Jump to content
AIDA64 Discussion Forum
Glowing1196

Question on cache and memory benchmarks!

Recommended Posts

0eb30f2442a7d9335c2885ecac4bd11372f001a8

 

( The picture of testing result can also be seen here:http://imgsrc.baidu.com/forum/w%3D580/sign=5d8024603ac79f3d8fe1e4388aa0cdbc/0eb30f2442a7d9335c2885ecac4bd11372f001a8.jpg )

 

This is the testing result of my 4-way AMD Opteron 6147 machine, but some people keep telling me this result is impossible, which makes me a little doubtful now!

 

Could this be an error of Aida64, or it’s just a fact that some people refuse to believe?

 

Looking forward to your reply!

 

Best regards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Do you have 2 or 4 processor sockets populated?

 

2) Do all processors have DDR3-1333 memory installed?  So every processors use the same memory configuration?

 

In case you have 4 processor sockets populated, and every processors use the same DDR3-1333 memory configuration, that would mean you've got 16 memory channels total, each running at DDR3-1333 speed, which would mean a total memory bandwidth of 166.6 GBytes/sec.  Hence the results could well be accurate ;)

 

The confusion may come from the fact that AIDA64 (the main application itself) only supports up to 32 processor threads, so it cannot show you all processors on the Cache & Memory Benchmark Panel.  However, the multi-threaded memory benchmarks support up to 64 processor threads, so it can utilize all 48 processing threads you've got in your system (if you have all 4 processor sockets populated, each with a 12-core Magny-Cours CPU).

 


Regards,

Fiery

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Do you have 2 or 4 processor sockets populated?

 

2) Do all processors have DDR3-1333 memory installed?  So every processors use the same memory configuration?

 

In case you have 4 processor sockets populated, and every processors use the same DDR3-1333 memory configuration, that would mean you've got 16 memory channels total, each running at DDR3-1333 speed, which would mean a total memory bandwidth of 166.6 GBytes/sec.  Hence the results could well be accurate ;)

 

The confusion may come from the fact that AIDA64 (the main application itself) only supports up to 32 processor threads, so it cannot show you all processors on the Cache & Memory Benchmark Panel.  However, the multi-threaded memory benchmarks support up to 64 processor threads, so it can utilize all 48 processing threads you've got in your system (if you have all 4 processor sockets populated, each with a 12-core Magny-Cours CPU).

 

Regards,

Fiery

 

I became not sure about my knowledge of Opteron's memory controller after I read your reply, so I checked it in AMD's official PDF about Opteron. I got this from the PDF of AMD.

 

• Package G34
• 144-bit DDR3 SDRAM controller operating at frequencies up to 1333 MT/s (667 MHz)
• Supports up to twelve (12) registered DIMMs
• Supports up to eight (8) unbuffered DIMMs
• On-line spare feature provides single-rank DRAM redundancy
 
I think from this I can make sure that we can only get two memory channels. If so, there should only be 8 memory channels in a four-way Opteron server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's two memory channels per processor node.  A 12-core Magny-Cours processor has 2 nodes, so a single processor package supports 4 memory channels.  It effectively works as two 6-core processors (each supporting 2 memory channels) put into a single CPU package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've just extended the 32 threads benchmarking capabilities of AIDA64 to 640 threads, and added processor groups support as well.  Make sure to upgrade to the latest beta version of AIDA64 Extreme Edition available at:

 

http://www.aida64.com/downloads/aida64extremebuild2546y3mbp1kvdjzip

 

After upgrading to this new version, make sure to restart Windows to finalize the upgrade.

 

Using this release you can use all CPU, FPU and memory benchmarks of AIDA64 to measure the full 48-core performance of your configuration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fiery

 

Something has been changed to the bench

Before I had it

 

 

and now

 

 

Thanks

 

PS: it may also be because I installed the new bios for Ivy Bridge-E (Rampage IV Extreme 4310)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it may be due to a BIOS issue.  We've checked both AIDA64 versions on our Intel DX79SI test system with Core i7-3960X CPU, but haven't found any difference in the scores obtained.  We did update the benchmark module between AIDA64 v3.00.2500 (stable release) and AIDA64 v3.00.2578 (latest beta release), but it only affects Ivy Bridge-E/EN/EP processors.

 

Since your memory latency scores seem unchanged, but the memory bandwidth scores seem to drop to half, it looks like if the memory controller was configured for dual-channel operation instead of quad-channel operation.  Although the memory controller (IMC) reports quad-channel mode, as AIDA64 reports it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The memory settings have not changed, still Quad Channel.
I'm watching the side of the bios, and C-State options (some options have changed by default, I believe)

I tested it tomorrow, and I come to tell you

 

Thanks Fiery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put forward last bios, and performance is good.
With the new bios, I configured the same (options like C-State have changed before I left on Auto, then I have no choice between "enable" or "disable")

I do not see what has changed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2013 at 3:47 AM, Fiery said:

We've just extended the 32 threads benchmarking capabilities of AIDA64 to 640 threads, and added processor groups support as well.  Make sure to upgrade to the latest beta version of AIDA64 Extreme Edition available at:

 

http://www.aida64.com/downloads/aida64extremebuild2546y3mbp1kvdjzip

 

After upgrading to this new version, make sure to restart Windows to finalize the upgrade.

 

Using this release you can use all CPU, FPU and memory benchmarks of AIDA64 to measure the full 48-core performance of your configuration.

Thanks for your reply and the update!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Fiery!

I have purchased a new SuperServer 8049U-E1CR4T and run memory benchmarks. The read bandwidth is very close to the theoretical value, while the write bandwidth is only two-thirds of the theoretical value, could this be a problem due to hardware malfunction? The snap of the result is attached below.

PS, my SuperServer 8049U-E1CR4T has all 4 processor sockets populated, each configured with 3 memory modules.

Many thanks!

 

aida64测试结果.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2020 at 4:37 PM, Glowing1196 said:

Hi, Fiery!

I have purchased a new SuperServer 8049U-E1CR4T and run memory benchmarks. The read bandwidth is very close to the theoretical value, while the write bandwidth is only two-thirds of the theoretical value, could this be a problem due to hardware malfunction? The snap of the result is attached below.

PS, my SuperServer 8049U-E1CR4T has all 4 processor sockets populated, each configured with 3 memory modules.

Many thanks!

 

aida64测试结果.JPG

That ratio between the read and write memory bandwidth is normal on the type of system you've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fiery said:

That ratio between the read and write memory bandwidth is normal on the type of system you've got.

Thanks for your reply!

The CPU itself does support 6 memory channels and now only 3 memory modules are installed, meaning a large margin between the installed memory bandwidth and the IMC bandwidth. At such case, I deem the write bandwidth should be close to the read bandwidth.

Actually, I have asked the same question to the Kingston’s guy and the Supermicro’s guy, they all suggest me to replace the memory module to the one authenticated by Supermicro due to the difference in the design of the register of the memory module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2020 at 6:33 PM, Glowing1196 said:

Thanks for your reply!

The CPU itself does support 6 memory channels and now only 3 memory modules are installed, meaning a large margin between the installed memory bandwidth and the IMC bandwidth. At such case, I deem the write bandwidth should be close to the read bandwidth.

Actually, I have asked the same question to the Kingston’s guy and the Supermicro’s guy, they all suggest me to replace the memory module to the one authenticated by Supermicro due to the difference in the design of the register of the memory module.

Well.. It's quite difficult to double-check your theory due to the lack of multi-threaded memory bandwidth benchmark software for Windows :)  But either way, it would be best to populate all available memory channels for optimal performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By jwj850jj@gmail.com
      Hello everybody!
      First time posting to the forum, indeed it is my first time viewing the forum.  Ive been using the Engineer version of Aida64 (registered) for about 3 months now, and overall Im impressed with the software.  Its nice to just throw together a few different benchmarks and have them run how and when I want in the order I want.  I was doing all this with macros before
      Ive recently gotten back into building PCs, took a long hiatus back in the late 90s my last system having been assembled was a 440BX based chipset on an Abit motherboard, both of which no longer exist at least in a meaningful way lol.  I was an OC neophyte back then, as I am now, although I do enjoy the hobby/sport(?)
      I decided to wade into the dark and murky waters of RAM OCing, and went down that rabbit hole for a few weeks.  Long story short, I bought 2 x 16GB sticks of G.Skill 3600mhz XMP mem.  Stock timings sucked at 19-20-20-40-500 but I didnt know or care much about timings at the point I bought and assembled the system and so didnt realize their huge impact (relatively speaking) on ram performance.
      I was able to get them to post at 4000mhz 17-22-22-36-485 and ran that for a few months, then last night got the idea to try and tweak them some more, thinking maybe all these on off cycles might have trained them to do better (i dont know if that logic is incorrect or not in regards to training, but its how I justified another sweaty night of swearing out loud and smashing keys to my wife)
      Im now resting at 4000mhz 16-22-22-40-500 but I can feel they have more to give in the timings department.  Frankly, im already amazed at how well these Hynix CJR chips are doing on the OC.  My question is basically, Aida shows me as being first place in Latency, and near top tier in every memory bench, with only quad channel or server boards (mostly) beating me.  Are these results typical for these chips and my rig?  What can I do to push it further if anybody has any recommendations?  And am I correct in feeling a sense of accomplishment at being in the top spot for latency, or is my joy tragically misplaced?
      Thanks a lot guys, and to the Devs, great product and I will continue to use and support you!
      Relevant Screens attached.  






    • By NaturalBornCamper
      Hello all!
      Is it possible with Aida64 Pro to send selected (or all) benchmarking information to a channel like a txt file, a database or serial port?
      I'm asking because I would like to create my own sensor panel with a Raspberry Pi for a home project. For this, I would need to send the Aida64 data somewhere, then the Raspberry Pi could grab all the info and parse it to:
      -Log past data
      -Send on my server for remote viewing
      -insert in a database for custom statistics
      Thanks friends!
    • By wichert
      Is the benchmarking function also made for vm's or only for physical machines?
      thanks in advance.
    • By xixou
      gppu test fail on 1950x CPU

       
       

       
      On second run CPU test is passing but GPU benchmark looks like values are only for 1 gtx1070 instead of 4 .
    • By Vlask
      i'd like to see simple GPU benchmark for testing basic values of graphic cards like:

      Pixel Fillrate (MPixel/s) - think can be found in some 3Dmarks
      Texel Fillrate (MTexel/s) - think can be found in some 3Dmarks
      Triangle/Vertices Rate (M/s) - don't know how gpu makers measure this, cant remember any benchmark for this one...

      Best will be based on Opengl 1.1 so also very old profi cards can be tested (3DLabs, Intergpraph and similar stuff) and test won't be tied to some version of DirectX.
      Fillrates can be measured by really old, outdated and no longer supported SPECglperf - https://www.spec.org/gwpg/pastissues/Feb2_02/opc.static/glperf.htm , but results have too many variants of results (see attached result file as warning how it should not look) and wont work on modern systems. 

      This kind of benchmark would be usefull for diagnostics between theoretical values of cards and real scenario. Also for detecting of number texture units and ROPS on cards with unknown specs - getting often mixed info from various sources about these at mobile chips or OEM cards (GPU makers ignoring them mostly and won't release any closer info). 
      FillRate.log
×
×
  • Create New...