Software > Operating Systems and Porting
kernel config: page size 4k vs 64k
cchinicz:
--- Quote from: MPC7500 on February 04, 2021, 09:14:36 am ---These results you could compare:
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2102047-HA-2101296AS71
Only difference: Kernel pagesize and installed RAM.
--- End quote ---
Interesting: this other test done with a 4K page size and 16 cores achieved a much worse performance.. see the attached image comparing a performance per core.
So, maybe the issue here is that Intel i5 outperforms Power9 per core, regardless of page size and 64K page gives actually more performance per core for this specific test.
What comes to my mind is how bad is Power9 as a desktop..
MPC7500:
The graph is wrong ;D
But the Phoronix test suite can't do anything about that. You have to divide the lower result by 4 (228)
cchinicz:
--- Quote from: MPC7500 on February 04, 2021, 10:18:21 am ---The graph is wrong ;D
But the Phoronix test suite can't do anything about that. You have to divide the lower result by 4 (228)
--- End quote ---
So, it's 250 secs with 4 cores vs 228 secs with 16 cores. It seems that the additional cores did not help improve performance and actually Intel cores and threads handle this specific load/test better than Power9.
The question remains: how good is Blackbird as a desktop performance wise vs Intel? I posted another topic about Thunderbird running faster on this same Dell 5580 (i5 8th gen) than on Blackbird, that means, real world desktop user experience.
Maybe Power9 is a better fit for HPC or TB HANA in memory DBs but not as a Desktop alternative, not taking into account the difficulty to find software for the architecture.
MPC7500:
Both CPUs are 4-core.
At the end it's all about optimisations.
Improving performance of Phoronix benchmarks on POWER9
Easier Power ISA vectorizing for fun and profit with GCC x86 intrinsics
SiteAdmin:
--- Quote from: cchinicz on February 04, 2021, 10:42:19 am ---Maybe Power9 is a better fit for HPC or TB HANA in memory DBs but not as a Desktop alternative, not taking into account the difficulty to find software for the architecture.
--- End quote ---
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Those Intel cores (and similar AMD ones) come with a mandatory signed binary blob on a secondary CPU that has full access to all your data. In the worst case, you could simply be computing faster for an adversary by selecting the Intel solution.
Given the lack of those blobs is one of POWER's main reasons to be used on desktop, a more appropriate comparison for the specific purpose of determining POWER's usability as a desktop computer would be against other silicon that is also blob-free -- older Intel parts (Core Duo timeframe), or blob-free ARM devices (e.g. Rockchip).
If you want the fastest possible desktop with no regard for security, owner control, or privacy, then the simple fact is the latest AMD devices running Windows are your best bet. For many of us, and especially here at Raptor, that represents such a large risk that we'd rather go back to pen and paper...
...much like the Justice Department just did here in the US, actually, after the SolarWinds proprietary / signed malware problems. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version