3 ms·
You should be careful on the memory bandwidth. The more recent xeons (2011v3, ddr4 2133) are rated 68 GB/s per socket. That is 136GB/s in a dual socket. But, w
by StillBored 12y ago
You should be careful on the memory bandwidth. The more recent xeons (2011v3, ddr4 2133) are rated 68 GB/s per socket. That is 136GB/s in a dual socket.
But, what I really came here to say, is that POWER8 has nearly twice the single thread memory bandwidth available. From some of my tests a single thread can access ~40GB/sec of bandwidth vs the intel at ~20GB/sec. But this doesn't translate into clear cut wins even on codes which at first pass appear to be bandwidth limited. Mostly because the processor cores themselves are about 1/2 the speed in tight loopy code (think nbench) running out of cache.
So, in our in house benchmarks the POWER ran anywhere from 75% as fast to roughly as fast. Only on a few tests did it actually manage to best the E5 xeon we were testing it against, and then never by more than 150%.
Plus, the dynamic thread controls are cool, but beyond 4 threads/core I could never actually improve performance, and beyond 2x it was major diminishing returns.
- userbinator 12y agothe processor cores themselves are about 1/2 the speed in tight loopy code (think nbench) running out of cache. I wonder where the bottleneck is there, since on paper the POWER8 specs beat Haswell: it's a 10-issue core, 224-entry reorder buffer vs. a 4-issue core with 192-entry reorder buffer for Haswell. But if it takes several POWER instructions to do the work of one x86 instruction, or icache bandwidth is insufficient, the advantage goes the other way.
- m_mueller 12y agoThanks for your input. I have yet to directly compare the two systems for the code I'm working on (weather prediction), something I'm looking forward to. Since the dynamical processes are heavily memory bandwidth bound (stencil codes) I assumed that Power8 should beat Xeon handily, but I'll have to see I guess.