Benchmark on i7 architectures (Nehalem and Westmere)


daily work Intel Core i7

compiling root

time make
real   19m14.377s user   17m47.768s sys   1m26.761s

time taskset -c 0-3 make -j 4
real   5m24.641s user   18m42.483s sys   1m27.961s

time make -j 4
real   5m16.044s user   19m27.527s sys   1m36.460s

time make -j 6
real   4m53.437s user   25m30.875s sys   2m0.751s

time make -j 7
real   4m44.131s user   27m48.481s sys   2m9.644s

time make -j 8
real   4m42.815s user   29m38.349s sys   2m16.792s

time make -j 12
real   4m52.696s user   30m3.299s sys   2m18.458s

compressing text files

time gzip -9 root_v5.22.00.source.tar 
real   0m10.852s user   0m10.758s sys   0m0.091s

time /data/vin/pigs/pigz-2.1.4/pigz -9 -p 2 root_v5.22.00.source.tar
real   0m5.539s user   0m10.943s sys   0m0.160s

time /data/vin/pigs/pigz-2.1.4/pigz -9 -p 4 root_v5.22.00.source.tar
real   0m2.741s user   0m10.759s sys   0m0.161s

time /data/vin/pigs/pigz-2.1.4/pigz -9 -p 8 root_v5.22.00.source.tar
real   0m2.155s user   0m16.587s sys   0m0.226s


more Evaluation of the Intel Core i7

scimark2 can be used to evaluate cache and memory access. standard scimark2 fits in cache even in old cpu while its large version was supposed to stress memory access. This is less and less true. For instance on core 2 we get
[pcphsft50] ~/w1/scimark2 > ./scimark2 5
Composite Score:          827.37
FFT             Mflops:   667.01    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   806.26    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   359.71
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   962.00    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  1341.85    (M=100, N=100)
[pcphsft50] ~/w1/scimark2 > ./scimark2 -large 5
Composite Score:          529.93
FFT             Mflops:    60.86    (N=1048576)
SOR             Mflops:   768.39    (1000 x 1000)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   359.71
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   458.17    (N=100000, nz=1000000)
LU              Mflops:  1002.51    (M=1000, N=1000)
with top showing some 0.1% memory activity

while on the core i7 (very same binary)

./oldscimark2 5
Composite Score:         1006.79
FFT             Mflops:   735.97    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   941.13    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   416.18
Sparse matmult  Mflops:  1217.86    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  1722.82    (M=100, N=100)

./oldscimark2 -large 5
Composite Score:          835.89
FFT             Mflops:   159.34    (N=1048576)
SOR             Mflops:   858.78    (1000 x 1000)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   409.04
Sparse matmult  Mflops:  1090.81    (N=100000, nz=1000000)
LU              Mflops:  1661.47    (M=1000, N=1000)
with top showing some 0.2% memory activity

--++ 14/01/2009

Evaluation of the Intel Core i7

WP8 has acquired a desktop equipped with the new intel 4-core processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 940 @ 2.93GHz with 6GB memory

The i7 introduces novel (for Intel) architecture features for multicore processors including a new three level cache hierarchy, new memory/core interconnect and hyperthreading. More info can be found for instance on wikipedia and on this very detailed article on

OS installation and os issues

Apparently the only OSes that install out of the box are Ubuntu9 and fedora10 (mainly because the desktop comes with a new ethernet card). Our machine (pcphsft60) has been installed with fedora10 that runs gcc version 4.3.2 20081105 (Red Hat 4.3.2-7) (GCC) as native compiler. Hyperthreading and clock-throttling are on by default at BIOS level. I controlled clock frequency using cpuspeed thats seems to do the job properly.

The scheduler does not necessarily balance the load among cores to best fit the user application: multiple jobs can be distributed manually using taskset. My understanding is that cpu 0,4 correspond to one core, cpu 1,5 to a second and so on. so running on cpu 0 and 1 will run on different cores while running on cpu 0,4 will run two hyperthreads (HTs) on the same core. Setting the cpu affinity for multithread application is more difficult: at the moment I prefer to watch the result using top with option 1 (click 1 on top of top) and eventually repeat the test until the threads are distributed uniformly among the four core.

  • edit 17/01/2009 actualy using taskset -c n-m one can force a multithread program to run on cpus n to m

running a simple benckmark scimark2

as first test I compiled and run scimark2

running it on two different cores I get

taskset -c 1 /data/vin/scimark2/scimark2 5
taskset -c 0 /data/vin/scimark2/scimark2 5
Composite Score:         1002.63
FFT             Mflops:   797.37    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   935.42    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   222.08
Sparse matmult  Mflops:  1261.82    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  1796.49    (M=100, N=100)

Composite Score:          998.36
FFT             Mflops:   795.55    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   933.15    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   221.16
Sparse matmult  Mflops:  1254.28    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  1787.67    (M=100, N=100)

while running on the same core one gets

taskset -c 4 /data/vin/scimark2/scimark2 5
taskset -c 0 /data/vin/scimark2/scimark2 5
Composite Score:          658.74
FFT             Mflops:   492.03    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   877.88    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   151.87
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   764.27    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  1007.63    (M=100, N=100)

Composite Score:          670.42
FFT             Mflops:   495.52    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:   878.88    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   151.66
Sparse matmult  Mflops:   767.63    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  1058.40    (M=100, N=100)

so for this benchmark on average a single HT is 35% slower that single core (50% slower means no gain in using HT) which turns in a gain of 30% performance per core in running two processes on each core.

running a trivial multi-thread program

I then moved to test a trivial multi-thread program: the brute-force prime-number generator in its parallel-std implementation. It scales perfectly on a 2x4 core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5430 @ 2.66GHz On that machine pfmon reports

                            CPI: 1.1692
            load instructions %: 0.229%
           store instructions %: 0.161%
  load and store instructions %: 0.390%
  resource stalls % (of cycles): 61.144%
          branch instructions %: 22.169%
% of branch instr. mispredicted: 0.141%
           % of l2 loads missed: 41.236%
              bus utilization %: 1.902%
         data bus utilization %: 1.035%
                bus not ready %: 0.004%
  comp. SIMD inst. ('new FP') %: 0.071%
  comp. x87 instr. ('old FP') %: 21.947%

on the new i7 I get (making sure that threads are properly balance among cores...)

real   0m24.161s user   3m10.907s sys   0m0.204s

real   0m24.428s user   1m36.672s sys   0m0.165s

real   0m32.878s user   1m37.926s sys   0m0.146s

i.e. HT makes no difference.

The L2 cache trashing is due to the single pass over the large vector containing the numbers to test. Anyhow load/store are not the dominant instructions...

A more realistic multi-thread example: Minuit

I tested then the new version of minuit able to compute derivatives in parallel

on the usual 8core machine pfmon reports

                            CPI: 0.9990
            load instructions %: 25.274%
           store instructions %: 9.860%
  load and store instructions %: 35.134%
  resource stalls % (of cycles): 61.208%
          branch instructions %: 10.526%
% of branch instr. mispredicted: 2.500%
           % of l2 loads missed: 0.101%
              bus utilization %: 0.082%
         data bus utilization %: 0.034%
                bus not ready %: 0.105%
  comp. SIMD inst. ('new FP') %: 23.684%
  comp. x87 instr. ('old FP') %: 0.000%
and it runs as
real   0m25.731s user   2m45.246s sys   0m0.032s

real   0m45.684s user   2m45.454s sys   0m0.012s

corresponding to a 1.8 gain doubling the processing power used (notice how the cpu-user time is the same).

on the new i7 I get (making sure that threads are properly balance among cores...)

real   0m23.123s user   3m3.363s sys   0m0.077s

real   0m32.916s user   2m10.449s sys   0m0.039s

real   1m1.807s user   2m3.124s sys   0m0.019s

again here we observe full gain in going from 2 to 4 core and a 1.4 gain going from 4 to 8 (notice how the cpu-user time grows of 50%). In this case of course going from 4 to 8 threads does not increase the amount of power used....

results from running CMS reconstruction

Results from running 4 CMS reconstruction jobs in parallel (reading different event files!) has been reported already below: essentially running one job per core takes 4 seconds per event while running 2 jobs on each core takes 6 seconds per event i.e. a net yield gain of 50%.


first results of HT on intel-i7

running cms Reco on intel-i7

setting affinity to 0,2,4,6 respectively I get

tRecoRunV1/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="6.13458" />
ttRecoRunV2/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="6.55657" />
ttRecoRunV3/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="6.04042" />
ttRecoRunV4/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="6.59123" />

while setting it to 0,1,2,3

ttRecoRunV1/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="4.01639" />
ttRecoRunV2/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="4.28345" />
ttRecoRunV3/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="3.8462" />
ttRecoRunV4/report.txt:  <AvgEventTime  Value="4.38434" />

-- VincenzoInnocente - 02-Mar-2011

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2011-03-23 - VincenzoInnocente
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    LCG All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright & 2008-2023 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback