# AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface



## btarunr (Jul 11, 2011)

Here is a tasty scoop of benchmark results purported to be those of the AMD FX-8130P, the next high-end processor from the green team. The FX-8130P was paired with Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 motherboard and 4 GB of dual-channel Kingston HyperX DDR3-2000 MHz memory running at DDR3-1866 MHz. A GeForce GTX 580 handled the graphics department. The chip was clocked at 3.20 GHz (16 x 200 MHz). Testing began with benchmarks that aren't very multi-core intensive, such as Super Pi 1M, where the chip clocked in at 19.5 seconds; AIDA64 Cache and Memory benchmark, where L1 cache seems to be extremely fast, while L2, L3, and memory performance is a slight improvement over the last generation of Phenom II processors. 



 

 

 




Moving on to multi-threaded tests, Fritz Chess yielded a speed-up of over 29.5X over the set standard, with 14,197 kilonodes per second. x264 benchmark encoded first pass at roughly 136 fps, with roughly 45 fps in the second pass. The system scored 3045 points in PCMark7, and P6265 in 3DMark11 (performance preset). The results show that this chip will be highly competitive with Intel's LGA1155 Sandy Bridge quad-core chips, but as usual, we ask you to take the data with a pinch of salt. 



 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 11, 2011)

Benchmarks are pointless if you can't compare the score to anything...


----------



## entropy13 (Jul 11, 2011)

It's still nothing new that AMD's high-end "will be highly competitive" with Intel's mainstream chips...


----------



## Melvis (Jul 11, 2011)

Old seen it before, and another ES?? FFS


----------



## reverze (Jul 11, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> It's still nothing new that AMD's high-end "will be highly competitive" with Intel's mainstream chips...



if we talk about performance then they will have no problem competing with "mainstream" CPUs like your i7 2600 at a better price/quality


----------



## entropy13 (Jul 11, 2011)

reverze said:


> if we talk about performance then they will have no problem competing with "mainstream" CPUs like your i7 2600 at a better price/quality



Except they aren't AMD's "mainstream" CPUs.


----------



## arnoo1 (Jul 11, 2011)

Lol in Super pi is my q9550 on stock still faster 9sec orso not 19s xd fail


----------



## reverze (Jul 11, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Except they aren't AMD's "mainstream" CPUs.



i didnt know mainstream hardware depended on brand now  whatever label you throw at it, amd can compete with sandy bridge and bring a more competetive price, like it or not.


----------



## DarkOCean (Jul 11, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Except they aren't AMD's "mainstream" CPUs.



From the price perspective they are.


----------



## Oblivion-330 (Jul 11, 2011)

arnoo1 said:


> Lol in Super pi is my q9550 on stock still faster 9sec orso not 19s xd fail



Lol... 


Anyway, check out that TDP! 186W is that for real or just listed since its an es chip?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 11, 2011)

How can it bring a more competitive price? Unless they decide to make the FX-8130P $250 or less the prices are exactly the same for AM3+ and 1155.


----------



## jpierce55 (Jul 11, 2011)

Oblivion-330 said:


> Lol...
> 
> 
> Anyway, check out that TDP! 186W is that for real or just listed since its an es chip?



I would guess the fact this processor is not officially supported caused an error. I believe AMD already releases a power consumption chart once, or maybe it was a fake listed someplace.

If it is dead on with SB and an equal price or less it is really all the more people should have expected.


----------



## blibba (Jul 11, 2011)

arnoo1 said:


> Lol in Super pi is my q9550 on stock still faster 9sec orso not 19s xd fail



I see what you're saying, and it's a good point, but there's no need to back it up with gratuitous exaggeration or plain BS. Q9550s take just over 10 seconds to complete SuperPi 1M at 4.6GHZ, which is a huge overclock.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in

3.2GHz Zambezi 8130P ES vs 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge-P1 i7 2600K

Zambezi wins

Fudzilla offers us a comparison to the i7 2600K



> ....it pulls ahead in other tests. For example, in x264 encoding tests, Zambezi ES scores 136fps in the first pass and 45fps in the second pass, whereas the Core i7 2600K manages 100fps and 36fps respectively.
> 
> The Zambezi ES manages to stay ahead in 3Dmark 11 tests as well. It scores P6250, while the 2600K hovers around the 6000 mark. In Cinebench R10 AMD’s new flagship pulls off a score of 24434 and outpaces the 2600K, ....


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 11, 2011)

reverze said:


> i didnt know mainstream hardware depended on brand now  whatever label you throw at it, *amd can compete with sandy bridge and bring a more competetive price, like it or not.*



I don't think so. Everything is rumor until now, but based on the wafer shot leaked, BD is around 50% bigger than SB. Considering that, Intel will always win a price war. Internal manufacturing instead of outsourcing (even if it's GF) means slightly better prices too.

In reality, in order to be competitive BD should be anything from 25% to 50% faster than SB so as to differentiate from SB or Intel can always lower the price. And of course once SB-E and Ivy launch is game over once again. Insert coin.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Jul 11, 2011)

If the price and performance is on par with 1-7 2600K, then we'll see an interesting battle between Intel and AMD.

And I'm not talking about who has the fastest cpu. Because I believe that is reserved for LGA2011, and I'm still not sure AMD can catch up with that.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Well, let's see.  I have a Phenom II X4 955 at 4GHz.  Let's play with the chess benchmark's numbers for a moment.

The Bulldozer was 29.58 times as fast as a Pentium III 1GHz.
My Phenom II is 19.52 times as fast.

29.58/8 = 3.6975 @ 3.2GHz
19.52/4 = 4.88 @ 4GHz, or 4.88*3.2/4 = 3.904 (theoretical) if I was running at the same  3.2GHz clock.

9370 kilonodes per second on my Phenom, BTW.

So at least on this example, Bulldozer @ 3.2GHz is slower than Phenom II @ 3.2GHz per core.  

Anybody with a Sandy Bridge setup want to run the benchmark?  I ran it over LogMeIn from work and it took all of a minute, tops.  Phenom II gets clobbered pretty regularly by Sandy Bridge.  I have to think an i7 2600K would clobber both of these results on a per-core basis, though my guess is the extra 4 cores for Bulldozer will give it an edge overall.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Well, let's see.  I have a Phenom II X4 955 at 4GHz.  Let's play with the chess benchmark's numbers for a moment.
> 
> The Bulldozer was 29.58 times as fast as a Pentium III 1GHz.
> My Phenom II is 19.52 times as fast.
> ...



Does the chess bench uses all 8 cores? Are you sure? Maybe it uses 6 or 4. I would take those possibilities too just in case.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 11, 2011)

Thefumigator said:


> Does the chess bench uses all 8 cores? Are you sure? Maybe it uses 6 or 4. I would take those possibilities too just in case.



http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-07-11/43d.jpg

Logical processors found: 8

Used: 8


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Thefumigator said:


> Does the chess bench uses all 8 cores? Are you sure? Maybe it uses 6 or 4. I would take those possibilities too just in case.



It's right in the screenshot saying it's using 8.  I'm sure it's very easy to do in parallel since each thread shouldn't depend on results from any other thread.  Though I suppose without a screenshot of task manager you can't be absolutely sure.  All the same, my 4 cores were all maxed out at 100% each.

edit: I do enough that can use multiple cores that I'll still upgrade to BD and try overclocking right around release.  I already replaced my K9A2-CF (DDR2 board) with an M5A97 EVO based entirely on TechPowerUp's review of the board.  I'm in this for the long haul.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 11, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I don't think so. Everything is rumor until now, but based on the wafer shot leaked, BD is around 50% bigger than SB.



You know that statement is pure fud right ?


----------



## Octavean (Jul 11, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> How can it bring a more competitive price? Unless they decide to make the FX-8130P $250 or less the prices are exactly the same for AM3+ and 1155.



Quite right,…..

The leaked AMD pricing seemed to suggest that the AMD Bulldozer FX 8130P (unlocked high-end) was expected to compete with the Core i7 2600k given its price equivalent (not undercut but equivalent).  

Matching performance and price of a competitor is no small feat I’m sure but Bulldozer is somewhat late to the party and not cheaper.  Intel managed to mangle Sandy bridge P67 chipset launch, recover from it and even launch a second chipset (Z68) all before AMD could come to market with Bulldozer. 

Also keep in mind that Intel can simply drop prices on the current Sandy Bridge LGA1155 Core i7 2600k and launch a faster Core i7 (2700k !?!) at the same ~$320 price point thus marginalizing Bulldozers planned launch price / performance ratio.  

I’m starting to think Intel delayed Sandy Bridge-E because they don’t want to compete with themselves at that performance level. After all Sandy Bridge-E would have to be significantly faster to justify its existence and Sandy Bridge-E CPU prices would start at ~about $300.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-07-11/43d.jpg
> 
> Logical processors found: 8
> 
> Used: 8



Uhmmm. I still not sure on this one, could be that bulldozer looses in _multicore efficiency_ rather than loosing clock for clock in core vs core comparison against a Phenom 2.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 11, 2011)

I’d say that a 990FX mobo’s and FX-8130P together will be a much more competitive price package for the gaming enthusiast particularly once OC'd.  Given AMD has had a price to performance lead in gaming against Intel up till now, I see Bulldozer as really becoming the preeminent platform for gaming.  Especially considering the long term socket compatibility of AM3+, them coupled with Southern Islands, AMD has positioned it's self nicely.


----------



## Octavean (Jul 11, 2011)

Double post


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> I’d say that a 990FX mobo’s and FX-8130P together will be a much more competitive price package for the gaming enthusiast particularly once OC'd.  Given AMD has had a price to performance lead in gaming against Intel up till now, I see *Bulldozer* as really becoming the preeminent platform for gaming.  Especially considering the long term socket compatibility of AM3+, them coupled with Southern Islands, AMD has positioned it's self nicely.



Zambezi*

and for those saying Zambezi has weak core to core performance

It's a B1 Engineer Sample

Engineer Samples are to test functionality 

B1 Engineer Sample =/= "B2" Consumer/Reviewer Sample
In performance

The scores will indeed go up from now to then when it releases


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> I’d say that a 990FX mobo’s and FX-8130P together will be a much more competitive price package for the gaming enthusiast particularly once OC'd.  Given AMD has had a price to performance lead in gaming against Intel up till now, I see Bulldozer as really becoming the preeminent platform for gaming.  Especially considering the long term socket compatibility of AM3+, them coupled with Southern Islands, AMD has positioned it's self nicely.



How do you figure? Preliminary pricing has the 8 core BD at 330 dollars and the 990FX boards are priced around the same as P67 boards. 

As for overclocking. Sandy Bridge processors are 95W TDP's, BD 8 core is 140W. Which do you think is going to have an easier time overclocking?



seronx said:


> Zambezi*
> 
> and for those saying Bulldozer has weak core to core performance
> 
> ...



By 1% to 2% ser. There will be no miracle 10% gains.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> Zambezi*
> 
> and for those saying Bulldozer has weak core to core performance
> 
> ...



Yeah it looks really good for an ES.
I personally blame the core to core performance "weakness" to the fact that in the test all 8 cores were used to the max, while a core to core performance should be tested using a single threaded application. 

Maybe there's a memory bottleneck as they might be using slower DDR3, or the E. sample is configured for memory compatibility mode or something that degrades performance like that.

For those speculating about price, the chip being 32nm will make the price competitive and still be redituable for AMD. 

Things look pretty good if those figures are for real.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

Thefumigator said:


> Maybe there's a memory bottleneck as they might be using slower DDR3



They tested using DDR3 1866 so there's no bottleneck. Amd has always had shitty memory bandwidth


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

AMD certainly has a price advantage in motherboard costs. A 990X motherboard has the same 8+8 config for Crossfire/SLI that the P67 does, and AMD boards have better features than P67 boards at the same price point.  And if you're not doing Crossfire/SLI you can certainly step down to a 970 board like I did and get one packed to the gills with 6x SATA III and 4x USB3 ports for $120.  As for the CPU, AMD's quads are "fast enough" for games, but in sheer gaming performance AMD kind of universally loses to Intel.  A $130 965 BE + (your favorite dedicated video card) loses to an i3 2105 + (same video card) in games most of the time.  

A "fast enough" AMD CPU + mobo with nice amenities is roughly $250.
A "fast enough" Intel CPU + mobo with nice amenities is closer to $300.  

In total system cost (if you're pairing it up with a $100 case, $80 PSU, $200 GPU, and $60 for 8GB of RAM) $50 isn't all THAT much.  It's actually in non-gaming applications that AMD gets a performance lead with highly-threaded apps.  Audio/video production, for example.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 11, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> I’d say that a 990FX mobo’s and FX-8130P together will be a much more competitive price package for the gaming enthusiast particularly once OC'd.  Given AMD has had a price to performance lead in gaming against Intel up till now, I see Bulldozer as really becoming the preeminent platform for gaming.  Especially considering the long term socket compatibility of AM3+, them coupled with Southern Islands, AMD has positioned it's self nicely.



With the cpu prices most likely being the same and the boards being out now we can get a pretty good idea that that's not accurate. At the cheap end ($120) the boards are comparative. At the premium side ($200) the boards are also comparable. The only part where they differ is the flagships are cheaper on AM3+. And I have no idea what you mean by "particularly once OC'd". The best bulldozer can do is match SB in overclocking. It'd be a bit absurd to expect BD to overclock better than SB. Lastly, AMD has only had a price/performance lead in gaming with Intel in the sub $100 category, and only because Intel is still relying on 775 for that price segment. AMD gaming performance is rather atrocious across the board compared to modern Intel platforms. They have to be dirt cheap to even match Intel in price/performance.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

I gotta tell you guys, if you think per-core/per-clock performance for commercial CPUs is going to be significantly faster than that of engineering samples, you don't understand what an ES is for.  The whole point of an ES is to ensure that the architecture is performing as expected.  

OTOH, I'm very hopeful that default clocks are higher than 3.2GHz.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

The aida64 cache and memory benchmark are a disaster compared to Sandy Bridge, but again that might change,


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 11, 2011)

Another fake posting. I thought all this crap was over with. I'm starting to just scroll past these useless threads. I just wish amd will release something solid for numbers already.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> I gotta tell you guys, if you think per-core/per-clock performance for commercial CPUs is going to be significantly faster than that of engineering samples, you don't understand what an ES is for.  The whole point of an ES is to ensure that the architecture is performing as expected.
> 
> OTOH, I'm very hopeful that default clocks are higher than 3.2GHz.



I could have sworn the top of the line 8 core was going to be clocked at 3.8ghz


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

Thefumigator said:


> Yeah it looks really good for an ES.
> I personally blame the core to core performance "weakness" to the fact that in the test all 8 cores were used to the max, while a core to core performance should be tested using a single threaded application.



Core to Core performance is slightly weaker because of the new way the each core talks to each other in newer applications you'll see higher core to core performance



Thefumigator said:


> Maybe there's a memory bottleneck as they might be using slower DDR3, or the E. sample is configured for memory compatibility mode or something that degrades performance like that.



L2 and L3 are the bottlenecks and those are getting fixed by B2



Thefumigator said:


> For those speculating about price, the chip being 32nm will make the price competitive and still be redituable for AMD.



$320~ish



Thefumigator said:


> Things look pretty good if those figures are for real.



They are for real



Pestilence said:


> By 1% to 2% ser. There will be no miracle 10% gains.



10 to 30% actually



Pestilence said:


> They tested using DDR3 1866 so there's no bottleneck. Amd has always had shitty memory bandwidth



False, AMD has the fastest memory bandwidth



fullinfusion said:


> Another fake posting. I thought all this crap was over with. I'm starting to just scroll past these useless threads. I just wish amd will release something solid for numbers already.



Not fake, just unofficial



Crap Daddy said:


> The aida64 cache and memory benchmark are a disaster compared to Sandy Bridge, but again that might change,



Memory was fine they fixed the IMC but they might tweak it

L2 and L3 were below-par what they were expecting



Pestilence said:


> I could have sworn the top of the line 8 core was going to be clocked at 3.8ghz



FX-8130P 3.8GHz
FX-8110 3.6GHz


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

See, that's what I thought, too.  3.8GHz plus turbo is what I had *thought* i'd seen published in rumor/articles as well.  That'd be totally bitchin'.  Using the bizarre math that Apple used with the G5 quad was released (4x2.5GHz = 10GHz monster!!!11), we're looking at 30.4GHz of "CPU power".  That's a retarded metric.

Regardless, 3.8GHz Bulldozer would be good news.  Hell, I'd still OC the crap out of a 3.2GHz Zambezi and be happy.



			
				seronx said:
			
		

> L2 and L3 are the bottlenecks and those are getting fixed by B2


Link?  Also, the cache bandwidth tests already look pretty reasonable.



			
				seronx said:
			
		

> False AMD has the fastest memory bandwidth



That's just...not true...based on every published review.  For example: here


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> They tested using DDR3 1866 so there's no bottleneck. Amd has always had shitty memory bandwidth



Maybe 8 cores are too much for DDR3 1866. Even in a dual channel config.... again, maybe...


----------



## repman244 (Jul 11, 2011)

Meh I still don't trust in these "leaks", need to wait for the real deal.




Pestilence said:


> As for overclocking. Sandy Bridge processors are 95W TDP's, BD 8 core is 140W. Which do you think is going to have an easier time overclocking?



IF the leaked lineup from some time ago is correct FX-8130P 3.2GHz is a 125W chip, FX-8110 95W, I don't know where you got the 140W from.



And people that are comparing core for core, I don't think that's a valid comparison, since the "cores" in the modules aren't very similar to the real cores that we know (and AFAIK BD "core" has less transistors than Phenom II core).


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 11, 2011)

AMD's were never superior in SuperPI so why brag about that?


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

repman244 said:


> And people that are comparing core for core, I don't think that's a valid comparison, since the "cores" in the modules aren't very similar to the real cores that we know (and AFAIK BD "core" has less transistors than Phenom II core).


While this is true, they need to be prepared for such comparisons since they've been "advertising" it (so to speak, when they discuss architecture) as 8 cores.

edit: they need to be honest and talk about it to the public as a 4-core with an enhanced form of SMT - there's more hardware duplication than HyperThreading, but it's not 8 full-blown CPU cores.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Link?  Also, the cache bandwidth tests already look pretty reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> That's just...not true...based on every published review.  For example: here



No, link you got to a trust a dude who has read up on Zambezi/Tech Specs for 7 months

Memory Bandwidth is higher and Latency is lower on AMD Chips always over Intel

AMD doesn't have a prefetcher/predictor

Zambezi does but how it works I don't know



DeerSteak said:


> While this is true, they need to be prepared for such comparisons since they've been "advertising" it (so to speak, when they discuss architecture) as 8 cores.
> 
> edit: they need to be honest and talk about it to the public as a 4-core with an enhanced form of SMT - there's more hardware duplication than HyperThreading, but it's not 8 full-blown CPU cores.



It is a full blown 8 core it is just that while they were looking away Intel caught up to CMP performance heck in CMP performance intel destroyed Phenom IIs just look at the i5 2500K vs Phenom II 980 BE


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 11, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Meh I still don't trust in these "leaks", need to wait for the real deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




   likely from sharing fpu, which leaves more room for int work.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

Ser,

10 to 30 percent from just a new stepping? Not a chance Imo.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> No, link you got to a trust a dude who has read up on Zambezi/Tech Specs for 7 months



Surely unless you work for AMD or a partner (and if you want to claim to do so, that's fine) you've been reading what I've been reading, like David Kanter's and Jon Stokes' excellent write-ups.  

Don't get me wrong.  I really want Bulldozer to be competitive.  Really, truly, with all my heart.  But I'm not going to delude myself into thinking there's a magical performance improvement coming without higher clocks.  If, when the reviews FINALLY come, there's extra performance to be had, I'm totally a winner since this is the platform I'm betting on with my own money.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Ser,
> 
> 10 to 30 percent from just a new stepping? Not a chance Imo.



I meant Engineer Sample to Consumer/Reviewer Grade Samples lol

Stepping will only be 5% at least 10% at most but could be 30% if there is more tweaks, by C0 30% will be hit absolute

Engineer is 3.2GHz
Consumer Grade is 3.6-3.8GHz(8110-8130P)

All FX Chips are unlocked so who cares about 8130Ps

I feel technically bad about the competition good luck overclocking your Multiplier Locked LGA 2011 4-cores and 6-cores

30% improvement in performance is only 55-60% over Phenom II 1100T in real world don't get your socks overblown yeesh

and to get back on the L2 and L3

They want the 2MB L2 to have the same latencies at a 256KB Intel L2 but with 8x the capacity
They want the 8MB L3 to do the same as the L3 is divided up in to portions of the module to help module communication


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> No, link you got to a trust a dude who has read up on Zambezi/Tech Specs for 7 months
> 
> Memory Bandwidth is higher and Latency is lower on AMD Chips always over Intel
> 
> ...


If this is a duplicate it's because I've written it before, and can't find it.

Do you work for AMD?  You may have access to information I don't in that case.  Otherwise I've been reading the same stuff as you - plenty of great writeups by incredibly smart people and nothing that I can find anywhere says anything that you're saying.  Lots of people are reading and writing, and I'm more apt to believe what's been repeated over and over.

1.) Bulldozer in general is not a full 8 cores
2.) AMD's memory theoretical bandwidth numbers are lower than Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.  And they're not THAT far off of theoretical maxes; roughly 25% short or so.
3.) They're just theoretical numbers.  Nothing actually uses memory bandwidth like that anyway.

Particularly, Kanter's awesome writeup (the RealWorldTech link) goes to great lengths to say specifically the opposite of what you're saying. There's tons of intelligently-shared resources.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> I feel technically bad about the competition good luck overclocking your Multiplier Locked LGA 2011 4-cores and 6-cores



BD isn't competition for 2011 plus everyone is going to be buying the unlocked processors. I'd really love to see BD beat the 2600K badly that intel has to man up and release a 6 core on 1155 for 499.99 but i know i'm just dreaming.

Do you hear me Intel? We just want a 6 core. We don't NEED HT


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> 1.) Bulldozer in general is not a full 8 cores
> 2.) AMD's memory theoretical bandwidth numbers are lower than Nehalem and Sandy Bridge.  And they're not THAT far off of theoretical maxes; roughly 25% short or so.
> 3.) They're just theoretical numbers.  Nothing actually uses memory bandwidth like that anyway.



1.) Zambezi in general is a full native 8 core processor
2.) AMD's memory theoretical bandwidth numbers are substantially higher than Nehalem and Sandy Bridge
3.) Exactly but Applications can use AMD's memory to the theoretical limit unlike the competition

There is a big improvement to the NB and IMC in Zambezi a HUGE Improvement we won't see it till consumer grade
(From Phenom II "Black Edition" -> Zambezi "FX Black Edition Vision FX" Processors

I'm not an employee or work for AMD I just been looking a lot longer




Pestilence said:


> BD isn't competition for 2011 plus everyone is going to be buying the unlocked processors. I'd really love to see BD beat the 2600K badly that intel has to man up and release a 6 core on 1155 for 499.99 but i know i'm just dreaming.
> 
> Do you hear me Intel? We just want a 6 core. We don't NEED HT



Zambezi is damn as hell competing lol

The only LGA 2011 processor that is going to be unlocked is the Extreme Edition one($600-$1000)


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

There's the i7-970 6 core 32nm for 580$. It is eating this leaked BD for breakfast not that anybody would need such a chip for gaming.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx, you're going to have to start linking stuff, because you're just making unsubstantiated claims.  I've done the courtesy of linking everything I've claimed.  Did you click on any of those links? They're ALL quoting directly from AMD and they're ALL saying that Zambezi is not 8 full cores. 

I think your claim in #2 is that Zambezi supports DDR3-1866, and technically it does.  The benchmarks show time and time again that it's irrelevant because Sandy Bridge + Nehalem both actually wring more bandwidth out of DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> The only LGA 2011 processor that is going to be unlocked is the Extreme Edition one($600-$1000)[/SIZE]



Were 5 months away so i'm not sure what the hell intel is going to do with 2011. 

IF BD spanks SB then Intel has to respond with better pricing on 2011.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

I have done a quick run on Aida trial version for my i5-2500K just to compare with the BD numbers. Seronx, can you explain the differences?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 11, 2011)

As long as AMD markets Zambezi/FX-8310P as an octocore chip, which it does, absolutely every argument claiming that _"it's not really an octocore"_ is bound to fall flat.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> seronx, you're going to have to start linking stuff, because you're just making unsubstantiated claims.



Accurate claims are not unsubstantiated claims...



DeerSteak said:


> Did you click on any of those links?



Read them already, they are speculating and don't quite exactly understand the Bulldozer Architecture particularly the Zambezis version of "Bulldozer"



DeerSteak said:


> They're ALL quoting directly from AMD and they're ALL saying that Zambezi is not 8 full cores.



I didn't see any AMD links....

AMD says it is a native 8 core processor

Each core has it's own resources



DeerSteak said:


> I think your claim in #2 is that Zambezi supports DDR3-1866, and technically it does.



Zambezi actually supports higher than that but it isn't discussed much
2800MHz is the max...don't try it(You'll only kill your RAM)



DeerSteak said:


> The benchmarks show time and time again that it's irrelevant because Sandy Bridge + Nehalem both actually wring more bandwidth out of DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600.



Not going to both on this one I stated what is fact



Crap Daddy said:


> I have done a quick run on Aida trial version for my i5-2500K just to compare with the BD numbers. Seronx, can you explain the differences?



Not until Zambezi releases

Zambezi isn't fully optimized for performance comparisons yet(Engineer Sample, discussion is about what is to what will be is getting old to me)


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Holy crap, you're like one of those people at church that says "I believe it's true because I believe it's true and nothing needs defending".  You're not even trying to substantiate your claims.  That's the worst kind of faith you can have.



seronx said:


> I didn't see any AMD links....


You know what?  Here we agree.  You certainly have not linked anything.  Maybe you should answer Crap Daddy instead of telling me that what you think is true is fact.

edit: not the start I wanted to get off to in this forum.  I'm really a friendly guy.  I just require links to back things up.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> How do you figure? Preliminary pricing has the 8 core BD at 330 dollars and the 990FX boards are priced around the same as P67 boards.



Just looking at how AMD prices most items, better than a competitive/ comparative item, and I’d say that tread will continue.  Right now it's all speculative, but DeerSteak numbers sound about right out of the gate. While will Intel drop pricing that will be the question? (I say they won’t).

I’ll wait and see the direct compares; I’m hoping we’ll some competition.  For everyones sake.

While do you need 8 cores for gaming?


----------



## neko77025 (Jul 11, 2011)

Everything is hearsay & speculation untill we get A true 3rd party (whom is not A fanboy or Anit-fan) to bench A non-ES heads up.  

And if you are reading this anyhow .. you are going too want too know the end real result of benchmarks like 3Dmark, Unigine, ect.. ( Running same GPU setups ).

Everyone should hold judgement till we get thoses numbers.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Holy crap, you're like one of those people at church that says "I believe it's true because I believe it's true and nothing needs defending".  You're not even trying to substantiate your claims.  That's the worst kind of faith you can have.



Hmmm...religious example to back up your claim that I am stupid(about AMD chips), hmmm



DeerSteak said:


> You know what?  Here we agree.  You certainly have not linked anything.  Maybe you should answer Crap Daddy instead of telling me that what you think is true is fact.



Are you saying that I am biased? Well technically I am 

If you wasted 7 months of your time reading "Bulldozer" documents I guess you would be to aswell!




neko77025 said:


> Everything is hearsay & speculation untill we get A true 3rd party (whom is not A fanboy or Anit-fan) to bench A non-ES heads up.



It's not hearsy or speculation it is that it's not final or "sellable" yet

But, I would say wait till a non-ES benchmark comes up before you make your decision to go to AMD or go to Intel
(I agree with the Non-ES part)



Casecutter said:


> While do you need 8 cores for gaming?



Retrofitting

Windows 7 can schedule CPU cores to infinity

The more you have the less load on the CPU and the more stuff you can do


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

Casecutter said:


> While do you need 8 cores for gaming?



Considering no game uses more then 4 you don't.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> Hmmm...religious example to back up your claim that I am stupid(about AMD chips), hmmm



No, actually, I didn't say stupid (or any other descriptive or insulting term). You're just not substantiating anything.  There are apologists who work very hard to back up their claims of faith.  You're just not one of them.

And you're still not responding to Crap Daddy.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Considering no game uses more then 4 you don't.



Considering most game engines are or can be coded quite easily to use infinite amount of cores
(Unreal, Id Tech, CryEngine, Frostbite) <-- already coded to use infinite amount of cores

Just a warning though Games in development follow Amdahl's law

Games that are not being developed currently but will eventually come out follow follow Gustafson's law



DeerSteak said:


> No, actually, I didn't say stupid (or any other descriptive or insulting term). You're just not substantiating anything.  There are apologists who work very hard to back up their claims of faith.  You're just not one of them.
> 
> And you're still not responding to Crap Daddy.



I can't answer his question until a final chip lands in someones hands via Anandtech, Techpowerup, Guru3d, HardOCP, Xbit labs, Tom's Hardware, and some other discrete source

Engineer Samples are not Final performance

What I mean by discrete is that they got the chip by official supported means
Non-discrete sources are people who trade engineer samples to defame chips

Look at the Sandy Bridge ES everyone was pissed that it was 2.5GHz and guess what it became 3.4GHz and all performances across the board increased with it


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

Nevermind. He has no answer. Remember, it's an ES. But regarding games I can link you to another forum where one guy took the plunge and benched quite a number of games on an i7-980x with 2,4 and 6 cores enabled. Guess what?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2177408


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Nevermind. He has no answer. Remember, it's an ES. But regarding games I can link you to another forum where one guy took the plunge and benched quite a number of games on an i7-980x with 2,4 and 6 cores enabled. Guess what?
> 
> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2177408



Oh, imagine that, >2 CPU cores has no effect most of the time, and >4 CPU cores has no effect all the time.  So much for "programmed to infinity" with UE3, Crysis, etc.  



seronx said:


> I can't answer his question until a final chip lands in someones hands via Anandtech, Techpowerup, Guru3d, HardOCP, Xbit labs, Tom's Hardware, and some other discrete source



So what you're saying is, everything you've written - you don't know if any of it's actually true.  No surprise there.  

Also, I hope you're not using "discrete" to mean "reputable" because if I knew you considered [H] and Tom's to be reputable, I'd have stopped replying to you long ago.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Oh, imagine that, >2 CPU cores has no effect most of the time, and >4 CPU cores has no effect all the time.  So much for "programmed to infinity" with UE3, Crysis, etc.



Amdahl's law

Gustafson's law

What is happening can be explained by these two laws

No matter how many cores you have if the workload is built for dual-cores

The workload is fixed and the time to process is fixed it is the same game

Thus, you can't magically improve performance because the workload didn't increase with the core amount

All the for mentioned engines scale to all cores, but if the workload is the same you are stuck in performance bottleneck of that game

But...there is a good thing about having more cores to do that^ you can increase background workload



DeerSteak said:


> So what you're saying is, everything you've written - you don't know if any of it's actually true.  No surprise there.
> 
> Also, I hope you're not using "discrete" to mean "reputable" because if I knew you considered [H] and Tom's to be reputable, I'd have stopped replying to you long ago.



[H] and Tom's are reputable

I don't know about AIDA64...I know about the rest

IMC and NB has been dramatically improved from PhII to Zambezi(FX) if AIDA64 doesn't show that it's not my problem but the programmers for AIDA


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> Considering most game engines are or can be coded quite easily to use infinite amount of cores
> (Unreal, Id Tech, CryEngine, Frostbite) <-- already coded to use infinite amount of cores


You said they're already set to use infinity cores.  Why aren't games doing it?  Because parallelism is harder than you seem to think.

And hey, you know how to link stuff.  Why don't you substantiate your earlier claims?  Oh, that's right, you can't.



seronx said:


> [H] and Tom's are reputable


[inane giggling]

edit: there are some totally bitchin' features in this forum.  Refreshing while I type?  Awesome.  Inline post editing?  Super awesome.  Much better than the forums I normally hang out on.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak,

Seronx already answered all your questions (to his best ability) for the most part its true. I don't see what you're trying to achieve but you've got your answers.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 11, 2011)

Meh, I really have to say it's sad to see amd can't compete, I wanted it to be faster.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Dent1, he's saying things that are the opposite of what's been reported and makes no attempt to back it up.  That's all.  He can answer it with his opinion, but he's saying it's fact.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

I agree with the background workload but what I'm trying to stress here is  that for gaming and only for gaming more than 4 cores are useless. What you need is strong performance per-core and memory bandwidth performance. We haven't seen this yet in the leaked BD benches.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> I agree with the background workload but what I'm trying to stress here is  that for gaming and only for gaming more than 4 cores are useless. What you need is strong performance per-core and memory bandwidth performance. We haven't seen this yet in the leaked BD benches.



And I don't think we will given it likely doesn't exist.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 11, 2011)

Nearly every DirectX 11 title is quad-core optimised. Quad-core is the new dual-core.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

Why do Amd fans always use the "Background Workload" excuse for more cores? Seriously? How many programs do you run at the same time because i know i only run one or two


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Meh, I really have to say it's sad to see amd can't compete, I wanted it to be faster.



Did I miss something?
Faud of all people said AMD was a win



DeerSteak said:


> Dent1, he's saying things that are the opposite of what's been reported and makes no attempt to back it up.  That's all.  He can answer it with his opinion, but he's saying it's fact.



IPC didn't decrease either
and it was reported that it was going to decrease from those resources
but in all cases it has been improving overtime(A1 -> B1 all engineer samples)



Crap Daddy said:


> I agree with the background workload but what I'm trying to stress here is  that for gaming and only for gaming more than 4 cores are useless. What you need is strong performance per-core and memory bandwidth performance. We haven't seen this yet in the leaked BD benches.



It's retrofitting games will eventually use 8 Cores

Workloads increase overtime



btarunr said:


> Nearly every DirectX 11 title is quad-core optimised. Quad-core is the new dual-core.



Hexa-core optimized* well the sensible ones (AMD Gaming Evolved titles tend to use six cores)



Pestilence said:


> Why do Amd fans always use the "Background Workload" excuse for more cores? Seriously? How many programs do you run at the same time because i know i only run one or two



Well because AMD is the most trusted to do heavy workloads

Game + Premium Broadcasting Software + Premium Capture Software require a lot of cores these days


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> [H] and Tom's are reputable



The only reputable tech site is this one.  Otherwise you'd not be posting here.




I have boards...all the current CPUs...just need Bulldozer, and you'll get an unbiased point of view on it's performance shortly after launch. I don't even want samples from AMD..I'll go buy one of the shelf, so there's no cherry picking, like with the rest of my CPUs.


I'm working up to buy 10 on launch day. I'll keep the very worst one for my review rig. Expect all the rumours and false claims to be either substantiated, or categorically denied, then.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

Toms hardware reputable? Buhahahahahahahahahaha

Thank you Ser. I needed that belly laugh.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Why do Amd fans always use the "Background Workload" excuse for more cores? Seriously? How many programs do you run at the same time because i know i only run one or two


Hey, I'm an AMD fan and I don't use this argument.  Background workload must be code for torrents and streaming pr0n to the TV.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Hey, I'm an AMD fan and I don't use this argument.  Background workload must be code for torrents and streaming pr0n to the TV.



I get those two things done quite easily with 4 cores.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> There's the i7-970 6 core 32nm for 580$. It is eating this leaked BD for breakfast not that anybody would need such a chip for gaming.



It is ?.  i did not think BD was released yet.  And intel can shove there 580$ chips were the sun don't shine.. it's a Frigging ripp off.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> I get those two things done quite easily with 4 cores.



well of course, you have a faster CPU per-clock/per-core/per-watt/per-anything.  If I were using Intel I'd do that with a quad, too.  I value fapping, but I don't value it at $600+.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


>



Pift sure 



Pestilence said:


> Toms hardware reputable? Buhahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> Thank you Ser. I needed that belly laugh.



You're welcome....

<-- Intel fanboy check my rig



AsRock said:


> It is ?.  i did not think BD was released yet.  And intel can shove there 580$ chips were the sun don't shine.. it's a Frigging ripp off.



Depends if you consider gimmicks rip offs

Quad-Channel, The Great and Honorable QPI returns, what else oh YEAH! PCI-Express 3.0!!

I feel like I am missing something else


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

Well, TPU is ranked in the interwebs 3x higher than [H](~TPU = 6000, [H] = 19500), and Tom's sold out long ago(~1250), so is now a business entity serving hardware vendors for marketing purposes.

Your choices for reputable sites is interesting.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 11, 2011)

can the thread crappers take their arguments elsewhere?

on topic:

at work I just did a super pi out of curiosity, e7500 wolfdale @ stock = 17.93 seconds for 1M.

so this is slower per clock than 775 on that paticular bench. 3dmark scroes aren't paticularly bad, but still not great.

I was really hoping for more market competition, but it doesn't seem like AMD has changed that at all.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 11, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Meh, I really have to say it's sad to see amd can't compete, I wanted it to be faster.



You want an engineering sample to be faster? That sounds silly dont you think?

Anyways, this article disagrees with you. appropriately titled "AMD Outpaces Sandy Bridge in early tests". 3DMarks 11 and CineBench, x64 encoding AMD beats pulls ahead impressively. SuperPI, goes to Intel as usual.

http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in



DeerSteak said:


> Dent1, he's saying things that are the opposite of what's been reported and makes no attempt to back it up.  That's all.  He can answer it with his opinion, but he's saying it's fact.



A lot of what he was saying was true though. Granted he didn't provide links for most of what he was saying, but who wants to be that guy that runs around the internet looking for evidence all day to appease geeks on a forum lol


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

AsRock said:


> It is ?.  i did not think BD was released yet.  And intel can shove there 580$ chips were the sun don't shine.. it's a Frigging ripp off.



No, BD wasn't released yet was talking about the leak and was responding to another post. When AMD will offer the performance of an i7-970 be sure they will ask for at least 500$.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> at work I just did a super pi out of curiosity, e7500 wolfdale @ stock = 17.93 seconds for 1M.
> 
> so this is slower per clock than 775 on that paticular bench. 3dmark scroes aren't paticularly bad, but still not great.
> 
> I was really hoping for more market competition, but it doesn't seem like AMD has changed that at all.



I am not interested in stock performance numbers. I have to feel that the majority of TPU members overclock, like I do, so OC numbers are what matter.

With that in mind, I present my own SuperPI times, done with my 2600k @ 4.9 GHz(2133 MHz memory)






Wake me up when AMD can reach these.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Wake me up when AMD can reach these.



Or as Green Day says, "Wake me up when September comes"...


----------



## v12dock (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Why do Amd fans always use the "Background Workload" excuse for more cores? Seriously? How many programs do you run at the same time because i know i only run one or two



 I should show you a screenshot of how much I have running at once... But of course I don't lag on my i7


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42897&stc=1&d=1310406080
> 
> Wake me up when AMD can reach these.



But who cares really? SuperPi is such an old benchmark  does its results really merit anyone to care about the end results? Even when AMD was ontop almost a decade back their SuperPi results were poor, but nobody cared because it was better at most other things 

Poor SuperPi doesnt equate to poor overall performance or value for money.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> can the thread crappers take their arguments elsewhere?
> 
> on topic:
> 
> ...



x87 is a dead race...x87 is much slower on Zambezi Prcoessers because it is emulated on the FMACs (Same way 256b AVX is I believe)
1x AVX(256bit)
1x x87(64/80bit)



cadaveca said:


> Well, TPU is ranked in the interwebs 3x higher than [H](~TPU = 6000, [H] = 19500), and Tom's sold out long ago(~1250), so is now a business entity serving hardware vendors for marketing purposes.
> 
> Your choices for reputable sites is interesting.



I need a wide variety of reviews to say "YOUR BIASED!! ha ha" then leave like no one saw me



Crap Daddy said:


> No, BD wasn't released yet was talking about the leak and was responding to another post. When AMD will offer the performance of an i7-970 be sure they will ask for at least 500$.



It's for $320~ish  the AMD Zambezi FX Processor for comparison to beating the i7 970-990X



cadaveca said:


> I am not interested in stock performance numbers. I have to feel that the majority of TPU members overclock, like I do, so OC numbers are what matter.
> 
> With that in mind, I present my own SuperPI times, done with my 2600k @ 4.9 GHz(2133 MHz memory)
> 
> ...



Never
SuperPi is using the dead x87

Tell us your wPrime 32M and 1024M time/scores



Crap Daddy said:


> Or as Green Day says, "Wake me up when September comes"...



Actually, that is never going to come lol



v12dock said:


> I should show you a screenshot of how much I have running at once... But of course I don't lag on my i7



i7 720QM *Cringe* I have nightmares using that even the Core 2 Duo Celeron rebrands are better than that CPU



Dent1 said:


> But who cares really? SuperPi is such an old benchmark  does its results really merit anyone to care about the end results? Even when AMD was ontop almost a decade back their SuperPi results were poor, but nobody cared because it was better at most other things
> 
> Poor SuperPi doesnt equate to poor overall performance or value for money.



AMD Zambezi isn't for x87 it's all out brute forcing SSE2 - SSE5(XOP, CVT16, FMA4 amd exclusive)


----------



## repman244 (Jul 11, 2011)

Love it when people use SuperPI to "measure" the "speed" of a CPU


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I am not interested in stock performance numbers. I have to feel that the majority of TPU members overclock, like I do, so OC numbers are what matter.
> 
> With that in mind, I present my own SuperPI times, done with my 2600k @ 4.9 GHz(2133 MHz memory)
> 
> ...



you know it's really bugging me that you calculated everything but 8M...like an uncompleted part of a quest in an rpg that you can't get back to. 


and yeah my i7 @ 4.2 comes in just under 10 seconds, I was just curious if amd finally managed to catch up to 775 yet. Still no go.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Anyways, this article disagrees with you. appropriately titled "AMD Outpaces Sandy Bridge in early tests". 3DMarks 11 and CineBench, x64 encoding AMD beats pulls ahead impressively. SuperPI, goes to Intel as usual.
> 
> http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in
> 
> A lot of what he was saying was true though. Granted he didn't provide links for most of what he was saying, but who wants to be that guy that runs around the internet looking for evidence all day to appease geeks on a forum lol



Good work - the circle is complete.  You linked to an article with the same source as the TPU article for which this very thread serves as the comments.  And guess what, the results haven't changed.  Memory throughput is still lower, which is the point of contention with seronx. 



cadaveca said:


> I am not interested in stock performance numbers. I have to feel that the majority of TPU members overclock, like I do, so OC numbers are what matter.
> 
> With that in mind, I present my own SuperPI times, done with my 2600k @ 4.9 GHz(2133 MHz memory)
> 
> ...


I do agree that I'm not interested in stock benchmarks.  I disagree that SuperPi itself is important.  It may be an indicator of more useful results - though often, it's not.  But with regards to games, the GPU is always going to be the bottleneck - or at least, it should be.  If it's not, you're not cranking up details/AA enough, or the frame rate is going to be RETARDEDLY FAST to the point of non-importance anyway.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 11, 2011)

Everybody ssssttttttooooooopppp!!!!!!   I'm out of popcorn! Have 2 run to corner store.    Wow this is getting good. But in the end we all win so bring it on amd and intel.    Bd will be the best amd ever put out intel's tweaking 2011 2 mop the floor. With everything b 4 it so the rollercoaster ride continues everybody hold on keep your hands 2 yourself and enjoy the ride


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

Wait a minute! I smell treason! On all the screens leaked you cannot see the clocks for the BD! Only on Aida screen when we look carefully we see that it is clocked at 4.2 GHz. Well if all those benches were run at 4,2 then do a comparison with Sandy at 4.2. It's getting interesting.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> Wait a minute! I smell treason! On all the screens leaked you cannot see the clocks for the BD! Only on Aida screen when we look carefully we see that it is clocked at 4.2 GHz. Well if all those benches were run at 4,2 then do a comparison with Sandy at 4.2. It's getting interesting.



Holy cats, you're right.  AIDA is very clearly 4200MHz.  I didn't even notice that before.


----------



## treboRR (Jul 11, 2011)

OMG am i stupid or in picture 8th there is test time 2.jan 2008 :O wtf is that! Was bulldozer tested back then? or am i missing anything?


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Good work - the circle is complete.  You linked to an article with the same source as the TPU article for which this very thread serves as the comments.  And guess what, the results haven't changed.  Memory throughput is still lower, which is the point of contention with seronx.



I'm aware that the link was posted on TPU. I'm bringing it to your attention again because everyone seems fixated on AMDs poor SuperPi results yet ignoring Sandybridges poor x64 encoding, Cinebench and 3D Marks 11 results. Huge Intel bias going on.



yogurt_21 said:


> I was just curious if amd finally managed to catch up to 775 yet. Still no go.



So if Bulldozer is slower in than Core 2 in SuperPi but faster in everything else, this equates to AMD not catching up?



DeerSteak said:


> Dent1, have you looked at my system specs?  No pro-Intel bias in my wallet, that's for sure.  I'm most interested in truth. Unsubstantiated claims to the contrary of actual benchmarks doesn't make for much truthiness.



Ive seen your system spec. Seems like somebody with an Intel Bias, maybe due to buyers remorse.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Dent1, have you looked at my system specs?  No pro-Intel bias in my wallet, that's for sure.  I'm most interested in truth. Unsubstantiated claims to the contrary of actual benchmarks (and I'm still discussing the claim that Zambezi's memory bandwidth is higher than Sandy Bridge, here, not SuperPi) doesn't make for much truthiness.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

I just did a run of cinebench r10 while downloading 10 files large files at once (background workload) on my i5-2500k clocked at 4,2 and guess what? I beat the octalcore with a score of 24999!


----------



## arnoo1 (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> Pift sure
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol fake rig , i kinda like it xd


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> do agree that I'm not interested in stock benchmarks. I disagree that SuperPi itself is important. It may be an indicator of more useful results - though often, it's not. But with regards to games, the GPU is always going to be the bottleneck - or at least, it should be. If it's not, you're not cranking up details/AA enough, or the frame rate is going to be RETARDEDLY FAST to the point of non-importance anyway.



SuperPI is good to relating how memory performance will impact game performance, for games that are CPU/Mem intensive. Of course, because I run all these benchmarks every week, this comparison is very obvious to me, so I understand all the confusion here about how it might, or might not, be relevant. Not everyone runs benchmarks like I do, or spends the time comparing them that I do.

Keep in mind boys and girls, I'm not only the motherboard reviewer here @ TPU, I also game on an Eyefinity rig, so the bleeding edge of performance is where I've been for years now.

If you don't understand the how SuperPi relates, then I'm sorry, but you do not understand CPUs, and thier performance, very well. Just go to one of my reviews and check out F1 2010 results, if you want to see how SuperPi relates to gaming, as gaming is pretty important to alot of members here.

A graph for edification:







AMD's current lack of memory bandwidth affects F1 2010 in such a way that Intel 1155 rigs are a good 50% faster than Phenom II x6 rigs. Why? MEMORY PERFORMANCE.

Unlike many people posting here, I have benchmarks to back up why these things are important. Anyone else got some to show me wrong? Don't worry, I have more benchmarks, too. I haven't been harping on AMD's memory perforamce for years for no reason.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Good work - the circle is complete.  You linked to an article with the same source as the TPU article for which this very thread serves as the comments.  And guess what, the results haven't changed.  Memory throughput is still lower, which is the point of contention with seronx.



50% improvement over Phenom II across the board



DeerSteak said:


> I do agree that I'm not interested in stock benchmarks.  I disagree that SuperPi itself is important.  It may be an indicator of more useful results - though often, it's not.  But with regards to games, the GPU is always going to be the bottleneck - or at least, it should be.  If it's not, you're not cranking up details/AA enough, or the frame rate is going to be RETARDEDLY FAST to the point of non-importance anyway.



CPU has always been the bottleneck
GPUs are already at 5 Teraflops
CPUs lol below 200 GFlops still



ensabrenoir said:


> Everybody ssssttttttooooooopppp!!!!!!   I'm out of popcorn! Have 2 run to corner store.    Wow this is getting good. But in the end we all win so bring it on amd and intel.    Bd will be the best amd ever put out intel's tweaking 2011 2 mop the floor. With everything b 4 it so the rollercoaster ride continues everybody hold on keep your hands 2 yourself and enjoy the ride



It is a roller coaster ride because by the time LGA 2011 comes out we will be worrying about how Komodo performs compared to Zambezi

Zambezi (2011)
Komodo (2012)
Next-Gen Bulldozer(No codename yet) (2013)




Crap Daddy said:


> Wait a minute! I smell treason! On all the screens leaked you cannot see the clocks for the BD! Only on Aida screen when we look carefully we see that it is clocked at 4.2 GHz. Well if all those benches were run at 4,2 then do a comparison with Sandy at 4.2. It's getting interesting.



AIDA64 uses only 1 core for that benchmark what do you expect happens?

Stock Clock -> TC1 -> TC2

Turbo Core Mode 2 = 2 Modules are gated/turned off




DeerSteak said:


> Holy cats, you're right.  AIDA is very clearly 4200MHz.  I didn't even notice that before.



I noticed it right away :|



DeerSteak said:


> Dent1, have you looked at my system specs?  No pro-Intel bias in my wallet, that's for sure.  I'm most interested in truth. Unsubstantiated claims to the contrary of actual benchmarks (and I'm still discussing the claim that Zambezi's memory bandwidth is higher than Sandy Bridge, here, not SuperPi) doesn't make for much truthfulness.



Wait and see?
There will be an increase how big I don't know

10% to 30%

BUT, do not BE surprised when Zambezi Retail CPUs go up to 4.8GHz on Turbo Core Mode 2



Crap Daddy said:


> I just did a run of cinebench r10 while downloading 10 files large files at once (background workload) on my i5-2500k clocked at 4,2 and guess what? I beat the octalcore with a score of 24999!



Moving/Downloading doesn't use much processing power these days run it with IntelBurntest



cadaveca said:


> SuperPI is good to relating how memory performance will impact game performance, for games that are CPU/Mem intensive. Of course, because I run all these benchmarks every week, this comparison is very obvious to me, so I understand all the confusion here about how it might, or might not, be relevant. Not everyone runs benchmarks liek I do, or spends the time comparing them that I do.
> 
> Keep in mind boys and girls, I'm not only the motherboard reviewer here @ TPU, I also game on an Eyefinity rig, so the bleeding edge of performance is where I've been for years now.
> 
> ...




Zambezi isn't Phenom II

That 50% increase in performance well....

30% increase in NB(IMC) performance+a Predictor or Prefetcher(what are those things that keep data called in Computer Engineer Jargon) and what is the percentage of going from 1333MHz official support to 1866MHz official support?

With both of those memory performance skyrockets from Phenom II

Edit: you guys post like crazy


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Unlike many people posting here, I have benchmarks to back up why these things are important. Anyone else got some to show me wrong? Don't worry, I have more benchmarks, too. I haven't been harping on AMD's memory perforamce for years for no reason.



Since I've been reading lots of your posts regarding this particular aspect I was shocked to discover the very poor performance compared to SB in this BD leak - fake or not -


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

You're not showing causality, cadaveca.  You're showing coincidence.  And you're not able to show causality until you can show that F1 2010 is truly memory-bottlenecked.  It's your opinion, sure, and that's fine.  Everyone needs a hypothesis to get started.  Try running the same benchmarks (both SuperPi and F1 2010) with only one memory channel populated and you'll start to get an idea.  If all the scores drop in half then your theory at least starts to gain some traction.



seronx said:


> CPU has always been the bottleneck
> GPUs are already at 5 Teraflops
> CPUs lol below 200 GFlops still



 Crank up the details and shift more work onto the GPU and you'll start to see framerates drop.  Or do you just play everything on your Radeon 6450 at 2560x1600?  Of course you don't, because the GPU becomes the bottleneck at some point.

Unsurprisingly, as you've been prone to do today, seronx, you didn't actually read what you were responding to. I'm starting to think it's a reading comprehension deficiency.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

Unfortunately, dropping a stick of mem doesn't = 50% memory performance. Otherwise, I'd drop a channel from SB, and then the compare might be adequate.

I cannot drop 1155 memory performance to equal PhenomII, nor can I increase PII performance to SB levels, so the request you make is not possible.


I can, however, tell you to look at all the result in my reviews, because all the results together, they DO give the perspective you are asking for. It's not a theory, BTW, it's a FACT that AMD's memory performance suffers compared to 1155, and a FACT that this has it's impact in gaming.


SeronX asked for wPrime numbers...oh look, those are in my reviews too. 

Just take alook here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Biostar/TZ68A_PLUS/9.html


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I cannot drop 1155 memory performance to equal PhenomII, nor can I increase PII performance to SB levels, so the request you make is not possible.


And that's still not causality with regard to F1 2010.  My point is, if the F1 2010 scores are really due to memory performance, both the Sandy Bridge system and the Phenom II system should see similar, large drops in framerate AND similar, large drops in SuperPi.  And without both of those, it's not fact, it's only theory.  I don't own a Sandy Bridge system so I can't exactly go out and do this myself.  

Also, you're acting like I'm not reading your reviews.  I told you once I bought my board BECAUSE of your review, I'm not going to tell you again.  

The Biostar review just provides more data points for the same CPU.  Also, the wPrime numbers indicate there's bandwidth to spare if you have extra cores to use it.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Seronx asked for wPrime numbers...oh look, those are in my reviews too.



Thanks

I want to see the Flex FPU at work ugh  in wPrime

The only things I have been seeing so far is what I already know!

show me the wPrime 1024M scores Donanimhaber


----------



## erocker (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I can, however, tell you to look at all the result in my reviews, because all the results together, they DO give the perspective you are asking for. It's not a theory, BTW, it's a FACT that AMD's memory performance suffers compared to 1155, and a FACT that this has it's impact in gaming.



As an AMD user, QFT. I (somewhat) got around the memory performance by getting $300 dollar sticks of RAM, running water cooling on my CPU and cranking the CPU/NB frequency and voltage. This budget minded AMD rig isn't so budget minded anymore, but it works. Even in F1 2010!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 11, 2011)

First, I can't believe you managed to drag Dave down into this mess. That is a feat all its own.

Second, I will wait until I get my own hands on one of these before I make any judgments or assumptions.

Finally, while I don't expect miracles, I expect a nice improvement over PII in test that are properly setup, as Bulldozer supports 5 new instruction sets including SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2, and AVX. I don't expect miracles, but I expect consistent, across the board improvements over PII's.

And while I am posting here, I also expect a lot of other testing platforms to be outed for basing their tests instruction path on the name of the chip instead of the chip's actual abilities before this year is out. 

While the 8130P is the current flagship, I would like to note the A8-3850 in their naming scheme. We all know the Llano is a 32nm Athlon II with better memory support so their is not much more they can do with it, thus the rather high number for the last 3 digits. The only reason AMD would leave such a huge gap in the FX line's numbering scheme is if they expect to release more chips later on with higher clocks and/or improvements from later stepping. By the end of next year we could have a AMD FX-8550P clocked higher with more OC headroom. No way to know for sure, but wait.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

I just want to point out that i'm not saying that AMD isn't behind; they're definitely behind.  They're just behind in MORE than memory performance.  There are plenty of deficiencies to be found in AMD's current silicon, and based on what's come out so far, there are plenty more deficiencies in their new silicon.  I don't mind supporting the runner-up if I can get "fast enough" for "cheap enough"


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> if the F1 2010 scores are really due to memory performance, both the Sandy Bridge system and the Phenom II system should see similar, large drops in framerate AND similar, large drops in SuperPi.  And without both of those, it's not fact, it's only theory.  I don't own a Sandy Bridge system so I can't exactly go out and do this myself.



OK, so you are saying, for you, you require those numbers. OK, I accept that. I could make these numbers for you, and have in the past, so that when situations exactly like this one happen, I can speak up, and not worry about the vlaidity of the argument I make.

The fact of the matter is that each and every benchmark you see in my reviews was vetted extensively to validate it as a performance compare.



> Also, you're acting like I'm not reading your reviews.  I told you once I bought my board BECAUSE of your review, I'm not going to tell you again.



I know, I know, but you know, as staff here, I do feel it's my job, not only for you, but for everyone, to make sure that things stay factual, and away from the FUD.



> The Biostar review just provides more data points for the same CPU.  Also, the wPrime numbers indicate there's bandwidth to spare if you have extra cores to use it.



Actually, the bottom two numbers are an 1100T. The P7P55 D-E Pro has a i5 750 in it. I do also have an I7 870 too. Interesting thought about wprime, but to me, that shows that although memroy performance is lacking in AMD, thier core performance is very good, so my perspective is not the same as yours, I guess.



erocker said:


> As an AMD user, QFT. I (somewhat) got around the memory performance by getting $300 dollar sticks of RAM, running water cooling on my CPU and cranking the CPU/NB frequency and voltage. This budget minded AMD rig isn't so budget minded anymore, but it works. Even in F1 2010!



Yeah, and that's AMD saving grace with Phenom II...overclocking. maybe 3% of users here run stock...and time has shown that overclocking to the maximums presents a very different picture than stock numbers. But again, not everyone is going to have a CPU as good as yours..the 1100T i have is a much worse sample than yours, so while it worked out for you, if you had _MY_ AMD CPU, I do not think you'd be as happy. 



DeerSteak said:


> I just want to point out that i'm not saying that AMD isn't behind; they're definitely behind. They're just behind in MORE than memory performance. There are plenty of deficiencies to be found in AMD's current silicon, and based on what's come out so far, there are plenty more deficiencies in their new silicon. I don't mind supporting the runner-up if I can get "fast enough" for "cheap enough"



You should hop on our TS server. We do talk about these things there too(from time to time), and through these discussions, it's kinda become clear that L3 cache performance is what's also lacking in AMD CPUs(well, my benchmarking has brought it up too).

I mean really, get rid of AMD's "Unganged" mode, and thier memory performance is even worse, but at least then both Intel and AMD would be using 128-bit memory controllers. The real truth of the matter is that Phenom II CPUs have a memory controller that can split into 2x 64-bit, and even then, they are still very lacking.

Bulldozer is similar...it's a quad-channel controller, in it's "native" socket(I do not consider AM3+ a real BD socket), so I do beleive that part of the problem with desktop Bulldozer parts is that 1/2 of thier memory performance will never be realized on the desktop platform...these chips WERE designed with quad-channel in mind.


----------



## THANATOS (Jul 11, 2011)

*seronx*
BD FX 8130 is not an 8 core as SB 2600k is not one either even if the task manager shows 8 cores, but they are not classic 4 cores either. 

Just because AMD marketing calls it that way doesn't mean anything, Its just for the average joe who is buying a cpu based on frequency or number of cores and what will he buy if he can choose between an AMD 8 core 4.2Ghz(turbo) or Intel 4 core 3.8Ghz(turbo) , of course he will choose AMD because he will think It will give him more than twice the performance because of double amount of cores and a bit higher frequency, nothing more. 8 cores are really just for marketing purposes, but in my opinion it was a really stupid move from AMD, they could have claimed BD is a 4 core which has almost the power of CMP designed 8 cores with much lower die space and not how they call it as an optimized 8 core with a bit lower performance but with a much lower die space. 

They are both CMP designed 4 cores but to gain even more power without substantially increasing the core area they use additional design in combination with CMP(chip multiprocessing), AMD is using CMT (cluster-based multi-threading) which needs more core area but can give you more performance and Intel is using HT what is a form of SMT(simultaneous multi-threading) which on the other hand requires less additional space but will give less performance.
SMT or HT in this case increases core size by a bit more than 5% probably 5-7% I don't know If it is with or without L2 cache
CMT increases core size by 20% without L2 cache and with L2 cache just by 12%.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?265710-AMD-Zambezi-news-info-fans-!/page8

SMT, CMP, CMT
http://citavia.blog.de/2009/07/07/m...hreading-and-single-thread-execution-6464533/
and here is an important old presentation picture about multi-threading done right
http://www.blog.de/srv/media/media_popup_large.php?item_ID=3663732

What is a CMP? 2 cores, 3 cores, 4 core and so on

And what is a CMT? It's a modul
http://info.nuje.de/Bulldozer_Core_uArch_0.4.png
you can see a modul is just a single core with 2 integer clusters and not 2 cores based on CMP design. If you wanted to call a modul as 2 cores you would need to have everything twice and not just 2 integer clusters, thats why it shouldn't be called 8 cores because its not but instead 4 moduls or 4 cores with CMT design or something similar.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Finally, while I don't expect miracles, I expect a nice improvement over PII in test that are properly setup, as Bulldozer supports 5 new instruction sets including SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2, and 256b AVX. I don't expect miracles, but I expect consistent, across the board improvements over PII's.



Don't forget SSE5 and 128Bit AVX



TheLaughingMan said:


> And while I am posting here, I also expect a lot of other testing platforms to be outed for basing their tests instruction path on the name of the chip instead of the chip's actual abilities before this year is out.



I don't get this one



TheLaughingMan said:


> While the 8130P is the current flagship, I would like to note the A8-3850 in their naming scheme. We all know the Llano is a 32nm Athlon II with better memory support so their is not much more they can do with it, thus the rather high number for the last 3 digits. The only reason AMD would leave such a huge gap in the FX line's numbering scheme is if they expect to release more chips later on with higher clocks and/or improvements from later stepping. By the end of next year we could have a AMD FX-8550P clocked higher with more OC headroom. No way to know for sure, but wait.



It is based by 10s actually
8100 = 3.5GHz 8110 = 3.6GHz 8120 3.7GHz and so on

8550P would be this godly 8GHz beast



DeerSteak said:


> I just want to point out that i'm not saying that AMD isn't behind; they're definitely behind.  They're just behind in MORE than memory performance.  There are plenty of deficiencies to be found in AMD's current silicon, and based on what's come out so far, there are plenty more deficiencies in their new silicon.  I don't mind supporting the runner-up if I can get "fast enough" for "cheap enough"



I quoted you for some reason but I forgot after I saw someone saying the FX Processor wasn't an 8 core

ISA behind, Memory not so much they are just missing a component Intel CPUs have (I think it is either called the prefetcher or predictor as said a million times before)((It doesn't help that the K10.5h CPU is using a rehashed/super retweaked K7 IMC and Zambezi isn't)

Overclocking isn't a big field that is why to optimize usage AMD invented the 2nd turbo core mode so people didn't have to overclock



KRONOSFX said:


> And what is a CMT? It's a modul
> http://info.nuje.de/Bulldozer_Core_uArch_0.4.png
> you can see a modul is just a single core with 2 integer clusters and not 2 cores based on CMP design. If you wanted to call a modul as 2 cores you would need to have everything twice and not just 2 integer clusters, thats why it shouldn't be called 8 cores because its not but instead 4 moduls or 4 cores with CMT design or something similar.



AMD Zambezi is an 8 core CPU

It's an 8 core not because of CMT/Some awkward sound french guy or some smart person who owns his own tech forums

It is an 8 core BECAUSE EACH core has it's own resources

CMP over provides
SMT under provides

AMDs CMT under marketing terms says it provides balance

Meaning you can't compare it to either cpu design and say it's not an 8 core

Edit: I ate and I ready to talk about Zambezi again


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Actually, the bottom two numbers are an 1100T. The P7P55 D-E Pro has a i5 750 in it. I do also have an I7 870 too. Interesting thought about wprime, but to me, that shows that although memroy perforamcne is lacking in AMD, thier core performance is very good, so my perspective is not the smae as yours, I guess.



No, what that shows is that the cores are getting enough - all they need - from the memory controller because performance scales near-linearly with more cores.  For me to show this, i'll take you to a different review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Phenom_II_X6_1090T/5.html

1090T is a 3.2GHz part, so you can compare it to the 955.  248 seconds vs. 372 seconds (using rounding), which is roughly 50% faster. Linear scaling.  That means that the CPU is not memory bottlenecked at 6 cores or 4 cores.  The memory performance isn't lacking if scaling is linear.  And in that case, the performance per-core is just terrible.  

I'm more interested in the thoroughly awful scaling of SuperPi scores, because that *can* imply that there is a memory wall in that benchmark, but only if the benchmark can make full use of all 6 cores.  Does it?  I don't know that answer; I only have 4 cores available to me in any one machine.  

But it's not necessarily any better on Intel, considering the i5 661 with its 2 cores scores second-best at 1M.  There's more L2 cache on the i5 and i7 and more processing power available (in terms of it being a function of clock speed x # cores). Does that mean LGA 1156 had awful memory performance?  I dunno, because we can't put the Phenom II's memory controller on an i5 or i7.  Isolating this stuff is darn-near impossible outside of AIDA 64 or Sandra benchmarks, where Intel has a lead, but not a 30-40% lead.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

Oh, I can take your tact here under advisement, and look at some results in future compares; you do bring up a valid point. We could also state that platform-specific software optimizations prevent accurate compares.


----------



## matar (Jul 11, 2011)

My i7-970 @ 4.2GHZ gets alot less then half in sec in each test with the same test super_pi_mod-1.5 even at stock speeds i still get almost half sec in each test.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> We could also state that platform-specific software optimizations prevent accurate compares.



That's another good point that I had not considered.  If the app is using some sort of SIMD acceleration not present on one CPU (AVX on Phenom II, or 3DNow! on an i7, though honestly who uses 3DNow!?) then that can make things not directly comparable.  Still, a result is a result, and real apps have those same issues - if instructions aren't supported and it has to fall back to a failsafe path, then the app suffers on that CPU and its users have to learn to cope.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

Likewise, when it comes to benches...the platforms all run them, and the results given are valid, no matter what they are run on...it's what the end user experiences that is most important. Like, I KNOW that the F1 2010 results are due to memory...because I tested to confirm that. the numbers in the graphs don't show that directly, but I did test exactly that, and that's why that benchmark is included in my testing suite.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Agreed.  This is a matter of pinning the blame, so to speak, and we've just differed up until now on where to pin it.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> Did I miss something?
> Faud of all people said AMD was a win



I disagree for the moment, I want more concrete benches and an actual review of consumer product not an eng sample. IMO it's not fast enough.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jul 11, 2011)

I see my picture was delete LOL

We can argue til were blue in the face but it still doesn't explain anything. When we get better benches and NON ES chips then we can start to see what is really going on.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> *seronx*
> BD FX 8130 is not an 8 core as SB 2600k is not one either even if the task manager shows 8 cores, but they are not classic 4 cores either.
> 
> Just because AMD marketing calls it that way doesn't mean anything, Its just for the average joe who is buying a cpu based on frequency or number of cores and what will he buy if he can choose between an AMD 8 core 4.2Ghz(turbo) or Intel 4 core 3.8Ghz(turbo) , of course he will choose AMD because he will think It will give him more than twice the performance because of double amount of cores and a bit higher frequency, nothing more. 8 cores are really just for marketing purposes, but in my opinion it was a really stupid move from AMD, they could have claimed BD is a 4 core which has almost the power of CMP designed 8 cores with much lower die space and not how they call it as an optimized 8 core with a bit lower performance but with a much lower die space.
> ...



This is interesting. Actually, there were times that HT degraded performance in single threaded games, in the good old P4 era. Not sure if that happens on the core i architecture, but if it does, you could just disable HT.

But I don't think you could disable such "modules" in bulldozer. So they are permanent cores. So in this I can say that BD has 8 real cores anyway. My question is all about scaling. 
Real cores on an opteron G34 for example, scale pretty well, not sure the exact number, but I bet is better than 80% in efficiency terms. 

We all know intel HT helps a lot in certain scenarios, but its far away from being magical and cannot be considered as an additional cores, well all already know that. BD is different, is so different that we are discussing if we should consider each modules as core or both modules as a core. A new term could be introduced....


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> SuperPI is good to relating how memory performance will impact game performance, for games that are CPU/Mem intensive. Of course, because I run all these benchmarks every week, this comparison is very obvious to me, so I understand all the confusion here about how it might, or might not, be relevant. Not everyone runs benchmarks like I do, or spends the time comparing them that I do.
> 
> Keep in mind boys and girls, I'm not only the motherboard reviewer here @ TPU, I also game on an Eyefinity rig, so the bleeding edge of performance is where I've been for years now.
> 
> ...



Erhem. Are we talking about ram bandwidth or cache? Intel 775 chips are also faster at super pi despite having notably less ram bandwidth than AMD chips. Doesn't this suggest the super pi discrepancy is exactly what everyone else has always blamed it on? It's simply a program that favors Intel architecture.



btarunr said:


> As long as AMD markets Zambezi/FX-8310P as an octocore chip, which it does, absolutely every argument claiming that _"it's not really an octocore"_ is bound to fall flat.



Why. That's marketing. It means zilch, zero, nada. I saw a speaker set once marketed as a sound explosion. I'm pretty sure sound didn't explode. Go read the marketing on the latest TUF board with that proactive armor heat neutralizer crap. Wtf does this shit even mean??? Marketing doesn't say crap about the realities of the product.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

AMD Bulldozer module

There are two cores in there beyond belief I proved it hahahaha mwaahahaha


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/02/24/amd-bulldozer-core-module.jpg
> 
> AMD Bulldozer module



Now I get it. If in the yields a module is defective, the whole module should be disabled. This means BD could be 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores, and there could not be triple core, unless the defect affects one core. The module itself resambles an Athlon 7000, (for those who forgot them, there were phenom 1 based dual cores with 2MB L3.

I'm a little worried about the size of the "cores". They look terribly small...


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> There are two cores in there beyond belief I proved it hahahaha mwaahahaha


...and a shared floating point unit.  And what appears to be shared L1 cache.  So, two gimped cores.  Not full hardware duplication.  Just like it's always been.  This is my fears validated.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/02/24/amd-bulldozer-core-module.jpg
> 
> AMD Bulldozer module
> 
> There are two cores in there beyond belief I proved it hahahaha mwaahahaha



One decode and fetch unit == 1 core? Haha!

PLease I don't want to enter this discussion, I just pointed out the obvious on that picture.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> ...and a shared floating point unit.  And what appears to be shared L1 cache.  So, two gimped cores.



L1D isn't shared, L1S is

The FPU unit is FMA thus allows to shoot out 2x128bit SSE FPs
and 1x256 if 1 core needs it



Thefumigator said:


> Now I get it. If in the yields a module is defective, the whole module should be disabled. This means BD could be 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores, and there could not be triple core, unless the defect affects one core. The module itself resambles an Athlon 7000, (for those who forgot them, there were phenom 1 based dual cores with 2MB L3.
> 
> I'm a little worried about the size of the "cores". They look terribly small...



It is modular in design



Benetanegia said:


> One decode and fetch unit == 1 core? Haha!
> 
> PLease I don't want to enter this discussion, I just pointed out the obvious on that picture.



4 fetch/decode/store per cycle for 32bit

2 fetch/decode/store per cycle for 64bit

and in theory if there were registers for it

1 fetch/decode store per cycle for 128bit


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Erhem. Are we talking about ram bandwidth or cache? Intel 775 chips are also faster at super pi despite having notably less ram bandwidth than AMD chips. Doesn't this suggest the super pi discrepancy is exactly what everyone else has always blamed it on? It's simply a program that favors Intel architecture.



Cache speed and memory performance are very tightly linked together. We are talking about the combination of BOTH. Increase L3 speed, and memory bandwidth goes up with it. I can show this very simply with both AMD and Intel chips.

You can say that SPi favors Intel chips...but then again, if you want to go down that road, so do the majority of applications out there...any apps favors the faster performance on 1155. Like I posted above, I don't care, really, if an app favors one over the other...the fact of the matter is that the end user gets better performance on 1155, not how Intel really got there.

The important thing, for me as a user, is gaming performance. If Bulldozer has better game performance, then I'll be using Bulldozer in my gaming rig. If not, then Intel will stay in my gmaing rig, because it's faster. 

There's no fanboyism in any of my comments, or concerns...I am a high-end user, and I require the best solution possible becuase I chose to game on triple monitors, and whoever brings me the best results for my chosen configuration, gets my cash.

After near two years with my Eyefinity rig, which began with a Crosshair III Formula, and now uses a Gigabyte P67A-UD4-B3, with many boards and CPUs between the two, I can quite confidently say that as it stands right this moment, for gaming, Intel is better. The graphs in my reviews show by how much.

Bickering about things like this is just kinda foolish...but...I have the time to do so. Which leaves me at this(which i stated earlier):

When I can go to my local store, and buy Bulldozer, I will. I will, firsthand, see who is faster, and you can bet that I'll be reporting the results here in the forums when that happens. As a gamer, gamnig is what's most important to me, and I see no gaming benchmarks..I see benchmarks that can relate to gaming perforamcne, and what I see, doesn't leave me impressed, or eager to spend my money on Bulldozer, but because I want to be sure you guys know the truth, I'll buy anyway.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> The FPU unit is FMA thus allows to shoot out 2x128bit SSE FPs
> and 1x256 if 1 core needs it


...while the other core waits in starvation.  This is really bad news for highly-parallel apps.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> ...while the other core waits in starvation.  This is really bad news for highly-parallel apps.



The application would be made for 128b AVX instead

256b will not be used

They have a chart they only expect 1% of any applications to use 256bits of AVX



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Why. That's marketing. It means zilch, zero, nada. I saw a speaker set once marketed as a sound explosion. I'm pretty sure sound didn't explode. Go read the marketing on the latest TUF board with that proactive armor heat neutralizer crap. Wtf does this shit even mean??? Marketing doesn't say crap about the realities of the product.





> The new Sabertooth 990FX features an innovative passive heat sink solution that features exclusive CeraM!X technology and a 10-sensor system that actively monitors critical thermal points on the board to provide the best thermal management available today. Premium ceramic-coating
> technology on critical components such as the MOSFET and the chipset heat sinks lead to an overall improvement in system stability. The TUF CeraM!X technology accomplishes this by enlarging the surface area with
> its micro-porous surface – 50% more – to effectively dissipate heat.
> 
> ...



Read it up it doesn't prevent heat it accelerates heat dissipation

The armour it self and coating are resistant to heat meaning they don't melt when dissipating heat over time


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> ...while the other core waits in starvation. This is really bad news for highly-parallel apps.



Wait. What 256-bit app do you run? Where's the 128-bit and 256-bit OS? Oh, that's right, we are still on 64-bit.

I think the times when FPU @ 256-bit config is not going to be that often for most of us.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Come on, man, you're smarter than that.  You know as well as I do that it's got nothing to do with the "bitness" of the application.  It's the precision of the floating point calculations, and if one core requires a 256-bit value, the other gets to wait.

edit: even the Core 2 Duo can do 128-bit SSE instructions in a single clock cycle.  In 2006.  When we were running 32-bit XP.  And it helped performance even then.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Come on, man, you're smarter than that.  You know as well as I do that it's got nothing to do with the "bitness" of the application.  It's the precision of the floating point calculations, and if one core requires a 256-bit value, the other gets to wait.



Sure, but it's not going to happen very often, and you know THAT, too.  I hardly see this as a point of contention for normal users.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

In HPC clusters it will be more common.  Bulldozer is first and foremost a high-margin server part and an "enthusiast" part second.  It's launching in the AM3+ world first because it's easier down here in "enthusiast" land, and you don't need the logic for multiple sockets to talk to one another.  Start off easy.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> In HPC clusters it will be more common.  Bulldozer is first and foremost a high-margin server part and an "enthusiast" part second.  It's launching in the AM3+ world first because it's easier down here in "enthusiast" land, and you don't need the logic for multiple sockets to talk to one another.  Start off easy.



We don't talk about Interlagos here mister!

We only talk about Zambezi, you hear?

and we are talking about module performances why did multiple sockets? we are talking about cores and the fpu ugh lol


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Don't worry, seronx, one of your favorite tech sites has leaked Interlagos benchmarks too.  

And what I'm saying (because again, your reading comprehension deficiencies create an artificial language barrier) is that this half-core nonsense isn't going to fly in the server world where AMD thinks it will.  And maybe they know that and maybe that's part of why Zamboni is coming first.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Don't worry, seronx, one of your favorite tech sites has leaked Interlagos benchmarks too.
> 
> And what I'm saying (because again, your reading comprehension deficiencies create an artificial language barrier) is that this half-core nonsense isn't going to fly in the server world where AMD thinks it will.  And maybe they know that and maybe that's part of why Zamboni is coming first.



http://www.cray.com/Products/XK6/KX6.aspx

*cough* Ahem?!

It's a full core not a half core

Prepare for TOP500!!!!! Interlagos AWAY!!

Again, we don't talk about Interlagos here mister!

--- Also


DeerSteak said:


> Don't worry, seronx, one of your favorite tech sites has leaked Interlagos benchmarks too.



I saw the leak....the 4x16 Core Interlagos A1 1.8GHz finishing a F@H workload twice~ as fast as the 4x12 Core Magny Cours @ 2.5GHz

Interlagos
TPF 3min 52 seconds
Magny Cours
TPF 6mins 40 seconds

Project 6901

http://www.linuxforge.net/bonuscalc2.php gotta love that PPD


----------



## devguy (Jul 11, 2011)

For those who don't think Zambezi is an 8 core processor, let me ask whether or not you believe the Deneb is a 4 core processor.  If you go way back to a single core Athlon 64, you can find all the components which make up a true x86 core, and you'll see that there are quite a few things a Deneb die shares across multiple cores.  A few of the shared components are the L3 Cache, the Integrated Memory Controller, and the HyperTransport link (possibly other things, too).  So, OMG, Deneb "cores" share things, so it must not actually be a quad core.  We should call it a single core with 4 integer/fpu/scheduler/pipelines/L1/L2/etc.

My point here, is that there has never been any standard definition of what an x86 core contains.  A single Zambezi "core" may share a number of resources with the other "core" on its module, but "cores" have been sharing resources with each other since the advent of multi-core processors.  The question is, how much has to be shared before one can no longer call it a "core".  According to AMD, the Zambezi "cores" have retained enough that they still consider the processor and octal core processor.  According to Intel, the i7 2600 has enough resources shared, that they consider it a quad core.  Who's to argue with them?


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 11, 2011)

This thread is immensely entertaining. I find it particularly hilarious that the AMD fanboys seem to think that Bulldozer only has to match Sandy on perf/price to be a winner. Erm, no, because (a) Ivy and LGA 2011 will be out by that time, and (b) Intel is making such a decent profit on their CPUs that they could cut their prices to the bone, thus pricing AMD out of the market entirely, and still make money.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

Oooh, someone actually made one. That doesn't mean much for, you know, actual sales.


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

devguy - this is the first time actual computing resources are shared.  Well, second.  And Intel was smart - they called it "HyperThreading" and were up-front about what was going on.

Assimilator - Ivy Bridge will not be out this year.  To say it will be out "by then" (assuming you mean Zambezi availability) is un-true.  

Intel can't price AMD out of the market.  There are too many governmental bodies, rightly or wrongly, watching their every move.  There's plenty of room for faster "official" sandy bridge models, based on overclocking headroom, and you don't see them because they need AMD to live.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

devguy said:


> For those who don't think Zambezi is an 8 core processor, let me ask whether or not you believe the Deneb is a 4 core processor.  If you go way back to a single core Athlon 64, you can find all the components which make up a true x86 core, and you'll see that there are quite a few things a Deneb die shares across multiple cores.  A few of the shared components are the L3 Cache, the Integrated Memory Controller, and the HyperTransport link (possibly other things, too).  So, OMG, Deneb "cores" share things, so it must not actually be a quad core.  We should call it a single core with 4 integer/fpu/scheduler/pipelines/L1/L2/etc.
> 
> My point here, is that there has never been any standard definition of what an x86 core contains.  A single Zambezi "core" may share a number of resources with the other "core" on its module, but "cores" have been sharing resources with each other since the advent of multi-core processors.  The question is, how much has to be shared before one can no longer call it a "core".  According to AMD, the Zambezi "cores" have retained enough that they still consider the processor and octal core processor.  According to Intel, the i7 2600 has enough resources shared, that they consider it a quad core.  Who's to argue with them?



Nice job thank you for your logic



Assimilator said:


> This thread is immensely entertaining. I find it particularly hilarious that the AMD fanboys seem to think that Bulldozer only has to match Sandy on perf/price to be a winner. Erm, no, because (a) Ivy and LGA 2011 will be out by that time, and (b) Intel is making such a decent profit on their CPUs that they could cut their prices to the bone, thus pricing AMD out of the market entirely, and still make money.



LGA 2011 is an expensive platform especially since the P1 and P2 cores are multiplier locked

Ivy Bridge is Sandy Bridge but for 22nm



DeerSteak said:


> Oooh, someone actually made one. That doesn't mean much for, you know, actual sales.



They will sell lol BY MILLIONS!



DeerSteak said:


> devguy - this is the first time actual computing resources are shared.  Well, second.  And Intel was smart - they called it "HyperThreading" and were up-front about what was going on.
> 
> Assimilator - Ivy Bridge will not be out this year.  To say it will be out "by then" (assuming you mean Zambezi availability) is un-true.
> 
> Intel can't price AMD out of the market.  There are too many governmental bodies, rightly or wrongly, watching their every move.  There's plenty of room for faster "official" sandy bridge models, based on overclocking headroom, and you don't see them because they need AMD to live.



3.) Actually AMD doesn't need to exist only IBM
2.) No need for me to intervine
1a.) Hyperthreading makes 2 threads each thread has access to those shared resources and they compete to use those resources
1b.) Cluster-based Multithreading is 2 cores with equal amounts of resources and do not compete for resources


----------



## devguy (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> devguy - this is the first time actual computing resources are shared.  Well, second.  And Intel was smart - they called it "HyperThreading" and were up-front about what was going on.



So, an IMC is not a resource that has to do computation of any kind (it's just some lump taking up die space)?  If you look at an Athlon 64 single core, there is one IMC for one "core".  If you look at Deneb, there is one IMC for four "cores".  Is Deneb a quad core (even go ahead and disregard the other components the four "cores" share)?

If you think that it is, then what components must not be shared to remain a "core"?  I can guarantee that whatever you come up with, AMD disagrees, and it would be nothing more than their interpretation of a "core" vs yours.  There is no standard of what components make up an x86 core!


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

The memory controller has always been traditionally part of the north bridge.  It's moving a north bridge feature onto the same silicon.  By your logic, Intel's Core 2 line "shared computing resources", which is silly and disingenuous.



seronx said:


> 1a.) Hyperthreading makes 2 threads each thread has access to those shared resources and they compete to use those resources
> 1b.) Cluster-based Multithreading is 2 cores with equal amounts of resources and do not compete for resources


Except for your arbitrary definition where they have to compete for the FPU.


----------



## faramir (Jul 11, 2011)

repman244 said:


> And people that are comparing core for core, I don't think that's a valid comparison, since the "cores" in the modules aren't very similar to the real cores that we know (and AFAIK BD "core" has less transistors than Phenom II core).



That's AMD's problem. They are advertising 4 module Bulldozer as "8 core" so when this comes back and bites them in the a$$ they'll have noone but themselves to blame, just like Intel did with the frequency figures in P4 era (high frequency with lousy performance).


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 11, 2011)

faramir said:


> That's AMD's problem. They are advertising 4 module Bulldozer as "8 core" so when this comes back and bites them in the a$$ they'll have noone but themselves to blame, just like Intel did with the frequency figures in P4 era (high frequency with lousy performance).


yes! finally! someone's seeing the light.  Of course, this is your first post and it's reasonable to assume you understood before now, but still.  Yes!  finally!


----------



## devguy (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> The memory controller has always been traditionally part of the north bridge.  It's moving a north bridge feature onto the same silicon.  By your logic, Intel's Core 2 line "shared computing resources", *which is silly and disingenuous*.



Is it?  I am precisely trying to make you consider that.  Why do you (not necessarily you personally) believe that some resources on a Core 2 Duo could be shared and still called a dual core, while some/other resources on a Zambezi cannot be shared if you want to label it an octal core?  What exactly is it that cannot be shared, and where is the definition of the components of an x86 "core" that backs up that argument?

And your mention of the memory controller on the north bridge emphasizes the fact that there is no standard of what components make up an x86 core!


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Except for your arbitrary definition where they have to compete for the FPU.



It won't happen
It's an FMAC it can do 256bit Add+Multiply

Intel's solution is 256bit Add then 256bit Multiply (2 256bit Add or Multiply AVX commands when AMD Zambezi only needs 1 256 Add+Multiply AVX Command)

It is the same thing



faramir said:


> That's AMD's problem. They are advertising 4 module Bulldozer as "8 core" so when this comes back and bites them in the a$$ they'll have noone but themselves to blame, just like Intel did with the frequency figures in P4 era (high frequency with lousy performance).



It is 8 cores


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> Don't forget SSE5 and 128Bit AVX
> 
> I don't get this one
> 
> ...



SSE5 was replaced with several smaller instruction sets that were redesigned to work with AVX better. This happened right after the AMD/Intel contract was renegotiated. So SSE5 as far as the name is concerned will not be on Bulldozer.

Some reviews showed a while back (like years) if you change the name that was reported to some of the benchmark programs, you would magically get better numbers. A VIA C7 that was reported to the software as either an AMD processor or Intel process improved its memory and per-clock performance. While the performance could be justified as the VIA C7 aquired use of SSE3 at the time rather late and a patch for the software was needed. The memory performance change was just BS.

And there has been no confirmation of the naming scheme to my knowledge.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> 4 fetch/decode/store per cycle for 32bit
> 
> 2 fetch/decode/store per cycle for 64bit
> 
> ...



Still a single unit. More than one fetch/decode/store operations per cycle happens in every architecture since, I can't even remember when. Previous AMD chips did up to 3, now it's 4. I see the improvement but it's still only 1 fetch/decode unit per module nonetheless.

The line is blurred definately, but you can call BD module an 1 core as easily as you can call it a 2 core. Because of the single fetch unit I'm more inclined to call it 1 core.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> SSE5 was replaced with several smaller instruction sets that were redesigned to work with AVX better. This happened right after the AMD/Intel contract was renegotiated. So SSE5 as far as the name is concerned will not be on Bulldozer.
> 
> Some reviews showed a while back (like years) if you change the name that was reported to some of the benchmark programs, you would magically get better numbers. A VIA C7 that was reported to the software as either an AMD processor or Intel process improved its memory and per-clock performance. While the performance could be justified as the VIA C7 aquired use of SSE3 at the time rather late and a patch for the software was needed. The memory performance change was just BS.
> 
> And there has been no confirmation of the naming scheme to my knowledge.



For what I use SSE5(XOP,CVT16,FMA4) is highly important

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...ulldozer_Chips_Incoming_Details_Revealed.html



Benetanegia said:


> Still a single unit. More than one fetch/decode/store operations per cycle happens in every architecture since, I can't even remember when. Previous AMD chips did up to 3, now it's 4. I see the improvement but it's still only 1 fetch/decode unit per module nonetheless.
> 
> The line is blurred definately, but you can call BD module an 1 core as easily as you can call it a 2 core. Because of the single fetch unit I'm more inclined to call it 1 core.



It's an 8 core

It has 4 fetch/decode/store units not one per module

Phenom II could only do 3 fetch/decodes per clock or 3 stores per clock


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Cache speed and memory performance are very tightly linked together. We are talking about the combination of BOTH. Increase L3 speed, and memory bandwidth goes up with it. I can show this very simply with both AMD and Intel chips.
> 
> You can say that SPi favors Intel chips...but then again, if you want to go down that road, so do the majority of applications out there...any apps favors the faster performance on 1155. Like I posted above, I don't care, really, if an app favors one over the other...the fact of the matter is that the end user gets better performance on 1155, not how Intel really got there.



Both? Alright so we already know AMD has better ram bandwidth, let's look at the cache. Btw 775 doesn't even have L3.











Note the DDR3 on phenom only gives it a .2 latency boost on L2. It would win either way.

Biggest difference I see is the read and copy are switched. Overall it appears AMD is faster on cache as well. Yet super pi still does better on 775 despite all that. So really what purpose does super pi have here in comparing AMD and Intel chips if the architecture is making a bigger impact than the memory speeds?


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Biggest difference I see is the read and copy are switched. Overall it appears AMD is faster on cache as well. Yet super pi still does better on 775 despite all that. So really what purpose does super pi have here in comparing AMD and Intel chips if the architecture is making a bigger impact than the memory speeds?



None, Super Pi doesn't use a living architecture like wPrime does

x87 vs SSE
SSE wins

Name applications that came out this year that uses x87


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> None, Super Pi doesn't use a living architecture like wPrime does
> 
> x87 vs SSE
> SSE wins
> ...



x87 is like 5 years old and completely obsolete. The Phenom II is running Super Pi with the SSE Instruction sets up to SSE3. Intel gets the benefit of the full SSE4, SSE4.1 and SSE4.2.

So of course there is no x87 programs. Why would anyone do that.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> It has 4 fetch/decode/store units not one per module



False.



> *Shared Instruction Fetch*
> 
> *Sharing between cores* is a key element of Bulldozer’s architecture, and it starts with the front end. The front-end has been entirely overhauled *and is now responsible for feeding both cores within a module*. Bulldozer’s front end includes branch prediction, instruction fetching, instruction decoding and macro-op dispatch. These stages are effectively multi-threaded with single cycle switching between threads. The arbitration between the two cores is determined by a number of factors including fairness, pipeline occupancy and stalling events.



Basically each module has *one* fetch/decode unit capable of issuing 4 macrops per cycle (same as Intel does since Nehalem, or sooner I'm not sure actually). So while a Phenom X6 had in total *six* units capable of issuing 3 Mops each, 8 "core" BD has 4 units capable of issuing 4 Mops each.


----------



## repman244 (Jul 11, 2011)

More stuff for you guys to discuss 

http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414.pdf



> The following performance caveats apply when using streaming stores on AMD Family 15h cores.
> • When writing out a single stream of data sequentially, performance of AMD Family 15h
> processors is comparable to previous generations of AMD processors.
> • When writing out two streams of data, AMD Family 15h version 1 processors can be up to three
> ...



*goes away to get more popcorn*


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Both? Alright so we already know AMD has better ram bandwidth, let's look at the cache. Btw 775 doesn't even have L3.
> 
> http://i46.tinypic.com/ta1se8.png
> http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3314/cachemem2m.png
> ...



I'm sorry, but your compare here is inaccurate. You've got AMD with DDR3, and Intel with DDR2. I dunno about you, but I ran my 775 on DDR3 as soon as DDR3 boards came out. In fact, my old 775 board, a Foxconn BlackOps, that supports DDR3, is on it's way to EasyRhino right now.


Anyway, the point was that SuperPi can directly relate to SOME APPs and how they can perform, and is in no way meant to be used as a comparison for all performance scenarios.


And I do have screenshots from that platform. I'll not fall for the obvious problems in your compare; your troll failed, sry.


----------



## faramir (Jul 11, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> Unsurprisingly, as you've been prone to do today, seronx, you didn't actually read what you were responding to. I'm starting to think it's a reading comprehension deficiency.



That, or a bit of this. That's another link for him.


----------



## bucketface (Jul 11, 2011)

Amd is considering integer clusters as "cores". There are 8 Integer clusters on BD so they say 8 cores. 
@cadaveca
isn't it the cache on Amd chips that is significantly lower performing and not Memory (ram) bandwidth, somuch. from what i've seen memory bandwidth isn't that far behind Intel on Amd. Also Super pi tests at or below chip cache should be only limited by cache bandwidth/latency. the larger tests should show combined effects from cache and memory.

From my understanding if Amd were to go out of bussiness then Intel would get carved up into bite sized chunks that would have to compete with eachother. Anyway why wuld you want the competion to fold, it just leads to higher prices. ideally you want at least 3 major players in a market each controlling roughly equal market share. that way you get lots of competition and good prices.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> False.
> 
> Basically each module has *one* fetch/decode unit capable of issuing 4 macrops per cycle (same as Intel does since Nehalem, or sooner I'm not sure actually). So while a Phenom X6 had in total *six* units capable of issuing 3 Mops each, 8 "core" BD has 4 units capable of issuing 4 Mops each.



I don't care anymore






I got confused with this picture

You were right but my mind remembered something else

64KB L1I is divided by 2 for each core 32KB L1I per core just like Intel


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 11, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> x87 is like 5 years old and completely obsolete. The Phenom II is running Super Pi with the SSE Instruction sets up to SSE3. Intel gets the benefit of the full SSE4, SSE4.1 and SSE4.2.
> 
> So of course there is no x87 programs. Why would anyone do that.



Um dude, Phenom II doesnt use SSE anything for SuperPI .. neither does SB.
SuperPI only utilizes x87 for its codebase, therefore thats whats run on both processors in that benchmark.
It makes no sense for any modern uarch strive for x87 prowess ... so, Im pretty sure superPI is the last thing on AMD's mind...if it ever was to begin with =P
It just so happens SB is better at x87 stuff ... who cares!
I wish people would drop superpi all together its meaningless nowadays...yet people use it to leave a good or bad taste in their mouth about an upcoming uarch....freakin retarded way to make first impressions of a new uarch!!!


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Jul 11, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> How do you figure? Preliminary pricing has the 8 core BD at 330 dollars and the 990FX boards are priced around the same as P67 boards.
> 
> As for overclocking. Sandy Bridge processors are 95W TDP's, BD 8 core is 140W. Which do you think is going to have an easier time overclocking?
> 
> ...



there 125 and 95 watt for Bulldozer,The 186 is a eng sample so it leaks more then a B2 chip.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

H82LUZ73 said:


> there 125 and 95 watt for Bulldozer,The 186 is a eng sample so it leaks more then a B2 chip.



I didn't think about that  and it doesn't help it leaking that much at 3.2GHz lol

All FX Chips are overclockable

95 Watts FX-X110, 125 Watts FX-8130P



GenTarkin said:


> Um dude, Phenom II doesnt use SSE anything for SuperPI .. neither does SB.
> SuperPI only utilizes x87 for its codebase, therefore thats whats run on both processors in that benchmark.
> It makes no sense for any modern uarch strive for x87 prowess ... so, Im pretty sure superPI is the last thing on AMD's mind...if it ever was to begin with =P
> It just so happens SB is better at x87 stuff ... who cares!
> I wish people would drop superpi all together its meaningless nowadays...yet people use it to leave a good or bad taste in their mouth about an upcoming uarch....freakin retarded way to make first impressions of a new uarch!!!



exactly


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I'm sorry, but your compare here is inaccurate. You've got AMD with DDR3, and Intel with DDR2. I dunno about you, but I ran my 775 on DDR3 as soon as DDR3 boards came out. In fact, my old 775 board, a Foxconn BlackOps, that supports DDR3, is on it's way to EasyRhino right now.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the point was that SuperPi can directly relate to SOME APPs and how they can perform, and is in no way meant to be used as a comparison for all performance scenarios.
> ...



Ok. I've had enough of this crap from you. Every time you get pushed into a corner with  one of your assumptions you clamp down into this "lalalala I can't hear you mode." That wasn't even remotely trollish to anyone but you. I explained the extent of the effect of the DDR3, which I had confirmed before posting. Here, see for yourself. http://www.legitreviews.com/article/902/6/

It's ok to have some confidence in your assumptions but you take it too far. Thinking I'm trolling you? Wth man.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

Yes, you are trolling, becuase although SuperPi is not indicitive of real-world performance, it does correlate to overall memory performance. As seen in F1 2010.

You started of saying AMD had better ram performance, but it does not; it only looks that way in your screenshots because you've got DDR2 VS DDR3. That's using skewed results that emulate what you want, rather than the truth. Start with factual comments, and I'll not call you a troll.

I've been doing cache speed compares since SKT754. if you search other forums for my posts, you'll find I even comapred 1MB vs 2MB CPUs. You're not informing me(or anyone else) of anything.


----------



## THANATOS (Jul 11, 2011)

*seronx* I won't deny that BD has a balanced amount of resources so there won't be a bottleneck and one of the links I provided was from AMD not just some smart ass guy even if it was quite old presentation.
The thing is, for me it would be 4 cores with 8 integer clusters but not 8 cores, because for me a 2 core is CMP, 2 identical cores who share at most L3 cache for data sharing between cores, hyper-transport and Integrated Memory Controller and in some case IGP like in Llano or SB.  
Thats why I think they would be better of calling it 4 cores with AMD-threading or something like that and not 8 cores just because some small part of core die, just 12% is doubled what is not a core but an integer unit(cluster) just a part of it. Intel SB with HT also has an increase in die size thanks to HT meaning something was doubled but not as much as in an AMD modul, yet no one calls it that way even if it can virtually work with 8 threads. Why doubling integer units means double amount of cores but doubling registers and some other things means just 4 cores?
(sorry i couldn't find what was actually doubled except some registers in P4 but from that time HT did a big improvement even if I still think modul is the right choice and not HT)

*devguy * you wrote L3 Cache, the Integrated Memory Controller, and the HyperTransport link are shared and thanks to that Deneb should be just one core if BD isn't an 8 core or something in this sense. Thats a bad comparison in my opinion.
L3 cache is there specifically just so each core can access data from the other, what other reason would be there if L2 cache is faster, so making it larger would be better for the performance than creating a new slower cache.
IMC is for a CPU to communicate with the memory modules, so why should each core have their own IMC? 
Hyper-transport or intel equivalent is the same as IMC just a communication between cpu and northbridge, southbridge or other cpu.
Not one of them was ever included in a core as I can recall at least IMC and HTt.
Its enough if you just look at the BD modul and deneb core and you can see the difference is just twice the amount of integer clusters, but just integer clusters were never called cores so why should be now.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 11, 2011)

Technically your current title doesn't have "mod" in it. Your mod status is implied. lol


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 11, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Technically your current title doesn't have "mod" in it. Your mod status is implied. lol



lol he means "Super PI Mod v1.5".


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> *seronx* I won't deny that BD has a balanced amount of resources so there won't be a bottleneck and one of the links I provided was from AMD not just some smart ass guy even if it was quite old presentation.
> The thing is, for me it would be 4 cores with 8 integer clusters but not 8 cores, because for me a 2 core is CMP, 2 identical cores who share at most L3 cache for data sharing between cores, hyper-transport and Integrated Memory Controller and in some case IGP like in Llano or SB.
> Thats why I think they would be better of calling it 4 cores with AMD-threading or something like that and not 8 cores just because some small part of core die, just 12% is doubled what is not a core but an integer unit(cluster) just a part of it. Intel SB with HT also has an increase in die size thanks to HT meaning something was doubled but not as much as in an AMD modul, yet no one calls it that way even if it can virtually work with 8 threads. Why doubling integer units means double amount of cores but doubling registers and some other things means just 4 cores?
> (sorry i couldn't find what was actually doubled except some registers in P4 but from that time HT did a big improvement even if I still think modul is the right choice and not HT)



Everything was doubled
2 x 128bits SSE(1x256 bit AVX Add+Multiply)
2 x 16KB L1D
1 x 64KB L1I instead of 1 x 32KB L1I
64+64 and 32+32+32+32 registers instead of 64 and 32+32 registers
512KB(Phenom II) to 1MB L2(Regor/Llano) to 2MB L2(Zambezi)

To lazy to look up more that was doubled

The formula has changed a bit
Two Identical cores now use L2(For Zambezi)
Several Modules now use L3(For Zambezi)






Rather old dissection


----------



## devguy (Jul 11, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> *devguy * you wrote L3 Cache, the Integrated Memory Controller, and the HyperTransport link are shared and thanks to that Deneb should be just one core if BD isn't an 8 core or something in this sense. Thats a bad comparison in my opinion.
> L3 cache is there specifically just so each core can access data from the other, what other reason would be there if L2 cache is faster, so making it larger would be better for the performance than creating a new slower cache.
> IMC is for a CPU to communicate with the memory modules, so why should each core have their own IMC?
> Hyper-transport or intel equivalent is the same as IMC just a communication between cpu and northbridge, southbridge or other cpu.
> ...



Here's a quote from JF-AMD that you should read:


> Um, old school processors had the FPU in a seperate socket and few ever populated it. Are you telling me that everything prior to pentium was a "zero core" or "half core" processor?
> 
> Processors are full of shared and discrete components. Memory controller, L2 cache, L3 cache, Northbridge, HT links, etc. All of that stuff can be shared. Why don't you give each core a memory controller? When we went from single core with a single memory controller to dual core with a single memory controller, where was the outrage? You can't really call that a "dual core" with only a single memory controller....
> 
> ...


----------



## bucketface (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I've been doing cache speed compares since SKT754. if you search other forums for my posts, you'll find I even comapred 1MB vs 2MB CPUs. You're not informing me(or anyone else) of anything.



Is that at me?...

ok, can u clear something up for me. Doesn't super pi mostly stress cache bandwidth/latency esp at lower tests like below 8mb. I thought it was Amd's cache that was slower than intels and not so much the Imc or does Qpi  significantly outpace it.



cadaveca said:


> The question must be raised, is such detailed analysis even nessecary? Are we comparing cache, the CPU memory subsystem(which for me, is caches, controller, and system memory), the system memory subsystem, or jsut overall performance?
> 
> I raised this point earlier..I care about game perforamcne, so until I get game perforamcne compares, none of this really matters to me. Bulldozer could be the slowest CPU ever, but if in some magical way it makes my games play better, then it's a win, for me. So, what's really improtant for you? Games, or something else?


just curious, you were discussing phenom mem perf vs sandy or something earlier. i thought it might have some relevance to this. also below 8m the cache is whats being tested and after that both cache and the rest or the mem sub-system. i'm not sure what im saying anymore.. too tired. 
games.. look at my rig. I spent $70 on the cpu and $180 on the Gfx.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

bucketface said:


> Is that at me?...



No, not at all!  It to those posting comment like "x87 is now useless". No kidding x87 is useless, as is SuperPi. However, the way the runtime works creates high memory traffic, and that's what we are analyzing, not how fast the CPU does x87, nor how long it takes to calculate to so many digits of Pi. It's not a "real-world" performance benchmark, it's a "simulated' performance benchmark, which means, by the nature of those definitions, that it must not be accepted as fact without special considerations. Raising any points about the validity of those benchmarks is stating the obvious, and as such, I consider a troll posting.



bucketface said:


> ok, can u clear something up for me. Doesn't super pi mostly stress cache bandwidth/latency esp at lower tests like below 8mb. I thought it was Amd's cache that was slower than intels and not so much the Imc.



The question must be raised, is such detailed analysis even nessecary? Are we comparing cache, the CPU memory subsystem(which for me, is caches, controller, and system memory), the system memory subsystem, or jsut overall performance?

I raised this point earlier..I care about game perforamcne, so until I get game perforamcne compares, none of this really matters to me. Bulldozer could be the slowest CPU ever, but if in some magical way it makes my games play better, then it's a win, for me. So, what's really improtant for you? Games, or something else?


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

So going back to what we see in the screens posted at the beginning of this thread which sparked enthusiasm from some and skepticism from others, we can conclude that:

The Aida cache and memory benchmark is a disaster for BD, SuperPi the same and the other benchmarks are done at unknown clocks therefore we don’t have a true comparison with SB.

We’ll have to wait a little longer to realy compare BD and SB.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yes, you are trolling, becuase although SuperPi is not indicitive of real-world performance, it does correlate to overall memory performance. As seen in F1 2010.
> 
> You started of saying AMD had better ram performance, but it does not; it only looks that way in your screenshots because you've got DDR2 VS DDR3. That's using skewed results that emulate what you want, rather than the truth. Start with factual comments, and I'll not call you a troll.
> 
> I've been doing cache speed compares since SKT754. if you search other forums for my posts, you'll find I even comapred 1MB vs 2MB CPUs. You're not informing me(or anyone else) of anything.



AMD has had better ram bandwidth than 775 for quite awhile now. This shouldn't be news to you. Stop being so stupid about this. It was a CACHE comparison as I stated, not a ram comparison. I explained the difference in it's effect on cache, which was not enough to be to skew the comparison. If you're going to argue something actually argue it, don't just run away and deflect. Reread my posts, look at all 4 screens. The two I posted and the two I linked to and try again, because you seem to have radically misunderstood what was being discussed.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

No, I understand very well. What I do not understand is why it's important to compare 775 DDR2 performance(which launched in 2005), to AM3 DDR3 performance(circa 2009), to validate SuperPi numbers, when it's already known that SuperPi(circa 1995) is not dependant on memory performance alone?


I 110% understand the point you are trying to make. I am simply refusing to go down that road, because it serves no importance to the discussion at hand. You simply want to try to refute my postings, and slide in some doubt, but sorry, I'm not gonna fall for it. I never claimed SuperPi was only impacted by memory performance.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> So going back to what we see in the screens posted at the beginning of this thread which sparked enthusiasm from some and skepticism from others, we can conclude that:
> 
> The Aida cache and memory benchmark is a disaster for BD, SuperPi the same and the other benchmarks are done at unknown clocks therefore we don’t have a true comparison with SB.
> 
> We’ll have to wait a little longer to realy compare BD and SB.



4.2GHz for the single core apps with modules turned off/gated
3.6GHz is the max turbo core with all cores in use
3.2GHz is the stock clock






Today was June 1st
July 31st -> August 31st

AIDA64 is a memory subsystem benchmark
SuperPi is a x87 benchmark and only really stresses L1 <-> L3 memory
the rest are basically media benchmarks
3dmark 07/11 are both gaming class benchmarks

The reason the engineer sample is not a valid way to show off Zambezi is because it isn't at spec

Zambezi 8130P ES 3.2GHz/3.6GHz/4.2GHz @ 185wTDP
Zambezi 8130P RS 3.8GHz/4.2GHz/4.8GHz @ 125wTDP


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 11, 2011)

So are we taking for granted what that guy says? We don't have any proof that what you are saying regarding the clocks so let me take this info with a grain of salt.


----------



## THANATOS (Jul 11, 2011)

*seronx* registers and memory should be doubled in Sb with HT too, decoder too, almost everything like BD except integer cluster.
FPU would be the same even if one integer cluster was removed don't you think? It would do the same, because if it was just 128b then BD wouldn't be able to work with AVX.

*devguy*
I know that quote, I saw it some time ago. Its down to what is a core, for most people it's  probably an Integer cluster, but for me not.
Then every core diagram from AMD is wrong because they are not showing just the integer part what is a "core for most people" but also decoder, FPU, L2 cache, prediction, prefetch and so on which are not in integer cluster so they shouldn't be shown in a core diagram but in a cpu diagram with L3 cache, HTt, IMC.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> So are we taking for granted what that guy says? We don't have any proof that what you are saying regarding the clocks so let me take this info with a grain of salt.





JF-AMD]Engineering samples are built for validation and testing said:


> here[/URL]
> 
> His comments imply or infer that the engineer samples are lower clocked than the retail versions
> 
> ...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 11, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> No, I understand very well. What I do not understand is why it's important to compare 775 DDR2 performance(which launched in 2005), to AM3 DDR3 performance(circa 2009), to validate SuperPi numbers, when it's already known that SuperPi(circa 1995) is not dependant on memory performance alone?
> 
> 
> I 110% understand the point you are trying to make. I am simply refusing to go down that road, because it serves no importance to the discussion at hand. You simply want to try to refute my postings, and slide in some doubt, but sorry, I'm not gonna fall for it. I never claimed SuperPi was only impacted by memory performance.



It's not. Why is this so hard for you to understand no matter how plainly I state it???!? We're talking about the freakin' cache!!! It has nothing to do with it being DDR2 or 3. Phenom II runs DDR2 you know? And Phenom II with DDR2 has better bandwidth than a top 775 proc also on DDR2 of the same speed. That's why I'm saying AMD has better bandwidth, not because of that DDR3 result. You could see that looking at the Phenom DDR2 result on the link I gave compared to the yorkfield shot I posted. I told you it had nothing to do with that, and I told you the small benefit the DDR3 made to the cache and how it made no difference. AMD still wins on the cache front as well. 

You're the one that defined the importance of this. You scoffed at the poor super pi results and then went on about how it told you so much about the memory and in-turn the gaming performance. Only given the 775 comparison it would seem that it didn't really correspond.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> JF-AMD after I asked what was cripplin' the Engineer Samples: here
> 
> His comments imply or infer that the engineer samples are lower clocked than the retail versions
> 
> ...



if you want to go off of baseless infferance then yeah it sounds amazing, but using that as a the basis of an argument is flawed at best, not only that if that's not the case you think AMD would admit it .. . . ..  NO!

All this speculation and trolling is worth less than the benchies from the eng sample.:shadedshu


----------



## XoR (Jul 11, 2011)

if SuperPi was in SSE it wouldn't change nothing as difference here is from how well processor can re-order and parallelize such algorithms on it's executions units. Intel so happens did their homework with tweaking NetBurst which without out-of-order was nothing. AMD didn't seem to care and pays now the price. 

SuperPi is not good benchmark to evaluate relative everyday performance of different CPUs but it is good benchmark to see if AMD made any progress on it's decoding and real-time optimization units.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> if you want to go off of baseless infferance then yeah it sounds amazing, but using that as a the basis of an argument is flawed at best, not only that if that's not the case you think AMD would admit it .. . . ..  NO!
> 
> All this speculation and trolling is worth less than the benchies from the eng sample.:shadedshu





JF-AMD]
Performance is based on:
The silicon
The microcode in the silicon
The BIOS
The compiler updates
The drivers
The OS optimizations
Performance tuning by engineers
[/QUOTE]

This doesn't look like a defense said:


> if SuperPi was in SSE it wouldn't change nothing as difference here is from how well processor can re-order and parallelize such algorithms on it's executions units. Intel so happens did their homework with tweaking NetBurst which without out-of-order was nothing. AMD didn't seem to care and pays now the price.
> 
> SuperPi is not good benchmark to evaluate relative everyday performance of different CPUs but it is good benchmark to see if AMD made any progress on it's decoding and real-time optimization units.



SSE performance is pretty high on AMDs

SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, XOP, CVT16, FMA4, LWP all increase the performance of the FPU SSEs capabilities

Bulldozer is a generation leap in light speed

I'm not saying Zambezi that time because I'm talking about the architecture not the CPU


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 11, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> You're the one that defined the importance of this. You scoffed at the poor super pi results and then went on about how it told you so much about the memory and in-turn the gaming performance. Only given the 775 comparison it would seem that it didn't really correspond.



Did Core2 CPus not have better IPC than AMD chips? Clearly the performance difference, as I've already stated, is not memory performance alone.


I mean really, going by SuperPi times alone there, my SB @ 4.9 GHz would be near 3x faster than the BD in the OP. Do I think my SB is 3x faster? 

Uh, no?!?





It's merely one in a long list of examples where memory performance matters. Again, F1 2010 is example of a game (ie real-world) that can be impacted quite largely by memory performance...is it ONLY impacted by memory performance? NO! Are there ways to overcome that problem? You Bet!


So, I still fail to see your point, which is why I called you a troll. It's not just about cache. It's not just about memory bandwidth. It's not just about CPU core frequency. Each and every one is important when it comes to performance, and each has it's own implications and impacts on performance. 

You, on the other hand, are centering on one aspect of how I have formed my opinion on what's important, while ignoring the rest.

So, now that's all said, what was your point again? Maybe your right, and I fail to understand, so why don't you just spell it out for me, please?


----------



## devguy (Jul 11, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> devguy
> I know that quote, I saw it some time ago. Its down to what is a core, for most people it's  probably an Integer cluster, but for me not.  *Then every core diagram from AMD is wrong* because they are not showing just the integer part what is a "core for most people" but also decoder, FPU, L2 cache, prediction, prefetch and so on which are not in integer cluster so they shouldn't be shown in a core diagram but in a cpu diagram with L3 cache, HTt, IMC.



Actually, the opposite is true.  Every core diagram from AMD is *right*, because there is no definition of what components make up an x86 "core".  They are able to apply the term as they see fit, and on what basis do you have to disagree with their call?  Precedence?  Personal preference?  Rebelliousness?  Arbitrariness?  What cannot be shared if you personally would like to consider it a "core"?

To reiterate my example, why is the IMC allowed to be shared without people questioning whether it is a "core" or not?  Forcing each "core" to be queued up to communicate with main memory rather than having its own direct link could marginally impact performance.  Forcing each "core" in a module to share a branch predictor could marginally impact performance.  Why is the first okay, and not the second?


----------



## THANATOS (Jul 11, 2011)

*devguy* 
what you quoted was JF saying core for most people is integer cluster(ALU, AGU, INTeger scheduler and some L1D cache) yet in a *core* diagram regardless if architecture is BD, Phenom or Athlon they are showing not just these parts but also decoder, FPU dispatch, L2 cache, prefetch and some other parts so can you tell me how is it right and not wrong? based on this I would say these are also parts of a core and not just a small portion what JF mentioned.

I don't know why you are so hung up on IMC not being dedicated for every single core, what do you say about this, because if every core had his own IMC that would mean in a 4 core CPU every core would have just 32b bus instead of a shared IMC where if not all cores are active, one core can have 128b width and not just 1/4 and its impossible to have 128b for every single core in a 4 core cpu, that would mean 512b width memory access, look at SB-E it has just 256b memory access and they had to place two memory slots on both sides, just so it wouldn't be too complicated or expensive to manufacture.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 11, 2011)

seronx said:


> This doesn't look like a defense, lol
> 
> I don't want to bring up anything  else that can make you say my arguments are baseless and or invalid or simply right out stupid
> 
> ...



Way to debate context versus substance, my point was and remains, this is all pointless as you yourself stated engi sample are different versus consumer products.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 11, 2011)

devguy said:


> What cannot be shared if you personally would like to consider it a "core"?



This one is easy. The fetch and decode unit. That's the "thinking" part. I have 2 hands, 2 legs, 2 lungs, but only 1 head and that makes me 1 person. No matter how many pair of things I have.



> To reiterate my example, why is the IMC allowed to be shared without people questioning whether it is a "core" or not?  Forcing each "core" to be queued up to communicate with main memory rather than having its own direct link could marginally impact performance.  Forcing each "core" in a module to share a branch predictor could marginally impact performance.  Why is the first okay, and not the second?



Because a memory controler is what its name implies, a *memory* controler, which has little to do with what a CPU really is.

All CPU architectures are based on Von Nemann's design which specified, a CPU, main memory and i/o module. The 3 are separate things, whether they are included in the same package or not.

Now CPUs have an integrated memory controler, but that does not make it part of the CPU really, it makes them part of the CPU die. We can say the same about high level caches actually, they are on die, but they are NOT the CPU, nor are they part of the CPU.

Or what's next? We will call a core to every GPU shader processor on die, because they have an ALU? pff ridiculous.


----------



## THANATOS (Jul 11, 2011)

*Benetanegia* you have my thanks, but instead of cpu maybe you could have used cores or something because memory controller is in a cpu so it wouldn't be confusing.


P.S. forget my comment except my thanks, I am just too sleepy so I didn't grasp right the meaning of some words.


----------



## seronx (Jul 11, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Way to debate context versus substance, my point was and remains, this is all pointless as you yourself stated engi sample are different versus consumer products.



It is not pointless
Performance increase from here on but some people want to know how much and some of us can help with that

I shot out a number
10% to 30% very modest to me
As the Engineer Sample is already good enough for me



Benetanegia said:


> Or what's next? We will call a core to every GPU shader processor on die, because they have an ALU? pff ridiculous.



*cough*Fermi*cough* *cough*16 cores*cough* *cough*512 ALUs*cough*

*cough*Northern Islands*cough* *cough*384 cores*cough* *cough*1536 ALUs*cough*

More or so the AMD GPU than the Nvidia GPU

It's already happening oh noes


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> It is not pointless
> Performance increase from here on but some people want to know how much and some of us can help with that
> 
> I shot out a number
> ...



It is pointless as where are you getting those numbers from ? And don't say "I can't tell you", the first rule of the internet if you can't prove it don't post it cuz it's wrong. Also again AMD says engi samples are less than consumer, but amd also inflates it's own numbers just like Intel, I am saying even if it's true what if the opposite is and would AMD admit it . ..  NO. So I do not know how else to help you understand that, but if you still don't get it sorry.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Did Core2 CPus not have better IPC than AMD chips? Clearly the performance difference, as I've already stated, is not memory performance alone.
> 
> 
> I mean really, going by SuperPi times alone there, my SB @ 4.9 GHz would be near 3x faster than the BD in the OP. Do I think my SB is 3x faster?
> ...



Nah, let's not play that game again. Let's talk about your point. 

Yes it's more than memory performance. It's the architecture overall. You act like because Intel's architecture favors super pi it favors all games. It does not. There are games that favor AMDs architecture as well. Because of this you shouldn't be focusing on super pi as any sort of performance indicator across platforms. A far better question at this point is just wth was your point supposed to be? You start by saying "Wake me up when AMD can reach these." Putting the utmost emphasis on a test that as it turns out has no bearing on the overall gaming performance you care so much about. Then you proceed to gradually back track and down play that initial stance increasingly as we move on through the thread, while expertly misunderstanding what I was saying. Now you get what I mean and you decide to move on to talking about the IPC. It's not even about what you're arguing as much as it is about not appearing to be wrong is it? Arguing with you has been like looking at a funhouse mirror. Doesn't matter what the input is everything you get back is all wonky.

Let me try to explain what’s happening here. I feel you have trouble expression your very rigidly held opinions. A lot of the things you say come off as confusing and poorly defined. These are things I don’t respond well too. Then you laugh at people and call them trolls when your confusing statements are challenged. Jackassery is something I don’t respond well to either. Both of those together make me very unpleasant. Frankly I don’t think anyone should be expected to be pleasant in the face of that. So like with the SB overclocking thread I think I’ll just stop visiting this.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> It is pointless as where are you getting those numbers from ? And don't say "I can't tell you", the first rule of the internet if you can't prove it don't post it cuz it's wrong. Also again AMD says engi samples are less than consumer, but amd also inflates it's own numbers just like Intel, I am saying even if it's true what if the opposite is and would AMD admit it . ..  NO. So I do not know how else to help you understand that, but if you still don't get it sorry.



Wrong,

The first rule of the internet is

1. Don't annoy someone who has more spare time than you do.

AMD hasn't inflated any numbers

They have only said CMT is a more efficient way of what SMT tries to achieve

SMT = more threads on the die without increasing the amount of cores

CMT = more cores on the die with a 50% die increase from Phenom II 

4 x 150 = 600%
6 x 100 = 600%

So, Bulldozer is about the same die size as Thuban while achieving relatively the same performance per core while having more cores


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 12, 2011)

This is to cadaveca or anyone else with this mindset:

Why do you rely so heavily game results / benchmarks determine your chosen platform?
The hilarious part is, over half the gaming reviews / benchmarks published are pure BS.
Heres how it breaks down in the end:
Intel - sure, you get amazing fps on lower resolution settings, you get good fps on more normal resolution and maybe a bit of eyecandy turned on. But when it comes down to the actual meat of what matters in a game (min fps)...AMD and Intel are VERY VERY close. Sure, intel still outreaches AMD in some games, in min fps at decent settings....but in the end. Intel vs AMD - gaming....um...pretty much even when you take into account whats important (min fps).

All these benches showing highest fps or even avg fps, to a lesser extent, are nearly meaning less...because highest fps and avg fps are most likely ALWAYS at a decent playable fps. Whereas min fps may not always be so playable. So who does best when shit hits the fan is the winner...the problem is, there is hardly any best in this case. They are nearly tied in most cases.

The only time where it may mean otherwise is if your GPU is so powerful that any resolution and any hardcore graphics settings, peg your CPU @ 100% - therefore bottlenecking your GPU (especially if the GPU show significant usage less than 100%).

So, really when it comes down to it...AMD vs Intel... both fast enough to handle nearly any amount of GPU power available today, now stop arguing over it!


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> *cough*Fermi*cough* *cough*16 cores*cough* *cough*512 ALUs*cough*
> 
> *cough*Northern Islands*cough* *cough*384 cores*cough* *cough*1536 ALUs*cough*
> 
> More or so the AMD GPU than the Fermi GPU



What's up with all those cough? You are actually giving me reason.

A GPU core is not the same as a CPU core, so it's pointless to make any argument from that. When it comes to functionality, yes GF100/110 (and not Fermi*) has 16 cores (looking at it from a compute perspective) with 32 ALU each. In reality it has 2 SIMD ALUs each. And this is good BTW. Why on earth would you say that GF110 has 16 cores and 512 ALUs, when in fact each "core" has two parallel and totally independen execution units (SIMDs)? Why not say that it has 32 "cores", 16 modules? Because Nvidia chose not to claim that?

And Cayman has 24 "cores" not 384.

* Fermi can have 16, 8, 4... of so called "cores" (GF100, GF104, GF106...). I never call them cores anyway. Not even Nvidia calls them cores, as in GPU cores. They call them CUDA cores, and when it comes to CUDA execution, they are CUDA cores in many ways. In that each one can take care of 1 cuda thread.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> And Cayman has 24 "cores" not 384.



You've blown my mind explain but other than that

Zambezi is a(n) native 4/6/8 core processor because it has the basic components to be called a(n) 4/6/8 core processor

My point is that most companies base the "core" amount on how much ALUs they have or how many executions possible the ALU can fart out


----------



## XoR (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> SSE performance is pretty high on AMDs


SSE is not magic and it won't solve every performance issues a cpu have. It's important how floating point execution unit work and how good uOPS decoder can throw at them. And it combined together matters more than if instruction is x87 variety or SSE's.

if so happen AMD ditched x87 and made it slow in favor of SSE then SSE versions of SuperPi floating around the net should show than difference amd vs intel should be lower. Is it any lower? Or SSE performance of Intel CPUs is also "pretty high"? 



			
				seronx said:
			
		

> SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, XOP, CVT16, FMA4, LWP all increase the performance of the FPU SSEs capabilities
> 
> Bulldozer is a generation leap in light speed


Lacking such obvious extension like SSSE3 in 2011 AMD CPU is quite troubling and Bulldozer will fix that which is good for Intel CPU also


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> You've blown my mind explain



They are 24 "cores" which are composed of a 16 SP wide SIMD unit. Then each SP on each SIMD has 4 "ALUs".

24 x 16= 384
384 x 4 = 1536



> My point is that most companies base the "core" amount on how much ALUs they have or how many executions possible the ALU can fart out



No they don't and if they did, they shouldn't. Each CPU core since the superscalar desing was implemented a loooooooooong time ago has more than 1 ALU per core. So 1 ALU could never be a core.


----------



## devguy (Jul 12, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> I don't know why you are so hung up on IMC not being dedicated for every single core, what do you say about this, because if every core had his own IMC that would mean in a 4 core CPU every core would have just 32b bus instead of a shared IMC where if not all cores are active, one core can have 128b width and not just 1/4 and its impossible to have 128b for every single core in a 4 core cpu, that would mean 512b width memory access, look at SB-E it has just 256b memory access and they had to place two memory slots on both sides, just so it wouldn't be too complicated or expensive to manufacture.



It's not necessarily that I'm "hung up" on the IMC, nor do I personally believe that every core should have its own IMC.  I was simply using it as an example.  I think everyone can agree that the Athlon 64 3200+ has a single "core", and that Deneb has four "cores".  How many resources were provided per core on the Athlon, that are instead shared on Deneb?  Sure, feel free to ask  whether or not said resources are actually part of what a CPU really is.  However, none of us will have a good answer.



> This one is easy. The fetch and decode unit. That's the "thinking" part. I have 2 hands, 2 legs, 2 lungs, but only 1 head and that makes me 1 person. No matter how many pair of things I have.



By all means, you're welcome to feel that is a necessary component of a "core".  AMD does not; who's right?  Who knows...?  However, your analogy is somewhat non-applicable, as a "human" is defined as having the form of a human, and human form is defined as consisting of a head, neck, torso, two arms and two legs.  I'm not aware of any such listing of components for a CPU.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

XoR said:


> SSE is not magic and it won't solve every performance issues a cpu have. It's important how floating point execution unit work and how good uOPS decoder can throw at them. And it combined together matters more than if instruction is x87 variety or SSE's.



It is magic when I can record and encode from 25 fps(Phenom II X4) to 62+ fps(FX-8000 ES) just because of more ISAs



XoR said:


> if so happen AMD ditched x87 and made it slow in favor of SSE then SSE versions of SuperPi floating around the net should show than difference amd vs intel should be lower. Is it any lower? Or SSE performance of Intel CPUs is also "pretty high"?



x87 is emulated not ditched

and wPrime 1024m tells the story



XoR said:


> Lacking such obvious extension like SSSE3 in 2011 AMD CPU is quite troubling and Bulldozer will fix that which is good for Intel CPU also



What? Mainly it's good for AMD CPUs

Magical increase from 50fps to 130fps in encoding performance
2.3x increase in FPU powuh



Benetanegia said:


> They are 24 "cores" which are composed of a 16 SP wide SIMD unit. Then each SP on each SIMD has 4 "ALUs".
> 
> 24 x 16= 384
> 384 x 4 = 1536



Give me a picture

-------------------------------------------------
1 Fetch -> 1 cycle = 4 fetch
2 Decode/Stores 1 cycle = 2 per decode/store(load?) per core


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

devguy said:


> By all means, you're welcome to feel that is a necessary component of a "core".  AMD does not; who's right?  Who knows...?  However, your analogy is somewhat non-applicable, as a "human" is defined as having the form of a human, and human form is defined as consisting of a head, neck, torso, two arms and two legs.  I'm not aware of any such listing of components for a CPU.



Along with many many many NGOs, the Paralympic commitee wants a word with you...

If you are not aware of any such "listing", maybe it's time to read up a little bit on computer architectures, don'tyathink??



> Give me a picture


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Along with many many many NGOs, the Paralympic commitee wants a word with you...
> 
> If you are not aware of any such "listing", maybe it's time to read up a little bit on computer architectures, don'tyathink??



I did read up thanks first rule of the internet

1. Don't annoy someone who has more spare time than you do.

I was simply wondering because AMD is going the opposite direction than just callin out the ALUs on a GPU with GCN


----------



## devguy (Jul 12, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Along with many many many NGOs, the Paralympic commitee wants a word with you...
> 
> If you are not aware of any such "listing", maybe it's time to read up a little bit on computer architectures, don'tyathink??



Haha, blame Wikipedia's definition.  And I understand exactly how important a fetch and decode unit is to a processor (and I'm sure AMD does too).  It's got to get an instruction from memory (or cache if available), and then decode it to understand how to execute the given instruction.  I can also see how it could be shared with only one other "core" with minimal impact to performance, and I bet AMD has a far better picture than I do.

Also most expect to have an FPU and a branch predictor in a "core" as well, but the 486 didn't have a branch predictor, and the 386 had neither.  I don't consider those "zero-core" processors, do you?


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> Wrong,
> 
> The first rule of the internet is
> 
> ...



*clap* Way to ignore the question, you can't answer it or prove your statement, quit while your ahead.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 12, 2011)

repman244 said:


> *goes away to get more popcorn*



ooh dont forget the pepsi!

TPU should do an* IN YOUR FACE*  page for everyone overdosing on fandoyism and making near star trek level predictions of technological advancement.  On launch day your avatar and your quoted prediction on one side and reality on the other....would b a blast and besides we all need 2 learn to laugh at ourselves.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2011)

GenTarkin said:


> Why do you rely so heavily game results / benchmarks determine your chosen platform?



Because that's what i use my computers for?






LAN_deRf_HA said:


> There are games that favor AMDs architecture as well.




Name one. I have both platform, and I'll test..chacnes are I already own the game, and if I don't, I'll buy it.


Keep in mind, I'm an Eyefinity user..as I've stated before. This means I have specific performance requirements, and those performance requirements may nto be the same as it is for others.

ALso, I'm not focused on SuperPi numbers. It was merely a single example. That should have been obvious, as it's one app that is heavily memory-dependant.


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Because that's what i use my computers for?



LOL, I hope you read the rest of my post too =P haha


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2011)

Of course I did. Keep in mind, as a reviewer, I do not EVER post MAXIMUM FPS. I've been doing the benchmarking thing for near 10 years now, and I am not blinded by silly metrics that mean nothing.


In fact, you can find my posts on various websites about just that very subject alone.

I understand you may not have read those posts, so do not understand my opinion fully, but it has been formed through literal DECADES as a PC gamer, and that aspect of my life has gone so far that I'm now doing hardware reviews, not for cash, but because my gaming needs are still not met by hardware that is on the market.

When 30-inch monitors came out, I bought one. I struggled for many years to assemble as system that could actually play games in it's native resolution. That's still a problem for some games, and now I'm running triple monitors...

This journey is literally what had me maknig these performance compares...and I found through the years that many things didn't make sense in reviews. Sometimes, that's because I didn't understand something, or the reviewer was wrong, but today, I'm in the position where I'm the reviewer, and because of those past expereinces, you can rest assured that any comparisons I make in regards to performance, are not only apt, but very much fair.

Heck, I have one of near every CPU sitting here on my desk, and boards to match. if you check the "Easy Rhino Minecraft Server" thread, you'll see my last 775 hardware. I know where the problem are, because I have all the hardware here to play with.

Anyway, keep in mind, the demands I have for manufacturer's, of course, are not going to be the same as others, but here, for me, memory performance...and every aspect of it..from caches to system memory, are very important.

Heck, I'm the one excited by IOMMUs.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> *clap* Way to ignore the question, you can't answer it or prove your statement, quit while your ahead.



I did answer the question

10% to 30% increase in performance

3.2GHz@185TDP to 3.8GHz@125TDP

If I am wrong time will tell but I have substantial amount of private information(you can google most of this information) that tells me I am right





cadaveca said:


> Heck, I'm the one excited by IOMMUs.



Especially, since that IOMMU tech will help fuse Fermi/Kepler/GCN together to the Zambezi processor








			
				Anandtech said:
			
		

> Now what’s interesting is that the unified address space that will be used is the x86-64 address space. All instructions sent to a GCN GPU will be relative to the x86-64 address space, at which point the GPU will be responsible for doing address translation to local memory addresses. In fact GCN will even be incorporating an I/O Memory Mapping Unit (IOMMU) to provide this functionality; previously we’ve only seen IOMMUs used for sharing peripherals in a virtual machine environment. GCN will even be able to page fault half-way gracefully by properly stalling until the memory fetch completes. How this will work with the OS remains to be seen though, as the OS needs to be able to address the IOMMU. GCN may not be fully exploitable under Windows 7.



So, far only GCN will use this but I am pretty sure there will be tweaks that will allow Kepler to use it(or Fermi ++ if there are going to rebrands)

I don't understand what it does but I know it will help GPU/CPU communication, especially in workloads what id tech megatextures do


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2011)

Of course, I said that this was the case for IOMMU long before AMD even really talked about it  My crystal ball is quite clear on that one.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> I did answer the question
> 
> 10% to 30% increase in performance
> 
> ...



Clearly you did not, you answered your own question perhaps but not mine, I asked for sources and you said google, and "private information" neither of which are answers. However you seem to understand my point none the less which is "time will tell", rather than stating opinion and hearsay as fact.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Clearly you did not, you answered your own question perhaps but not mine, I asked for sources and you said google, and "private information" neither of which are answers. However you seem to understand my point none the less which is "time will tell", rather than stating opinion and hearsay as fact.



Get your own sources, my sources are mine

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8130P.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-8110.html

CPU World uses the same sources I do






But, the source had leeway with the information that isn't in that/this image and he only disclosed FX-8110/8130P clocks

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Bulldozer-CPUs-Clock-Speeds-Leaked-201753.shtml

http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/10/11_99101.html

There is another source but the main idea is that Zambezi is a high clock CPU with an enormous overclock headroom do to components being divided more evenly(heat dissipates faster do to that)


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 12, 2011)

You guys are still going?  I've gone home from work, ate dinner, played with my daughter, put her to bed, done some reading with my wife, and played some Starcraft II.  And you haven't made any progress.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> You guys are still going?  I've gone home from work, ate dinner, played with my daughter, put her to bed, done some reading with my wife, and played some Starcraft II.  And you haven't made any progress.



We made 9 pages of progress

 Gloating progress


----------



## DeerSteak (Jul 12, 2011)

no, since I left work 5 and a half hours ago, you made a page and a half of...well, you're still saying 10-30% and avoiding other questions at all costs.  You made a page and a half of "my head hurts."


----------



## Steevo (Jul 12, 2011)

I got my hair cut, bleached, looked at some fine ass girls, then the wife got the kids and now I am going to drink some scotch and watch some TV before we get down to fucking.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

DeerSteak said:


> no, since I left work 5 and a half hours ago, you made a page and a half of...well, you're still saying 10-30% and avoiding other questions at all costs.  You made a page and a half of "my head hurts."








I am always at 10% to 30% from Engineer Sample to Retail Samples






The Memory Subsystem is usable but still has some serious flaws once those flaws are fixed(where the 10% to 30% comes from)

L1 Read is the only thing correct in this


----------



## Melvis (Jul 12, 2011)

Can some please explain to me back in the day of the old Athlon vs P4 (939 etc) that even though the Athlon decimated Intel's P4 that intel still won the Super pi score? Because far as i know Super pi has ALWAYS favored Intel's CPU's regardless of AMD's performance over intel back then.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Can some please explain to me back in the day of the old Athlon vs P4 (939 etc) that even though the Athlon decimated Intel's P4 that intel still won the Super pi score? Because far as i know Super pi has ALWAYS favored Intel's CPU's regardless of AMD's performance over intel back then.



I think I know the answer

SuperPi is x87 right?

AMD Zambezi

1 x SSE2(FMAC emulated) -> 1 x x87 -> 1x x87 80bit

AMD Phenom II does it this way

1 x87 -> 1 x 87 80bit

While

Intel since Conroe bypassed the conversion and since then it has gotten faster and faster architecturally (clock speed and hyperthreading support)

1 x87 80bit upfront

Intel is still supporting x87 simply for the benchmarks

Super Pi Performance =/= System Performance

Why AMD does it that way might be because it is no longer useful to support the x87 platform to much resources to spend on a dead architecture


----------



## WarraWarra (Jul 12, 2011)

Any idea why image 8 has a date of 2008 ?


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2011)

Probably reading BIOS time, which is wrong, clearly, as 3DMark11 did not exist then.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldgxfv3Y3L1qd2nif.bmp
> 
> I am always at 10% to 30% from Engineer Sample to Retail Samples
> 
> ...



It's a B1 being tested. Like i said before expect 1% - 2% max from it to consumer chips


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 12, 2011)

Just read the whole thread.. Yowsa.. I missed a doozy


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 12, 2011)

a better way to count cores on a processor is by performance increase:
imagine the following performance scaling from an eight core opteron (lets say, 2 sockets, 4 cores each)

1 core 100%
2 cores 195%
3 cores 290%
4 cores 380%
5 cores 475%
6 cores 570%
7 cores 665%
8 cores 760%

If BD manages to keep that kind of efficiency when comparing 1 thread to each multiple thread, then I would consider it as an 8 core solution.

I wonder if core i7 2600 with 4 cores and 8 threads scales this well. I would like to see the chess benchmark or something similar. Or maybe I should read HT vs NONHT core i7 reviews somewhere...


----------



## Nanyang (Jul 12, 2011)

Im use both (Intel side) i7 950, i7 870, i7 2600K, and (AMD side) Athlon II X2 255, Phenom II X4 955 and Phenom II X6 1055T

What i wan to say... Why not... i cant wait to buy this 8-Core... i still prefer my AMD X6 then my i7 950 because heat... Im live in hot asia... cool processor is better for me...

PS:  to AMD on what ever u do u still the best for me... but i still like your Athlon XP


----------



## THANATOS (Jul 12, 2011)

*Thefumigator* no BD modul should have just 180% increase over a single core instead of 195% like in classical 2 core(CMP) design.
But the funny thing is HT can increase performance by just 15-25% if the program is optimized and if not It can even degrade your performance. So I am voting for AMD's approach although their naming scheme of 8 cores instead of 4 cores with mega threading was a failure on their part and do you know why?
BD 8130 will be compared to SB2600k and in multi-threading it will win but it won't be as significant because everybody will say that was to be expected its a battle between 8 cores versus 4 cores another example a battle between BD against SB-E where it will loose even in MT workload but then It will be how shitty AMD cpu is when a 6 core can win over an 8 core, what isn't true, it was true SB2500 versus Thuban although in some cases Thuban won. They are 4 cores, one uses SMT approach and the other CMT, one gives better performance increase with a 12% increase in core area and the other max 25% and sometimes you have lower score than without it but it costs just 5-7% of die space, yet one is an 8 core and the other 4 core just because it has 2 integer units. Its just not logical calling it an 8 core like Thuban is a 6 core, die area and performance increase in MT is way different.

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-08-25/bulldozer-8.jpg
just by the green parts should be a BD called an 8 core? Thats so stupid when an 8130 or 4 module has 4 identical modules(extended cores) and one module is shown in the picture.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 12, 2011)

Nanyang said:


> Im use both (Intel side) i7 950, i7 870, i7 2600K, and (AMD side) Athlon II X2 255, Phenom II X4 955 and Phenom II X6 1055T
> 
> What i wan to say... Why not... i cant wait to buy this 8-Core... i still prefer my AMD X6 then my i7 950 because heat... Im live in hot asia... cool processor is better for me...
> 
> PS:  to AMD on what ever u do u still the best for me... but i still like your Athlon XP



My X6 put out way more heat then my 920 ever did.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 12, 2011)

I am perplexed by all of the comments in this thread!!! I am more interested in how AMD's "8 core" cpu's will run in World Community Grid or Folding@Home. So far the only CPU to buy is Intel in regards to crunching or folding.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 12, 2011)

I never understood why people Fold. He'll my computer is only on maybe an hour a day weekdays


----------



## HammerON (Jul 12, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> I never understood why people Fold. He'll my computer is only on maybe an hour a day weekdays



People fold and crunch to help find solutions to many of the issues facing our human population. Just do a search and see what results you get


----------



## a_ump (Jul 12, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> I never understood why people Fold. He'll my computer is only on maybe an hour a day weekdays



^, and the folders/crunchers leave their comps on all day i believe, or for a good while during the day and off at night? i know i left mine on 24/7 when i was folding


----------



## laszlo (Jul 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> With that in mind, I present my own SuperPI times, done with my 2600k @ 4.9 GHz(2133 MHz memory)
> 
> Wake me up when AMD can reach these.



No offense but  can i ask u also to wake me up when u can use these pi scores for something real or put these workload in a daily used soft?


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2011)

laszlo said:


> No offense but  can i ask u also to wake me up when u can use these pi scores for something real or put these workload in a daily used soft?



Sure. Read one of my reviews. Note the trend between the graphs? Write the numbers in a spreadsheet, and you can come up with a mathematical formula to correlate SuperPi to realworld performance.

Or I guess you never tOok statistics in school?

Or how about this, you monitor memory I/o, and instead of looking at the app results, you see how it stresses the system, and measure that?

 or just read the thread.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

devguy said:


> Haha, blame Wikipedia's definition.  And I understand exactly how important a fetch and decode unit is to a processor (and I'm sure AMD does too).  It's got to get an instruction from memory (or cache if available), and then decode it to understand how to execute the given instruction.  I can also see how it could be shared with only one other "core" with minimal impact to performance, and I bet AMD has a far better picture than I do.



Oh I'm sure that performance will be good, much more than one core performance per module, but that is also true for SMT and they don't call it a core. Whether performance approaches that of 2 cores or not, doesn't change the fact that they are not 2 cores in reality.



> Also most expect to have an FPU and a branch predictor in a "core" as well, but the 486 didn't have a branch predictor, and the 386 had neither.  I don't consider those "zero-core" processors, do you?



A CPU has two main parts, the control unit (front end) and the execution unit. It needs both in order to operate, but depending on the CPU type and purpose each of them can have or lack some capabilities. But regardless of the purpose or capabilities, both units are unavoidable.

An FPU and branch predictor are extensions to those already existing units. The FPU is part of the execution unit and the branch preditor is an extension to the front end. It's part of the fetching unit in an out-of-order CPU and cannot operate nor has a purpose outside of it. 

Early processors could only operate on integers, but that doesn't change a thing, the execution unit was simply not as advanced. They later added a coprocessor on the MB, but architecturally the FPU was already part of the execution unit and thus, the CPU. And at any rate an FPU cannot operate outside of the CPU, it requires the control unit to fetch and decode the instructions for him. All of them execution units need them, hence why for me 1 fetch and decode unit means 1 core, and always will. A more robust and at the same time more streamlined core probably, but a core nonetheless.

On a very different situation the memory controler is not an integral part of the CPU, it operates outside of the CPU and has a purpose outside of the CPU. It controls the memory whether it's for a CPU, a GPU or an application specific processor, like a sound processor or A/V decoder. Including it in the die, shortens up latencies so it's desirable, but that's all.


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 12, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> *Thefumigator*
> But the funny thing is HT can increase performance by just 15-25% if the program is optimized and if not It can even degrade your performance.




HT does not increase performance when a program is optimized for it. HT most commonly picks up where crappy written code left off.
When there are huge amounts of thread stalls, and that sort of stuff, this is where HT benefits the most because it can take the other thread and fill in the gaps while the other stalls - keeping the pipes as full as possible.
This most commonly happens is some unique workload types .. but mostly happens when someone writes shitty code.
A program that is written decently will most likely be the least to benefit from HT.

---
I kinda enjoy AMD's approach to this issue, rather than using HT in their cores, knowing the caveats of x86 and sometimes crappy code writers, they sat back and said...whats the point of making the fattest core possible?? - none really because it isnt utilized most of the time 100%. So, they decided to make skinnier, leaner (both transistor and power budget) cores, which have a chance of being, more often times then not, fully utilized. The advantage being that although the cores themselves may be leaner (a tad weaker)... at least 2 threads arent fighting over resources as much as they would be in an HT setup.


But, I do agree w/ some of your guys statements. I see this implementation and the fact AMD is marketing them as 8cores and part of me thinks they should be marketing them as 4 cores yet w/ a significant advantage over HT cores. 
I guess thats why, when it comes to it...they are priced really close to intel's 4 core SB's. Because if they were to be priced at the levels of 8 cores then AMD would be doing it wrong.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 12, 2011)

AMD is building a more load balanced cpu, looking at work loads they are putting on more of things that matter and less of things that don't. But most aren't paying attention to that. Intel is shitting a brick right now over APU shipments. Things are not gonna look so good for the other side when this balanced approach shows its stuff.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 12, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> AMD is building a more load balanced cpu, looking at work loads they are putting on more of things that matter and less of things that don't. But most aren't paying attention to that. Intel is shitting a brick right now over APU shipments. Things are not gonna look so good for the other side when this balanced approach shows its stuff.



What do you mean with the brick? Intel is playing dirty again?


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 12, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> AMD is building a more load balanced cpu, looking at work loads they are putting on more of things that matter and less of things that don't. But most aren't paying attention to that. Intel is shitting a brick right now over APU shipments. Things are not gonna look so good for the other side when this balanced approach shows its stuff.



Intel made 4 billion last quarter. Amd made 800 million. Intels not worried at all


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 12, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Intel made 4 billion last quarter. Amd made 800 million. Intels not worried at all



Shareholders might be.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> Interlagos 4x16 did project 6901 in 3 mins 52 seconds
> ^that was an A1 sample
> 
> 
> ...



I think the performance gain your looking for just wont be there ser but time will tell


----------



## XoR (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> x87 is emulated not ditched


On 686+/K5+ designs all instructions are "emulated". It's just a matter how well decoder can transform and reorganize in real-time badly written code (from execution units point of view) and to have good execution units. AMD could be using less resources on x87 and then shame on AMD 



			
				seronx said:
			
		

> and wPrime 1024m tells the story


if overal performance of AMD K10.x CPUs were to Core2+ as SuperPI shows it then AMD would be now just a memory...


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

XoR said:


> On 686+/K5+ designs all instructions are "emulated". It's just a matter how well decoder can transform and reorganize in real-time badly written code (from execution units point of view) and to have good execution units. AMD could be using less resources on x87 and then shame on AMD





Shame on you!

x87 is dead
Hail! SSE


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2011)

Technically, x87, via SuperPi, had been a metric that has been standard for the extreme OC'ing scene forever.

Drop support for that is dropping support for that scene. Could my wishes comes true?

Not too sure why such a small segment of users drives product design so greatly, anyway, but OK.

i kinda think ASUS' ROG line, GIgabyte UD7 boards, and the other high-end products are a waste of R&D dollars too, technically, as their cost in retail greatly surpasses what most can afford. I mean I udnerstand that stuff from the high-end maybe in a couple fo gens becomes standard, but damn.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 12, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> I never understood why people Fold. He'll my computer is only on maybe an hour a day weekdays



theirs many a reason brother, they drop dead every day


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> 140->280->420->560->700->840->980->1120
> 
> Is the scaling(Maximum efficiency scaling.



 Nice nmbers those that came out your ass bro. lololol

Scaling can never be better than +100% per core. And also 140% for 1 core?  If you want to make up some numbers, I'm sure you can do it better. 

And I'll tell you now that with the shared resources, especially the fetch/decode unit which does 4 Mops/cycle per module, for each "core" that can handle 4 Mops, so 8 per module, scaling is not going to be anywhere near 100% per core, except on some very espeific and rare ocasions.


----------



## erocker (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> The actual numbers are
> 
> 100% -> 280% -> 380% -> 560% -> 660% -> 840% -> 940% -> 1120%
> 
> ...



Where in the heck are you coming up with this?


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

erocker said:


> Where in the heck are you coming up with this?



From where the sun never shines, obviously.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> lol, if you think that go ahead
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No I don't think, I KNOW that you are making those numbers up. lol

The maximum that a second core can do is add another 100%, that is, doubling up peak performance and that only under very favorable conditions.

A 3rd core will 3x the performance and so on.

Your over 100% inprovements are pure BS.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Your over 100% inprovements are pure BS.



Depends on the code.

Say, CPU can process 1x 80-bit instructions on it's own, being 128-bit.

Now, if it can work with another, together, they can do 3x 80 bit within the 256-bit capabilities, with a bit of room for overhead.

Oh, what's that, suddenly 80-bit SuperPi becomes important?


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Depends on the code.
> 
> Say, CPU can process 1x 80-bit instructions on it's own, being 128-bit.
> 
> Now, if it can work with another, together, they can do 3x 80 bit within the 256-bit capabilities, with a bit of room for overhead.



And which FPU can do that exactly? 

BD definately not.

And if by any means a CPU could do that kind of thing, 1 core would do 1.5x 80 bit operations every cycle or 3 ops in 2 cycles, that is. It would be 1/2 as fast. As expected.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 12, 2011)

seronx said:


> You are thinking of CMP
> 
> Not what CMT/SMT can do



This has nothing to do with multi-threading or any other similar technology. Multi-threading improves the efficiency of the available resources within a core by issuing more threads, it never magically increases the resources within a core. 

A single core is always able to issue to it's fullest providing there's enough available resources. If there are not enough resources then it will not improve with multi-threading either, becuse no matter how many threads you can put in, there's no ALU/FPUs to run that code. CMP cannot max out (issue) each of the cores normally because it can only issue instruction from a single thread to each core. Hence scaling is poor.

By issuing instructions to every core independently from which thread they belong to, CMT/SMT approaches scaling to +%100 (not really but let's assume). But never, I'll repeat, never a core will be able to run faster than his single core performance. Are you even considering how stupid your claims are?

Imagine rendering

1 core = 10 fps
2 cores = 28 fps
3 cores = 42 fps
4 cores = 56 fps

Please don't make us laugh and don't embarrass yourself even more...


----------



## GenTarkin (Jul 12, 2011)

Dude, youre confusing the heck outta me LOL...
I get what youre tryin to say, but...its kinda like annoying w/ all the percentages ...lol


Wait, WTF~!@? here did all his posts go? Did my browser freak out or are his crazy % figures deleted???


----------



## tilldeath (Jul 12, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> theirs many a reason brother, they drop dead every day


not to be a downer or sound negative cause I think it's a good thing. I'm okay not folding for two reasons. First we have too many people on this planet as is, we can stand to loose a few billion. Second electricity costs and I don't have the cash.


----------



## seronx (Jul 12, 2011)

I used the wrong graph for that crap and the scaling in this one is more relative Ph2 -> FX

An AMD Zambezi Module provides 200% performance most programs can use all(100% per core)

An AMD Deneb/Zosma core provides 134% performance but most programs only used (2/3)s of that performance (90% per core)

Zambezi
100% -> 200% -> 300% -> 400% -> 500% -> 600% -> 700% -> 800%

Deneb/Zosma
134% -> 268% -> 402% -> 536% -> 670% -> 804%
Most programs(99% of the programs you use):
90% -> 180% -> 270% -> 360% -> 450% -> 540%

More realistic and easier to under the change from CMP to CMT 
AMD could have easily stayed on CMP and just changed the "phenom II" core but
8x100% = 200% larger die
6x100% = 600%
4x150% = 600%
8 cores on one die with shared components instead of upgrading the socket to allow for a much larger die
Maybe we will see 4 core modules
3x200% = 600% 

One warning: Do not compare AMD architectures to Intel architectures, vice versa

Brain seizures happen and you lose reasoning and logic skills and make math errors


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 12, 2011)

tilldeath said:


> not to be a downer or sound negative cause I think it's a good thing. I'm okay not folding for two reasons. First we have too many people on this planet as is, we can stand to loose a few billion. Second electricity costs and I don't have the cash.



Yeah, a few billion don't matter.

Until it's your friends and family.

I can agree with the electricity part though, it's the only thing stopping me from folding right now. I do commend those that are doing it though.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Intel made 4 billion last quarter. Amd made 800 million. Intels not worried at all



Up from last year by a ton, and they have lots of new product going into the pipe with rave reviews and excelent uptake. AMD is going to gain ALOT of market share in the next 24 months if things continue. Balanced architecture is where its at on the oem side and thats where sales ACTUALLY matter. These enthuasist arguments are all over 2% market share more then likely. Its small potatoes.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Yeah, a few billion don't matter.
> 
> Until it's your friends and family.
> 
> I can agree with the electricity part though, it's the only thing stopping me from folding right now. I do commend those that are doing it though.



ehh, I could live just fine with a number of my family members just vanaishing. family is just nostalgic attachment to bullshit for no reason.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> ehh, I could live just fine with a number of my family members just vanaishing. family is just nostalgic attachment to bullshit for no reason.



They don't just vanish when they get any of the diseases folding is trying to cure. Vanishing is a lot easier to deal with than suffering.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> They don't just vanish when they get any of the diseases folding is trying to cure. Vanishing is a lot easier to deal with than suffering.



bullets are a cheap and effective way to end suffering.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Up from last year by a ton, and they have lots of new product going into the pipe with rave reviews and excelent uptake. AMD is going to gain ALOT of market share in the next 24 months if things continue. Balanced architecture is where its at on the oem side and thats where sales ACTUALLY matter. These enthuasist arguments are all over 2% market share more then likely. Its small potatoes.



Llano didn't get rave reviews. Every review said the dual core sandy bridge chips were a better buy for gaming


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> bullets are a cheap and effective way to end suffering.


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> They don't just vanish when they get any of the diseases folding is trying to cure. Vanishing is a lot easier to deal with than suffering.



Folding doesn't cure diseases

Folding figures out how proteins misfold

Any curing of diseases are a by product of researching the data of misfolding accumulated and tasked by the F@H grid
^not sure if I used the right words



Pestilence said:


> Intel made 4 billion last quarter. Amd made 800 million. Intels not worried at all



Intel has more markets than AMD



Pestilence said:


> Llano didn't get rave reviews. Every review said the dual core sandy bridge chips were a better buy for gaming



Actually it was the opposite...Llano $140(Max for an A8-3850) chips were better for gaming than $150 dual core sandy bridge

Llano is 32% more denser than Sandy Bridge as well(GloFo has the more advanced 32nm HKMG)


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> Folding doesn't cure diseases
> 
> Folding figures out how proteins misfold
> 
> ...



Either way, it's helping.


----------



## erocker (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Llano didn't get rave reviews. Every review said the dual core sandy bridge chips were a better buy for gaming



Sure, with a discrete GPU. The current Llano is still a Phenom II design.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Either way, it's helping.



propogate flawed genetics ?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> propogate flawed genetics ?



Flawed can and will be fixed.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Llano didn't get rave reviews. Every review said the dual core sandy bridge chips were a better buy for gaming



Are you fucking high ? seriously ? IGP to IGP who in their right mind would have said such a thing ? AMD can't produce silicon to meet the demand, why do you think bulldozer is delayed ? LACK OF FAB CAPACITY

 AMD's 3rd/4th quarter profits are gonna be sweet


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Flawed can and will be fixed.



Not really. there actually a gene they creates robust genes and protiens. This can and will not be fixed, unless you are talking about retroviral genetic manipulation. I would not recomend anything of the sort, you endanger everyone around you by doing so. 

Let the herd thin for christ sakes and realize life ain't fiar and niether is nature.


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> Sure, with a discrete GPU. The current Llano is still a Phenom II design.



Llano is 6% faster than Deneb but lacks the L3 cache i3 have L3 cache but lack the gpu power

Llano 60% the GPU of i3s
39x in absolute brute force performance over an i7 2600K IGP

i3 have 3MB of L3
Llanos don't



Thatguy said:


> propogate flawed genetics ?





Damn_Smooth said:


> Flawed can and will be fixed.



Radiation, How much sun you get, How much electronics you are next to can all lead to a protein misfold not just Genetics



Thatguy said:


> Are you fucking high ? seriously ? IGP to IGP who in their right mind would have said such a thing ? AMD can't produce silicon to meet the demand, why do you think bulldozer is delayed ? LACK OF FAB CAPACITY
> 
> AMD's 3rd/4th quarter profits are gonna be sweet



They are meeting demand just fine

 Computer Hardware, CPUs / Processors, Processors ...

I don't see out of stock yet


----------



## erocker (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> Llano is 6% faster than Deneb but lacks the L3 cache i3 have L3 cache but lack the gpu power
> 
> Llano 60% the GPU of i3s
> 39x in absolute brute force performance over an i7 2600K IGP
> ...



I didn't ask. Llano is still based on Phenom II and shrunk.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> They are meeting demand just fine
> 
> Computer Hardware, CPUs / Processors, Processors ...
> 
> I don't see out of stock yet



at the exspense of other products, IE BD etc. Fab is taped out for capcity and a new node to boot. 

They get the new fabs up and running ot GloFo things will be just fine. I keep thinking they may just buy glofo back onces its profitable.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> I didn't ask. Llano is still based on Phenom II and shrunk.



most PC end users " oem customers" won't notice a difference between cpu's, but they will notice video accelration and opencl acceleration etc.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Not really. there actually a gene they creates robust genes and protiens. This can and will not be fixed, unless you are talking about retroviral genetic manipulation. I would not recomend anything of the sort, you endanger everyone around you by doing so.
> 
> Let the herd thin for christ sakes and realize life ain't fiar and niether is nature.



Nobody said life is fair, but if we are allowed enough time, we will master everything.


----------



## erocker (Jul 13, 2011)

Let's keep on topic, shall we?


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Nobody said life is fair, but if we are allowed enough time, we will master everything.



nothing like human arrogance, we aren't smart enough. deal with it.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> Let's keep on topic, shall we?



Sorry about that. 

Still waiting for final silicon to pass judgement on Bulldozer.


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> Let's keep on topic, shall we?



Topic is pretty much

Zambezi ES FX-8130P beats i7 2600K

Engineer Sample beats Retail Sample of competition



I think the effects haven't harvested much other than

ZOMG! AMD Zambezi has weaker scores in Super Pi/AIDA64 than my Sandy Bridge trolololol
(Not everyone is like this but majority is which is saddening)
Which might or might not be fixed by Retail


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 13, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i365/Damn_Smooth/Frye.png





man throw in a super model and add a couple of explosions and this would b more entertaining than any summer block buster.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Are you fucking high ? seriously ? IGP to IGP who in their right mind would have said such a thing ? AMD can't produce silicon to meet the demand, why do you think bulldozer is delayed ? LACK OF FAB CAPACITY
> 
> AMD's 3rd/4th quarter profits are gonna be sweet



IGP to IGP? Buhahahahahahaha. Who gives a shit about the IGP's? People who can't afford to buy a 100 dollar GTX 460?


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> Topic is pretty much
> 
> Zambezi ES FX-8130P beats i7 2600K
> 
> ...



Your Fanboyism is showing


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Your Fanboyism is showing



But it is true this Zambesi ES 8130P beats the Intel i7 2600K

In Intel "Biased" benchmarks(majority; lol)


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> But it is true this Zambesi ES 8130P beats the Intel i7 2600K
> 
> In Intel "Biased" benchmarks(majority; lol)



8 core vs 4 core.. I hope it does. 

I can totally see Intel dropping prices on 1155 to make room for lower priced 2011. Thank you AMD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come to MEEEEE 6 Core Sandy Bridge E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> 8 core vs 4 core.. I hope it does.
> 
> I can totally see Intel dropping prices on 1155 to make room for lower priced 2011. Thank you AMD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Come to MEEEEE 6 Core Sandy Bridge E!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Actually that isn't really true

Intel has 8 cores but doesn't advertise it that way
they have a cpu core than can touch resources twice

AMD has 4 modules but doesn't advertise it that way
they have a two integer clusters(cores) that can touch resources twice

See what I did
CMT and SMT are the same thing trying to do it different ways

In reality beyond what AMD and Intel says 

Microsoft is the actual resource to find out the exact amount of cores/threads/integer clusters there are

and Microsoft says

Intel's i7 2600K has 8 CORES/INTEGER CLUSTERS/THREADS
AMD 8130P-ES Zambezi has 8 CORES/INTEGER CLUSTERS/THREADS

They won't lower prices for LGA 2011
they will when Zambezi launches but who wants a weak CPU with a weak IGP pimple?

It is 12 cores not 6 cores

You have to go by what the third party says not what the first party says


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> Actually that isn't really true
> 
> Intel has 8 cores but doesn't advertise it that way
> they have a cpu core than can touch resources twice
> ...



If Intel dropped the 2600K's price to 279.99 and the 2500K to 189.99 then that's playing the "Value" card that Amd has played for so long. 

There's also advantages to SB over BD even if BD is faster in multithreaded apps which it better be. 



Also still holding out for a 2100K


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> If Intel dropped the 2600K's price to 279.99 and the 2500K to 189.99 then that's playing the "Value" card that Amd has played for so long.
> 
> There's also advantages to SB over BD even if BD is faster in multithreaded apps which it better be.
> 
> Also still holding out for a 2100K



There is no advantages for SB

Everything is multithreaded in the real world these days
(Even the Windows OS, it schedules threads for most applications)

only the 2500K and 2600K have unlocked multiplier and the price drop won't be that big

FX-4110 is $220 max
FX-6110 is $240 max
FX-8110 is $280 max
FX-8130P is $320 max
On the price rumor/speculation list

And if the FX CPUs have a PCI-E Controller you know what is going to out perform in GPU performance

and to get back into the discussion of 4 SMT cores vs 8 CMT Cores

8 Cores is generally better in this case
AMD Cores can query the FPU twice(FPU is SMTish)(2 FP per clock)

While SMT Cores are stuck with 256 bit ADD or MUL and 128 bit ADD or MUL (1 FP per Clock)

Both have 4 Floating Point units but only 1 can mimic 8(*cough*AMD*cough*)

and what was that?

Intel is vouching for 256 bit but we all know

Bigger isn't better


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> There is no advantages for SB





Now i know you're delusional 

1. IPC 

Clock for clock, core for core amd can't compete which is why they throw more cores at it. Amd has even said "First 8 core desktop processor" and who am i to argue with that? You can make all the excuses you want but Hyperthreading is not a real core so it is in essence a 4c/8t vs 8c/8t debate. What page was that gaming comparo on? I remember quite fondly the 4Ghz 8 core BD getting its ass handed to it by a 980X which is slower then a 2600K in gaming. BD may win in cinebench but in gaming it's not even going to be close. 

2. TDP's 

80W vs 130W

Amd can "Say" that the 8 cores will have 130W TDP's but lets not even kid ourselves. The ES was 180W, Thuban was 150W even tho it was labeled a 130W and BD is easily going to be a 130W to 150W processor. Sandy Bridge on the other hand runs as cool as ice. Before you comment "It's 95W and not 80W". In the P67 chipset the IGP is disabled bringing TDP down to 80W. SB also clocks to 5Ghz on air. Think BD is going to do the same? 


Shall i go on? It's Intel were talking about here. So they get beat in mainsteam by amd's top of the line processors. It's not that big of a deal. With 2011 and IB looming. All BD does for me is lower prices on 2011 which i'm anxiously awaiting. Mmmm Quad channel DDR3 2400


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Now i know you're delusional



I ready through several pages of JF-AMD comments, I might be



Pestilence said:


> 1. IPC
> 
> Clock for clock, core for core amd can't compete which is why they throw more cores at it. Amd has even said "First 8 core desktop processor" and who am i to argue with that? You can make all the excuses you want but Hyperthreading is not a real core so it is in essence a 4c/8t vs 8c/8t debate. What page was that gaming comparo on? I remember quite fondly the 4Ghz 8 core BD getting its ass handed to it by a 980X which is slower then a 2600K in gaming. BD may win in cinebench but in gaming it's not even going to be close.



IPC doesn't matter when efficiency sucks
Zambezi is going to be the most efficient x86/x86-64 core on the market

Zambezi can use all of the IPC allocated to it
Phenom II couldn't
Nehalem couldn't
Sandy Bridge couldn't
but Zambezi can



Pestilence said:


> 2. TDP's
> 
> 80W vs 130W
> 
> Amd can "Say" that the 8 cores will have 130W TDP's but lets not even kid ourselves. The ES was 180W, Thuban was 150W even tho it was labeled a 130W and BD is easily going to be a 130W to 150W processor. Sandy Bridge on the other hand runs as cool as ice. Before you comment "It's 95W and not 80W". In the P67 chipset the IGP is disabled bringing TDP down to 80W. SB also clocks to 5Ghz on air. Think BD is going to do the same?



First off, Intel's TDP is different from AMD's TDP
Intel TDP is average heat
AMD TDP is worst possible scenario

TDP on both sides doesn't equal power consumption as far as I know(It might be for Intel to make it easier for people to understand)

Zambezi Engineer Samples has been already proven to hit 5.1GHz on air 4.8GHz 100% stable on air all by OBR who I trust actually has Engineer Samples
That is on a Zambezi with a TDP of 185 @ stock clocks! overclocking that to 4.8GHz and only AMD knows, that overclocked TDP is probably 250+ TDP if it can handle those high temperatures on such a leaky silicon factor imagine how high it clocks on not so leaky production silicon

It is easier to consider AMD using intel's TDP factor being average heat even though it is in fact worst possible heat that can be produced at stock

and the fact that there is two eight core Zambezi's
8130P 3.8GHz@ 125 Watt TDP
8110 3.6GHz@ 95 Watt TDP

says the 8110 is the one grabbing the throat of the i7 2600K

and they are both overclockable



Pestilence said:


> Shall i go on? It's Intel were talking about here. So they get beat in mainsteam by amd's top of the line processors. It's not that big of a deal. With 2011 and IB looming. All BD does for me is lower prices on 2011 which i'm anxiously awaiting. Mmmm Quad channel DDR3 2400



Have you looked up the technical specs of Zambezi?

It's integrated IMC has optimizations to make it perform like a tri-channel this isn't theoretical it is 100% real

The IMC got a 50% increase in performance not 30% what most people have thought

Screw buying a $600(Min possible) CPU

Unless, you are a Rockefeller, good luck


----------



## btarunr (Jul 13, 2011)

Fun thread trivia. Someone has 50 posts in this thread (r)


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 13, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Fun thread trivia. Someone has 50 posts in this thread (r)



$10 on Seronx.

Edit: Should have checked the link. I was right though.


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Fun thread trivia. Someone has 50 posts in this thread (r)



Well, I did take the time to translate 164 pages of nonsense into info I can use

Most websites have 164 pages worth of Bulldozer Rumors/Speculation/All other stuff

JF-AMD gives us hints here and there, and I tend to infer to them

But this is the most leaked, talked, and mourned over CPU since the "Hammers"

When he talks or refers or infers to the Client products...he is mostly right

I vist AMDZone sometimes just to see if those engineers are talking about stuff(Bulldozer)

I visit other places and learn more and more

and the more we get closer to the due date of Zambezi the more DATA I can find and exploit(learn from)

and I love typing and flaunting my intelligence

Most of my information are those from 
I trust to either have/ know what they are talking about / or it is given to me directly through past references like PowerPoint Slides or leaked NDA documents

I also have alot more free time to look up stuff than most people

What I know:

*1.* Zambezi is a High IPC and High Clock design
The high IPC comes from the efficiency of the design, The high clock is because of less components in the design some items are shared thus less heat

*2.* Zambezi performance isn't *final* till it releases

These leaks only tell us what Zambezi will perform at that current time when it is slowly getting more and more supported and tweaked/fixed

*3.* Zambezi _price_ isn't official but we do not need to worry as it will be a "cheap" processor to buy

Leaks say $220-$320
AMD says Cheap

*4.* Zambezi is the start of AMDs Tick-Tock Cycle

AMD uses an inverse of Intel's Tick-Tock Cycle

Zambezi 32nm HKMG -> Komodo 32nm HKMG -> NGBD 22nm Dark Silicon? HKMG maybe
2011 -> 2012 -> 2013

(Speculation on the Dark Silicon)

*5.* Server Products =/= Client Products



JF-AMD]Yes said:


> $10 on Seronx.
> 
> Edit: Should have checked the link. I was right though.



Like anyone would bet $10 that it wouldn't be

and like Zambezi's _performance_ my _post count_ increases over time


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> First off, Intel's TDP is different from AMD's TDP
> Intel TDP is average heat
> AMD TDP is worst possible scenario



WRONG. You got it backwards. AMD uses "ACP", not TDP. In fact, my 1100T draws 150w @ stock clocks, not the 125w.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> ...
> But this is the most leaked, talked, and mourned over CPU since the "Hammers"
> 
> I love typing and flaunting my intelligence
> ...



What i know....

You seem to be the one talking about it more than most, actually every time there is a lull in this thread, it seems you make it a point to put it on top 

so you can talk more

Typing and intelligence in the same sentence that is in with broken lines, no punctuation, and double spacing pointless drivel to look more 

important

We obviously know you have a ton of time from your round the clock posts on anything related to AMD:shadedshu

Lastly (and I made sure to look as important as you with my double spacing) i find you highly irritating and manipulative to justify whatever stance it 

is you want to talk about to keep these threads alive. At this point when I see your posts in the list i know to follow behind with a broom a dustpan 

and wait to close or mend yet another FUD AMD thread.


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> WRONG. You got it backwards. AMD uses "ACP", not TDP. In fact, my 1100T draws 150w @ stock clocks, not the 125w.



I'll just say you are right for this(I don't need to quote things to say you are right, right?)((Before this both companies used CPU Busting Programs to figure out TDP now they use weird Algorithms before P4/Athlon days)
ACP and TDP for K10h CPUs are skewered(and heck they don't call it TDP anymore it is just Wattage to them)

They might continue to be skewered on words to K15h(Zambezi)

AMD CPUs have qwacky TDPs, not all chips are the same

and it doesn't help they use programs to find out TDP(AMD)

Well we know the max voltage supported by AMD for Thuban is 1.475 and the max Amp is 110A for stock
K10.5h E0 Thuban:
1.475x110 Amps = 162.25 Watts so you have some room to go
K15h B1 Zambezi ES:
1.404x145 Amps = 203.58 Watts

It's easier to calculate consumption



> Both Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) have defined TDP as the maximum power consumption for thermally significant periods running worst-case non-synthetic workloads. Thus, TDP is not the actual maximum power of the processor.





> In some cases the TDP has been under-estimated such that in real applications (typically strenuous, such as video encoding or games) the CPU has exceeded the TDP.





> For a given device, operating at a higher clock rate always requires more power. Reducing the clock rate of the microprocessor through power management when possible reduces energy consumption.
> New features generally require more transistors, each of which uses power. Turning unused areas off saves energy, such as through clock gating.
> As a processor model's design matures, smaller transistors, lower-voltage structures, and design experience may reduce energy consumption.





> TDP is usually 20% - 30% lower than the CPU maximum power dissipation





> TDP is not the maximum power the CPU may generate - there may be periods of time when the CPU dissipates more power than designed, in which case either the CPU temperature will rise closer to the maximum, or special CPU circuitry will activate and add idle cycles or reduce CPU frequency with the intent of reducing the amount of generated power.





> The TDP also doesn't necessarily mean that a specific CPU model will consume that much current in real usage scenarios.



But the idea is that

Intel over estimates since i7 

AMD under estimates since Barcelona



sneekypeet said:


> ...



And you contribute NOTHING!


----------



## btarunr (Jul 13, 2011)

Lol TDP ≠ chip's power consumption.


----------



## seronx (Jul 13, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Lol TDP ≠ chip's power consumption.



Truth 

But it doesn't help that

Cads Phenom II under heavy load pushes in 150 Watts when rated 125 Watts

and his Sandy Bridge with the iGPU turned off pushes in 65 watts when rated for 80~? Watts

It is under heavy load right?

Under Estimation and Over Estimation

In this case AMD is closer to the definition of TDP but it isn't the max TDP


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> Topic is pretty much
> 
> Zambezi ES FX-8130P beats i7 2600K
> 
> ...



Ive went through 12 pages of penis softening non sense and still don't see what you posted were this magical chip beats a SB? was it oced and the SB stock? Also please stop the AMD hard on rage until the REAL chips come out and someone can properly bench them that is not a complete moron.

Numbers and pictures CAN be faked.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> and his Sandy Bridge with the iGPU turned off pushes in 65 watts when rated for 80~? Watts
> 
> It is under heavy load right?
> 
> ...




Protip: The IGP is included in the tdp rating, so it's not underestimated at all it's probably right on.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> IGP to IGP? Buhahahahahahaha. Who gives a shit about the IGP's? People who can't afford to buy a 100 dollar GTX 460?




   Compare the number of discrete cards versus the number or OEM prebuilts sold everyday and tell me again that IGP doesn't matter.


----------



## heky (Jul 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Compare the number of discrete cards versus the number or OEM prebuilts sold everyday and tell me again that IGP doesn't matter.



Not all OEM prebuilts use IGP. Only the really low-cost ones do.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 13, 2011)

seronx said:


> Truth
> 
> But it doesn't help that
> 
> ...



Yes, it does help. The fact of the matter is that TDP has nothing to do with anything, but the required cooling. IF TDP = MAX power draw, we'd not be able to overclock, because although my SB will draw ~65w-70w using the CPU alone, it draws 125w, which is close to double, for 4.5 GHz. You could even say, that TDP is a meaningless number with todays technology...Intel's SB chips will make sure they do nto exceeed that 95w TDP, and throttle, even if running cool, unless you manipulate the BIOS. In that instance, it would be max power draw, but only then.

Under more harsh environments, CPU will run hotter, and will require that 95W of cooling at stock clocks, as the iGPU actually consumes very little power.

You realyl need to be careful how you state thing, or I'm afraid the good ol' "Boy who cried wolf" may apply to you here @ TPU.


Now here's my thing.

We got 95w SB chips pulling 125w @ 4.5 GHz. It's very common for power draw to be much less.

We got Bulldozer STOCK @ 125W. It's likely to use more.

So, OK, we got a silicon problem. Is that AMD's fault, or GLoFo's fault?

I am very excited by the Bulldozer design, but not about GLoFo's silicon. You wanna knwo about real perforamnce? Ignore the banches, and leaks, and examine the silicon. 32nm FM1 chips are available now.

So you can post all these benchmarks, or whatever...the fact remains that we know Bulldozer is going to require more cooling, from an "overclocking perspective"; it's also going to draw more power, and that alone will affect thier success. Just liek my SuperPi numbers, really, aren't that important, per se, there are those that care about such things. Likewise, there are those that like low-power, but hella fast chips.

In effect, you are posting and hyping up Bulldozer, but far too many of us here have been burnt by the hype in the past, so we won't go for it. It doesn't matter who the source is...people will remain skeptical.

Unless, of course, it's ME, or perhaps W1zz, posting those numbers.


----------



## jpierce55 (Jul 13, 2011)

heky said:


> Not all OEM prebuilts use IGP. Only the really low-cost ones do.



The majority do, only customized or high end builds don't.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yes, it does help. The fact of the matter is that TDP has nothing to do with anything, but the required cooling. IF TDP = MAX power draw, we'd not be able to overclock, because although my SB will draw ~65w-70w using the CPU alone, it draws 125w, which is close to double, for 4.5 GHz. You could even say, that TDP is a meaningless number with todays technology...Intel's SB chips will make sure they do nto exceeed that 95w TDP, and throttle, even if running cool, unless you manipulate the BIOS. In that instance, it would be max power draw, but only then.
> 
> Under more harsh environments, CPU will run hotter, and will require that 95W of cooling at stock clocks, as the iGPU actually consumes very little power.
> 
> ...



Cad,

How accurate is the "Powers Package" reading on Hwmonitor? Does it give an accurate interpretation of usage or is it just an estimate? Reason i ask because at 4.5Ghz it states my 2500K is only pulling 89.96W in IBT


----------



## XoR (Jul 13, 2011)

> And if the FX CPUs have a PCI-E Controller you know what is going to out perform in GPU performance


So you think pci-e controller can be integrated onto AM3 cpu? 
You're some kind of noob or smt?


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 13, 2011)

XoR said:


> So you think pci-e controller can be integrated onto AM3 cpu?
> You're some kind of noob or smt?



I think he's just been high on PCP for the past few days


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 13, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Cad,
> 
> How accurate is the "Powers Package" reading on Hwmonitor? Does it give an accurate interpretation of usage or is it just an estimate? Reason i ask because at 4.5Ghz it states my 2500K is only pulling 89.96W in IBT



I don't use software for any real monitoring except temps. I have found AIDA, RealTemp, HW Monitor, and many others totally wrong on many occasions.

If I beleived HW Monitor, @ stock, on certain boards, my 2600k would be pulling 115w. But  clamp meters around the 8-pin and other plugs, combined with a killawatt, tell me a far different story.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 13, 2011)

heky said:


> Not all OEM prebuilts use IGP. Only the really low-cost ones do.




  bulk of the market


----------



## seronx (Jul 14, 2011)

XoR said:


> So you think pci-e controller can be integrated onto AM3 cpu?
> You're some kind of noob or smt?



AM3+

Llano has a 32x(4 x 8) PCI-E Controller
Only 2 of the 8 are for the second gpu(PCIE_X16_0)
1 is for the Southbridge and the other is for the Display Ports

That is on FM1 yes but the FM1 socket and AM3+ socket are relatively the same socket in size
-----------------------------------
Zambezi is on the 32nm fabrication same as Llano

It can have a 16x to 64x PCI-E Controller
(Not in block format)


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 14, 2011)

Bulldozer can't have an on-die PCIe controller because AM3+ boards still use discrete northbridges + southbridges and are backwards compatible with AM3 K10 Phenom IIs. Since FM1 is a new socket, AMD was able to integrate the northbridge + PCIe into Llano and just use the FCH as the only major chip on the board.


----------



## seronx (Jul 14, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> Bulldozer can't have an on-die PCIe controller because AM3+ boards still use discrete northbridges + southbridges and are backwards compatible with AM3 K10 Phenom IIs. Since FM1 is a new socket, AMD was able to integrate the northbridge + PCIe into Llano and just use the FCH as the only major chip on the board.



I got confused with the PCI-e Controller for the South Bridge <-- the only integrated PCI-e Controller in Zambezi
(It's a lot bigger than the HT Links so it is easy to mistake it for something else)
(A-Link Express)

The Northbridge Controller in Zambezi/FX just has a faster links and lower latency with the discrete Northbridge over Deneb/Thuban/Phenom II CPUs


----------



## swaaye (Jul 15, 2011)

Gotta say I wonder how long AM3+ will last. They probably want to follow Intel and their own Llano's lead and increase integration in the CPU. Trinity will probably be just that move actually. They'll keep AM3+ as a sort of LGA 1366 high end workstation product I imagine.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 15, 2011)

swaaye said:


> Gotta say I wonder how long AM3+ will last. They probably want to follow Intel and their own Llano's lead and increase integration in the CPU. Trinity will probably be just that move actually. They'll keep AM3+ as a sort of LGA 1366 high end workstation product I imagine.



With a reputation of supporting platforms for a long time they have painted themselves into a corner and thus they HAVE to support them for a long time.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 15, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> With a reputation of supporting platforms for a long time they have painted themselves into a corner and thus they HAVE to support them for a long time.



They don't have to do anything and i remember reading AM3+ will be phased out by H2 2012 for a new socket for Bulldozer Enhanced.

Do you think Intel changes sockets just to piss off people? Ofcourse not. They do it for new features and tweaks.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 15, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> They don't have to do anything and i remember reading AM3+ will be phased out by H2 2012 for a new socket for Bulldozer Enhanced.
> 
> Do you think Intel changes sockets just to piss off people? Ofcourse not. They do it for new features and tweaks.



No they don't HAVE to, but they really do after gaining the reputation for such. Intel changes sockets all the time and people QQ to no end about it. You really seem to have misunderstood what I said. My point is Intel changes sockets and is vilified for it, AMD keeps the same sockets, and is praised for it at the price of performance. They will need to chaznge sockets eventually and IMO they should have done so for bulldozer. I will be skipping it since it will be phased out during Q2 2012.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 15, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> They don't have to do anything and i remember reading AM3+ will be phased out by H2 2012 for a new socket for Bulldozer Enhanced.
> 
> Do you think Intel changes sockets just to piss off people? Ofcourse not. They do it for new features and tweaks.



Not in all the cases
From socket 423 to 478 not sure, it should have always been 478
From 478 to 775 well, yes, but first chipsets were awful. 915... my god, awful stuff
From 775 to 1366 yes, for the IMC alone. big jump. 
1366 to 1156 was like WTF? (not a transition really but just another option)
1156 to 1155 again, WTF? (don't know what to think on this one)


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 15, 2011)

I want Amd to come back to an LGA socket


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 15, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> I want Amd to come back to an LGA socket



Didn't know AMD did LGA, apart from servers...


----------

