industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absent

By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), February 9, 2010 9:26 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) on 2/9/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>Michael S (already5chosen@yahoo.com) on 2/9/10 wrote:
>>
>>Unfortunately, due to autopar, Nehalem (and SPARC64)
>>SpecInt2k6 scores have very remote relationship to single-
>>threaded performance. SpecInt as a measure of single-
>>threaded performance is now defunct and we should look for
>>something else.
>>Now what's the chance that we'll find the same "something
>>else" for both Nehalem and POWER7? I'd say, close to zero.
>
>Actually, not really.
>
>There's one easy way to make SpecInt2006 relevant, with
>no changes what-so-ever.
>
>Go to the spec site, and instead of asking for the baseline
>and result numbers, just query by 403.gcc instead. Voila!
>You now have meaningful and comparable results.
>
>That's actually been true for at least the last two decades.
>Nobody has ever broken gcc as a benchmark, and it continues
>to be the one benchmark that actually gives a good view of
>real-life integer performance.
>
>Almost everything else is about small snippets of code
>that can be optimized to hell and back.
>
>And btw, Nehalem does very well on 403.gcc too. So while
>things like libquantum have been broken, it doesn't at all
>invalidate the fact that Nehalem is (and likely remains)
>the absolute king of single-threaded integer performance.
>
>By a big margin, too. Nehalem beats POWER6 at 4.7GHz by
>more than 50%, for example (32.1/30.2. vs 20.6/16.8 - and
>POWER6 in turn beats Itanium by almost doubling the
>performance of that crap).
>
>So if POWER7 comes close that is kind of a big deal. Intel
>has been so far ahead on those things that it's
>not even funny.
>
>Linus


I am not sure that 403.gcc is not broken by autopar.
In my personal experience with gcc (x386 host, non-x86 targets) in single-threaded case clock4clock Nehalem is a bit slower than Penryn. But according to SPEC submissions it is 30% faster.

Beside, the the main attraction of SPECCPU suite is the fact it is a suite rather than a single benchmark.

< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
POWER7 SpecParadox2010/02/08 11:05 AM
  POWER7 SpecThu Nguyen2010/02/08 12:58 PM
    POWER7 SpecIan Ameline2010/02/08 09:22 PM
      POWER7 SpecThu Nguyen2010/02/08 11:54 PM
        POWER7 SpecIan Ameline2010/02/09 06:46 AM
          POWER7 SpecLinus Torvalds2010/02/09 07:57 AM
            industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentMichael S2010/02/09 08:09 AM
              industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentParadox2010/02/09 08:33 AM
                industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentMichael S2010/02/09 09:30 AM
                  industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentParadox2010/02/09 10:52 AM
                    industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentJesper Frimann2010/02/09 11:33 AM
              industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentLinus Torvalds2010/02/09 08:48 AM
                industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentMichael S2010/02/09 09:26 AM
                  industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentLinus Torvalds2010/02/09 09:58 AM
                    industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentJesper Frimann2010/02/09 12:17 PM
                      industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentLinus Torvalds2010/02/09 12:54 PM
                        industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentJesper Frimann2010/02/09 02:10 PM
                    industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentParadox2010/02/09 01:22 PM
                industry-standard single-threaded performance benchmarks absentanon2010/02/09 10:21 AM
            POWER7 SpecJesper Frimann2010/02/09 12:30 PM
            POWER7 SpecDoug Siebert2010/02/09 05:38 PM
              POWER7 SpecLinus Torvalds2010/02/09 07:28 PM
                POWER7 SpecLinus Torvalds2010/02/09 07:28 PM
                  POWER7 SpecIan Ameline2010/02/09 08:02 PM
                    POWER7 SpecDoug Siebert2010/02/09 10:18 PM
                POWER7 Specsomeone2010/02/09 08:20 PM
                  POWER7 SpecLinus Torvalds2010/02/10 09:17 AM
                    POWER7 SpecLinus Torvalds2010/02/10 09:46 AM
                      POWER7 SpecEmil2010/02/10 11:06 AM
                    POWER7 SpecIan Ameline2010/02/10 10:13 AM
                    POWER7 Specsomeone2010/02/10 11:01 AM
                      POWER7 SpecLinus Torvalds2010/02/10 11:32 AM
                        POWER7 SpecMichael S2010/02/10 12:30 PM
                          POWER7 SpecLinus Torvalds2010/02/10 01:25 PM
                            POWER7 Specmpx2010/02/10 02:58 PM
                        POWER7 Specnemlis2010/02/11 12:24 AM
                          POWER7 Specnone2010/02/11 12:52 AM
                            POWER7 Specnemlis2010/02/11 01:52 PM
          POWER7 Specmpx2010/02/09 08:18 AM
          POWER7 SpecMichael S2010/02/09 09:08 AM
        POWER7 SpecJesper Frimann2010/02/16 02:29 AM
          POWER7 SpecJamie Lucier2010/02/16 06:35 AM
            POWER7 Specanon2010/02/16 07:16 AM
              POWER7 SpecJamie Lucier2010/02/16 10:46 AM
                POWER7 Specanon2010/02/16 03:42 PM
                  POWER7 SpecJamie Lucier2010/02/18 06:07 AM
              POWER7 SpecThu Nguyen2010/02/16 01:23 PM
            POWER7 SpecParadox2010/02/16 09:57 AM
              POWER7 SpecJamie Lucier2010/02/16 11:22 AM
                POWER7 SpecParadox2010/02/16 02:00 PM
            POWER7 SpecJesper Frimann2010/02/16 02:14 PM
              POWER7 SpecJamie Lucier2010/02/17 10:41 AM
  POWER7 SpecJesper Frimann2010/02/09 04:43 AM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell tangerine? 🍊