From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 10 23:57:13 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567E416A419 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:57:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@pathiakis.com) Received: from que02.charter.net (que02.charter.net [209.225.8.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0239913C428 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:57:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paul@pathiakis.com) Received: from aa04.charter.net ([10.20.200.156]) by mtai03.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.00 201-2186-121-20061213) with ESMTP id <20070910231126.OOWU21729.mtai03.charter.net@aa04.charter.net>; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:11:26 -0400 Received: from pc4.atlantisservices.com ([66.189.25.162]) by aa04.charter.net with ESMTP id <20070910231126.EFLN1254.aa04.charter.net@pc4.atlantisservices.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:11:26 -0400 From: Paul Pathiakis Organization: Myself To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:11:27 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <46E55204.20905@eagleaccess.com> <20070910184621.GA77744@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <20070910184621.GA77744@cons.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709101911.28469.paul@pathiakis.com> X-Chzlrs: 0 Cc: Martin Cracauer , Erich Dollansky , Palle Girgensohn , Paul Pathiakis Subject: Re: AMD or Intel? X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:57:13 -0000 On Monday 10 September 2007 14:46:21 Martin Cracauer wrote: > For integer workloads Intel's Core2-base Xeons outperforms K8 (the > old-school AMD64) by about 25-30% per clock per core. K10 seems to be > 5-15% faster than K8 for integer workloads (I hope to run my benchmark > suite on one thi week or weekend). > > However, tasks that use multiple cores and have threads on cores > communicate a lot see both AMD architectures close the gap. > > Paul Pathiakis wrote on Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:17:40AM -0400: > > Be very, very careful in purchasing Core 2 Duo. There are major > > problems with the chip that have been documented across the board. > > These have been blown out of proportion by Theo. Can you point to a > demonstratable case with current Linux or BSD kernels? > Agreed. However, Matt Dillon also made statements as did a few EE types. The chip is complicated due to poor design and the need for backward compatibility. I believe several people over the years have said that if they dumped everything pre-Pentium (486 instructions and earlier), the instruction set and complexity could easily be halved. Honestly, could you imagine how energy efficient and fast these chips (from both) would be at that point? One of the things that I'm seeing that really is starting to show is the use of more layers of cache and their increases in size. This is the same stop gap method everyone uses when they've hit a wall. P.