Xeon and performs 37% slower (here, 100% is the Xeon)
* the Xeon is clocked 50% faster than the K10 and performs 58% faster (here, 100% is the K10)

So, on a clock/performance ratio point of view, the K10 isn't that great : a 100MHz boost on the Xeon is matched by a 117 Mhz boost on the K10.


By Spoelie on 6/8/2007 11:00:54 AM , Rating: 2
You are not taking into account the memory speed differences. The kentsfield was running in its most optimal memory configuration (unreleased x38 enthousiast chipset) with 20% faster memory, while the barcelona adds support for 1066mhz mem but is running only 667mhz. We do not know if the board it was running on was one that provides split power planes (am2/1207 or am2+/1207+?), the latter which should provide the processor a 5-10% boost at the cost of a few watts according to last heard information.

Not the best reference to make any judgments on performance per clock.


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By RW on 6/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By penter on 6/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By penter on 6/6/07, Rating: -1
By casket on 6/6/2007 10:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Distance= Rate * Time
Distance =30,000 (renders?)
Rate = Cinebench score (Renders per second?)
Time = seconds (17.25 vs 27).
**********
"A 2.4 Ghz Quad-core K-10 goes the equivalent speed of a 2.3 Ghz Xeon. It gets a 2300+ rating.

AMD's chip is 95.84% the speed of Intel, clock-for-clock."


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By jhtrico1850 on 6/6/2007 7:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Let's just choose an arbitrary number of 5000 pixels for a scene. If Barcy at 1.6GHz finishes in 27 seconds, that is 185 pixels/s. If Kentsfield at 2.4Ghz finishes in 17s, that is 294 pixels/s. Adjust the Barcy score of 185*(2.4/1.6) for 277.5 pixels/s. As you can see, 294 is 58% faster than 185, and 2.4 is 50% more than 1.6, and in this case, the Kentsfield is faster than the Barcy clock for clock with 294 vs 277.5.


RE: Am I understanding the math correctly?
By hoyanf on 6/7/07, Rating: 0
By GlassHouse69 on 6/7/2007 12:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
My only hope is that Kuma dual core has like a 25% speed increase or something like that over am2's of same ghz rating, AND they are like 120 dollars at most to buy. this would make intel's systems to cost 300-500 dollars more to purchase, considering the AMD boards normally run 65-75 dollars for full features and full speed. DDR2 is luckily at a super cheap price at the moment. combine all of that with a more than adequate chip, this will change the market.

gaming is all gfx card so long as you use 1920x1200 displays with "image quality" settings cranked.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki