[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.
Gerasimatos, Dimitrios V (343K) dimitrios.v.gerasimatos at jpl.nasa.govMon Oct 12 13:08:47 PDT 2009
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Ahoy shipmates
- Next message: [Beowulf] Disappointing floating point performance for X5560 versus SPECmarks?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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.
X5560 at 2.80GHz E5430 at 2.66GHz X5560/E5430 X5560/E5430 at 2.80
(twobod)
time: 27.6 s 27.8 s 1.01 0.96
(nbench)
FP INDEX: 34.294 30.767 1.11 1.06
INT INDEX: 14.974 14.835 1.01 0.96
(unixbench)
SCORE: 1325.5 868.3 1.53 1.45
reg. Dhry: 997.6 844.6 1.18 1.12
DP Whet: 393.1 359.8 1.09 1.04
Has anyone else seen this? Any ideas to explain why this is? I am thinking of
going with the 3.2 Ghz version of the Harpertown chip clocked over the Nehalem-
based 5500 series.
Dimitri
--
Dimitrios Gerasimatos dimitrios.gerasimatos at jpl.nasa.gov
Section 343 Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Dr. Mail Stop 264-820 Pasadena, CA 91109
Voice: 818.354.4910 FAX: 818.393.7413 Cell: 818.726.8617
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Ahoy shipmates
- 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
