Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Correct count of CPU's and threads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gama
    started a topic Correct count of CPU's and threads

    Correct count of CPU's and threads

    Is there going to be a release that detects the correct amount of CPU's/threads ?.

    It will need to follow the correct NUMA and Group method of counting the total number of threads.
    With the advent of the newer multi core CPU's, it would be nice to get a correct count of cores to allow a proper test in the CPU benchmark.
    I have a DELL R910 with 4 x E7-4850 CPU's. They each have 10 core/20 threads, so totaling 40 cores and 80 threads. But Passmark doesn't detect the total number correctly, and doesn't understand the newer method of "Groups" for identifying total core/thread count in a system.

    I cant use more than 60 threads when testing, and so cant get a realistic benchmark.

    Theo

  • David (PassMark)
    replied
    There are 2 aspects to this.
    1) Detection of more than 64 cores
    2) Use of more than 64 cores for the CPU test

    In our recently released BurnIntest software V7 the number of logical CPUs (Packages x cores x threads) that can be tested has been increased to 256 where supported by the Operating System. That is, CPUs across multiple processor groups can be tested.
    See,
    http://www.passmark.com/products/bit.htm

    So it would be good to see if this detection and testing is working correctly on your machine.

    For PerformanceTest V7. It is currently limited to detecting and using 64 logical CPUs. We'll be increasing this in PerformanceTest V8 to at least 256 CPUs. PerformanceTest V8 is currently under development. If you give us a poke in a month or two we might have an early alpha release. (But the PT8 CPU benchmark results won't be directly comparable to the PT7 results).

    In the meantime a workaround might be to run several simultaneous instances of PerformanceTest from a script, and manually add up the result. This work around is far from ideal however for obvious reasons.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X