# AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

Here are the first performance projections of the AMD FX-series processors. FX-series is the market name of the latest line of 8-core, 6-core, and 4-core processors by AMD, based on its new Bulldozer architecture. The performance projections come from AMD's internal presentations to its industry partners, which was leaked to sections of the media. 

In the performance projection, a compound bar graph, an AMD platform comprising of an 8-core FX series processor (unknown model, clock speed) with AMD Radeon HD 6670 discrete graphics, was pitted against its main competitor, Intel Core i7-2600K with its integrated Intel HD graphics. Perhaps AMD is suggesting that FX 8-core model used here along with a HD 6690 graphics card costs the same as a Core i7-2600K.



 




The tests used were synthetic, Futuremark PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage P (performance preset). In PCMark Vantage, the AMD FX processor is shown to have performed the same as the Core i7-2600K. In 3DMark Vantage, the AMD platform with its HD 6670 graphics card outperformed close to 4 times over the Intel platform. 

Interestingly, the AMD FX + HD 6670 platform appears to be just about 20% faster than a platform consisting of Phenom II X6 1100T and Radeon HD 6670, in both the tests. The other platforms in the graph include AMD's Llano A-Series APUs. They're slower than Intel's Core i3-2100 in PCMark Vantage, but faster in 3DMark Vantage. 

Overall, it appears that with AMD's new processor lineup, AMD will continue to rely on performance per Dollar, rather than pure processing performance, to be competitive with Intel. No doubt the performance and energy efficiency seems to have gone up, but Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture is faster at whatever today's processors are meant for (x86 processing).

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## W1zzard (May 4, 2011)

based on the first graph, the 8 core FX will be 23% faster than the phenom II 6 core, despite 25% more core count .. yawn much ?


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 4, 2011)

Hmmm... so you need 8 AMD cores to beat 4 Intel cores (although with a helping of hyperthreading).
Not good news for AMD, but it could be worse. Let's hope the FX is priced competitively, but I have a feeling the 2600K will be cheaper...


----------



## caleb (May 4, 2011)

That chart is really wierd.
i3 170%
i7 250%


----------



## R_1 (May 4, 2011)

Well, the newegg price of  Core i7-2600K is $314.99. So, 8-core FX-series have to be $315 and up in price. It is possible. Then I will buy Core i5-2600K straightaway.


----------



## Kytael (May 4, 2011)

remember that PC mark is also influenced by the hard drive and memory, etc. 25% more compute power doesn't mean a 25% higher score.


----------



## treehouse (May 4, 2011)




----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2011)

Based on the usual AMD inflation of the graph, the 8 core is going to be less powerful than the 2600K. Folks, don't wait for AMD, just go for Sandy Bridge.


----------



## Melvis (May 4, 2011)

One graph thats it???? Pfft im not buying it, ill wait until i see REAL benchmark results from Wizard himself or guru3D.

And for those who cant read it says projections, so thats not even 100%, its more of a "possible" or "guesstimate" So take this graph with a grain of salt.


----------



## wolf (May 4, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> based on the first graph, the 8 core FX will be 23% faster than the phenom II 6 core, despite 25% more core count .. yawn much ?



That's how it's looking for the time being, but hey, as long as they continue to offer great value for money they'll sell lots of chips.

makes me want to go sandy or ivy bridge in Q4 all the more.


----------



## treehouse (May 4, 2011)

i was waiting for bulldozer so i could finally have a chip which could make my crossfire cards work at full speed. looks like i might have to go intel for the first time in my life...


----------



## CDdude55 (May 4, 2011)

That's actually pretty disappointing if accurate. It's not mot much faster then the current Phenom II's and i doubt they'll beat Sandy Bridge in most tests/applications.

I'll wait for more reviews though. But really there isn't much of a reason for me to upgrade anyways, so i'll probably be content with my 1055T for a while longer.


----------



## b82rez (May 4, 2011)

Well, this sucks.


----------



## Imsochobo (May 4, 2011)

b82rez said:


> Well, this sucks.




Hold your breath two weeks more as details surface.
8 core doesnt mean more performance in 3dmark vantage, if they launch less cores with higher clocks, 8core
am3+ should not have graphics cores built in. meaning it should sport higher clocks.
this is prolly amd FX krisna projections, which then looks impressive.

Speculations so far, A series look good for laptops though, but if trend continues it'll be a sandy.
I need some serious performance improvement for the cpu part!


----------



## ivicagmc (May 4, 2011)

Is someone paying AMD engineers to make bad CPUs. Because that is my feeling. Wake up, Intel is way ahead and keeps going in architecture and technology. APUs are not everything, and where is that creativity and innovation from before????:shadedshu


----------



## jalex3 (May 4, 2011)

so long as the top of the line beats the 2600 and is a good overclocker im happy.  oh yeah and good price


----------



## Nesters (May 4, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> Is someone paying AMD engineers to make bad CPUs. Because that is my feeling. Wake up, Intel is way ahead and keeps going in architecture and technology. APUs are not everything, and where is that creativity and innovation from before????:shadedshu



Have you ever compared R&D budgets for both sides?
Actually with APU AMD is pushing in the right direction(balanced CPU and GPU performance for casual users - browsing, HD video playback, light gaming).
These high performance CPUs aren't mainstream market.


----------



## MrMilli (May 4, 2011)

Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.


----------



## Imsochobo (May 4, 2011)

MrMilli said:


> Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
> Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.



your describing intel's quad with HT, amd's "8core" is almost a 8 core, it's lacking just a few things to become a true 8 core.
I think It wont affect performance much, and I think AMD know what they're doing, but looks like the 8 core got a gpu built in too, in the performance projections... meaning those 8 core clock speeds cant be high, AM3+ doesnt support gpu so they should be able to run way faster....
I hope...


----------



## DaC (May 4, 2011)

This doesn't seems like an official AMD presentation at all...
Taking in account C-50 / E-350 performance, this chart is just b.....s.
But if it's not, I guess power consumption / price really must be AMD target now, which would be a right move in my oppinion, future proof, but a little too early... Truth be told, 90% of computers sold to people (not for research), probably will never requested the full processing power even of the i5-2500k for a loooooooooong time..... IMHO

As for gammers, well...... it won't take long until real high performance parts costs an arm and leg.....


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

MrMilli said:


> Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
> Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.



Sources? I dont think anyone knows for sure what the new buldozer architecture is made of.


----------



## MrMilli (May 4, 2011)

Imsochobo said:


> amd's "8core" is almost a 8 core



Each sub-core has dedicated Integer scheduler and execution units, and L1 D-cache. The Fetch/Decode, floating-point, L1 I-cache and L2 cache are shared by the complete core.

So i think you need to reconsider that statement.

This picture shows how much actually is shared:






This die shot gives a clear view on the 'modules':


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (May 4, 2011)

It seems AMD is now in charge of the fail train, and given a company inflates it's own numbers if this is truly official and a not a troll that doesn't bode well for AMD, for these to be competitive the 8 core would need to be in the $250 range to make the performance difference less of an issue when it's 50-70 dollars cheaper, than the 2600K.


----------



## mixa (May 4, 2011)

Wait and see the actual performance, you`ll be surprised.


----------



## ivicagmc (May 4, 2011)

Nesters said:


> Have you ever compared R&D budgets for both sides?
> Actually with APU AMD is pushing in the right direction(balanced CPU and GPU performance for casual users - browsing, HD video playback, light gaming).
> These high performance CPUs aren't mainstream market.



With even lower budget they manage to beat Intel before. Remember??? After that there was the first Phenom which we all so quickly forgotten with the good reason. What I wish to see is some great innovation, and they still lag behind Intel in architecture(I don't know how many years old K-architecture) and technology. Those APUs are a good thing but they are late, so like everything else that is late in technology they are not something spectacular. Bulldozer might be a good thing but it is late. Intel is preparing 22nm to come out and AMD is just starting with 32nm (mostly not by their own fault, but still). The best thing that AMD did is buying ATI and making some really good GPUs...


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> Sources? I dont think anyone knows for sure what the new buldozer architecture is made of.



Bulldozer *module* has:

*one *FETCH
*one* DECODE
*one* FPU
*two* Integer scheduler
*one* L2 Cache for module.
*one* L1 instruction cache

Same number of transistors with sandy 2600K

Yes , 8-core Bulldozer is *a true 4-core chip with excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology* !!! Not true 8-core !!

B*ulldozer architecture is very elastic* !! That is the power and secret for bulldozer ...  2x128bit FMAC or 1x256bit FMAC or 4x64bit !!!


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

Ok, but if it is such a excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology, why the low performance numbers and why does AMD call it a 8 core proc? Intel doesnt call the 2600K a 8 core.

Real cores for real men my ass then!


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> Ok, but if it is such a excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology, why the low performance numbers and why does AMD call it a 8 core proc? Intel doesnt call the 2600K a 8 core.
> 
> Real cores for real men my ass then!



1) Βecause* the extra logical core (HT) has CACHE* !!!!
2) Because has two integer scheduler !!

This chip will be very good in performance/per watt !!!


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> why does AMD call it a 8 core proc?



Marketing hype? I think AMD have said that they are going to market them as modules rather than cores.


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> This chip will be very good in performance/per watt !!!



We will see about that. But it better deliver, its about time.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> Ok, but if it is such a excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology, why the low performance numbers!



Νow you* have six cores in 1100t*. When you run a *single thread* application *one core run* and *the others sleeping*.

With bulldozer architecture* 2 X 128 FMAC are linked in 1x256bit fmac* in this application !! *Double performance with the same number of transistors* (double performance per watt) !!!! All this in clock to clock comparison but bulldozer* is 32nm architecture with higher clock at the same TDP* !  Pc mark  cannot show you the difference !!!

When you run* multi thread applications*  FPU can be* 4x64bit* for better performance !!
That is  elastic architecture !!!!!

Bulldozer has not IGP inside and must be more overclock-able than sandy. I think for the same reason this chip will have better default clocks than sandy in the same TPD ......... We learn in a month. 

You must wait for applications benches  and real benches!!!! That is a projection


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

Nice, thanks for the info. Now it will be even harder to wait and see the real world comparison against the 2600K.


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

MrMilli said:


> Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
> Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.



A module is not a core, and AMD doesn't call a 4-module chip a quad-core. They're for all intents and purposes marketed as eight-core. So yes, it takes 8 core AMD chips to compete with 4 core Sandy Bridge. CFC.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> Nice, thanks for the info. Now it will be even harder to wait and see the real world comparison against the 2600K.



For me , Ι5 2600Κ and four module bulldozer will have the same performance , but AMD will deliver us better platform !!

AM3+ platform will have many lanes for CROSSFIRE & *SLI !!!!*(both x16 pci-e), true native SATA III for all sata and will be more future proof ! That is the deference between 1155 & AM3+ .

For people how want IGP, there is *980G* chip in AM3+  with HD4250 or better IGP with sideport technology.


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Yes , 8-core Bulldozer is *a true 4-core chip with excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology* !!! Not true 8-core !!



Not according to AMD. It is an 8 core chip.


----------



## Melvis (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> . So yes, it takes 8 core AMD chips to compete with 4 core Sandy Bridge. CFC.



Which has HT that gives about 25% extra performance for each thread, so its more like a 6core.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> A module is not a core, and AMD doesn't call a 4-module chip a quad-core. They're for all intents and purposes marketed as eight-core. So yes, it takes 8 core AMD chips to compete with 4 core Sandy Bridge. CFC.



A module = two cores ???? No .....

There is no distinguishable deference between logical and physical cores in this season.

Υου don`t remain in words.  AMD speak for 8-cores and Intel for Hyper transport+ 4-cores ... So what ??


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Which has HT that gives about 25% extra performance for each thread, so its more like a 6core.



No, it does not. Intel does not call them 6-core chips.


----------



## Melvis (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> No, it does not. Intel does not call them 6-core chips.



Did i say it was a 6 core chip??? NO, i said it acts more like a 6 core since it has four HT cores does it not?


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> A module = two cores ???? No .....
> 
> There is no distinguishable deference between logical and physical cores in this season.



No, a module = [something the end user shouldn't care about]. 

The end user is shown core count, not thread count. The core count is 8.



Melvis said:


> i said it acts more like a 6 core since it has four HT cores does it not?



It acts like a 4-core chip with 8 threads. There's no way to show that it acts like a 6-core chip, since there is no 6-core Sandy Bridge chip.


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

it's better if they honestly said it was 4 core with unbelieveable compute power rather than just said it has "native" 8 cores..


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

8 core. No threads, no modules.


----------



## Melvis (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> It acts like a 4-core chip with 8 threads. There's no way to show that it acts like a 6-core chip, since there is no 6-core Sandy Bridge chip.



Yea there is because it does NOT give a 100% increase in performance for each extra thread, there for as stated by intel it will give you around 25% increase. So add that on top of the original 4cores you would get something like real 6 core performance.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> No, a module = [something the end user shouldn't care about].
> 
> The end user is shown core count, not thread count. The core count is 8.



Bulldozer module has:

*one FETCH
one DECODE
one FPU
two Integer scheduler
one L2 Cache for module.
one L1 instruction cache*

Same number of transistors with sandy 2600K

If a module has 2-core , it must have 

*two* FETCH
*two* DECODE
*two* FPU
*two* Integer scheduler
*two* L2 Cache for module.
*two* L1 instruction cache

AMD speak for 8-core because the logical core inmodule has & hardware structure = integer


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)




----------



## Nesters (May 4, 2011)

Well, it's 8-core processor but you can hardly call them REAL cores.
8 integer units doesn't mean they're real cores because the resources are shared between two of those.


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Bulldozer module has:
> 
> *one FETCH
> one DECODE
> ...



That argument doesn't fly. AMD doesn't refer to a module as a core, it maintains that "each module is a set of two cores", and its four module chips are marketed as 8 core. Not "4 module" or "4 core/8 thread".


----------



## naoan (May 4, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> it's better if they honestly said it was 4 core with unbelieveable compute power rather than just said it has "native" 8 cores..



nah, it would be easier to market higher core counts than "unbelievable compute power" to mass market.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> That argument doesn't fly. AMD doesn't refer to a module as a core, it maintains that "each module is a set of two cores", and its four module chips are marketed as 8 core. Not "4 module" or "4 core/8 thread".



I cant tell you why amd refer this chip as 8-core but if you see the architecture, you can understand me !

Marketing trick ? No. 
8-cores? No ! 
Something like 1,3 core per module (two integer)?  Yes!


----------



## Frick (May 4, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> With even lower budget they manage to beat Intel before. Remember???



Intel was kinda stagnated then so no suprise here. They're at a whole other level now.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2011)

At the end of the day, we need benchmarks. Also, the characteristic of the cores. I have no doubt that in heavily multithreaded environments (like video converting etc.), AMD's 8core/4module/whatever will be better than the 1155's 4c8t processors, I have no doubt about that. However, if we judge by gaming performance (where load in CPU is relatively light), Intel's architecture resoundingly beats AMD's. We might just see a reversal of position here, where budget gamers go for Intel (well, its happening now), and AMD takes the crown in multithreaded environment, at least until LGA2011.


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

naoan said:


> nah, it would be easier to market higher core counts than "unbelievable compute power" to mass market.



more cores is useless if it not fast enough than its competitor..


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> At the end of the day, we need benchmarks. Also, the characteristic of the cores. I have no doubt that in heavily multithreaded environments (like video converting etc.), AMD's 8core/4module/whatever will be better than the 1155's 4c8t processors, I have no doubt about that. However, if we judge by gaming performance (where load in CPU is relatively light), Intel's architecture resoundingly beats AMD's. We might just see a reversal of position here, where budget gamers go for Intel (well, its happening now), and AMD takes the crown in multithreaded environment, at least until LGA2011.



*Schindler's List background score*

Have you forgotten about LGA1366, and that 6c/12t Westmere LGA1366 chips are entering the $300-ish price range soon? Core i7 970 will be under $400 very soon.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> However, if we judge by gaming performance (where load in CPU is relatively light), Intel's architecture resoundingly beats AMD's. We might just see a reversal of position here, where budget gamers go for Intel (well, its happening now), and AMD takes the crown in multithreaded environment, at least until LGA2011.



 Τhis will depend from clocks and overclocking ability .
But when we buying a platform for games we want many lanes for true crossfire & sli . 1155 platform cant deliver that ..... Sandy-bridge  north-bridge has few lanes .


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Τhis will depend from clocks and overclocking ability .
> But when we buying a platform for games we want many lanes for true crossfire & sli . 1155 platform cant deliver that ..... Sandy-bridge  north-bridge has few lanes .



Its easier to add a chip for pci-ex lanes, than give more power to a processor that just cant deliver. Intel sandy bridge delivers, for even the best GPUs, AMD chips do not, atm.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> *Schindler's List background score*
> 
> Have you forgotten about LGA1366, and that 6c/12t Westmere LGA1366 chips are entering the $300-ish price range soon? Core i7 970 will be under $400 very soon.



1366 is dead socket !!! Who cares about this socket ......

Sandy beat Westmere.
I believe bulldozer beat westmere.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> Its easier to add a chip for pci-ex lanes, than give more power to a processor that just cant deliver. Intel sandy bridge delivers, for even the best GPUs, AMD chips do not, atm.



SANDY-BRIDGE has ΝΟRTHBRIDGE* inside the cpu chip* !!!!  They cant change that !!! For that reason 1155 platform is bad for multi gpu !


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> 1366 is dead socket !!! Who cares about this socket ......
> 
> Sandy beat Westmere.
> I believe bulldozer beat westmere.



No way is the bulldozer beating a 6c/12t Westmere chip. Are you dreaming?


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> SANDY-BRIDGE has ΝΟRTHBRIDGE* inside the cpu chip* !!!!  They cant change that !!!



Are you serious? You can add a NF200 chip on a motherboard!!!


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> *Schindler's List background score*
> 
> Have you forgotten about LGA1366, and that 6c/12t Westmere LGA1366 chips are entering the $300-ish price range soon? Core i7 970 will be under $400 very soon.



Newegg still have the i7 970 at $600, and I don't believe that they are going to knock $250 off that value in one swipe. Depending on where AMD wants to position the 8 core Bulldozer, we can either see a clear victory in multithreaded for AMD (if positioned against the 2600K), or a "meh" reaction if AMD decides to be cocky and go against the 6c/12t. At this point, the success of Bulldozer is going to be down to pricing, and that fight is firmly in AMD's turf.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> Are you serious? You can add a NF200 chip on a motherboard!!!



And how NF 200 chip connected in cpu north-bridge ? sandy north has only 16 οr 20 (i cant remember) lanes for gpu !!

How can CROSSFIRE with nf200?

If you run multi gpu each pci-e x16 will run at x8 !! 
In AM3 you have 36lanes for SLI & CROSSFIRE and you can run 2 cards in both x16 speed or three cards (2x16 & 1x8) or for cards with 4x8 lanes.


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Newegg still have the i7 970 at $600, and I don't believe that they are going to knock $250 off that value in one swipe.



They knocked off $300 in one swipe. Core i7-970 was $899 on launch.

Core i7-960 was $600 at one point, they knocked off $310 in one swipe, it's now $290.


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> And who NF 200 chip connected in cpu north-bridge ? sandy north has only 16 οr 20 (i cant remember) lanes for gpu !!
> 
> who can CROSSFIRE with nf200?
> 
> ...



Show me one test where the AMD platform(anyone till today) that can beat a sandy bridge platform in SLI with two GTX580. Sandy 2x 8lanes, amd 2x16? Lanes dont matther if dont have the power to feed them!


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> And who NF 200 chip connected in cpu north-bridge ? sandy north has only 16 οr 20 (i cant remember) lanes for gpu !!
> 
> who can CROSSFIRE with nf200?
> 
> ...



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-gaming-3-way-sli-three-card-crossfire,2910.html



btarunr said:


> They knocked off $300 in one swipe. Core i7-970 was $899 on launch. Core i7-960 was $600 at one point, they knocked off $310 in one swipe, it's now $290.



Completely forgotten about that  Lets hope Bulldozer will cause that reaction again, eh? The i7 960 is just a higher binned 930, but the 970 requires much more silicon, so I seriously doubt that we are going to see Intel taking another $300 off again in one go. Pure speculation at this point though.


----------



## legends84 (May 4, 2011)

well.. I just have to wait and see how bulldozer perform....


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

heky said:


> Show me one test where the AMD platform(anyone till today) that can beat a sandy bridge platform in SLI with two GTX580. Sandy 2x 8lanes, amd 2x16? Lanes dont matther if dont have the power to feed them!




We speaking for bulldozer, no for thuban or deneb! AM3 platform cant doing SLI  but only crossfire !! If you want to consider this to platform you can do it only with crossfire + ATI cards.

*AM3+ platform will be able to do.* 
http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-to-unlock-sli-for-amd-990-series-chipsets/11778.html

When you consider crossfire 2x16 & 2x8 you must do that with the same cpu !!  If bulldozer has the same performance with sandy you can see that !


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> They knocked off $300 in one swipe. Core i7-970 was $899 on launch.
> 
> Core i7-960 was $600 at one point, they knocked off $310 in one swipe, it's now $290.



yeah, all bloomfield's now priced under $300, except cheapest gulftown's still priced between $500-600


----------



## legends84 (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> We speaking for bulldozer, no for thuban or deneb! AM3 platform cant doing SLI  but only crossfire !! If you want to consider this to platform you can do it only with crossfire + ATI cards.
> 
> *AM3+ platform will be able to do.*
> http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-to-unlock-sli-for-amd-990-series-chipsets/11778.html
> ...



there are AMD AM3 mobo with nforce 980a that can be SLI I think


----------



## heky (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> We speaking for bulldozer, no for thuban or deneb! AM3 platform cant doing SLI  but only crossfire !! If you want to consider this to platform you can do it only with crossfire + ATI cards.
> 
> *AM3+ platform will be able to do.*
> http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-to-unlock-sli-for-amd-990-series-chipsets/11778.html
> ...



My point exactly. Intels 2x 8 lanes is still faster than AMDs 2x 16 lanes at crossfire, becouse the amd proc doesnt have the power to feed it and also becouse 8x pciex 2.0 is not a bottleneck for any known card.
Oh and btw, intels sandy bridge-E line will have pciex 3.0! 
I dont know, but it doesnt look that good for AMD!


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

legends84 said:


> there are AMD AM3 mobo with nforce 980a that can be SLI I think



no, AMD had just announced it for the first time a few days ago..


----------



## legends84 (May 4, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> no, AMD had just announced it for the first time a few days ago..



ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

legends84 said:


> there are AMD AM3 mobo with nforce 980a that can be SLI I think


Not with 2x16 & ddr3, i think 

In AM3+ platform  990 chipset will provide* full 16X+16X or 3X16 solution with no extra chips needed*.  No LATENCY with intermedially chips (NF200) . Native crossfire & native sli !


----------



## Nesters (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> They knocked off $300 in one swipe. Core i7-970 was $899 on launch.
> 
> Core i7-960 was $600 at one point, they knocked off $310 in one swipe, it's now $290.



That swipe won't happen again for 970, at least not that big, it just doesn't make sense if they're launching S2011 this year.
They can maximize profits by keeping prices at the level they're now (It could drop to ~$450 around the S2011 launch).


----------



## IceCreamBarr (May 4, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> based on the first graph, the 8 core FX will be 23% faster than the phenom II 6 core, despite 25% more core count .. yawn much ?



It's actually a 33% increase in core count.  These cores must be underclocked from the X6 otherwise AMD would be going backward with bulldozer.


----------



## legends84 (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Not with 2x16 & ddr3, i think
> 
> In AM3+ platform  990 chipset will provide* full 16X+16X solution with no extra chips needed*.  No LATENCY with intermedially chips (NF200) . Native crossfire & native sli !



ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...

MSI NF980-G65 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI HDMI ATX ...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 4, 2011)

Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?


----------



## legends84 (May 4, 2011)

I dont take the chart seriously until the bulldozer official release.. for now, sandy bridge is the king


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

legends84 said:


> ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...
> 
> MSI NF980-G65 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI HDMI ATX ...



Ok you have right ! Τhese mobos are not deliver in my country ..

I don`t have any review with sli 2x16 and thuban or deneb, but bulldozer is defferent. bulldozer not a thuban or deneb ......therefore ι cant see any meaning for this comparison!

I am sure that *native crossfire 2x16 *and *native sli 2x16 *are* better* than *crossfire 2x8 in 1155 platform and sli with nf200*...because *are natively (no latency) with full bandwidth* ! If bulldozer has the same performance as 2600k i think AM3+ will be much better for multi gpus


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?



If its AMD's then its inflated like always. If its some joker guesstimating, then this chart is completely useless. In other words, its useless either way.


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

legends84 said:


> ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...
> 
> MSI NF980-G65 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI HDMI ATX ...



maybe this time it will not use nforce chipset for north brigde, just put them directly into 990FX mobo without needing "extra" chip..


----------



## btarunr (May 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?



AMD's charts.


----------



## Googoo24 (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> AMD's charts.



So these "slides" are confirmed to be authentic?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> AMD's charts.



Are you sure man? They don't look like AMD charts to be honest. They usually use a black background and such. If they are real they are full of fail graphically and informatively.


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Are you sure man? They don't look like AMD charts to be honest. They usually use a black background and such. If they are real they are full of fail graphically and informatively.



i dont know, maybe this will help 







just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd..


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 4, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> i dont know, maybe this will help
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-01-24/177a.jpg
> 
> just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd..



Yeah that looks more like an AMD chart to me. The other one looked bogus.


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah that looks more like an AMD chart to me. The other one looked bogus.



maybe because its only show comparison on pcmark and 3dmark only, not on all real life application..

but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..


----------



## trickson (May 4, 2011)

LOL .

I think I will wait and see some real world performance , This is just how they pimped the last 4 years of CPU's to us ! When they hit the market and people got them in there hands they found them less than what was being reported to them from AMD I just laughed and laughed !


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

up to* 3,1Ghz default frequency + 1Ghz with cpu boost frequency* !! Very good news for over-clockers !! And that with the* first stepping* , first* 32nm chip* from AMD, first chip with *H-K metal gate *from AMD  !! Very good job !


----------



## trickson (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> http://pic2.178.com/64/641528/month_1104/f55bd9d9c7da7cef100db841dac11333.jpg
> 
> + 1Ghz with cpu boost frequency !! Very good news for over-clockers !!



That is on Engineering samples , Once they come out to us it is the luck of the draw .


----------



## Googoo24 (May 4, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..



Not forming an opinion until official benches hit.


----------



## alucasa (May 4, 2011)

Hmmm...
I hope Amd makes it this time..., but my doubts are becoming bigger...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 4, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> maybe because its only show comparison on pcmark and 3dmark only, not on all real life application..
> 
> but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..



I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the graph itself. Marketing teams are very picky about company appearance. The first charts are ether fake or AMD's marketing team is slacking as they are not consistent with any previous graph "feel".



trickson said:


> LOL .
> 
> I think I will wait and see some real world performance , This is just how they pimped the last 4 years of CPU's to us ! When they hit the market and people got them in there hands they found them less than what was being reported to them from AMD I just laughed and laughed !



Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 4, 2011)

Googoo24 said:


> Not forming an opinion until official benches hit.



maybe those "scorpious sheet" its not official, so it's okay. but a few people here had something to say as long as its not insulting.. 



TheMailMan78 said:


> I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the graph itself. Marketing teams are very picky about company appearance. The first charts are ether fake or AMD's marketing team *is slacking* as they are not consistent with any previous graph "feel".
> 
> Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?


----------



## legends84 (May 4, 2011)

hope the bulldozer can overclock well also like sandy bridge


----------



## trickson (May 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?



Not what I meant at all , But yes they all inflate there preliminary marks , This is a fact all of them do but some are more on point than others , AMD is ok but has been a tad off as of late , Still a good solid Chip-maker , I just do not trust the #'s not till people get them and run there own tests and benchmarks is all .


----------



## wahdangun (May 4, 2011)

WTF, what the hell all this core count nonsense, CORE COUNT IS NOT IMPORTANT, I don't care if amd use 1000 core to compete with intel 4 core,  take a look at gpu do you think amd is a sucker  because its 1553 core radeon hd 6970 compete with a 512 core g force gtx 580, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS PERFORMANCE/TDP/PRICE, different architecture use difference way, if bulldozer can compete in that 3 area then its a success for amd


----------



## devguy (May 4, 2011)

I'm curious why so many of you think the i7 2600k is a slow CPU?  It is one fast chip that I really respect, and to see AMD's Zambezi chip doing slightly better in PCMark, is to me a really good sign.  To be honest, my performance estimates put the Zambezi chips between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

A good question I'd like to see here, however, is where a quad/hex Zambezi chip would land on that chart.  As PCMark isn't the world's greatest program at taking advantage of additional cores, my guess is they wouldn't be far from where the 8core Zambezi is.  On the other hand, I envision an 8 core Zambezi destroying a 4 core Zambezi in things like video encoding.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (May 4, 2011)

A Core I7 2600K beats a Core i7 990X in PCMark Vantage:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,review-32126-4.html

This indicates the benchmark does not make very good use of more cores. Hence,the top end Bulldozer CPU is doing a good job if it is matching a Core i7 2600K.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (May 4, 2011)

AMD wants us to think their platform (CPU+GPU, chipset) better than Intel. That's what I believe the pics on the 1st post do. That's why it's 3Dmark vantage and pcmark vantage being shown.On the other hand, the CPU alone, I dont think it will do better than 2600K, especially in single threaded apps.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (May 4, 2011)

Even when you consider the 100MHZ increase in clockspeed and an extra 4 threads the Core i7 2600K is under 10% faster than a Core i5 2500K in PCMark Vantage:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Intel_i7_2600K_i5_2500K/8.html


----------



## claylomax (May 4, 2011)

legends84 said:


> ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...





rem82 said:


> Not with 2x16 & ddr3, i think
> 
> In AM3+ platform  990 chipset will provide* full 16X+16X or 3X16 solution with no extra chips needed*.  No LATENCY with intermedially chips (NF200) . Native crossfire & native sli !



Some members here at TPU have this mobo, including myself; it does 2x16 lanes and support DDR3. I get similar results to X58 SLI systems on 3DMARK Vantage and 11 on extreme settings, obviously not on the performance setting which is cpu demanding.  http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120367


----------



## legends84 (May 4, 2011)

claylomax said:


> Some members here at TPU have this mobo, including myself; it does 2x16 lanes and support DDR3. I get similar results to X58 SLI systems on 3DMARK Vantage and 11 on extreme settings, obviously not on the performance setting which is cpu demanding.  http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120367



claylomax.. i use to have this mobo bro.. but I changed it to Asus Crosshair 4 formula...


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

claylomax said:


> Some members here at TPU have this mobo, including myself; it does 2x16 lanes and support DDR3. I get similar results to X58 SLI systems on 3DMARK Vantage and 11 on extreme settings, obviously not on the performance setting which is cpu demanding.  http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120367



Unlock PHENOM II X2 555 !!!! 4,5Ghz  and northbridge freq. 3300Mhz ??? 
 what cooling system ??
Very very nice with budget cpu !



> In AM3+ platform 990 chipset will provide full 16X+16X or 3X16 solution with no extra chips needed. No LATENCY with intermedially chips (NF200) . Native crossfire & native sli !



I compare AM3+ with 1155  ! 

Nvidia does not make any AM3+ mobo & chip ...


----------



## Fourstaff (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> I compare AM3+ with 1155  !


Which is why AMD is so screwed because it will not be able to compete against the LGA2011 later this year. 


rem82 said:


> Nvidia does not make any AM3+ mobo & chip ...



With new deal, they don't need to, and they can focus on Tegra or whatever.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 4, 2011)

@charts

Hah!


----------



## claylomax (May 4, 2011)

legends84 said:


> claylomax.. i use to have this mobo bro.. but I changed it to Asus Crosshair 4 formula...



I copy your post to include the link, I feel lazy ...


----------



## claylomax (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Unlock PHENOM II X2 555 !!!! 4,5Ghz  and northbridge freq. 3300Mhz ???
> what cooling system ??
> Very very nice with budget cpu !
> 
> ...



Dumo probably used some kind of extreme cooling for that. Here's another link: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=249897  EDIT: he used single stage.


----------



## devguy (May 4, 2011)

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:


> Even when you consider the 100MHZ increase in clockspeed and an extra 4 threads the Core i7 2600K is under 10% faster than a Core i5 2500K in PCMark Vantage:
> 
> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Intel_i7_2600K_i5_2500K/8.html



Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at about PCMark.  Wait for other benches!

As for those who think the Bulldozer module is closer to hyperthreading than to two cores, think about what task the Interlagos processor (from which Zambezi is designed from) was designed for.  In the server space, Integer performance is more valuable than floating point performance, and while the module may only have one fetch/decode unit, it has two integer execution units.  Further, each has their own L1 Data cache, and the L2 cache is able to be dynamically divided amongst the cores in a module (even unfairly).  As such, for integer processing, it performs about as well as two cores without any components shared.

As for floating point, there may be only one FPU, but with each cycle, either core can operate on 256 bits of parallel data via two 128-bit instructions or one 256-bit instruction, OR each of the integer cores can execute 128-bit commands simultaneously.  This is actually an advantage over Sandy Bridge, as while Sandy Bridge may also support 256bit AVX instructions, should a program not be programmed to take advantage of those, it is limited to a single 128bit FPU.  Further, bear in mind that a 256bit FPU takes up a huge amount of die space, and so sharing it is an important way of saving chip real estate (put it towards the massive L3 cache these chips will have).

AMD "averages" their module design performance by saying that if both cores in a module are active, you'll get around 80% the throughput performance of having two separate cores without any shared resources, but at a significantly lower amount of power consumption.  On the other hand, looking at Intel's Hyperthreading, you're lucky to get more than 15% throughput increases on an out-of-order execution processor, but still with a noticeable increase in power consumption.  Hyperthreading is much more beneficial on in-order execution processors like the Atom or the Xbox 360s PowerPC CPU, as the pipeline is stalled significantly more often.

For Zambezi at the desktop, one also has to take into consideration how the power saving settings are in the OS (likely configurable by an Administrator).  Say a Bulldozer's cores are set up like this (grouped in twos):

12|34|56|78

One can choose from a maximum power saving profile, or a maximum performance profile.  Let's say we are executing a program that takes advantage of a quad core, and no additional cores (like many games).  If we're interested in maximum power saving, we'd see these cores activated:

12|34

On the other hand, if we're more interested in performance, we'd see this:

1|3|5|7

In the latter case, no resources would be shared (other than L3), and we'd have each individual core running with a full 2MB L2 cache and complete access to the FPU.  As most games don't take advantage of more than 4 cores, and because we are enthusiasts here, we'll probably select that option.  But others (especially mobile users) will likely opt for the first.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

> This is actually an advantage over Sandy Bridge, as while Sandy Bridge may also support 256bit AVX instructions, should a program not be programmed to take advantage of those,* it is limited to a single 128bit FPU*



I didnt knew that about sandy . Thanks 




> For Zambezi at the desktop, one also has to take into consideration how the power saving settings are in the OS (likely configurable by an Administrator). Say a Bulldozer's cores are set up like this (grouped in twos):
> 
> 12|34|56|78
> 
> ...



Can we program that or Windows doing accidentally ? Ιf windows change that  in application (plan a, plan b), did we have delay ?


----------



## devguy (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Can we program that or Windows doing accidentally ?



It will likely be a windows power setting, or some AMD driver one has to install.  As for 



> 12|34 (each with 1mb l2 cache)



I never said that.  The L2 cache is dynamically allocated to a core depending on its needs at the time.  If it only needs 512k, then it'll be split .5MB/1.5MB.  If it needs more, it'll request more, and either be denied or approved.  Really cool, huh?


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (May 4, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> i dont know, maybe this will help
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-01-24/177a.jpg
> 
> just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd..



This chart is a load of shiste, they compare the x6 to a 950, which is socket 1366, then in the feature comparison compare it to a socket 1156 which is a truelly  dead socket, AMD can't even inflate it's own numbers without failing.


----------



## rem82 (May 4, 2011)

devguy said:


> I never said that.  The L2 cache is dynamically allocated to a core depending on its needs at the time.  If it only needs 512k, then it'll be split .5MB/1.5MB.  If it needs more, it'll request more, and either be denied or approved.  Really cool, huh?



Yes I understand is dynamically.  But if windows change from plan A to plan B  in application, ,because cores want bigger cache, did we have delay ?

Plan A (12l34)

Plan B (1l3l5l7)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> This chart is a load of shiste, they compare the x6 to a 950, which is socket 1366, then in the feature comparison compare it to a socket 1156 which is a truelly  dead socket, AMD can't even inflate it's own numbers without failing.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (May 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qgggS33Ab...f6g/s1600/1262147-haters_gonna_hate_super.jpg



Did I catch a nerv?

The reality is this I personally believe the chart is a well done troll rather than a leaked internal presentation slide, I personally want AMD to succeed so we can get a price war going, but it's hard to believe that AMD has to power to change their tune and go from the red headed step child to the favorite son (see what I did there). On the other hand I kinda want to see AMD fail so all the fanboy trolls can cry and be butt hurt, but cheaper chips trumps the pleasure of fanboy tears.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Did I catch a nerv?
> 
> The reality is this I personally believe the chart is a well done troll rather than a leaked internal presentation slide, I personally want AMD to succeed so we can get a price war going, but it's hard to believe that AMD has to power to change their tune and go from the red headed step child to the favorite son (see what I did there). On the other hand I kinda want to see AMD fail so all the fanboy trolls can cry and be butt hurt, but cheaper chips trumps the pleasure of fanboy tears.



Whatever you gotta tell yourself.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (May 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Whatever you gotta tell yourself.




Awwww QQ ?






Just for you


----------



## devguy (May 4, 2011)

rem82 said:


> Yes I understand is dynamically.  But if windows change from plan A to plan B  in application, ,because cores want bigger cache, did we have delay ?
> 
> Plan A (12l34)
> 
> Plan B (1l3l5l7)



I haven't been told those kinds of specifics yet.  I doubt Windows itself would just change power plans without manual intervention, so I don't see that happening.  As for delays when changing cache size, there might be a couple special AMD instructions that execute to do that, but I doubt it'd be more than that.  No human noticeable delay...

I also have little idea how the module determines how much L2 to allocate per core.  If I had to guess, I'd say something like how a mutable array (like an ArrayList) manages it's back bone array data structure, where if it gets full past a certain threshold, then it requests more.  Alternatively, if it is empty past a threshold, it reorganizes, and frees space.  Just a guess.


----------



## mechtech (May 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Awwww QQ ?
> 
> http://forums.bit-tech.net/picture.php?albumid=25&pictureid=10670
> 
> Just for you




That your GF?????


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (May 4, 2011)

mechtech said:


> That your GF?????



Nope it's a self portrait . . . see you can clearly see the camera in my hand . . .


----------



## Jonap_1st (May 5, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> This chart is a load of shiste, they compare the x6 to a 950, which is socket 1366, then in the feature comparison compare it to a socket 1156 which is a truelly  dead socket, AMD can't even inflate it's own numbers without failing.



so did i believe the graph? no.. i'm just showing for what TPU had posted before.

like everybody said, i'll wait for the *real* benchs..


----------



## 20mmrain (May 5, 2011)

If I understand this right the 8 core Bulldozer is on par with the 4 core 2600k. The only reason the P score is higher is it was tested with the 6670 GPU? Or am I reading this wrong.... valid question not trying to guess I really think I am reading this wrong? Or am I ???


----------



## Imsochobo (May 5, 2011)

20mmrain said:


> If I understand this right the 8 core Bulldozer is on par with the 4 core 2600k. The only reason the P score is higher is it was tested with the 6670 GPU? Or am I reading this wrong.... valid question not trying to guess I really think I am reading this wrong? Or am I ???



what i'm guessing it is for krisna which will have 8 "bulldozer cores" and 6670 or something like that.
But I have no clue if that's how it is or not, if its a non apu bulldozer with dedicated graphics then its bye bye amd...
But I sincerely hope not.


----------



## mybestfriendskip (May 6, 2011)

20mmrain said:


> If I understand this right the 8 core Bulldozer is on par with the 4 core 2600k. The only reason the P score is higher is it was tested with the 6670 GPU? Or am I reading this wrong.... valid question not trying to guess I really think I am reading this wrong? Or am I ???



You are not reading it wrong. It takes AMD 8 cores to be equal to Intel's 4 - something AMD should be embarrassed of publishing.

The 6670 GPU is part of AMD's Vision/Fusion APU where the CPU and GPU are integrated like with Intel's HD graphics. 

AMD's graphics are obviously going to be stronger than Intel's HD graphics so therefore AMD's the P score is higher.

As far as value goes, AMD wins if the 8 core pricing is right because the CPU is on par with the 2600k but the graphics is MUCH better - so a better value over Intel's offering....especially if the 6670 GPU is better than what GPU the customer currently has in his/her machine.

As far as CPU power, AMD inappropriately chose "bulldozer" as their codename...I believe it's clear who has the bulldozer. lol

BL


----------



## Nesters (May 6, 2011)

mybestfriendskip said:


> something AMD should be embarrassed of publishing



Why actually? If die size is around the same, overall chip performance is what really matters. Sure anyone could want to see AMD beating Intel clock-per-clock but if they can find different approach to fight against Intel and maybe even succeed in the long run - that's their choise.


----------



## filip007 (May 7, 2011)

This new AMD CPU is complex that's for sure, how it will handle that's unknown, it's a bit harder for AMD if nobody supports AMD, it's still in Intel shadow one way or another.

AMD is going for the future here, home system don't need 8 cores or 6 because it's not so far supported like professional software is, sure some exceptions are there but still, that's workload for massive streams of data it's not about the same as high GHz does it, so this CPU will be just ok if proper prised but still if it's FX than i don't know for what it will be than. 

Winrar supports max 4 cores "developer info", the rest is just HT bumping the data so AMD will go fast in Winrar that's for sure.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (May 7, 2011)

mybestfriendskip said:


> You are not reading it wrong. It takes AMD 8 cores to be equal to Intel's 4 - something AMD should be embarrassed of publishing.



This is a _supposed_ leak so we cannot say for sure if it is real.

Anyway,the Core i7 990X is SLOWER than a Core i7 2600K in PCMark Vantage.

Looks at this article:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,review-32126-4.html







A 3.46GHZ six core Core i7 990X is around 20% faster than a 3.2GHZ Core i7 960 in PCMark Vantage. The Core i7 990X is 8% higher clocked than the Core i7 960 meaning that the additional two cores are adding 12% to the score and on top of this the Core i7 2600K is still faster.

PCMark Vantage does not scale well beyond 4 cores.


----------



## filip007 (May 8, 2011)

If this is true than AMD will bring 12 core that will have 6 core running on HT, that's not to bad does it, if they sell 6 shooter now, but again to little to late.

You can't have low power on 8 core and 4GHz that's true also, that escaped 8 core Xeon just have 1.6GHz that's like P4 gen.


----------



## Super XP (May 17, 2011)

> Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture is faster at whatever today's processors are meant for (x86 processing).


Bulldozer not out yet, so no proof of real world performance. 
This will be quite interesting.


----------



## rem82 (May 20, 2011)




----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 20, 2011)

for what is probably a bull projection, it amuses me that so many intel fanboys are on this thread shouting the joys of sandybridge, how do you become so company obssesed, i dont care who makes my bits so long as their good value for money and an 8 core(logical) bulldozer is deffinately compareable to an 8core(again logical) SB 2600k they have the same imaginary amount of cores.

id wager a guess that the initial bulldozers are going to be superceded very quickly ie before 2012 by the later enhanced edditions anyway which being rev 2 will be much better again so il probably be using my q6600 till xmass

and im no fanboy but i will not tollerate intels now yearly if not 6 monthly socket swapping at all rgardless of how good a particular design of chip is (SB does look to be good except for pciex lanes)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 20, 2011)

I cant wait until Bta gets the real numbers on the FX so we stop hounding him.  I bet he will do this dance here.....

[yt]lBZySWk6Qz8&feature[/yt]


----------



## CDdude55 (May 20, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> for what is probably a bull projection, it amuses me that so many intel fanboys are on this thread shouting the joys of sandybridge, how do you become so company obssesed, i dont care who makes my bits so long as their good value for money and an 8 core(logical) bulldozer is deffinately compareable to an 8core(again logical) SB 2600k they have the same imaginary amount of cores.
> 
> id wager a guess that the initial bulldozers are going to be superceded very quickly ie before 2012 by the later enhanced edditions anyway which being rev 2 will be much better again so il probably be using my q6600 till xmass
> 
> and im no fanboy but i will not tollerate intels now yearly if not 6 monthly socket swapping at all rgardless of how good a particular design of chip is (SB does look to be good except for pciex lanes)



Well, Sandy Bridge is an amazing performing platform, it's tough not to give them credit. I do dislike the socket changes they do all the time, but considering Intel keeps beefing up their chips and exceeding exceptions most of time, it's not really much of a hassle from that perspective. I actually moved away from i7/X58 over to Phenom II 1055t/880g because the i7's were to beastly for what i needed.


----------



## rem82 (May 22, 2011)

*Prices for Bulldozer 8-core, 6-core, 4-core*


----------



## Melvis (May 22, 2011)

rem82 said:


> *Prices for Bulldozer 8-core, 6-core, 4-core*



http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146104


----------

