[Beowulf] Disappointing floating point performance for X5560 versus SPECmarks?
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Tom Elken tom.elken at qlogic.comMon Oct 12 14:53:08 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Disappointing floating point performance for X5560 versus SPECmarks?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Disappointing floating point performance for X5560 versus SPECmarks?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> > Gerasimatos, Dimitrios V (343K) wrote: > > According to SPECfp2006, the X5560 should blow the doors off of the > E5430. > > The X5560 scores 36 while the E5430 scores about 18. > > > > > > However, our own benchmarking using nbench, unixbench, and a home- > grown > > utility (twobod) all show that any differences are attributed to > clock speed. > > I wouldn't use specfp**** ratios as a realistic guide for performance > comparison. As always, use your own code. What Joe says has a lot of merit. But that said, if your applications have advanced along with the capabilities of modern CPUs, SPECfp2006 is a lot better metric than SPECfp2000, which is a better metric than SPECfp95. Each succeeding generation of SPEC CPU benchmark grows substantially in memory footprint and in the memory bandwidth performance required of a CPU/memory system. I note that nbench and unixbench were last developed around 1996-1997 putting them in the same era of benchmarks as SPECfp95. I see that the application components of SPECfp2006 for which X5560 blows the doors off E5430 (by 2x or more) are: 410.bwaves (CFD), 433.milc (QCD), 450.soplex (Linear Programming), 459.GemsFDTD (Computational Electromagnetics), 470.lbm (CFD). These are CFP2006 applications which I remember as having the most memory bandwidth demand from my days on the CPU committee. Since the Nehalem X5560 can do McaCalpin's STREAM (memory bandwidth, OpenMP 8-thread version) benchmark at about 3x the rate of Harpertown E5430, that explains a lot of the difference. If you applications have a small memory footprint, or have great cache re-use, you probably don't need the newer generation of CPU. -Tom > If your code shows 2x, > great. If not, then attribute the specfp**** to what they are > (marketing numbers, with some grounding in reality, but not a firm > comparison metric for dissimilar apps). > > > > > > -- > Joseph Landman, Ph.D > Founder and CEO > Scalable Informatics Inc. > email: landman at scalableinformatics.com > web : http://scalableinformatics.com > http://scalableinformatics.com/jackrabbit > phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 > fax : +1 866 888 3112 > cell : +1 734 612 4615 > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin > Computing > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Disappointing floating point performance for X5560 versus SPECmarks?
- Next message: [Beowulf] Disappointing floating point performance for X5560 versus SPECmarks?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
