Penryn/Phenom SMP performance

Ultra-NexusUltra-Nexus Buenos Aires, ARG
edited December 2007 in Folding@Home
I´d like to open up this thread so we can gather info on these new procs for folding performance reference.

Since Stanford´s forums are currently down, I tried to search other forums for any input on this, without success...

So if anyone here builds a new system with any of these procs, or find information elsewhere, please share your findings. :)

Thanks!

Nex.-
«1

Comments

  • SPIKE09SPIKE09 Scatland
    edited November 2007
    Spotted this over at hardocp linkage to extremesystems

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2539229&postcount=324
  • TBonZTBonZ Ottawa, ON Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    I'm not familiar with the 2350 WU and really not sure what that translates in performance and PPD. Now if it was a 2353, I would. That is all I've folded for the last 2 months. Not that I'm complaining. :)
  • Ultra-NexusUltra-Nexus Buenos Aires, ARG
    edited November 2007
    I guess you meant the P2653. From that screenshot it seems to be doing 15:30min per frame @ 2Ghz single channel memory.

    EDIT: bad math!!!
  • TBonZTBonZ Ottawa, ON Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    Hmmmm, yeah, that's what I meant. Must not of been paying much attention there. :scratch:

    That's very good! My 6000+ X2 @ 3 Ghz only manages 20 mins per frame on a P2653. That would seem to indicate a huge increase in performance! I was leaning going Intel for my quad upgrade but was holding out until the Phenom came out. I want to stay AMD, so this is very encouraging! :D
  • mas0nmas0n howdy Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    Holy Cannoli! If that thing really churns out a full frame in 5.5 minutes that is quite impressive. I run ~8.5 minutes/frame on P2653 with the Q6600 and with a 1600MHz advantage!

    Shared L3 ftw!?!?
  • SPIKE09SPIKE09 Scatland
    edited November 2007
    the thread from hardocp was quite scathing about just how badly the new AMDs performed.
  • scottscott Medina, Ohio Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    Ultra Nexus wrote:
    I guess you meant the P2653. From that screenshot it seems to be doing 5:30min per frame @ 2Ghz single channel memory. Thats a very good performance! Like what, 4400PPD? :eek:

    Something must be wrong here, cant be that good... lol :p

    I think the problem is your math.....I see 15:30 per frame for around 1550 PPD, thats not so good my E6600 dual core does better.

    Scott
  • mas0nmas0n howdy Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    scott wrote:
    I think the problem is your math.....I see 15:30 per frame for around 1550 PPD, thats not so good my E6600 dual core does better.

    You had to come in here and crush our dreams with your "math" didn't you.
  • SPIKE09SPIKE09 Scatland
    edited November 2007
    Thats more like what I had read Scott link to the minor discussion on the hardocp dc forums
    http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1244495
  • scottscott Medina, Ohio Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    mas0n wrote:
    You had to come in here and crush our dreams with your "math" didn't you.


    :D good one ! Yeah that math stuff sure screws up a lot of dreams .

    Scott
  • SPIKE09SPIKE09 Scatland
    edited November 2007
    scott wrote:
    :D good one ! Yeah that math stuff sure screws up a lot of dreams .

    Scott
    yeah my bankers always have more realistic math than me :confused:
  • Ultra-NexusUltra-Nexus Buenos Aires, ARG
    edited November 2007
    scott wrote:
    I think the problem is your math.....I see 15:30 per frame for around 1550 PPD, thats not so good my E6600 dual core does better.

    Scott

    LOL! You´re right sir! :aol:
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited November 2007
    I highly doubt it will be faster than a comparable Intel CPU, especially when compared to Penryn.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh Member
    edited November 2007
    The AMD Barcelona isn't clocked very high yet and AMD is mum about "what's wrong" but some speculate a "fix". They also haven't tried running two instances of the SMP to see if the SMP is really a quad-core dud meant really for dual-core processors.

    My plan was to own a competitively priced Barcelona or Yorkfield ... or few ... in the coming year. But if AMD doesn't pull a rabbit out of a hat soon, that dream will just have to be put back into the pipe because there is no way Intel is going to price Yorkfield competitively. In truth, they might not even have to with Kentsfield.

    I would love to show you these numbers, but at $1300+USD for Yorkfield processors today- I will have it only if I win the lottery. I also refuse to buy the Barcelona (OK- Phenom if you prefer) unless it can show better bang for my buck than even a Kentsfield. I hate to say it- but it looks like it doesn't almost entirely across the board. So dissappointing Folding results doesn't surprise me and right now the battle looks to be between Intel product lines- not with AMD.
  • Ultra-NexusUltra-Nexus Buenos Aires, ARG
    edited November 2007
    Wait till January... the lower end Yorkfields are comming :)
  • DanGDanG I AM CANADIAN Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    when it's under $275 for a Q6600 that can net you up to 3000 points per day (when overclocked), AMD has to come hard with something, and the numbers so far aren't promising.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    the lower end Yorkfields are comming
    If those 'lower end' chips are like the lower end Q6600s, they will be overclocking beasts - overclocked frequencies higher than the most expensive, fastest stock CPU.
    a Q6600 that can net you up to 3000 points per day (when overclocked)
    No DanG, try 4000+ PPD - no exaggeration. (Q6600 w/2 X FAH client + Affinity Changer)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    Each one of the red squares in this screen shot shows a single computer, each an overclocked Q6600 rig running two SMP FAH clients with Affinity Changer running in the background as a service. The other clients shown are each Intel D930 (dual core) overclocked to 4.00GHz. The red square computers are overclocked to 3.2, 3.4, and 3.4GHz respectively, at 2.4GHz stock.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh Member
    edited November 2007
    Leonardo wrote:
    ...The red square computers are overclocked to 3.2, 3.4, and 3.4GHz respectively, at 2.4GHz stock.

    Try as we might and despite our gear, something is terribly wrong with our quad setup- we can't even get it to 2.8GHz and haven't had a chance to get back to it (college/work/life).

    :(
  • TBonZTBonZ Ottawa, ON Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    15:30??? That's just nasty performance, I really hope AMD pulls an ace out of their sleeve. :(
  • Ultra-NexusUltra-Nexus Buenos Aires, ARG
    edited November 2007
    DanG wrote:
    when it's under $275 for a Q6600 that can net you up to 3000 points per day (when overclocked), AMD has to come hard with something, and the numbers so far aren't promising.

    The 9350 will be at the Q6600 price range... but with "only" 6Mb L2. If it OCs nicelly and consumes less energy, I´ll replace my current B3s with them. I want 4000PPD @ 150W tops!

    We´ll just have to know if the 2Mb difference in cache gives a noticeable performance hit. Hopefully it wont. We´ll see!
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    I want 4000PPD @ 150W tops
    You can do that right NOW with a Q6600.
  • Ultra-NexusUltra-Nexus Buenos Aires, ARG
    edited November 2007
    With my Kill-a-Watt device, and with the Q @ 3Ghz with dual SMP clients, its eating 200W from the outlet. And thats with 230v, a high efficient PSU and an all onboard mATX setup.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh Member
    edited November 2007
    Ultra Nexus wrote:
    With my Kill-a-Watt device, and with the Q @ 3Ghz with dual SMP clients, its eating 200W from the outlet. And thats with 230v, a high efficient PSU and an all onboard mATX setup.

    That's about right and there is also a difference in draw depending on stepping- I believe B3 is 105W loaded stock and G0 95. The B3 also has far more reports of overclocking crankiness.
  • DanGDanG I AM CANADIAN Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    Leonardo wrote:
    If those 'lower end' chips are like the lower end Q6600s, they will be overclocking beasts - overclocked frequencies higher than the most expensive, fastest stock CPU.No DanG, try 4000+ PPD - no exaggeration. (Q6600 w/2 X FAH client + Affinity Changer)



    Link on how to set that up?
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    200 Watts - is that measurement the computer usage or processor?

    Right now I've got two quad systems, a B3 clocked at 3200 and a G0 clocked at 3400 running of the same APC UPS. Also on the UPS are a couple external drives and a 20" LCD. Both complete computers at full load at overclock, with monitor are pulling 476 Watts. Sorry, I've got no way of measuring just the currency draw from the CPUs. That 476 Watts measurement also includes whatever power is lost due to the PSUs' inefficiency - all power going from the UPS to the computers and peripherals.
  • Ultra-NexusUltra-Nexus Buenos Aires, ARG
    edited November 2007
    200w for each dedicated folding computer usage, without monitor, nor even a keyboard and a mouse. lol
    Qeldroma wrote:
    That's about right and there is also a difference in draw depending on stepping- I believe B3 is 105W loaded stock and G0 95. The B3 also has far more reports of overclocking crankiness.

    Yeah, I bet a G0 would save a couple of watts too... but I´ll skip them directly to Penryns whenever they are available/cheap. :)
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    My B3 must be a lot more efficient than yours, or you've got voltages jacked up higher than they need to be.

    or I am factually incorrect :rolleyes2
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh Member
    edited November 2007
    I don’t think we are really going to be saving any watts going to a Yorkfield. Yorkfields are more processor (transistors/die) that will also clock higher than Kentsfields. The TDPs aren’t that different, but your production per watt should be more significant with the Yorkfield. The Yorkfield has been tested to get more for your processor cycle and early reports are that it overclocks fairly well past the Kentsfields.

    Here are some links:

    Power comparisions

    Some Yorkfield/Kentsfield 1-on-1

    Bottomline opinion: I think we will push Yorkfields as hard as Kentsfields making little difference in power draw, but get measurably more production per watt out of the Yorkfield.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited November 2007
    we will push Yorkfields as hard as Kentsfields making little difference in power draw
    Did I hear my name somewhere?

    You are no doubt correct for many of us. That is exactly what I thought would happen with my current upgrades, and it did. My power usage with my quads is nearly the same as it was (as it is - still have a couple) with my overclocked Presler D930s. But what I get for that power consumption is over three times the production.
Sign In or Register to comment.