hcl64 (mario.smarq@gmail.com) on 4/27/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>Kira (kirsc@aeterna.ru) on 4/21/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>a reader (a@b.c) on 4/21/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>>but the chip as it
>>>>shipped last year is a badly flawed piece of work.
>>>
>>>that's too strong a statement.
>>>
>>>BD actually performs VERY well on throughput load,
>>>especially when all the cores are being used.
>>>
>>>the problem with single-thread performance is
>>>hard to pin down. maybe they need to redo some
>>>key u-arch pieces. going full custom design.
>>>essentially coping from Intel's playbook.
>>>
>>
>>Two-socket Interlagos loses pretty badly to two-socket E5 on TPC-C. BD's problems
>>go way beyond single-threaded performance.
>>
>>http://www.realworldtech.com/beta/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=124654&threadid=124612&roomid=2
>>
>>http://tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=112041101
>>
>>>
>
>Did i skip something ?

The second link, I guess:

E5-2690 2.9GHz 2s16c: 1,503,544 tpmC at 0.53 $/tpmC


>
>Actually by the 1th link you post pointing another thread here, i believe with
>a transposition of what is in the PDF, Xeon loses for all concerning pure performance:
>
>Interlagos: 2.60 GHz 1,207,982 tpmC at 0.87 $/tpmC
>
>MagnyCours : 2.2GHz 1,263,599 tpmC at 0.51 $/tpmC
>
>Xeon (SB-E) : 3.46 GHz 1,024,380 tpmC at 0.65 $/tpmC
>
>and the difference of clocks is significant... yes it doesn't look good for Interlagos,
>but looks much worst for Xeon... after all having REAL cores more than CMT and much
>more than SMT can count a lot in this test.
>