Slashdot Mirror
K7 Benchmarking
Quite a number of people have written in with the word about more specs on the K7, and its performance versus the PIII. Here's a little teaser: the spec K7 FPU performance is 40% faster then the PII. Check out
Ace's Hardware for more information.
I think that would test your harddisk/memory I/O performance as well. Where the benchmark tests only want to benchmark the CPU
A fair comparison wold be of Like prices with the
cost of the Motherboard and RAM included.
I don't realy cares about MHz but rather about how
much performance I can get out of a PC with the
variable being how much $$$ I have at a given time.
Forge
This sucker sounds like a nice move up from my P5-233.
Hmmmm, K7-600 plus a Matrox G400MAX... there's a system!
Actually it's able to do 16 processors with the Poseidon chipset.
While faster than the PA-8500 at 360 MHz, the K7's SpecInt95 is lower than PA-8500 at 450 MHz (which is 32)
What kind of encoder are you using that allows a 2 gig (20 minute?) avi to be encoded is less than 10 minutes?. As you know the Xing encoder sucks hairy donkey balls as it spits out as much as 50% of the data to speed up the mpeg1 encoding.
Using a program called MegaPeg, it will slowly encode a 2 gig (20 minutes) over what 4 hours? Slow and painful gets you a HIGH quality mpeg.
LSX-Mpeg ecoder is faster and better, yet even a 10 minute avi file takes abour 30 minutes to encode. Basically its has the speed of Xing yet with almost all the quality of mpeg, and ive used too many encoders.
Your percentage numbers look wrong. For example, you say that the K7 550 MHz is 106% faster than the PIII Xeon at the same clock speed. I recall that Ace's Hardware said 6% faster. I think you mean the K7 550 has 106% of the speed of the PIII Xeon 550, etc...
as long as we're ON THE TOPIC of benchmarks for future chipsets, benchmarks for the Matrox G400MAX are available at www.matroxusers.com
The problem is that production problems with AMD limited them to include only low cache clock speeds and memory speeds. The first ones will run at 1/3 chache speed comapred to the cpu and will use slow memoery that can go beyond 100mhz for the 200mhz bus so it will be actually kind of slow compared to the p3 xeon. THe ones here wich wont come out for a few months alter operate with a faster chache speed at only half the bus speed so they will be around 30% os some operations. Remember that acer holds stock in AMD and is a partner so tkae what they say as a grainof salt. I would wait untill October untill linux is compaidble with the k7 and when FINALLY amd will have alpha 200mhz based memory in there motherboards and have cahce at full speed. THen the FPU performance will be around 300% where it was originally designed to be. Its a shame that something 3 to 4 times faster can't be as fast because of a limiting cache and memory that wont feed it as fast a p3 xeon. ITs like a porche running in second gear compared to an automatic 4 cynlider nissan running at full speed.
Duh..
"software processing of communications"
can we say win-adsl modem?
from what I have seen the K7 kills the K6-III on floting point, but in a mhz to mhz comparison, it appears as though it is slightly slower in integer perfromance if the K6-III could reach the speed of the K7s. dident the K6-III at 450 beat the PIII 500 in the Winstone tests by a huge margin (10%-15% or something). I dont realy think that this would kill the K7, but it is kinda sad to see the K7 take a step back in integer performance. especialy from a company known for good integer performance.
Yes, it's in the new HP N-Class box. I believe it's also in a new J-class workstation (don't remember the model number, but I'll repost here when I get it).
First, the PA-8500 is at 440MHz and not 450 (my appologies), but the specint95=32 is right.
0 0/tech_specs/index.html
Second, you can verify the specs at:
http://www.hp.com/visualize/products/jclass/j50
Third: here's the synopsis
HP VISUALIZE J5000 UNIX Workstation
Processor Type PA-8500
Clock Frequency 440MHz
Number of Processors 2
Processor Cache
Instruction Cache 0.5MB
Data Cache 1.0MB
Performance
SPECint95 32.6
SPECfp95 52.3
SPECint_rate95 568
SPECfp_rate95 751
Main Memory
Bus bandwidth 2GB/s
RAM type 120MHz SDRAM
Capacity 512MB - 4GB
Memory slots 8 slots
Do Intel (or even Alpha) CPUs encode mpeg video in realtime? On my K6-2/400, Windows takes like 7 minutes to cram a 2 gig AVI file into a 50mb MPEG1. It's not an incredibly long time or anything.
Posted by DanTucny:
:)
A recording made of the dinner presentation on the K7 where these latest performance figures were announced is available from JC's ( www.jc-news.com/pc), it is in Real Audio format and has a few mirrors available...
Of course, you've probably already been there and heard it
Can the K7 compress 30 jpeg images a second at 640x480? Can the K7 encode video to MPEG in realtime? How long does the K7 take per setiathome block? How long does bzip2 take to compress a 200 meg file on the K7?
Looks slashdotted already. If you like me can't get through, try JC's page for more K7 info and rumours.
Digital looked at MMX and decided they didn't really need that stuff since they were already fast enough at that sort of thing. So for the 21264 they did the MVI Motion Video Instructions instead, which are supposed to speed up MPEG compression. Don't know of any benchmarks though,
Rubbish! The IJG library which is part of SPECint95 is integer-only and that is the software that everyone uses, since it has a very liberal license.
Unfortunately the SPEC marks are never compiled with gcc because it isn't as fast as Intel's compilers, which I presume AMD will use :-). I hope this list will be updated when the K7 is out, since it is probably a good indicator of Linux integer performance.
Now, I've gotta go dry the drool out of my keyboard...
InThane
The K7 will be released in 500, 550, and 600 MHz speed grades initially /w 1/2 speed L2 cache (off-die of course). There is support for slower L2 (1/3) and faster (full), but reportedly these will be the "low end" and "high end" versions of the chips designed to compete with the Celeron and Xeon respectively.
Since it's slashdotted, I'll post some more correct info here.
/w 512kb L2 cache running at 1/2 speed is compared to a 550 MHz PIII Xeon (not sure the cache size) /w SSE enhancements. Using that, the results are as follows:
According to Ace's page a 550 MHz K7
SpecFP - 36% faster
SpecInt - 6% faster
The 600 MHz K7 is of course faster, turning in something like 43% and 15% respectively, but a fair comparison is of like speeds.
AMD claims that the K7 will be released initially at 500, 550 and 600 MHz. There have been reports that they will be able to reach 700 MHz on the current 0.25 process, and at least 1 GHz on the newer 0.18 process which they are adopting later this year. They plan to keep about 50 MHz faster than the top-of-the-line Intel offerings.
If these spec results are to be believed, this could be a definite Xeon killer once SMP systems are available. Gee...a processor that outperforms a Xeon, for oh about a tenth of the price. Hard decision there...
The 200 MHz bus speed is the bus going to/from the processor(s) to the MMU, PCI bus, etc. The memory will still operate at 100/133 MHz for the first systems.
This 200 MHz bus will be really shine in SMP. It utilizes a point-to-point design that is more scalable than Intel's SMP design which uses one bus (at 100 MHz on current systems) with dedicated lines for each processor.
Moreover, five new DSP extensions were added, allowing the K7 to more efficiently decode multimedia files like MP3 audio files, or do software processing of communications algorithms like ADSL, Meyer said."
***
Um yeah, what special thing do you need to do for ADSL, unless you have some really bogus implementation? Most of them go with just a straight Ethernet connection, so the processor has nothing to do with it, save for interpreting the data that comes in over the NIC.
In a word: it won't suffer much. The optimizations for the two processors, in the sense of FPU pipelining issues, are almost identical.
... but can't do two FADDs simultaneously (for instance). The K7 structure is very similar, except for a few things: 1) fewer restrictions on what can execute simultaneously. 2) lower latency on complex (FDIV and FSQRT) instructions, and 3) FMUL (and FADD of course, in the other pipeline) can execute partially in parallel with an FDIV. All these mean that anything "Intel optimized" (for the P6) will run great on a K7. In fact, anything optimized for the P6 is already 75% optimized for a K7 ... the difference is that the ordering of FDIV relative to FMULs and FADDs is important in the K7, allowing for some further tuning if that's important to you. :)
The main thing "Intel optimizations" do is put FADDs (add) between FMULs (multiply), because you have to have an FADD after an FMUL (maybe two FADDs? I forget) to get reasonable FPU throughput on the P6-series of CPUs (Ppro, P2, P3, Celeron). This is because the two pipelines of the P6s can do an FADD and and FMUL in parallel
great news, I just read over the site and apperantly (if this information is legit) the K7 is a kick-butt chip and well worth the wait and quite possible all the hype its been recieving. but one question still lingers....
HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST
there are rumors going around from as low as 200 all the way up to 900 dollars, I want to know exactly the price range for this chip. AMD says that it is aiming this chip towards High end server buisness, what like a XEON I say? some xeon's sell for more than 3000 dollars, how much is this chip going to cost, can I possible afford one for my system?
-------------------------------------------------
I know it's a lil' off the subject, but in windows, you can got into the seti screen saver setting and turn off the graphics and get a better crunching rate. On a K6-II 350 we are getting about 1 packet a day done.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I didn't write it up. I just cut and pasted it here. K7 only being 6% wouldn't be a good thing if you think about it. That not much of a jump.. It looked like he also cut and paste from the usenet post that was done.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Well it appears that the info we had was correct as AMD did show a presentation including bencmarks at the dinner it hosted tonight. I got a little snippet of info from a usenet posting that JC posted and I thought should be posted here as well. Check it out: .25 micron process.
hi,
I've just returned the dinner meeting at which Dirk Meyer (VP of Eng.
AMD) had a presentation. My first impression is that K7 looks very promising.
Mr. Meyer told us that AMD was indeed announcing K7 this month (June
'99) at 500, 550 and 600 Mhz. It has 22 Million transistors on a 184
mm square die at
The first release of K7 will have 512K of L2 cache at half-speed.
At 600 MHz, K7 is %115 faster in SpecInt95 than a PIII Xeon 550Mhz
with 512K full speed cache. At 550 K7 is %106 faster in SpecInt.
At 600MHz, K7 is %143 faster than the same PIII Xeon at SpecFPBase.
At 550Mhz, K7 is %136 faster (these numbers are interpolated visually
from a slide which means 143 was closer to 140 than 150).
At 3D Winbench 99 V1.2 (null driver) on win98, K7 600 is at %146
faster than the said PIII Xeon using SSE optimizations.
There are new Integer SIMD instructions, DSP type instructions for
MP3, AC (audio) etc. and cache prefetch instructions. Microsoft will
support 3DNow in an upcoming Visual Studio release.
At initial launch, there won't be any MP systems. All motherboards
(from Asus, Biostar, Gigabyte, FIC and one other I couldn't catch)
will use AMD chipset. Via, ALI and SIS are designing their own
chipsets to be released before the end of this year.
These are most of my notes during the one hour presentation and Q&A
afterwards. All errors are my own. I speak only for myself etc., etc.
muzo
What a great day for x86! hehe at least if you arn't Intel. This post was posted at 12:50 AM on June 11th.
I ate my tag line.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
It's supposed to be able to handle up to 8 processors. Unlike Intels quad arrangements :)
The K7 will be released in 500, 550, and 600MHz variants. This has been heavily hinted since November, and was confirmed by the CEO of AMD (Jerry Sanders) himself at an annual shareholders meeting (I think that's when it was).
The L2 cache of the K7 will be a half the clock of the processor. The 1/3x MHz idea was put together because AMD wasn't certain that the SRAM market would be able to supply 300MHz SRAMS for the K7-600's L2. Thankfully, this is not a problem.
Incidentally, Kryotech's Super-G will be out this year, likely at 1GHz in Q4, with a hypercooled K7. It *will* be expensive, but it will be *worth it*. AMD will have two 180nm processes ready by Q4, which will make the K7 a lot cheaper to make and a lot more voluminous (eg: there will be more of them). Figure that you might see an 800MHz K7 by end of year if AMD deems it necessary, that's one great core for MHz!
-JC
PC News'n'Links
PS: K7 and mP6 look to be the fastest current cores for rc5, per MHz. They may both be faster than the mighty K5, once optimized for.
"PS: K7 and mP6 look to be the fastest current cores for rc5, per MHz."
;)
Heh...I mean x86 cores, of course.
-JC
Is the 450MHz PA-8500 out? I know one of the cardinal rules of spec95 is never compare MHz-to-MHz, since one of the architectural tradeoffs you make for higher performance is necessarily lower clock sometimes.
:(
Apologies...I have not kept up well with HP's offerings.
-JC
And more facts as they come to hand as all other sites seem to be suffering /. effect...
K7 apparently will be released at a clock speed of at least 500 MHz. However, there is speculation, for a number of reasons, that it might be released as high as 600 MHz. The first justification I've seen cited for this is that the K7's L2 cache is planned to run at an initial speed of 1/3 of the processor's speed, and when the bus will be at 200 MHz, it is illogical for the L2 cache to have a slower clock speed than the FSB. At this stage however there is no definite evidence to say that the K7 will be released above 500 MHz.
An alt. site to check out for up to speed info is CMP net. They carry an article [albeit a little dateded] article on the specs from a competitive Intel perspective. Makes interesting reading.
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
Ok, so AMD claims the AMD 550 will be faster than the Xeon 550, but how about Floating Point ? I mean, I am a 3D Artist, and all my CPU time is spent rendering, how does the new K7 compares aghinst the Xeon (or PIII) on FPU ? AMD has been known to suck in such tests, I was planning in getting a Dual Xeon, shuld I whait for the dual K7 (anybody knows if it's quad possible ?)
Carlos
P.S. Sorry for the bad speeling, english is not my native language
'Nuff said