Aceshardware

(not so) temporary home for the aceshardware community
 FAQ •  Search •  Register •  Login 
It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:15 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour



Welcome
Welcome to <strong>Aceshardware</strong>.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, <a href="/profile.php?mode=register">join our community today</a>!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 499
Location: Moscow, Russia
Performance estimates of Llano started to popup on I-net.
Image
We see that Llano performance a bit worse than Athlon X4 640+Radeon 5550.
Retail prices on newegg.com:
Athlon X4 640 - 99$.
AMD Radeon 5550 -61$.

Even w/o Intel competition the retail price can't be more than 160$.
There is no Core i3-21xx on shelves yet, but based on the price of Core i5-2300 @ 185$ we might safely assume that retail prices of Core i3-21xx we'll be inside 120-160$.

I'm pretty sure that if prices of Core i3-21xx and Llano X4 are about the same most of ordinary users will follow Core i3 route and most of gamers too because Core i3-21xx can beat Athlon X4 645 badly and apparently even more Llano X4.
And that leads us to gloomy conslusion that retail prices of Llano X4 will hardly be higher than 100$.

Doing the conclusion about the margin i leave for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:10 pm
Posts: 370
From the same source:
Image

For the PCMark05 subtest I'm both too lazy and can't care less about this program, for Cinebench the scores of current processors are:
Core i7 2600K - 6.83
Phenom II X6 1100T - 5.89
Core i7 950 - 5.56

And by pixel counting Bulldozer will do... 10.9... Yeah... 60% faster then SandyBridge...

Now for 3DMark06, cpu test:
Core i7 2600K - 6608
Phenom II X6 1100T - 5986
Core i7 950 ~ 5400

Counting pixels again for Bulldozer gives... 8757... Now just 33% faster than SandyBridge...

I'm assuming this slide is true as long you assume the slide about Llano is true, you know, same source...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 499
Location: Moscow, Russia
EduardoS wrote:
...
And by pixel counting Bulldozer will do... 10.9... Yeah... 60% faster then SandyBridge...
...
Counting pixels again for Bulldozer gives... 8757... Now just 33% faster than SandyBridge...

I'm assuming this slide is true as long you assume the slide about Llano is true, you know, same source...
"pixel counting"? It's something new for me in cpu comparison procedures.

BTW, have you noticed the remark "Estimates and projections subject to change". And the slide is dated by December-2010 only (!?).

And, BTW, now we have the answer on the question which was asked about months ago: Who believes that Phenom X6 1100T is equal to Core i7-950. That's AMD itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:48 am
Posts: 141
Location: Berlin, Germany
As discussed in many forums, these slides might be faked. A "Cinibench" benchmark, i7-950 with 1156 pin package, "epic performance", "first and only native 8-core processor" and a questionable slide design are some points raising some doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:57 am
Posts: 304
Dresdenboy wrote:
As discussed in many forums, these slides might be faked. A "Cinibench" benchmark, i7-950 with 1156 pin package, "epic performance", "first and only native 8-core processor" and a questionable slide design are some points raising some doubt.


Well, I wouldn't be able to tell if they are faked or not. Interestingly,
JF (twice) said he couldn't either. The only thing really wrong is the
"i" in cinibench in the small print.

The rest is right or wrong depending on one's interpretation of the
context. The slide discusses the "Performance Desktop" segment.
So if that is the context then I don't see anything really wrong.

The Intel platform table doesn't mention the i7-950 explicitly, It just
mentions Core i7, and there are currently 4 different Core i7 processors
in this segment.

The 80%+ performance increase in Cinebench 11.5 fits well with the
official AMD line of ~80% performance increase in FP throughput.
So it's not so surprising that one of the authors of this document
says what he said about the slide...

Regards, Hans

source: http://www.worldhostingdays.com/downloa ... /hS2a1.pdf

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 499
Location: Moscow, Russia
Dresdenboy wrote:
As discussed in many forums, these slides might be faked. A "Cinibench" benchmark, i7-950 with 1156 pin package, "epic performance", "first and only native 8-core processor" and a questionable slide design are some points raising some doubt.

I wouldn't put serious attention to "Cinibench". It's printed in very small font and if a girl had done misprinting (Does she really know what "Cinibench" means?) nobody have checked it.
There were many misprinting on AMD site. The last, most notable, was "32nm" for Zacate/Ontario.

"epic performance", "first and only native 8-core processor".
They don't look very extravagant praises after the words that we've heard from Rick Brgman concerning Zacate/Ontario.

questionable slide design.
It's serious. Blue-chips companies usually put a lot of efforts into corporate disign.
Girls use templates and in that case it's very difficult to insert remarks under footer. Destroying a corporate outlook can lead to person's dismissal.

In any case that's very interesting comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 499
Location: Moscow, Russia
If somebody had missed the act #1 with Brazos vs. Core i5, AMD has just started the act #2 Llano@1.8 vs. SB@2.0.

This time around, AMD promotes that Llano is capable to handle concurrent mixed cpu and gpu workload much better than Intel.
As Godfrey Cheng, Director of Client Technology Unit at AMD, clearly states in his post: Exposing the phantom x86 bottleneck.
Quote:
As you can see, we handle graphics and video with ease and with much better power efficiency.
With “Llano”, we have geared up for the 21st century and did not remain dogmatic about x86 performance benchmarks.
.
If it's really true i'm curious what the reasons lie behind that supremacy in that kind of scenario?
Is it due to L3-cacheless architecture is better suited to that scenario than the architecture w/ Last Level Cache?
Or Hyperthreading works like brakes here?
Or it just due to the fact that SB runs more gpu workload in cpu cores?
What ideas?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:04 pm
Posts: 126
Location: Tampere, Finland
Azazel wrote:
If somebody had missed the act #1 with Brazos vs. Core i5, AMD has just started the act #2 Llano@1.8 vs. SB@2.0.

This time around, AMD promotes that Llano is capable to handle concurrent mixed cpu and gpu workload much better than Intel.
As Godfrey Cheng, Director of Client Technology Unit at AMD, clearly states in his post: Exposing the phantom x86 bottleneck.
Quote:
As you can see, we handle graphics and video with ease and with much better power efficiency.
With “Llano”, we have geared up for the 21st century and did not remain dogmatic about x86 performance benchmarks.
.
If it's really true i'm curious what the reasons lie behind that supremacy in that kind of scenario?
Is it due to L3-cacheless architecture is better suited to that scenario than the architecture w/ Last Level Cache?
Or Hyperthreading works like brakes here?
Or it just due to the fact that SB runs more gpu workload in cpu cores?
What ideas?


Heavy usage of GPU is polluting the L3 cache and making it useless for CPU side.

I think AMD's solution of not sharing the caches between CPU and GPU side was a good choice, as the access patterns of the cache are so different in CPU and GPU side and they will not cooperate nicely (unless parts of the cache can be staticly locked to be used by only either side)

The new intel graphics cores should finally support hardware vertex shaders, so it should not calculate much more on cpu side.
(unless it's doing things like tessellation on software on cpu side)

HyperThreading's effect is that when there are really 4 threads with lots of things to do, 4 cores are doing better than 2 bigger cores with HT, while when there is only 2 threads of work, 2 bigger cores are doing better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:48 am
Posts: 141
Location: Berlin, Germany
Azazel wrote:
If somebody had missed the act #1 with Brazos vs. Core i5, AMD has just started the act #2 Llano@1.8 vs. SB@2.0.

This time around, AMD promotes that Llano is capable to handle concurrent mixed cpu and gpu workload much better than Intel.
As Godfrey Cheng, Director of Client Technology Unit at AMD, clearly states in his post: Exposing the phantom x86 bottleneck.
Quote:
As you can see, we handle graphics and video with ease and with much better power efficiency.
With “Llano”, we have geared up for the 21st century and did not remain dogmatic about x86 performance benchmarks.
.
If it's really true i'm curious what the reasons lie behind that supremacy in that kind of scenario?
Is it due to L3-cacheless architecture is better suited to that scenario than the architecture w/ Last Level Cache?
Or Hyperthreading works like brakes here?
Or it just due to the fact that SB runs more gpu workload in cpu cores?
What ideas?

I've already posted a possible explanation at Semiaccurate. I see a possible main reason in cache sharing and thus a resulting thrashing. It's not a matter of L3 or no L3, but more likely of:
  • L2 size (Llano's cores should stress mem interface less due to 1MB L2 per thread vs. 128kB L2 per thread on SB)
  • use of GPU's own caches (Radeon GPUs have several caches incl. some L2 cache - although I don't know about it's size in APU designs)
  • no sharing of any caches between GPU and CPU, so only IMC is shared, which likely is optimized for certain request priorities

Edit: Oh noes! Heikki was faster since I didn't send this post immediately after writing it ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 499
Location: Moscow, Russia
hkultala wrote:
Heavy usage of GPU is polluting the L3 cache and making it useless for CPU side.
Not heavy usage of GPU will also pollute L3.
I was pretty sure that Intel should have had it on its mind and bypass gpu traffic thru L3.

hkultala wrote:
HyperThreading's effect is that when there are really 4 threads with lots of things to do, 4 cores are doing better than 2 bigger cores with HT, while when there is only 2 threads of work, 2 bigger cores are doing better.
Speaking about HT in that case I meant that I don't exclude the special tuning was applied
for unefficient allocation of threads per cores. Who knows. At least we can't exclude this.

The scenarion was a bit of unrealistic too. It was very skewed into gpu side.
Quote:
For this part of the presentation, AMD used a script that added a workload each time the return key was pressed. Workload number one was the Final Fantasy XIV benchmark, workload two an Excel spreadsheet with automated calculations, number three consisted of a 1080p video (Big Buck Bunny), and workload four had SPECviewperf rendering the wireframe model of a car. The final step was to use Windows 7’s Flip 3D to cycle through these programs.
Three of four workloads were heavy gpu (video) bound. And even fith Flip 3D is gpu bound also.
Human being needs chameleon's eyes to watch movie, rendering and playing simulteneously.
Or if he is of the kind of this, he is better off with d.GPU. Is not it?

So my point is that cpu cores of Intel were much more loaded than that of AMD to treat the gpu.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:10 pm
Posts: 370
hkultala wrote:
unless it's doing things like tessellation on software on cpu side

Tesselation without DX11?

hkultala wrote:
The new intel graphics cores should finally support hardware vertex shaders, so it should not calculate much more on cpu side.


Is it so difficult to run a game with task manager open?

By the small improvement when going from 6 EU to 12 EU and overclocking I had the impression Sandy Bridgealways used CPU to improve graphics performance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:22 pm
Posts: 119
EduardoS wrote:
By the small improvement when going from 6 EU to 12 EU and overclocking I had the impression Sandy Bridgealways used CPU to improve graphics performance.


Or, rather, the IGP likely gets bandwidth-limited at some point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:10 pm
Posts: 370
Yeah, true, wich means it wastes a lot of bandwidth since 64-bits discrete GPUs performs better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 499
Location: Moscow, Russia
EduardoS wrote:
Is it so difficult to run a game with task manager open?
That was not the AMD's intention.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Welcome Llano!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:19 am
Posts: 499
Location: Moscow, Russia
Nvidia Sees Increasing Demand Towards Standalone Mobile GPUs.
Quote:
According to a high-ranking Nvidia Corp. executive, in 2011 there will be more notebooks with standalone graphics processors than in 2010.
That's confirms those who need powerful graphics will go with d.GPU thus easily removing gpu bottleneck.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 180 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
suspicion-preferred