[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.
Joe Landman landman at scalableinformatics.comMon Oct 12 14:26:08 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. 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
- 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
