• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

AMD Debuts New 12- and 16-Core Opteron 6300 Series Processors

Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,627 (2.38/day)
Likes
2,986
Processor Intel I7 4790k (stock)
Motherboard ASRock H97M-ITX/ac LGA 1150 Intel H97
Cooling Prolimatech megahalem
Memory Crucial 2x4gb 1600mhz
Video Card(s) EVGA 1060 3gb
Storage OWC Mercury SSD 240 GB
Display(s) Asus 144hz
Case Raijintek Metis
Power Supply Corsair SF600 600w psu
Software Windows 10 64 Bit
#26
Even it its way of topic:
A nVidia Titan has ~1300 GFLOPS DP at 250W TDP, but that was not the point.
All that compute power on your GPU is pretty useless unless you have a task where you have to crunch numbers for an extended period of time AND your task can be scheduled in parallel, but I guess you know that. The latencies for copying data to the GPU and after processing there from the GPU back to the main memory / CPU are way to high for any mixed workload to perform well, so strong single-threaded FP performance will always be important in some way.
Isn't that what amd's HSA and HUMA are meant to solve?
Edit: Aquinius you speedy guy beat me to it with more eloquence.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
408 (0.08/day)
Likes
76
System Name Octopussy
Processor 1x Intel Core-i7 3930K @ 4.8GHz
Motherboard ASUS Rampage IV Extreme
Cooling Full water cooling, mostly Aqua Computer and EKWB stuff!
Memory 4x 4GB Corsair Dominator GT DDR3-2133 9-11-10-27-1T
Video Card(s) 2x Gigabyte GTX 980Ti G1 Gaming in SLI
Storage 8x Hitachi 5K3000 3TB RAID-6 (Adaptec 5805); 1x 512GB Samsung 950Pro (Angelbird Wings PX1)
Display(s) PLP: Dell 2007FBb 20" TFT + Dell U3011 30" TFT + Dell 2007FBb 20" TFT
Case CaseLabs TH10A
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar Phoebus
Power Supply SeaSonic SS-1000XP
Mouse Logitech MX Master
Keyboard SteelSeries Apex M800
Software MS Windows 10 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores A lot.
#27
Might read into APUs again. There are benefits to be had by having HUMA on an APU, which solves the memory copying problem.
True, but the performance of a 7970 on an APU is not going to happen any time soon, I guess...
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
5,627 (2.38/day)
Likes
2,986
Processor Intel I7 4790k (stock)
Motherboard ASRock H97M-ITX/ac LGA 1150 Intel H97
Cooling Prolimatech megahalem
Memory Crucial 2x4gb 1600mhz
Video Card(s) EVGA 1060 3gb
Storage OWC Mercury SSD 240 GB
Display(s) Asus 144hz
Case Raijintek Metis
Power Supply Corsair SF600 600w psu
Software Windows 10 64 Bit
#28
True, but the performance of a 7970 on an APU is not going to happen any time soon, I guess...
I just used a 7970 since I have a 7970 and knew its DP off hand. The architectural potential is there.

I got curious and looked for what DP an apu can get. This is the only thing I can find on current a10 7850k but its from WCCFtech so who knows its validity. 5800k on left, 7850k on right. Overclocked.
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
19,224 (5.03/day)
Likes
4,811
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
#29
ive come to note all businesses will go with the cheapest parts available, plus most companies or people let alone dont know who AMD is.

But I say this is really good news for them, now they just need to make the 8core desktop parts more efficient
 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,401 (4.84/day)
Likes
5,481
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
#30
ive come to note all businesses will go with the cheapest parts available, plus most companies or people let alone dont know who AMD is.

But I say this is really good news for them, now they just need to make the 8core desktop parts more efficient
Yeah! They need something to compete with Intel's 8 core Atom SoC. 20-watt TDP for an 8-core SoC isn't too shabby. There is a slower variant that offers lower clocks and less power usage but still retains 8 cores as well. I kind of want one.

True, but the performance of a 7970 on an APU is not going to happen any time soon, I guess...
As long as PCI-E is your bus and you have memory that is completely segregated from the CPU, you're going to have that issue. Remember how gimped Intel CPUs were when they used an MCH and how the CPU needed to communicate with the MCH to get anything out of memory. As soon as the memory controller was moved next to the CPU cores, memory access speeds started flying and latency dropped like a rock. The issue is that no software can take advantage of having stream processors and CPU cores both working on the same data. Sharing data between different CPU cores is problematic enough, forget sharing it with an array of SIMD cores.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,785 (1.22/day)
Likes
1,672
Location
New Zealand
System Name MoneySink
Processor 2600K @ 4.8
Motherboard P8Z77-V
Cooling AC NexXxos XT45 360, RayStorm, D5T+XSPC tank, Tygon R-3603, Bitspower
Memory 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600C8
Video Card(s) GTX 780 SLI (EVGA SC ACX + Giga GHz Ed.)
Storage Kingston HyperX SSD (128) OS, WD RE4 (1TB), RE2 (1TB), Cav. Black (2 x 500GB), Red (4TB)
Display(s) Achieva Shimian QH270-IPSMS (2560x1440) S-IPS
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) onboard Realtek yawn edition
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050
Software Win8.1 Pro
Benchmark Scores 3.5 litres of Pale Ale in 18 minutes.
#31
I dunno. In multithreading AMD was beating Intel. Xeons are another story
Well, in this instance since the article concerns Opteron, Xeon would actually be the story worth considering as counterpoint.

but when it comes to price for the performance. That I'd be interested to see.
Undoubtably, but then AMD are obviously going to make a concession for processor upgrade pricing in order to make ageing C32/G34 platforms at least somewhat palatable.
[Chart source]
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
496 (0.14/day)
Likes
115
System Name Epsilon
Processor A12-9800E 35watts
Motherboard MSI Grenade AM4
Cooling Stock
Memory 2x4GB DDR4 2400 Kingston Hyper X
Video Card(s) Radeon R7 (IGP / APU)
Storage Samsung Spinpoint F1
Display(s) AOC 29" Ultra wide
Case Generic
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 380w
Software Windows 10
#32

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,921 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,022
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#33
Intel uses unused resources in the CPU to get extra multi-threaded performance. AMD added extra hardware for multi-threaded performance as opposed to using just the extra resources available. The performance of a module vs the performance of a single core with HT has costs and benefits of their own. With an Intel CPU, that second thread doesn't nearly have as much processing power that the first thread does, where with AMD, the amount of performance that second "thread" or "core" if you will has much more tangible gains than the HT thread does.
In the testing I did, disabling HTT really crippled my 920 and as far as software is concerned, performance from the logical cores is expected to match performance from the physical cores. There's really no discernible difference between them.

It may bog down faster than AMD's SMT implementation but comparing Intel Xeon 6-core processors to AMD Opteron 6-core processors really doesn't show that to be the case either. Put bluntly, there's really no evidence to support AMD's SMT is any better than Intel's SMT.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
496 (0.14/day)
Likes
115
System Name Epsilon
Processor A12-9800E 35watts
Motherboard MSI Grenade AM4
Cooling Stock
Memory 2x4GB DDR4 2400 Kingston Hyper X
Video Card(s) Radeon R7 (IGP / APU)
Storage Samsung Spinpoint F1
Display(s) AOC 29" Ultra wide
Case Generic
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 380w
Software Windows 10
#34
In the testing I did, disabling HTT really crippled my 920 and as far as software is concerned, performance from the logical cores is expected to match performance from the physical cores. There's really no discernible difference between them.
HT got better and better since day one. The 920 is a monster of CPU (lovely, yes), but I really can't believe a HT core matches performance to its physical core asociated to it.
I mean, if you make use of core 0 up to 100%, then core 1 should drop performance -quite- dramatically while core 2 wouldn't be affected at all.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
1,888 (1.01/day)
Likes
742
Location
CZ
System Name TITAN Slayer / CPUCannon / MassFX
Processor i7 5960X @ 4.6Ghz / i7 3960x @5.0Ghz / FX6350 @ 4.?Ghz
Motherboard Rampage V Extreme / Rampage IV Extreme / MSI 970 Gaming
Cooling Phanteks PHTC14PE 2.5K 145mm TRs / Custom waterloop / Phanteks PHTC14PE + 3K 140mm Noctuas
Memory Crucial 2666 11-13-13-25 1.45V / G.skill RipjawsX 2400 10-12-12-34 1.7V / Crucial 2133 9-9-9-27 1.7V
Video Card(s) 3 Fury X in CF / R9 Fury 3840 cores 1145/570 1.3V / Nothing ATM
Storage 500GB Crucial SSD and 3TB WD Black / WD 1TB Black(OS) + WD 3TB Green / WD 1TB Blue
Display(s) LG 29UM67 80Hz/Asus mx299q 2560x1080 @ 84Hz / Asus VX239 1920x1080 @60hz
Case Dismatech easy v3.0 / Xigmatek Alfar (Open side panel)
Audio Device(s) M-audio M-track / realtek ALC 1150
Power Supply EVGA G2 1600W / CoolerMaster V1000 / Seasonic 620 M12-II
Mouse Mouse in review process/Razer Naga Epic 2011/Razer Naga 2014
Keyboard Keyboard in review process / Razer Blackwidow Ultimate 2014/Razer Blackwidow Ultimate 2011
Software Windows 7 Ultimate / Windows 7 ultimate / Windows 7 ultimate
Benchmark Scores cinebench 15.41 3960x @ 5.3ghz Wprime32m 3.352 3960x @ 5.25ghz Super PI 32m: 6m 42s 472ms @5.25ghz
#35
HT got better and better since day one. The 920 is a monster of CPU (lovely, yes), but I really can't believe a HT core matches performance to its physical core asociated to it.
I mean, if you make use of core 0 up to 100%, then core 1 should drop performance -quite- dramatically while core 2 wouldn't be affected at all.
it doesn't when I turn HT off on my 3960X I lose at worst 40% of my multi threaded performance but it boost single threaded performance a little(1% maybe) as it takes load off of the data management part of the CPU.
 
Last edited:

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,401 (4.84/day)
Likes
5,481
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
#36
In the testing I did, disabling HTT really crippled my 920 and as far as software is concerned, performance from the logical cores is expected to match performance from the physical cores. There's really no discernible difference between them.

It may bog down faster than AMD's SMT implementation but comparing Intel Xeon 6-core processors to AMD Opteron 6-core processors really doesn't show that to be the case either. Put bluntly, there's really no evidence to support AMD's SMT is any better than Intel's SMT.
A while back I did some testing with my i7 and started disabling cores, leaving HT on and turning it off, to see how the performance difference between 4c/4t would be on my i7 and 2c/4t would be. In all honesty, the numbers don't agree with you. I can try and find it again, but generally speaking, hyper threading didn't yield much more than 30% improvement over a real core.

I'm curious, how did you test the performance of your CPU between disabling/enabling hyper threading?

Edit: Here, I found it.


attachment.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,921 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,022
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#37
HT got better and better since day one. The 920 is a monster of CPU (lovely, yes), but I really can't believe a HT core matches performance to its physical core asociated to it.
I mean, if you make use of core 0 up to 100%, then core 1 should drop performance -quite- dramatically while core 2 wouldn't be affected at all.
Because that's not how it works. It functions a lot like virtualization where the physical core is never exposed to the operating system. Instead, there are four physical cores handling eight virtual cores--each physical core is responsible for two virtual cores. The physical cores are designed to work on each virtual core up to 50% of the time. This is why a quad core with SMT behaves very much like a slower eight physical core processor without SMT when handling heavy multithreaded loads.
it doesn't when I turn HT off on my 3960X I lose at worst 40% of my multi threaded performance but it boost single threaded performance a little(1% maybe) as it takes load off of the data management part of the CPU.
Yeah, the tests were multithreaded (four or eight threads). I didn't test anything single threaded.

A while back I did some testing with my i7 and started disabling cores, leaving HT on and turning it off, to see how the performance difference between 4c/4t would be on my i7 and 2c/4t would be. In all honesty, the numbers don't agree with you. I can try and find it again, but generally speaking, hyper threading didn't yield much more than 30% improvement over a real core.

I'm curious, how did you test the performance of your CPU between disabling/enabling hyper threading?

Edit: Here, I found it.
View attachment 49412
It looks like they got it fixed which is good (30% is about where it should be). My 920 is three generations older than yours.

My test method was this custom application. Basically it does var++ for 1 second across how many threads you tell it to of what type of variable and it tells you what it reached, repeats it 10 times and gives you the total and the results for every thread. It shows basic compute power of any given processor.

Is it even possible to disable SMT on AMD processors? Repeating the test you did with an AMD processor would tell us definitively what sort of difference SMT makes on them.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,286 (0.93/day)
Likes
528
Location
Burlington, VT
Processor Intel i5-2500k
Motherboard MSI P67A-GD65
Cooling Deep Cool Gammax 400
Memory 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1060 Windforce OC 6GB
Storage Samsung EVO 850 256GB / WD Caviar Black 1TB
Display(s) Acer GD235HZbid 120hz LCD
Case Rosewill Challenger Mid-Tower
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 650W 650-TX
Software Windows 10
#38
I would like everyone to remember what the equivalent Xeon is at that price point. I'm willing to bet that the Opteron is more cost effective, considering a 10 Core Xeon starts at 1600 USD, I think everything needs to be put into perspective. I would rather take two 16c Opterons than a single 10c Xeon, but that's just me.
The biggest problem with that is that the Opteron solutions tend to consume a lot more power. A Xeon (the benchmarks I see are mostly for E5-2660's) will consume about 95W, and a similar Opteron (in terms of performance--the Opteron 6380) consumes 151W under full load. That's a staggering difference. I would say over about a year the difference is made up in terms of cost, but the additional performance of the Xeon is not. People need to stop looking at exclusively initial investment costs and start considering things like heat generation, power consumption, and performance over time given a set cost.
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
1,682 (0.79/day)
Likes
578
System Name msdos
Processor 8088
Motherboard mainboard
Cooling passive
Memory 640KB + 384KB extended
Video Card(s) EGA
Storage 5.25"
Display(s) 80x25
Case plastic
Audio Device(s) modchip
Power Supply 45 watts
Mouse serial
Keyboard yes
Software disk commander
Benchmark Scores still running
#39
And 7-zip is likely memory bound, making it an ideal case for HT.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
496 (0.14/day)
Likes
115
System Name Epsilon
Processor A12-9800E 35watts
Motherboard MSI Grenade AM4
Cooling Stock
Memory 2x4GB DDR4 2400 Kingston Hyper X
Video Card(s) Radeon R7 (IGP / APU)
Storage Samsung Spinpoint F1
Display(s) AOC 29" Ultra wide
Case Generic
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 380w
Software Windows 10
#40
Because that's not how it works. It functions a lot like virtualization where the physical core is never exposed to the operating system. Instead, there are four physical cores handling eight virtual cores--each physical core is responsible for two virtual cores. The physical cores are designed to work on each virtual core up to 50% of the time. This is why a quad core with SMT behaves very much like a slower eight physical core processor without SMT when handling heavy multithreaded loads.
I disagree... I think you are wrong or I am misunderstanding you. HT will enable virtual cores, we agree with that. Windows will see those as cores, windows won't care if they are real or virtual, if its there it will assign any task or process to that free core. Performance on the other side will be impacted as soon as you use the virtual cores... do you mean that core 1 is not the "virtual core" from core 0?

Is it even possible to disable SMT on AMD processors? Repeating the test you did with an AMD processor would tell us definitively what sort of difference SMT makes on them.
You can't disable half "module", but well, you can still use affinity option in windows. On my FX8320 after installing the windows patch, processes began being assigned differently in the CPU
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
1,682 (0.79/day)
Likes
578
System Name msdos
Processor 8088
Motherboard mainboard
Cooling passive
Memory 640KB + 384KB extended
Video Card(s) EGA
Storage 5.25"
Display(s) 80x25
Case plastic
Audio Device(s) modchip
Power Supply 45 watts
Mouse serial
Keyboard yes
Software disk commander
Benchmark Scores still running
#41
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
954 (0.61/day)
Likes
385
Location
Cumberland Plateau
System Name EVGA-FX | Lenny (Lenovo Y480)
Processor AMD FX-8320 @ 4.5GHz 1.416v | i7 3610qm
Motherboard Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0
Cooling Phanteks PH-TC14PE
Memory 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600 | 8gb DDR3 @ 1600
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX780 Classified @ 1228MHz 1.615v | GT640m LE
Storage Crucial M500 480GB, WD Caviar Blue 500GB, WD Scorpio Blue 750GB | Samsung 250GB 840
Display(s) Qnix QX2710 1440p | 42" Vizio 3D LCD TV 1080p
Case CoolerMaster HAF XB Evo
Power Supply Seasonic G-650
Software Windows 6.3.9600
#42
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
1,888 (1.01/day)
Likes
742
Location
CZ
System Name TITAN Slayer / CPUCannon / MassFX
Processor i7 5960X @ 4.6Ghz / i7 3960x @5.0Ghz / FX6350 @ 4.?Ghz
Motherboard Rampage V Extreme / Rampage IV Extreme / MSI 970 Gaming
Cooling Phanteks PHTC14PE 2.5K 145mm TRs / Custom waterloop / Phanteks PHTC14PE + 3K 140mm Noctuas
Memory Crucial 2666 11-13-13-25 1.45V / G.skill RipjawsX 2400 10-12-12-34 1.7V / Crucial 2133 9-9-9-27 1.7V
Video Card(s) 3 Fury X in CF / R9 Fury 3840 cores 1145/570 1.3V / Nothing ATM
Storage 500GB Crucial SSD and 3TB WD Black / WD 1TB Black(OS) + WD 3TB Green / WD 1TB Blue
Display(s) LG 29UM67 80Hz/Asus mx299q 2560x1080 @ 84Hz / Asus VX239 1920x1080 @60hz
Case Dismatech easy v3.0 / Xigmatek Alfar (Open side panel)
Audio Device(s) M-audio M-track / realtek ALC 1150
Power Supply EVGA G2 1600W / CoolerMaster V1000 / Seasonic 620 M12-II
Mouse Mouse in review process/Razer Naga Epic 2011/Razer Naga 2014
Keyboard Keyboard in review process / Razer Blackwidow Ultimate 2014/Razer Blackwidow Ultimate 2011
Software Windows 7 Ultimate / Windows 7 ultimate / Windows 7 ultimate
Benchmark Scores cinebench 15.41 3960x @ 5.3ghz Wprime32m 3.352 3960x @ 5.25ghz Super PI 32m: 6m 42s 472ms @5.25ghz
#43
The biggest problem with that is that the Opteron solutions tend to consume a lot more power. A Xeon (the benchmarks I see are mostly for E5-2660's) will consume about 95W, and a similar Opteron (in terms of performance--the Opteron 6380) consumes 151W under full load. That's a staggering difference. I would say over about a year the difference is made up in terms of cost, but the additional performance of the Xeon is not. People need to stop looking at exclusively initial investment costs and start considering things like heat generation, power consumption, and performance over time given a set cost.
Your wrong and here is why:
A The Xeon 2697 v2 pulls 130W not 95 so 2 will pull(260W) almost as much as 3 of these Opterons(297W)
B These Opterons in the news pull 99W not 151
C The Cinebench R11.5 chart shows performance with perfect HT scaling so if you're using the server for data management and tasks that use the same part of the CPU over and over again the Xeons will be 40% slower than what Cinebench shows
D The Xeon 2697 v2 cost 2100$ more than one of these new Opterons which is a difference so big that the Xeon won't close the price gap any time soon definitely not in a year or 2
E The Xeon 2660 cost 700$ more than the Opterons in the news and pulls 95W while being barely faster than the old Opterons which the new ones will either match or beat so again the price gap won't be closed in less than 2 years
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,921 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,022
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#44
I disagree... I think you are wrong or I am misunderstanding you. HT will enable virtual cores, we agree with that. Windows will see those as cores, windows won't care if they are real or virtual, if its there it will assign any task or process to that free core. Performance on the other side will be impacted as soon as you use the virtual cores... do you mean that core 1 is not the "virtual core" from core 0?
Assuming virtual core 0 and 1 are assigned to physical core 0, virtual core 2 and 3 are assigned to physical core 1, and so on and then you run 4 heavy threads on even numbered virtual cores and shift it to odd number virtual cores, the performance for both tests will be more or less equal. The physical core itself prioritizes threads from each virtual core and it tries to give each virtual core about equal processor time. This is why, from the software perspective, virtual core or physical core is moot.

Their results show that if you were running an FX 8 core as a quad core, it is better to disable one core per module rather than disabling two whole modules.
Well, yeah...
Normal: 8 ALUs, 4 FPUs
Disable half modules: 4 ALUs, 4 FPUs
Disable two modules: 4 ALUs, 2 FPUs

I just wonder how much of a performance hit it takes in a generic benchmark between the first two senarios (half of the ALUs disabled). HTT loses about 30-35%. Looking at the URL, WinRAR is the closest to what Aquinus posted and 8 ALU/4 FPU scores about 47.6% higher than 4 ALU/4 FPU. That's slightly better than what Aquinus got but again, that's more of a memory benchmark than a compute power benchmark.

Edit: One of the users gave a range of: 33-59%. For HTT, it looks anywhere from 2-33%: http://semiaccurate.com/2012/04/25/does-disabling-hyper-threading-increase-performance/

Another article largely mirrors these results:
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...e-effects-of-hyper-threading-software-updates

I guess the morale of the story is that an AMD module struggles to keep up with an Intel core, HTT enabled or not. This is sad.
 
Last edited:

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
10,401 (4.84/day)
Likes
5,481
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CPNS9900MAX 130mm
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) MSI AMD Radeon R9 390 GAMING 8GB @ PCI-E 3.0
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 Corsair Force GT Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 17.10
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
#45
I guess the morale of the story is that an AMD module struggles to keep up with an Intel core, HTT enabled or not. This is sad.
I wouldn't call it sad. Intel's current micro-architecture has evolved a bit since the Core and Core 2. AMD's design just isn't as mature. AMD CPUs keep up. They might not be better, but they're adequate. I wouldn't really call that sad.

What is sad is how AMD doesn't have more low power CPUs. For example, Intel has a 8c/8t Atom now, it's an SoC, and has a 20-watt TDP. I don't mean to contradict you, but performance isn't what's sad about AMD CPUs lately. In all honesty, if AMD cpus were a bit lighter on the power we probably wouldn't care as much about single-threaded performance being lacking.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,921 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,022
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#47
I wouldn't call it sad. Intel's current micro-architecture has evolved a bit since the Core and Core 2. AMD's design just isn't as mature. AMD CPUs keep up. They might not be better, but they're adequate. I wouldn't really call that sad.

What is sad is how AMD doesn't have more low power CPUs. For example, Intel has a 8c/8t Atom now, it's an SoC, and has a 20-watt TDP. I don't mean to contradict you, but performance isn't what's sad about AMD CPUs lately. In all honesty, if AMD cpus were a bit lighter on the power we probably wouldn't care as much about single-threaded performance being lacking.
But that's my point. Except price, there's no where AMD wins. Intel has higher performance, less heat output, and lower power consumption. When it comes to servers and HPC where Opterons are found, upfront cost is not a selling point because they save money on lower power and cooling bills from Xeons. The only situation where AMD wins is if you only have X amount of money to spend right now and AMD is below that threshold while Intel is not.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
408 (0.08/day)
Likes
76
System Name Octopussy
Processor 1x Intel Core-i7 3930K @ 4.8GHz
Motherboard ASUS Rampage IV Extreme
Cooling Full water cooling, mostly Aqua Computer and EKWB stuff!
Memory 4x 4GB Corsair Dominator GT DDR3-2133 9-11-10-27-1T
Video Card(s) 2x Gigabyte GTX 980Ti G1 Gaming in SLI
Storage 8x Hitachi 5K3000 3TB RAID-6 (Adaptec 5805); 1x 512GB Samsung 950Pro (Angelbird Wings PX1)
Display(s) PLP: Dell 2007FBb 20" TFT + Dell U3011 30" TFT + Dell 2007FBb 20" TFT
Case CaseLabs TH10A
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar Phoebus
Power Supply SeaSonic SS-1000XP
Mouse Logitech MX Master
Keyboard SteelSeries Apex M800
Software MS Windows 10 Pro x64
Benchmark Scores A lot.
#48
Just the right article posted yesterday: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7711/...f-kaveri-and-other-recent-amd-and-intel-chips

It is no secret that AMD's Bulldozer family cores (Steamroller in Kaveri and Piledriver in Trinity) are no match for recent Intel cores in FP performance due to the shared FP unit in each module. As a comparison point, one core in Haswell has the same floating point performance per cycle as two modules (or four cores) in Steamroller.
That means an AMD CPU needs four times the core-count to be equal clock-for-clock in FP performance to a Intel CPU! That makes this 16-core Opteron exactly as fast as an ordinary Intel quad-core clock-for-clock regarding FP performance! Didn't expect that... :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
496 (0.14/day)
Likes
115
System Name Epsilon
Processor A12-9800E 35watts
Motherboard MSI Grenade AM4
Cooling Stock
Memory 2x4GB DDR4 2400 Kingston Hyper X
Video Card(s) Radeon R7 (IGP / APU)
Storage Samsung Spinpoint F1
Display(s) AOC 29" Ultra wide
Case Generic
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 380w
Software Windows 10
#49
I just wonder how much of a performance hit it takes in a generic benchmark between the first two senarios (half of the ALUs disabled).
I guess the morale of the story is that an AMD module struggles to keep up with an Intel core, HTT enabled or not. This is sad.
I will test it out with my own benchmark software, when I get home