After a Treacherous 2007, Where Will Big Green Go?
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jun 2008 21:51 UTC, submitted by irbis
AMD AMD has seen a few serious setbacks lately, especially with their Barcelona server processor, but it seems as if the company is trying hard to get things back on track. The first step in solving an issue is acknowledging it exists in the first place, and AMD CEO Hector Ruiz did just that last December. "We blew it and we're very humbled by it and we learned from it and we're not going to do it again." Reseller Advocate Magazine asks, are you ready to believe him?
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 27 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/fbv
Thread beginning with comment 318740
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: dont underestimate AMD
by Redeeman on Tue 17th Jun 2008 12:01 UTC in reply to "RE: dont underestimate AMD"
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

Riiiiiiiight,

Here on planet earth, under similar conditions (same ISA, system, OS, configuration and optimization flags) there is no way a wider CPU, with better OOO scheduler, more aggressive branch predictor, larger caches, and which is running almost 25% faster clock cycle performs wors.

Unless AMD has some sort of pixie dust which breaks the rules of physics, or you are simply making stuff up.


I invite you to actually test yourself.

instead of your nice little pixie dust remarks, maybe you should.. i dont know... KNOW SOMETHING about what you are saying?

its really quite simple, for the code gcc generates for openssl, amd is superior, and as for gmp, the standard x86_64 implementation on AMD, beats the crap out of a special core2 asm hacky version, on core2.

Again, test it for yourself, then you will see.. And if you come here claim otherwise, then we will all simply know that you couldnt admit to being wrong..

Reply Parent Score: 4

javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

You provide no quantitative numbers to back anything up, what is the system config, OS, compiler flags, etc, etc, etc.

The burden of the proof is on the one making the claims: i.e. you, not me.

I am yet to see a 3+Ghz core2 machine perform slower than a 2.4 Ghz Barcelona, period.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: dont underestimate AMD
by Redeeman on Wed 18th Jun 2008 09:41 in reply to "RE[3]: dont underestimate AMD"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

I can get you the openssl numbers, not the gmp, as i dont have access to the hardware right at this moment, and i dont want to spread out false(though fairly accurate from memory) numbers.

openssl rsa 4096 signs/s
phenom 2.5ghz: 167.42 signs/s
core2quad 3.2ghz: 159.72 signs/s

altering compiler flags or anything, doesent appear to really affect it (i suspect its asm code? either way, its what one gets for openssl.)


and believe me, its worse for gmp.

edit:
oh btw, it seems gmp's own site back me up aswell (allthough they dont have tests with the special core2 asm optimized version, which i did)
http://gmplib.org/gmpbench.html

Edited 2008-06-18 09:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: dont underestimate AMD
by Rugxulo on Thu 19th Jun 2008 21:03 in reply to "RE[2]: dont underestimate AMD"
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09


its really quite simple, for the code gcc generates for openssl, amd is superior, and as for gmp, the standard x86_64 implementation on AMD, beats the crap out of a special core2 asm hacky version, on core2.


AMD is known for being very friendly to the GCC developers (et al.) and donating a lot of hardware. So, it's no surprise (and nice to hear) that GCC supports them well. Of course, the (in)famous Intel compiler is probably better for their chips, but they are supposedly? still kinda braindead re: SSE working on AMD chips (still using a "GenuineIntel" check ??).

Reply Parent Score: 1