Re:AMD's Bulldozer server benchmarks are here, and they're a...
by dman on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @10:20AM
(#3265808)
My reading of the phoronix article suggests that Bulldozer does fairly well on the following tests.
a) ffmpeg encoding
b) parallel io
c) x264 encoding
d) compression
e) mp3 encoding
f) c-ray rendering
g) smallpt
I will concede that I know virtually nothing of which workloads are representative of what percentage of the market.
Re:AMD's Bulldozer server benchmarks are here, and they're a...
by DrPizza on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @10:45AM
(#3265915)
I don't think most server systems are doing much in the way of MP3 or H.264 encoding.
Rendering is more or less equivalent to HPC. Different markets, but similar problem sets (lots of computation, minimal communication or dependencies between threads).
None of those are particularly relevant to typical server workloads; servers are doing things like querying databases, spitting out Web pages, running Java VMs, running virtualization software, that kind of thing.
a) I agree it remains unclear how much difference the SSD makes. That's why I don't think it's a useful demonstration of Bulldozer's performance _even though AMD is citing it as such_. b) Yes, I do. That 1/3 more cores gives 1/3 more performance in a test that scales almost perfectly means that the per-core performance has stood still. A 32 nm K10.5 chip with 1/3 more cores would perform just as well, cost less to build, use less power, and eliminate the performance regressions. So what is the point of Bulldozer? c) No, it reinforces the "Bulldozer performs no better than a scaled up K10.5 system would and hence is pointless" narrative. d) @_@ e) No. I don't have a half million dollars of equipment just lying around so that I can run TPC-C (etc.) myself.