Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

  1. #1
    Senior Member Blackmage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,934
    Thanks
    202
    Thanked
    65 times in 45 posts
    • Blackmage's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI P67-GD65
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core I7 2600k
      • Memory:
      • 8 Gb Hynix DDR3 1333
      • Storage:
      • Crucial m4 120Gb, 2TB Samsung F4
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ATI HD5830
      • PSU:
      • 700w Coolermaster Gold Plus
      • Case:
      • Xclio/Aplus Windtunnel
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic VX2239WM 22" LCD Monitor
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Broadband 10mbit

    16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Over at toms hardware they have an excellent article displaying the efficiency of all the processor architectures from 2005. It compares Intel architectures against it's self and AMD and vice versa.



    An excellent read

  2. #2
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,195
    Thanks
    1,520
    Thanked
    2,933 times in 2,376 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    So when Bulldozer comes out, how will they define a 'core'?

  3. #3
    Headless Chicken Terbinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,323
    Thanks
    1,096
    Thanked
    672 times in 550 posts
    • Terbinator's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock H61M
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon 1230-V3
      • Memory:
      • Geil Evo Corsa 2133/8GB
      • Storage:
      • M4 128GB, 2TB WD Red
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX Titan
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX760i
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster 130
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp U2711H
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 60Mb.

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Pentium 4, you so crazy! The efficiency gain between NB & Conroe really is quite astonishing and impressive.
    Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
    CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
    TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
    for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.

  4. #4
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,195
    Thanks
    1,520
    Thanked
    2,933 times in 2,376 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by Terbinator View Post
    Pentium 4, you so crazy! The efficiency gain between NB & Conroe really is quite astonishing and impressive.
    Efficiency is the wrong word for it really - NB was designed for high frequency and Conroe was designed for IPC - comparing either of them by the other's metric is going to show them up badly. NB was also available in frequencies up to 2x regular Conroe chips, so the overall gain in speed wasn't as dramatic as this chart shows.

  5. #5
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    After having a quick look at the chart in table one, it seems a Sandy Bridge core is around 28% faster than a Phenom II core. TBH,it is not as large as I expected. It seems to be significantly less than the IPC difference between the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4. It really does make think at times why people whinge so much about the IPC of the Phenom II TBH!!

    Anyway,like kalniel stated before the chart does not take into consideration whether a CPU is designed for higher or lower clockspeed targets.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 27-07-2011 at 03:46 PM.


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  6. #6
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    15,044
    Thanks
    1,194
    Thanked
    2,246 times in 1,847 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 1x 8GB DDR4 2400
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    So AMD barely reached the IPC of Conroe with Thuban - an architecture 3 years newer? That pretty much says everything you need to know about just how good Conroe was! That said, it also gives you a good impression of how well AMD have done tweaking K8 in later iterations, to be able to make up the IPC despite having one less int pipeline.

    This is going to make a similar comparison to Bulldozer very interesting - if AMD's switch to 4-issue can approach the gains Intel got from P4 - Conroe, they could get very close to Sandy Bridge with it. That said, K8 was always targeted at lower clock speeds & higher IPC than Netburst, so they probably don't have as much leeway as Intel had in that regard.

  7. #7
    Super Nerd
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    1,785
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked
    105 times in 72 posts

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Would have liked to see a few done at 1 GHz or something, with a Pentium 3 or P3-S, Pentium-M, Athlon XPs, and a Northwood/Williamette Pentium 4.

    Interesting to see just how outdated the Pentium 4 has become, now we are back up to 3GHz+ again that inefficient core really looks slow, the Athlon 64 architecture has aged better.

  8. #8
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    15,044
    Thanks
    1,194
    Thanked
    2,246 times in 1,847 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 1x 8GB DDR4 2400
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle View Post
    ... the Athlon 64 architecture has aged better.
    I'm actually surprised at just how much IPC gain both companies have squeezed out of their recent architectures. Intel have made 25% from Conroe to Sandy Bridge: AMD have squeezed 20% from Windsor to Thuban, but of course Windsor was a fairly late K8 architecture and I assume they made IPC gains between Clawhammer (2003) and Windsor (2006) ... all without having to make significant changes to the core. I think most people would be pretty chuffed with a 25% IPC gain from iterative improvements...

  9. #9
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,195
    Thanks
    1,520
    Thanked
    2,933 times in 2,376 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    but of course Windsor was a fairly late K8 architecture and I assume they made IPC gains between Clawhammer (2003) and Windsor (2006)
    If I remember clock for clock actually got slightly worse - the latencies increased, but they gained clockspeed and DDR2 controller.

  10. #10
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,344
    Thanks
    605
    Thanked
    1,586 times in 1,262 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    I knew AMD weren't doing great on the IPC front, but I'm quite shocked at how far down the list they are.

    Effectively, even with my years-old Yorkfield processor, I'm still doing better than I would be with a new AMD quad.

    I probably should've known this already, but I haven't actually looked too carefully at any of the recent AMDs, having no occasion to actually buy them. Scary how far ahead Intel are.

  11. #11
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,103
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    1,042 times in 886 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    If I remember clock for clock actually got slightly worse - the latencies increased, but they gained clockspeed and DDR2 controller.
    Nah, that was just the change from DDR to DDR2 memory at the same frequency.
    The cores certainly improved.

  12. #12
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,195
    Thanks
    1,520
    Thanked
    2,933 times in 2,376 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Nah, that was just the change from DDR to DDR2 memory at the same frequency.
    The cores certainly improved.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2139/3

    Quote Originally Posted by anandtech
    Luckily the performance impact of the higher latency L2 cache isn't noticeable in all applications, thanks to the K8's on-die memory controller, but make no mistake - the new core is slower.
    Was what I was remembering - which actually concerns the 65nm chips, my mistake, not the 90nm.

    AMD has given us the official confirmation that L2 cache latencies have increased, and that it purposefully did so in order to allow for the possibility of moving to larger cache sizes in future parts.
    Last edited by kalniel; 28-07-2011 at 09:18 PM.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,593
    Thanks
    145
    Thanked
    311 times in 249 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P8Z77-m pro
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 3570K
      • Memory:
      • 32GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 850 EVO, 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon RX 580
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Silverstone SG02-F
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 X64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • 80/20 FTTC

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    It's all well and good looking at IPC but it's like comparing car engines based purely on torque, ignoring fuel economy, power and how fast the engine can spin.
    Just like looking at Clock speed is like comparing engines based purely on how high they can rev.
    "In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."

  14. #14
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,195
    Thanks
    1,520
    Thanked
    2,933 times in 2,376 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    It's all well and good looking at IPC but it's like comparing car engines based purely on torque, ignoring fuel economy, power and how fast the engine can spin.
    Just like looking at Clock speed is like comparing engines based purely on how high they can rev.
    Sure, but we're nerds and we like pointless benchmarks

  15. Received thanks from:

    DanceswithUnix (30-07-2011),scaryjim (29-07-2011)

  16. #15
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,103
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    1,042 times in 886 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2139/3

    Was what I was remembering - which actually concerns the 65nm chips, my mistake, not the 90nm.
    Yeah, the slower cache to allow for a size increase that never happened. Not their best move

    I was thinking about the 130 to 90nm shrink, with SSE3 & improved DDR interface.

  17. #16
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,103
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    1,042 times in 886 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: 16 CPUs, One Core Each, And 3 GHz

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Sure, but we're nerds and we like pointless benchmarks
    And in full nerd mode, I would say this is more like BHP per litre (ie work done for a given capacity). Another benchmark useless on its own, but I rather like it

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •