AMD ''Interlagos'' Bulldozer Benchmarks Leaked
An independent AMD server partner has leaked benchmarks of the upcoming Bulldozer-based Interlagos chip in a dual-GPU setting.
Various reports have indicated that benchmark results for AMD's Interlagos Bulldozer-based server processor in a dual-CPU setup have appeared online. The testing was done using Arch Linux on the Linux 2.3.67 kernel, the Phoronix Test Suite loaded on a 2 TB SATA drive, and 64 GB of DDR3 memory shoved in a dual-socket Supermicro H8DGU server motherboard. Each CPU packed 16 processing cores and a clock speed of 1.8 GHz.
The testing was supposedly submitted by an independent AMD server partner, listing the new 16-core Interlagos Opteron chip as "AMD Eng Sample ZS182045TGG43_28." This particular processor has been benchmarked before with SuSE Linux 11, Ubuntu 10.04, CentOS 5.4 and Arch Linux, but not in a dual-CPU setup as seen here.
Only a few select benchmarks from the suite were actually performed in this particular testing including C-Ray, Himeno, SciMark 2, Parallel BZIP2 Compression and the Stream memory tests. For starters, the system scored a C-Ray time of 25 seconds, showing to be quite faster than the Intel Core i5 2500K (quad-core + Hyper Threading; 3.3 GHz + 3.7 GHz Intel Turbo Boost) at 61 seconds or the Intel Core i7 970 (six cores + Hyper Threading; 3.2 GHz Base Frequency + 3.46 GHz Turbo Boost) at about 61 seconds.
The system didn't do quite as well in the Himeno test (which is explained to be a linear solver of pressure Poisson using a point-Jacobi method and is not too multi-thread friendly). According to OpenBenchmarking.org's testing, it scored just 88 MFLOPS due to its lower clock speed. The system did better in the Parallel BZIP2 Compression test (v1.0.5) however, packing a 256 MB file in 6.27 seconds (with a standard error of 0.10 and a standard deviation of 7.49-percent).
"There is also other result uploads from the 'AMD Eng Sample ZS182045TGG43_28' for SciMark 2 computations and Stream memory tests," the site claims. "More may also come, but these are just the results so far we have been able to verify as valid/authentic."
When it finally hits the market, AMD's Interlagos will come packed with 12 or 16 cores, a quad-channel memory controller, up to 16 MB of level 3 cache memory, and use the same motherboard socket (G34) as AMD's current Opteron 6000-series processors. Interlagos will also be built by Globalfoundaries using the 32-nm SOI technology.
AMD is expected to release its Bulldozer-based server chips by Q3 2011.

FAIL!?
i always had amd... might be time to change....!
If you dig through the pages a bit, they show that they did some testing on the 4x Xeon 6 Core CPUs, which does perform better (13.47sec vs 25.97sec)
This will still be interesting to see how it turns out though. Bulldozer might not be the end all CPU against Intel right now, but it might give a good run for the money I wager.
Probably the test doesn't scale all that well, if the cores are as powerful as Sandy Brige's then that means
the 4 3.7GHz Sandy Bridge cores = 8 Bulldozer cores at 1.8Ghz, throw in immature hardware, 12 cores.
Don't forget the Bulldozer's time of 21 seconds is only 34% of the SB.
We won't know until closer to release, this is just random data that may or may not be indicative.
Are you sure you aren't the one who's confused?... the 16 "core" interlagos is made up of 8 "modules", just as the desktop variants of Bulldozer referred to as 8 core processors have 4 modules. AMD has never equated the definition of a "core" with what it refers to as a "module". AMD refers to the single module version of Bulldozer as their dual core part. This is quite a bit different from any other x86 based design, and works in a very different way than Intel's hyperthreading.
And in any case, bison88 wasn't referring to bulldozer when he compared a 12-core AMD processor to a 4 core Intel. In comparison to Bulldozer, AMD's current definition of a core, is very similar to Intel's. Intel simply implements threading within it's cores, enabling each core to run two threads in parallel. So correct me if I misunderstood you, but at least from what I've read bison88 seems to have a better understanding of the term "core" then you do.
I think you are holding a few misconceptions as well, as it seems you're trying to compare one of Intel's core's to one of AMD's modules, and while the idea of enabling parallelism by having multiples is the same, the actual hardware and design of the new AMD modules is VERY different from what we've come to see as a core in Intel and previous AMD microprocessors in that the module is divided into "cores" that have different dedicated functions. Making these cores pairs in modules is an organizational necessity for the design of processor datapaths and parallelism. Intel's QuickSync module is a core in the same way with its dedicated function.
TL;DR The only point is that the definition of a core is getting convoluted and mixed up because of the advancements of the various processor designs of the competing companies.
I think you misread or miscount. dual SOCKET = 2 cpu
EACH amd cpu have 16 cores
=32 cores
70% "FASTER"(very approximate) is YOUR 34% of SB
Kevin, which C-Ray test are you referring to??
Ian.
umm... I'm a bit at a loss for words. I'm sorry if i didn't state it clearly, but this is exactly what I was trying to get at.
"I think you are holding a few misconceptions as well, as it seems you're trying to compare one of Intel's core's to one of AMD's modules"
No... I don't believe I was trying to do this anywhere... In the second paragraph I was contrasting AMD's Bulldozer definition of a core with Intel/AMD's current definition.
"the actual hardware and design of the new AMD modules is VERY different from what we've come to see as a core in Intel and previous AMD microprocessors"
... I did say, "This is quite a bit different from any other x86 based design, and works in a very different way than Intel's hyperthreading"...lol
All I'm trying to explain is that AMD's definition of a "core" in Bulldozer is different from current uses of the term, which isn't the same as its definition of a module. I think this was pretty much exactly the point you were trying to make, was it not?
SB can overclock, and very well (5 GHz on air, for example), remember. Also, don't forget SB-E is coming out Q3-Q4.
As said by others too, 1.8 is no indication of final speeds, either.
bulldozer architecture actually suits desktop application better then server with this regards whereby a single core can happily schedule two FPU operations in one cycle (especially if the apps can not utilize both cores of a module), moving away from interlargos to desktop bulldozer will yield faster speeds which would really compound the advantage of this setup, IMHO bulldozer was not a server architecture
Thats my question. Why are they comparing, and I quote:
A dual CPU setup to a single CPU setup?
And most of all its comparing 4 cores 8 threads (we all know SMT is nice but only gives around 20% performance boost) or 6 cores 12 threads to 32 real cores.
Talk about lop-sided.
As for clock speed, its no indication but AMD has always had lower clocked server parts for some reason. A ES sample tends to be the best of the pre final chips so it should be able to overclock better than final ones.
Still, comparing server chips to desktop CPUs. Thats just stupid.