Leaked BD benchmarks

[The Greater Good]

Here ya go. Looks like the 2600k is gonna have a run for the money...

http://wccftech.com/2011/05/22/asus-leaks-specifications-upcoming-bulldozer-zambezifx-processors/

http://wccftech.com/2011/05/21/amd-bulldozer-zambezifx-cpu-performance-exposed-beats-i7-2600k-cinebench-benchmark/

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Llano-and-Bulldozer-Pricing-Revealed-Report-201335.shtml

This is going to be one awesome summer!

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

please use the sticky bulldozer thread.

 

[bearclaw99]

Too bad they needed 8 cores to edge out a quad

If it will overclock to 5 ghz then it deserves a few props though

 

[xaira]

quad module ssit, theres still a quad in there, its 8 threads vs 8 threads aait, but those clocks seem mighty steep

 

[The Greater Good]

bearclaw, I thought about that. If AMD's 8 core is faster than Intel's 4 core and AMD's 8 core cost less? I'd say that's a nice advantage for AMD. I run BOINC for World Community Grid and I need all the cores I can get at a fair price. Even if Intel is your favorite, this should help prices go down.

 

[HEXiT]

if the 8 cores together are faster than intels 4 cores that still means the amd chip is slower on single core so for gaming it will be less effective.
8 cores is great if your apps use them but the vast majority struggle to use four so the amd chips will be substantially slower in them applications, by as much as 1/3 or more.
even though its a new architecture design they are still a full generation behind in dye size. thus the need for more cores just to keep up. and with the new 3d tech on its way theres even less to be smiling about for amd.
lastly saying amd parts are cheaper no longer stands if them prices are to be believed and intel can always drop there prices if they need to...

 

[Wisecracker]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

:lol:

Desperate spin and denial

 

[The Greater Good]

OK, now I'm not 100% on this... but I believe that AMD's "8 core" is actually 4 modules. Two cores per module that share a floating point unit. That is AMD's answer to hyperthreading. At least, that's my understanding...

 

[Wisecracker]

OK, now I'm not 100% on this... but I believe that AMD's "8 core" is actually 4 modules. Two cores per module that share a floating point unit. That is AMD's answer to hyperthreading. At least, that's my understanding...

Each core within a module has its own scheduler and instruction cache. It's nothing like hyper-threading.

Here is John's blog on Flex FP. You may find it helpful in understanding the arch and how a processor handles instructions/commands.

 

[HEXiT]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

:lol:

Desperate spin and denial

lols no spin or denial. fact. amd are producing bulldozer on 45nm dyes.
the 8 core amd buldozer has been shown to beat the 4 core sandybridge in certain apps but not in others and its actual multi threaded performance isnt that good (they are excusing it partly down to it being an engineering sample)...
not only that they are fx parts which means server chips. which have limited appeal as far as gamers go. they want black editions with unlocked multis which are about 7 months away by the looks of it.
add int to that intel will be moving down to 22nm with ivy which is supposedly gonna give another 20 percent+

no m8 no spin, just a reality.
but we will see what the real benches are in june... not long now...

 

[gamerk316]

if the 8 cores together are faster than intels 4 cores that still means the amd chip is slower on single core so for gaming it will be less effective.
8 cores is great if your apps use them but the vast majority struggle to use four so the amd chips will be substantially slower in them applications, by as much as 1/3 or more.
even though its a new architecture design they are still a full generation behind in dye size. thus the need for more cores just to keep up. and with the new 3d tech on its way theres even less to be smiling about for amd.
lastly saying amd parts are cheaper no longer stands if them prices are to be believed and intel can always drop there prices if they need to...

Correct. If it takes 50% more cores to beat SB, then each core is 50% less effective. As such, in software that doesn't scale past 4 cores, SB will still be faster.

And thats being optimistic; looking at those numbers, BD's IPC is outright atrocious. It still gets crushed by the i9 990x, and only barely beats the 2600k, despite having twice as many cores AND is running at a faster speed. Thus, anything that doesn't scale [90% of software] should thus run faster on SB.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Ouch...

Seeing an i7 990x beat out Bulldozer is not good news.

Remember this is Cinebench... more cores = better in this bench. This is nearly an indication that Bulldozer will lose out in gaming and other applications that are not fully multi-core aware or make seldom use of more than 4 cores.

Hopefully, for AMD, Intel doesn't release any 22nm 8 Core (16 Thread) processors in the near future.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=113905&postcount=545

 

[Haserath]

Yet we still don't know clocks or how many cores that is, unless you can see past the white lines I see in that photo. Even if that is an 8 core, we don't know the clock it's at.

Correct. If it takes 50% more cores to beat SB, then each core is 50% less effective. As such, in software that doesn't scale past 4 cores, SB will still be faster.

And thats being optimistic; looking at those numbers, BD's IPC is outright atrocious. It still gets crushed by the i9 990x, and only barely beats the 2600k, despite having twice as many cores AND is running at a faster speed. Thus, anything that doesn't scale [90% of software] should thus run faster on SB.

Don't forget that BD loses some IPC per core when both cores in a module are active, so it won't be as bad in single thread applications.

Cinebench also shows the 990X in a good light since all 12 threads can be used and hyperthreading works wonders in it.

We still don't know what sort of clocks BD can reach...

 

[bearclaw99]

if the 8 cores together are faster than intels 4 cores that still means the amd chip is slower on single core so for gaming it will be less effective.
8 cores is great if your apps use them but the vast majority struggle to use four so the amd chips will be substantially slower in them applications, by as much as 1/3 or more.
even though its a new architecture design they are still a full generation behind in dye size. thus the need for more cores just to keep up. and with the new 3d tech on its way theres even less to be smiling about for amd.
lastly saying amd parts are cheaper no longer stands if them prices are to be believed and intel can always drop there prices if they need to...

+1

This translates to SB performing better on any apps that are 4 threads or less (and probably dead even at 6)

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Yet we still don't know clocks or how many cores that is, unless you can see past the white lines I see in that photo. Even if that is an 8 core, we don't know the clock it's at.

Correct. If it takes 50% more cores to beat SB, then each core is 50% less effective. As such, in software that doesn't scale past 4 cores, SB will still be faster.

And thats being optimistic; looking at those numbers, BD's IPC is outright atrocious. It still gets crushed by the i9 990x, and only barely beats the 2600k, despite having twice as many cores AND is running at a faster speed. Thus, anything that doesn't scale [90% of software] should thus run faster on SB.

Don't forget that BD loses some IPC per core when both cores in a module are active, so it won't be as bad in single thread applications.

Cinebench also shows the 990X in a good light since all 12 threads can be used and hyperthreading works wonders in it.

We still don't know what sort of clocks BD can reach...

http://wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/More-AMD-Bulldozer-Benchmarks-Surface-5.jpg

3Ghz - 3.8Ghz based on all of the Engineering samples I've seen of those particular models (6 and 8 Cores).

 

[The Greater Good]

http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/ww165/Back_at_the_Ranch/AMD Overlords/Spec/bulldozer.jpg

Each core within a module has its own scheduler and instruction cache. It's nothing like hyper-threading.

Here is John's blog on Flex FP. You may find it helpful in understanding the arch and how a processor handles instructions/commands.

I'm sorry you misunderstood. I never said "it is like hyperthreading"... I said it was AMD's answer TO hyperthreading. See the difference? Like =/= Answer to

Look at it like this- AMD's Bulldozer has 4 modules that contains 8 physical cores. Intel has 4 physical cores with 4 logical cores (a total of 8 with HT on). If you load Windows 7 and open task manager and look at performance you would see 8 threads for both the 2600k and the 4 module BD chip. So that means they both have 8 cores, right? 8 threads for both CPUs, means they have the same number of cores, according to task manager. So why not turn HT off on the 2600k and see what happens? Intel's cores are not like AMD. AMD is going to be using the term "module". You may find it helpful in understanding the difference between the two chips and their architectures. ;-)

FWIW, I own two Intel PCs and no AMD. What I care about is price vs. performance. If AMD can release a CPU that is faster than Intel at the same price, it's a win. If AMD can release a CPU that is almost as fast as Intel's but for less, it's a win. All-in-all, no matter what side you're on... you should welcome competition.