By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), April 22, 2012 5:01 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon@anon.com) on 4/22/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>EduardoS (no@spam.com) on 4/22/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>anon (anon@anon.com) on 4/22/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>The same what? It has 2x larger caches and 2x more ways, at the same latency.
>>
>>Ok, see, what a big effort to not understand you are dong, eh?
>>
>>You question about Power7, I answear about Power7 and make a rhetorical question
>>(as an attempt to make you use your brain) comparing Power7 (implicit by the context,
>>it was the target of the previous question) and you compare it to Bulldozer? What's
>>so difficult about text interpretation?
>
>I did not understand any of what you wrote.
>
>My reply you quote here was your rhetorical question about Sandy Bridge, asking
>why it is "not the same" as Bulldozer, or something.
>
>>
>>>No, my point is that it sucks because it has a very small (and not very fast) L1
>>>cache, and a very slow L2 cache. Stop putting words into my mouth.
>>
>>Actually, your point is that it is different from others...
>
>Wrong.
>
>>
>>Frankly, "small L1 and slow L2" isn't a good argument, it is incomplete,
>
>It is not intended to be a thorough and complete analysis of exactly what BD's performance characteristics are.
>
>You claimed BD's "memory and cache" subsystems are very good, and I pointed to
>one glaring example of where it is not very good.
>
>> it doesn't
>>explain why the processor would be slower than other, it doesn't include other important
>
>It shows that L1 misses are frequent and costly.
>
>>metrics and units and the only argument left as to why you think it is bad is because
>>it is differnt from others, Greyhound had a big L1 and fast L2 and wasn't a spectacular
>>CPU, in special, on benchmarks heavly dependent on mermory subsystem performance
>>(I still have to use full name to you understand?) Greyhound was far away other
>>CPUs, there are other metrics other than L1 size and L2 speed, there are even other
>>units, you can't judge this subsystem performance based only on those two metrics!
>>
>>>POWER7, 8 cycle load-to-use L2 cache.
>>>SB, 12 cycle load to use L2 cache.
>>
>>At 256kB, much simpler pipeline and memory ordering rules for Power7 and lower
>>clockspeed for SB, since you will miss-understand the "clockspeed" let's say the SB have a higher stage delay.
>
>What are you talking about? SB has lower latency per clock, and lower absolute
>latency of L2 cache. Yes it is smaller, of course. I'm not attempting to hide this fact!
>
>>
>>>>Of course, with only one thread Power7 and SB will have more cache avaliable but
>>>>hardly the priority were single-threaded performance, they
>>>
>>>Yes, but that does not mean it is a good core because you can ignore the fact that single thread performance sucks.
>>
>>Look at your response, the processor you are talking about appeared in the sentence
>>you are replying to? Your method of implicit refering to a randomly choosen object
>>won't help you when talking to others, if you use the same method to read others
>>comments you will likely miss-understand the entire statement.
>
>I really don't know what you're talking about.
>
>>
>>>Your reply is full of rhetorical questions, putting words in my mouth, calling
>>>me a moron, and strawman arguments. It's amazing.
>>
>>I call you a moron because you look like a moron, apparently you make efforts to
>>not understand what you read, don't want to be called a moron? So focus your efforts
>>on understanding what you are reading, if you choose random objects to fill references
>>in others comments you will look as a moron, and be called such.
>>
>
>In my opinion, the problem is that you are incoherent, combative, and refuse to acknowledge my argument.
>
>BD has a small L1 and a slow L2.
>
(and, by the way, you say "oh but it's only 256KB", which is again failing to look at the whole picture. Because SB's L3 cache latency is approaching that of BD's L2.)
>
---------------------------
>EduardoS (no@spam.com) on 4/22/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>anon (anon@anon.com) on 4/22/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>The same what? It has 2x larger caches and 2x more ways, at the same latency.
>>
>>Ok, see, what a big effort to not understand you are dong, eh?
>>
>>You question about Power7, I answear about Power7 and make a rhetorical question
>>(as an attempt to make you use your brain) comparing Power7 (implicit by the context,
>>it was the target of the previous question) and you compare it to Bulldozer? What's
>>so difficult about text interpretation?
>
>I did not understand any of what you wrote.
>
>My reply you quote here was your rhetorical question about Sandy Bridge, asking
>why it is "not the same" as Bulldozer, or something.
>
>>
>>>No, my point is that it sucks because it has a very small (and not very fast) L1
>>>cache, and a very slow L2 cache. Stop putting words into my mouth.
>>
>>Actually, your point is that it is different from others...
>
>Wrong.
>
>>
>>Frankly, "small L1 and slow L2" isn't a good argument, it is incomplete,
>
>It is not intended to be a thorough and complete analysis of exactly what BD's performance characteristics are.
>
>You claimed BD's "memory and cache" subsystems are very good, and I pointed to
>one glaring example of where it is not very good.
>
>> it doesn't
>>explain why the processor would be slower than other, it doesn't include other important
>
>It shows that L1 misses are frequent and costly.
>
>>metrics and units and the only argument left as to why you think it is bad is because
>>it is differnt from others, Greyhound had a big L1 and fast L2 and wasn't a spectacular
>>CPU, in special, on benchmarks heavly dependent on mermory subsystem performance
>>(I still have to use full name to you understand?) Greyhound was far away other
>>CPUs, there are other metrics other than L1 size and L2 speed, there are even other
>>units, you can't judge this subsystem performance based only on those two metrics!
>>
>>>POWER7, 8 cycle load-to-use L2 cache.
>>>SB, 12 cycle load to use L2 cache.
>>
>>At 256kB, much simpler pipeline and memory ordering rules for Power7 and lower
>>clockspeed for SB, since you will miss-understand the "clockspeed" let's say the SB have a higher stage delay.
>
>What are you talking about? SB has lower latency per clock, and lower absolute
>latency of L2 cache. Yes it is smaller, of course. I'm not attempting to hide this fact!
>
>>
>>>>Of course, with only one thread Power7 and SB will have more cache avaliable but
>>>>hardly the priority were single-threaded performance, they
>>>
>>>Yes, but that does not mean it is a good core because you can ignore the fact that single thread performance sucks.
>>
>>Look at your response, the processor you are talking about appeared in the sentence
>>you are replying to? Your method of implicit refering to a randomly choosen object
>>won't help you when talking to others, if you use the same method to read others
>>comments you will likely miss-understand the entire statement.
>
>I really don't know what you're talking about.
>
>>
>>>Your reply is full of rhetorical questions, putting words in my mouth, calling
>>>me a moron, and strawman arguments. It's amazing.
>>
>>I call you a moron because you look like a moron, apparently you make efforts to
>>not understand what you read, don't want to be called a moron? So focus your efforts
>>on understanding what you are reading, if you choose random objects to fill references
>>in others comments you will look as a moron, and be called such.
>>
>
>In my opinion, the problem is that you are incoherent, combative, and refuse to acknowledge my argument.
>
>BD has a small L1 and a slow L2.
>
(and, by the way, you say "oh but it's only 256KB", which is again failing to look at the whole picture. Because SB's L3 cache latency is approaching that of BD's L2.)
>
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Phoronix tests GCC compiler flags and Bulldozer. | I.S.T. | 2012/04/19 02:05 AM |
Single page view? | David Kanter | 2012/04/19 07:59 AM |
Single page view? | wainwright | 2012/04/19 08:22 AM |
Single page view? | slothrop | 2012/04/19 08:23 AM |
Single page view? | David Kanter | 2012/04/19 08:31 AM |
Single page view? | EduardoS | 2012/04/19 02:12 PM |
Is there a single page view option for RWT articles? | anon | 2012/04/19 08:27 AM |
Single page view? | Del | 2012/04/19 08:36 AM |
Single page view? | slacker | 2012/04/19 02:56 PM |
Single page view? | Del | 2012/04/22 05:09 AM |
Single page view? | David Kanter | 2012/04/22 08:38 AM |
Single page view? | Del | 2012/04/23 12:22 AM |
Single page view? | Michael S | 2012/04/19 12:30 PM |
Single page view? | Ungo | 2012/04/19 01:25 PM |
Single page view? | Foo_ | 2012/04/19 11:17 PM |
Single page view? | James | 2012/04/20 03:01 AM |
There are ads on the web? | JJB | 2012/04/20 03:32 AM |
What a bunch of freeloaders (NT) | slacker | 2012/04/20 12:44 PM |
So are you, probably | iz | 2012/04/21 03:41 AM |
Impression ad revenue | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/04/21 05:44 AM |
So are you, probably | slacker | 2012/04/21 12:09 PM |
So are you, probably | David Kanter | 2012/04/22 08:41 AM |
So are you, probably | iz | 2012/04/22 02:57 PM |
So are you, probably | Doug Siebert | 2012/04/22 11:37 AM |
Aha! | David Kanter | 2012/04/22 02:45 PM |
Aha! | bakaneko | 2012/04/22 07:49 PM |
So are you, probably | iz | 2012/04/22 02:48 PM |
That's not how the business works... | David Kanter | 2012/04/22 04:31 PM |
That's not how the business works... | iz | 2012/04/23 12:49 AM |
So are you, probably | slacker | 2012/04/22 10:31 PM |
back to phoronix | Michael S | 2012/04/23 01:07 AM |
So are you, probably | iz | 2012/04/23 02:29 AM |
Membership at RWT | David Kanter | 2012/04/23 10:24 AM |
So are you, probably | Jukka Larja | 2012/04/27 07:59 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | I.S.T. | 2012/04/19 06:34 PM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Linus Torvalds | 2012/04/20 07:34 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Kira | 2012/04/20 08:18 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Linus Torvalds | 2012/04/20 09:05 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Doug Siebert | 2012/04/20 08:00 PM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Megol | 2012/04/21 08:05 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Linus Torvalds | 2012/04/21 12:11 PM |
Most problems are fixed... | Megol | 2012/04/24 06:00 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | bakaneko | 2012/04/20 10:16 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | bakaneko | 2012/04/20 10:37 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Linus Torvalds | 2012/04/20 12:24 PM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Joel | 2012/04/20 01:59 PM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Kira | 2012/04/20 02:32 PM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | EduardoS | 2012/04/20 03:00 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | Joel | 2012/04/20 03:54 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | David Kanter | 2012/04/20 04:32 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | Exophase | 2012/04/20 06:11 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | EduardoS | 2012/04/20 06:46 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | Exophase | 2012/04/20 07:18 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | anonymous | 2012/04/20 10:26 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | JJB | 2012/04/20 10:34 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | imaxx | 2012/04/21 06:21 AM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | Michael S | 2012/04/21 09:42 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | David Kanter | 2012/04/25 03:29 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Exophase | 2012/04/26 11:17 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | anonymous | 2012/04/26 02:15 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | EduardoS | 2012/04/26 02:40 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Foo_ | 2012/04/27 07:21 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Megol | 2012/04/27 12:38 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | EduardoS | 2012/04/26 02:47 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Exophase | 2012/04/26 04:02 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | EduardoS | 2012/04/26 05:03 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Exophase | 2012/04/26 05:24 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | EduardoS | 2012/04/26 06:18 PM |
Bulldozer's cache memory performance | Heikki Kultala | 2012/04/28 12:18 AM |
Bulldozer's cache memory performance | EduardoS | 2012/04/28 09:06 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | David Kanter | 2012/04/26 03:03 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Exophase | 2012/04/26 03:59 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | David Kanter | 2012/04/26 09:53 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Exophase | 2012/04/27 07:42 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | David Kanter | 2012/04/27 10:06 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | EduardoS | 2012/04/27 12:27 PM |
K8 divided pipelines? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/04/27 12:59 PM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Michael S | 2012/04/27 03:37 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | Exophase | 2012/04/27 07:33 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | anonymous | 2012/04/27 08:03 AM |
Renaming Flags | Konrad Schwarz | 2012/04/27 02:04 AM |
Renaming Flags | none | 2012/04/27 03:03 AM |
Renaming Flags | Megol | 2012/04/27 11:42 AM |
Bulldozer's integer execution units | hcl64 | 2012/04/27 03:31 PM |
VEX supports 3+ operands. FPU have renaming already(NT) | Megol | 2012/04/28 07:20 AM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | Linus Torvalds | 2012/04/21 11:26 AM |
Thanks for the lesson | JJB | 2012/04/21 01:23 PM |
Side note.. | Linus Torvalds | 2012/04/21 01:57 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | Exophase | 2012/04/21 11:13 AM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | EduardoS | 2012/04/21 11:53 AM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | Gionatan Danti | 2012/04/21 11:42 AM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | hcl64 | 2012/04/27 04:07 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | David Kanter | 2012/04/28 05:29 AM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 01:44 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | David Kanter | 2012/04/28 08:42 PM |
In defense of Bulldozer's Oddities | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 09:39 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/20 05:05 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | anon | 2012/04/20 07:32 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/21 11:37 AM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | anon | 2012/04/21 09:16 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/21 09:43 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | anon | 2012/04/22 01:09 AM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/22 12:57 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | anon | 2012/04/22 03:17 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/22 04:05 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | anon | 2012/04/22 04:42 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | anon | 2012/04/22 05:01 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/22 09:28 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | anon | 2012/04/22 10:05 PM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | a reader | 2012/04/21 09:01 AM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | Kira | 2012/04/21 10:29 AM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | hcl64 | 2012/04/27 04:58 PM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | anon | 2012/04/27 05:16 PM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | hcl64 | 2012/04/27 06:33 PM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | rwessel | 2012/04/27 10:12 PM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | EduardoS | 2012/04/28 08:29 AM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | EduardoS | 2012/04/28 08:30 AM |
Bulldozer's isn't bad. | Michael S | 2012/04/28 11:36 AM |
Bulldozer is made for SPEC fp | Pelle-48 | 2012/04/21 10:41 AM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | mpx | 2012/04/22 02:47 AM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/22 12:57 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | mpx | 2012/04/23 06:04 AM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | Eric | 2012/04/23 11:33 AM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/23 01:22 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | Eric | 2012/04/23 06:30 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | hcl64 | 2012/04/27 05:16 PM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | Y | 2012/04/25 03:34 AM |
Bulldozer's IDIV | Heikki Kultala | 2012/04/27 09:56 PM |
Bulldozer's IDIV | Y | 2012/04/30 12:51 AM |
Bulldozer's IDIV | EduardoS | 2012/04/30 04:39 AM |
Bulldozer's IDIV | P3Dnow | 2012/05/08 12:23 AM |
Bulldozer's IDIV | Exophase | 2012/05/08 06:37 AM |
Bulldozer's Oddities. | EduardoS | 2012/04/23 01:15 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/04/20 03:10 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | hcl64 | 2012/04/27 11:56 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | anonymous | 2012/04/28 12:43 AM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 01:59 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | anonymous | 2012/04/28 07:45 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | anon | 2012/04/28 01:13 AM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 02:23 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | anon | 2012/04/28 05:19 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 06:58 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | David Kanter | 2012/04/28 05:38 AM |
Guessed meaning of "strong dependency model" | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/04/28 06:24 AM |
Guessed meaning of "strong dependency model" | EduardoS | 2012/04/28 08:46 AM |
*Right meaning* about "strong dependency model" | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 03:59 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 03:24 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | anonymous | 2012/04/28 07:50 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 08:47 PM |
SNB width | David Kanter | 2012/04/28 08:48 PM |
SNB width | hcl64 | 2012/04/29 01:24 AM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | David Kanter | 2012/04/28 08:56 PM |
Clustered MT as SMT for high frequency | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 10:44 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/04/29 06:19 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | hcl64 | 2012/04/29 04:31 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/04/29 10:26 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | hcl64 | 2012/04/30 07:08 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/04/30 08:59 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | hcl64 | 2012/04/30 05:10 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/04/30 05:32 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | hcl64 | 2012/04/30 09:47 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/05/01 01:24 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | hcl64 | 2012/05/01 04:46 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | hcl64 | 2012/05/01 05:37 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/05/01 07:19 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | hcl64 | 2012/05/01 06:39 AM |
PD-SOI | David Kanter | 2012/05/02 11:22 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | slacker | 2012/04/30 07:10 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/04/30 09:16 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | slacker | 2012/05/01 09:04 PM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | David Kanter | 2012/05/02 07:19 AM |
SOI, FD vs. PD | zou | 2012/05/02 11:23 AM |
Previous discussion of clustered MT | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/04/28 06:00 AM |
Previous discussion of clustered MT | hcl64 | 2012/04/28 08:38 PM |
Previous discussion of clustered MT | David Kanter | 2012/04/30 03:37 PM |
Previous discussion of clustered MT | hcl64 | 2012/04/30 06:24 PM |
Previous discussion of clustered MT | David Kanter | 2012/04/30 06:40 PM |
Previous discussion of clustered MT | hcl64 | 2012/05/01 08:15 AM |
Latency issues | David Kanter | 2012/05/02 11:01 AM |
So, what do people think of these numbers> | Megol | 2012/04/21 12:57 AM |