# AMD Shows Off A10-5800K and FX-8350 Near IDF



## btarunr (Sep 18, 2012)

It's traditional for AMD to camp outside an ongoing IDF event (at a nearby hotel suite), siphoning off a small portion of its visitors. In the backdrop of this year's IDF event in San Francisco, AMD showed off two of its upcoming flagship client processors, the socket FM2 A10-5800K "Trinity" APU, and socket AM3+ FX-8350 "Vishera" CPU. The two chips were shown running fully-loaded gaming PCs. 

The FX-8350 was shown installed on a machine with ASUS Crosshair V Formula (-Z?) motherboard, liquid cooling, and Radeon HD 7970 graphics card. The chip was clocked at 5.00 GHz (4.80 GHz when the picture was taken), and running popular CPU-intensive benchmarks such as WPrime and Cinebench. The A10-5800K was shown running application demos, including a widget that displays real-time boost states of the processor and GPU cores. 



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## THE_EGG (Sep 18, 2012)

Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/



it still says Zambezi. I thought the PD core was going to have a different code.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 18, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/



Well it is a bit overclocked.


----------



## Atom_Anti (Sep 18, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/



Voltage ain't matters so much in desktop systems, there is plenty of room to attach bigger and bigger heat-sinks. I just wonder what do they want with Chinebench and Wprime? A 3DMark11 P score could be much more welcome.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> it still says Zambezi. I thought the PD core was going to have a different code.


What? Like Vishera ?
I think you'll find that the FX-8350 is seen as more a revision of Bulldozer (C0 as opposed to the earlier B2 rev. FX-4/6/8100's) - by AMD, since it's the processors CPUID string that CPU-Z is reading- than some wholly new ground up redesign. Benchmarks on the net (noteably Coolaler's) would tend to point to an incremental improvement rather than a leap in performance.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> What? Like Vishera ?
> I think you'll find that the FX-8350 is seen as more a revision of Bulldozer (C0 as opposed to the earlier B2 rev. FX-4/6/8100's) - by AMD, since it's the processors CPUID string that CPU-Z is reading- than some wholly new ground up redesign. Benchmarks on the net (noteably Coolaler's) would tend to point to an incremental improvement rather than a leap in performance.



ya reading the road map awhile ago it was to tweak the internals a lil more, dunno if it was a manufacturing redesign or what, i guess we shall see. Honestly id like to see how the initial and this compare clock for clock...

Course I recall this being mainly a stop gap anyway. Hopefully they are looking at a total change in Steam Roller Design since BD proved to be slower than Phenom II Clock for clock.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> since BD proved to be slower than Phenom II Clock for clock.



Be careful what you type. That is the type of quote that guys like AvonX and Trickson love to hear and take it as 100% truth.

Yes there are a few benchmarks where Phenom II proved slightly faster, but overal BD is more consistantly clock for clock faster.

BTW: AvonX is banned. Moderators, please unban him after Piledriver is released. I want to hear his take on the processor.




eidairaman1 said:


> I just want to see if there is an improvement clock for clock and then compared to Phenom II



Me too.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Be careful what you type. That is the type of quote that guys like AvonX and Trickson love to hear and take it as 100% truth.
> 
> Yes there are a few benchmarks where Phenom II proved slightly faster, but overal BD is more consistantly clock for clock faster.



Honestly I dont care what they think and Besides AvonX has been banned for violating multiple FUPs here (broken record/beating deadhorse lmao).

I just want to see if there is an improvement clock for clock and then compared to Phenom II


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 18, 2012)

These are the news i was looking for. Thanx. That & i don't see FX-8350 wPrime & Cinebench records; wtf is Devastator platform? Also didn't saw the CPU-Z version; 1.61.3 x64? Let the good news roll. Thanx alot.


----------



## Andy77 (Sep 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Honestly I dont care what they think and Besides AvonX has been banned for violating multiple FUPs here (broken record/beating deadhorse lmao).
> 
> I just want to see if there is an improvement clock for clock and then compared to Phenom II



And why would clock-for-clock matter?... do they handle the same load of threads per core the same way to actually make a ck4ck comparison?


----------



## The DOOM SL4YER (Sep 18, 2012)

*Fx-8350*

it should say code name piledriver and not zambezi its a different core!!!


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 18, 2012)

Saw the wPrime version 2 slightly; what do these numbers mean? The [FX-8350] setup looks awesome.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

Andy77 said:


> And why would clock-for-clock matter?... do they handle the same load of threads per core the same way to actually make a ck4ck comparison?



Parts that are clocked slower but perform better mean they have architecture advantage/IPC is higher. Parts that require higher clocks to perform the same are at a draw back IPC is lower.

Intel has the current advantage in IPC though, where as back during AMD K7 and K8, AMD had a big advantage in IPC vs P4 Netburst (Hottest Chip was Prescott)

Higher clocks normally mean higher voltages and thus heat produced making an inefficient chip in todays market. It very well dont mean too much in a desktop but in a laptop the design of a CPU does make a big determination.

The Clock for clock compare is to determine if AMD has actually improved the IPC over the 1st Bulldozer parts (by tweaking internals to get a IPC increase without requiring a clock speed hike- which increases heat and voltage further), this is following their road map.

CPUs have to be fast in todays apps and tomorrows.


----------



## Absolution (Sep 18, 2012)

Lucifer666 said:


> it should say code name piledriver and not zambezi its a different core!!!



CPU-Z prolly needs an update for that.


----------



## Hustler (Sep 18, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> Just me or does the voltage seem a bit high ? :/



Lol...1.45vlts for 5Ghz is high?


I'm having to put 1.47vlts through my Phenom II @ 3.8Ghz..


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

Hustler said:


> Lol...1.45vlts for 5Ghz is high?
> 
> 
> I'm having to put 1.47vlts through my Phenom II @ 3.8Ghz..



SOI can handle higher volts


----------



## HTC (Sep 18, 2012)

Absolution said:


> CPU-Z prolly needs an update for that.



I think so too.


----------



## Konceptz (Sep 18, 2012)

CPU-Z has no idea CPU it is being ran on, so its assuming its the most recent known ID..Zambezi...as long as this thing outperforms the 8150 and the 1100T i'm sold. I'm tired of my core 2 quad and Ivy Bridge is too expensive for my tastes.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Be careful what you type. That is the type of quote that guys like AvonX and Trickson love to hear and take it as 100% truth.
> 
> Yes there are a few benchmarks where Phenom II proved slightly faster, but overal BD is more consistantly clock for clock faster.



Just a heads up, he said clock for clock and that is true. BD needs higher clock to match PH II (I know it's irrelevant if it's designed that way, but it's a fact). If BD had the same performance per clock as Phenom II but clocked at 4GHz it would be a really great CPU and an upgrade from a Thuban.

BD does however have a better IMC and also enables AMD to improve upon it's design (They couldn't improve the Ph II any further, a good example is Llano).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

repman244 said:


> Just a heads up, he said clock for clock and that is true. BD needs higher clock to match PH II (I know it's irrelevant if it's designed that way, but it's a fact). If BD had the same performance per clock as Phenom II but clocked at 4GHz it would be a really great CPU and an upgrade from a Thuban.
> 
> BD does however have a better IMC and also enables AMD to improve upon it's design (They couldn't improve the Ph II any further, a good example is Llano).



if the performance numbers of phenom 2 and BD were the same clock for clock, then a Phenom II at 4.0GHz would be equal to a FX 4*** at 4GHz.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> if the performance numbers of phenom 2 and BD were the same clock for clock, then a Phenom II at 4.0GHz would be equal to a FX 4*** at 4GHz.



Yeah but getting the Phenom II to 4GHz is not granted (and there is no Phenom II at 4GHz stock). BD and especially PD (thanks to resonant clock mesh for providing a base clock of 4GHz) have no problem going up to 4,5GHz (OC).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

repman244 said:


> Yeah but getting the Phenom II to 4GHz is not granted (and there is no Phenom II at 4GHz stock). BD and especially PD (thanks to resonant clock mesh for providing a base clock of 4GHz) have no problem going up to 4,5GHz (OC).



ya and it requires a FX to be at such clocks just to match the Phenom II at lower clocks.

Man I really Hope PD fixed alot.


----------



## repman244 (Sep 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Man I really Hope PD fixed alot.



I would say that you should not expect miracles from minor (and they are minor) tweaks. The most "performance" gain that you will see is from the clock increase due to the resonant clock mesh (Steamroller should be much more "redesigned" than PD), and maybe like 5% IPC increase vs BD.

But that is just my guess


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

repman244 said:


> I would say that you should not expect miracles from minor (and they are minor) tweaks. The most "performance" gain that you will see is from the clock increase due to the resonant clock mesh (Steamroller should be much more "redesigned" than PD), and maybe like 5% IPC increase vs BD.
> 
> But that is just my guess



im not expecting any miracles, i just want to see what PD has to bring to the table.


----------



## micropage7 (Sep 18, 2012)

tdp 125 watts? i expect lower than that


----------



## nt300 (Sep 18, 2012)

micropage7 said:


> tdp 125 watts? i expect lower than that


Yes there is also a 95W too.


eidairaman1 said:


> im not expecting any miracles, i just want to see what PD has to bring to the table.


Yes me too. With enough tweaking it should be more than enough to put Bulldozer behind us.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 18, 2012)

nt300 said:


> Yes there is also a 95W too.
> 
> Yes me too. With enough tweaking it should be more than enough to put Bulldozer behind us.



Hopefully, Steam Roller should literally make it disappear.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 18, 2012)

I'm in. I can run it at this speed on air. Like its purpose, it'll be stop gap till steamroller, for me.

At this clock is where the limitations in BD start to break down. It scales better than 100%.
With the fixes in steam roller and even higher clocks, it should do well.


----------



## 2wicked (Sep 18, 2012)

I'm just hoping the fx-8350 is faster than my x6 so I can finally upgrade my cpu...now just waiting for reviews. 



btarunr said:


> It's traditional for AMD to camp outside an ongoing IDF event (at a nearby hotel suite), siphoning off a small portion of its visitors.


If some guy at an event asked me to go to his hotel room to look at his new cpu I would run the other way.:shadedshu


----------



## Casecutter (Sep 18, 2012)

My thinking is AMD "Vishera" will supply more of an overall gain than Intel provided with Ivy Bridge.  So they will gain some ground.  

Where Intel got better with Ivy Bridge is they appear to have afforded slightly more aggressive price points.  If AMD can/will come in at even better pricing (is yet to be seen) it would have merit.  What is apparent they can't come with the obstinate pricing levels they thought they could run with at Bulldozers' release... it won’t fly.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 18, 2012)

repman244 said:


> I and maybe like 5% IPC increase vs BD.



It will be faster than that. Look at the Trinity Mobile APU reviews, It's more than 5% faster than BD already.  Desktop Piledriver will have more cache than Trinity and is an enthusiast chip so it goes without saying that it'll be even faster. But I agree Steamroller is where AMD should gain it's biggest momentum. 


http://www.techpowerup.com/163887/T...ce-Higher-Than-Bulldozer-Clock-for-Clock.html


----------



## nt300 (Sep 18, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> It will be faster than that. Look at the Trinity Mobile APU reviews, It's more than 5% faster than BD already.  Desktop Piledriver will have more cache than Trinity and is an enthusiast chip so it goes without saying that it'll be even faster. But I agree Steamroller is where AMD should gain it's biggest momentum.
> 
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/163887/T...ce-Higher-Than-Bulldozer-Clock-for-Clock.html


That was back in April of 2012. It very clear that the desktop Piledriver are going to be beasts in performance and priced very well. In this respect, AMD really has no choice but to offer better price/performance vs anything Intel has out. AMD need to sell and keep selling real bad.

Some crazy rumour about Piledriver is really a Bulldozer but higher clocked is garbage talk. Dont remember where I read this, but this will not be the case, we r talking about the same design but greatly tweaked with added MMX instructions for Piledriver. 

Piledriver IMO will not be a slouch, it's should perform very well and finally outperform any Phenom II's out.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 18, 2012)

Casecutter said:


> My thinking is AMD "Vishera" will supply more of an overall gain than Intel provided with Ivy Bridge.  So they will gain some ground.


Well, you'd hope so...but AMD have spent more time and resources telling the world+dog about Steamroller than Piledriver. In fact, AMD have been downright reticent regarding Piledriver publicity....no bombast and WR's under LN2/LHe...no new AMD chipset boards announced - even AMD's technology seems to have bypassed Piledriver desktop


> Cyclos is the only supplier of resonant clock mesh IP, which AMD has licensed and implemented into its x86 Piledriver core *for Opteron *server processors and Accelerated Processing Units (*APUs*).


[Source]

Intel's 3770K represents a ~11% raw performance (CPU only) lift over the 2700K -i.e. clock-for-clock, without power saving taken into account. The FX-8350 would need to beat that if your view is correct


----------



## Casecutter (Sep 18, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> AMD have been downright reticent regarding Piledriver publicity


That's fine there's a ton of time, they can lay low it's more rousing that way when it does hit.  All that irresponsible crap builds expectancy and stupid gossip.  AMD on the graphic side has work with "the fly low and avoid the radar", that approach concisely provides one little thing here, a good tid-bit a few weeks later.  The less boisterous the better.  All that stuff was what I thought hurt the Bulldozer release more than disappointing performance.  And we wonder why folks where let go and Rory can to town.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 18, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Be careful what you type. That is the type of quote that guys like AvonX and Trickson love to hear and take it as 100% truth.
> 
> Yes there are a few benchmarks where Phenom II proved slightly faster, but overal BD is more consistantly clock for clock faster.
> 
> ...



My Phenom II is faster at cine bench and most applications that Bulldozer is clock for clock. 



I have proven it with scores. Should I be banned?


----------



## Super XP (Sep 18, 2012)

Steevo said:


> My Phenom II is faster at cine bench and most applications that Bulldozer is clock for clock.
> 
> I have proven it with scores. Should I be banned?


Lol, they are both based on different micro architectures. Clock for clock comparisons are 1000% completely pointless. You should know this, but I understand you were making a point. 

Now comparing Piledriver to Bulldozer is a different story. Both must be benched Clock for Clock regardless of price so long as they are based on a similar design.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 19, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Lol, they are both based on different micro architectures. Clock for clock comparisons are 1000% completely pointless. You should know this, but I understand you were making a point.
> 
> Now comparing Piledriver to Bulldozer is a different story. Both must be benched Clock for Clock regardless of price so long as they are based on a similar design.



Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 19, 2012)

Atom_Anti said:


> Voltage ain't matters so much in desktop systems, there is plenty of room to attach bigger and bigger heat-sinks. I just wonder what do they want with Chinebench and Wprime? A 3DMark11 P score could be much more welcome.



probly because it won't pass a 3DMark11 run =/
so it runs at 5Ghz and still gets beat by a core i3 running at 3.5 
AMD is Disappoint
perhaps they will learn and throw bulldozer in the trash and hire some fresh talent and start over sad to see AMD like this
they need to realise that clock speed is no longer relevant


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?


The same thing with the Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64. The 64 blew away the P4 clock for clock. But they were both different designs. Not a fair comparison. The P4 relied on higher clocks, just like today's Bulldozer.


OneMoar said:


> perhaps they will learn and throw bulldozer in the trash and hire some fresh talent and start over sad to see AMD like this
> they need to realise that clock speed is no longer relevant


Nonsense lol, Excavator will resolve the current Bulldozer issues. I can see AMD revising the pipes and shortening them.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2012)

Super XP said:


> The same thing with the Pentium 4 vs. Athlon 64. The 64 blew away the P4 clock for clock. But they were both different designs. Not a fair comparison. The P4 relied on higher clocks, just like today's Bulldozer.
> 
> Nonsense lol, Excavator will resolve the current Bulldozer issues. I can see AMD revising the pipes and shortening them.



Intel didnt realize their problem till they launched preshott. Hopefully AMD realized that with BD


----------



## TRWOV (Sep 19, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?



I would say that's is a measurement of architecture efficiency rather than a meaningful comparison between CPUs. If a CPU with 12IPC @ 2.4Ghz goes agaisnt an 8IPC CPU @ 4Ghz it's going to lose anyway.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> I would say that's is a measurement of architecture efficiency rather than a meaningful comparison between CPUs. If a CPU with 12IPC @ 2.4Ghz goes agaisnt an 8IPC CPU @ 4Ghz it's going to lose anyway.



heat/voltage and power draw are the biggest issues of chips running at higher clocks, everyone else the chip has to be as efficient as it can be to meet space requirements


----------



## Covert_Death (Sep 19, 2012)

the only comparison im interested in is:

Maximum Daily clock (PD on Water) vs. Maximum Daily clock (PII on Water)

i've got my PII @ 4.0Ghz with water cooling because that is about as high as i can go as a daily clock. when i upgrade i will do the same thing, i will clock it as high as i can for a dailey on water and see how it compares... clock to clock makes no difference to me if one clocks way past the other on the same cooling system


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 19, 2012)

Covert_Death said:


> the only comparison im interested in is:
> 
> Maximum Daily clock (PD on Water) vs. Maximum Daily clock (PII on Water)
> 
> i've got my PII @ 4.0Ghz with water cooling because that is about as high as i can go as a daily clock. when i upgrade i will do the same thing, i will clock it as high as i can for a dailey on water and see how it compares... clock to clock makes no difference to me if one clocks way past the other on the same cooling system



clock speed != performance 
it no longer matters how fast the core is clocking the only thing that _matters_ is how fast it can process data how many frames it can render how many numbers it can crunch the rest is just marketing Bullshit 
if CPU A: clocks @2.66Ghz and scores 226000
and CPU:B clocks 3.8Ghz and scores  128000
Cpu A: is still faster period end of discussion gameover
overclocking is no longer a marketable thing it won't be long before they toss the "rated speed" right out the window and simply let the cpu decide what frequency it can/needs to run at and I wish they would
ill add a Prime example a Athlon  II X4  gets beat across the board by a i3(YES even in apps that can use the 2extra cores the i3 is still faster by a margin) thats how much better intels tech is sorry but the benchmarks don't lie and in some cases it even bests a Phenom II x4 I am not even gonna mention the slower but newer FX chips
*selling a inferior product at a lower price != good way to stay competitive


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2012)

Running a CPU in Async Mode doesnt help it because at one moment it can be at its best performance then at another moment it can be at its worst and it wouldnt even care what data there is, it be worst when you have a large amt when it needs to be at its best. Troubleshooting issues is unpredictable too

So if OCing wasnt marketable why does both Intel and AMD have Unlocked Multiplier CPUs then?  Intel part a K Model runs for several bux more (I recall seeing them be 100 dollars more than non K parts)



OneMoar said:


> clock speed != performance
> it no longer matters how fast the core is clocking the only thing that _matters_ is how fast it can process data how many frames it can render how many numbers it can crunch the rest is just marketing Bullshit
> if CPU A: clocks @2.66Ghz and scores 226000
> and CPU:B clocks 3.8Ghz and scores  128000
> ...


----------



## Melvis (Sep 19, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> ill add a Prime example a Athlon  II X4  gets beat across the board by a i3(YES even in apps that can use the 2extra cores the i3 is still faster by a margin) thats how much better intels tech is sorry but the benchmarks don't lie and in some cases it even bests a Phenom II x4 I am not even gonna mention the slower but newer FX chips
> *selling a inferior product at a lower price != good way to stay competitive



Let me guess Anandtech?

Because this review here shows the Athlon II X4 beating the i3 in most benchmarks at a lower clock speed.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i3_530_processor_review,1.html


----------



## OneMoar (Sep 19, 2012)

Melvis said:


> Let me guess Anandtech?
> 
> Because this review here shows the Athlon II X4 beating the i3 in most benchmarks at a lower clock speed.
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i3_530_processor_review,1.html


you question Anandtech and then quote guru3d lol funny Guy.
 Hilbert is a idiot and his methods are questionable at best. why do you think the vendors almost completely ignore him.and his site. hes has burned to many bridges made to many bad calls  and thanks to all his politics has the creditably of a Nigerian scammer

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/5
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/6
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/7
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/10
O yea here a page from TPU's review http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/10.html
*notice that it performs within 1FPS of the faster clocked + extra core'd Phenom II (1FPS = within the error margin) 
need I continue ?
at this point I am just bashing AMD because they need a wakeup call ... or intel is gonna take the market and run


----------



## Melvis (Sep 19, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> you question Anandtech and then quote guru3d lol funny Guy.
> Hilbert is a idiot and his methods are questionable at best. why do you think the vendors almost completely ignore him.and his site. hes has burned to many bridges made to many bad calls  and thanks to all his politics has the creditably of a Nigerian scammer
> 
> http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Athlon-II-X4-640-vs-Core-i3-530-CPU-Review/1041/5
> ...



Same can be said about anandtech your point is?

And all you have posted to me are gaming FPS  yea great way to show off how much more powerful a CPU is then the other :shadedshu


----------



## xenocide (Sep 19, 2012)

They need quite a sizeable (10%+) performance gain with PD to remain competitive.  I want AMD to be good, but I cannot justify getting a new CPU every year or so and still being behind Intel's curve.  I can buy an Intel CPU like the Q6600 (which I did) and have it for 3 years (which I did) and it was still running fine, then upgrade to a new Intel CPU like the i5-2500k (did that too) and I guarantee it will be good for another 2 years at least.  In that same time frame I would have had to upgrade my AMD CPU like 3 times and would still be behind in performance (would have had to go Phenom I->Phenom II->FX and probably gotten new motherboards).  I'll take 2 purchases over 5-6.


----------



## Andy77 (Sep 19, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Parts that are clocked slower but perform better mean they have architecture advantage/IPC is higher. Parts that require higher clocks to perform the same are at a draw back IPC is lower.
> 
> Intel has the current advantage in IPC though, where as back during AMD K7 and K8, AMD had a big advantage in IPC vs P4 Netburst (Hottest Chip was Prescott)
> 
> ...





Recognize rhetoric when you see it...


Higher IPC parts can't really clock high, which high clocking parts like BD can make up in performance just because of that. Add to it the capabilities, it's not just a clocking chip for benchers.

The intel vs AMD is outdated thinking, and past arguments and uArchs have no value here. Sure, intel beats AMD in optimized compiled code and low task count while AMD has good grips in parallel jobs and high task count. i for one won't upgrade to run a few apps at a time to get full performance.

Higher clock "normally" needs higher voltages, but that's not the norm and this is pretty much dependent on the process than on the uArch.

For low power usage in notebooks, it's nice to have tons of cash, your own fab and make several architectures in parallel, picking from each the winning one when it's done. When GloFo surpasses intel in fabbing we'll see AMD's use less power than intel.

You're probably stuck with in the thinking that today's processing power still relies heavily on IPC alone. That may be for low task devices, where Celerons are great for, but today I want to run more on one machine, not just a game and that's it.

BD's longer inst pipeline was a step in concurrent processing which is a "cure" for the limitation Si bring. Maybe when Graphene will become a standard then you can revisit the IPC idea at 100GHz CPU's. But for now, we don't need a faster pipeline as bad as we need a better instruction management and more core integration per module for better concurrent processing. A lot of the hours-long-work is done in concurrent tasks these days, and not in one uber-fast task using only a quarter of the CPU because hey, it' doesn't know how to else with a short pipeline. This is the important aspect of AMD's module "invention". If you look at intel you'll have some improvements, but they are still limited to single core processing with some optimization like HT unless the programmer invests in multi-core processing and not all invest as much as it is needed to produce the best results. Some, not at all, beside Valve and one other did anyone else look at parallel game engine?

We don't need that anymore. Unless we're talking about competitions, but for actual work this is old tech and AMD's "module" will bring the needed push forward. I'm still eager to hear some 4 core per module announcement.



Steevo said:


> Clock for clock is a well known comparison that has been used for as long as processors have been around. How else are you supposed to compare performance?



Time / completed task.

Unless you care about pointless or little-to-no-value data, what a non-tech person is interested in, you know the guys with the money that push the world forward, including governments of the big nations, are not interested in the inside workings, but how much output will I get from this much input and is it faster than its competitor or older version.

Damn, car analogy 
Old vw scirocco, vs new vw scirocco, not much of a difference performance wise, some like the old one because it feels like a real machine, others the new one because of the comfort. Outside people are interested in these things, not ps-for-ps.

BTW, are all aspects of the compared CPU's the same to decide how much IPC is responsible for the performance? AFAIK, CPU's aren't the only ones t get upgraded, the rest of the platform does as well and this will eat the findings, resulting in higher error margins.

Maybe for an engineer it has some meaning, but how many of you actually make CPU's for a living. /s


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 19, 2012)

fix your posts by combining both


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 19, 2012)

Steevo said:


> My Phenom II is faster at cine bench and most applications that Bulldozer is clock for clock.
> 
> I have proven it with scores.



Good for you.



Steevo said:


> Should I be banned?



Why are you asking me this?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 19, 2012)

Andy77 said:


> Recognize rhetoric when you see it...intel beats AMD in optimized compiled code and low task count while AMD has good grips in parallel jobs and high task count..[wall of text containing a lot of "if" ]...If you look at intel you'll have some improvements, but they are still limited to single core processing...


So Intel must suck at server and HPC ?...Oh no, that's right they don't. In fact AMD's defecit seems to getting worse









(_from Anandtech's E5-2660 review_)


Andy77 said:


> it's nice to have...your own fab


Hey, AMD used to have their own too. Weird that they actually *paid* Globalfoundries to get rid their remaining stake in the company, no? 


Andy77 said:


> When GloFo surpasses intel in fabbing


This is a company that made a complete hash of 32nm while Intel were fabbing 22nm, and are presently ramping 28nm (and still have a tricky 20nm/transition to gate last to come) while Intel are full steam ahead on 14nm.Presumeably "GloFo surpassing Intel" involves some far future date-yet-to-be-fixed, a magic wand and a sprinkling of faerie dust.


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> So Intel must suck at server and HPC ?...Oh no, that's right they don't. In fact AMD's defecit seems to getting worse


You missed the guys point. Benchmarks are coded to perform better on Intel and punish none Intel CPU's. This is a basic and we'll known fact.

As for the manufacturing processes, Intel's been excellent in that department for many years now. Still with AMD's limited funds and resources, they kept up very well.


----------



## nt300 (Sep 19, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Steevo
> My Phenom II is faster at cine bench and most applications that Bulldozer is clock for clock.
> 
> ...






> *AMD Pushes Steamroller and Excavator Forward, Bullshit about Performance Increases*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 19, 2012)

Super XP said:


> You missed the guys point. Benchmarks are coded to perform better on Intel and punish none Intel CPU's. This is a basic and we'll known fact.



Find me a benchmark compiled to use FMA3 and XOP to do floating point operations and I bet you will see Bulldozer take off since it will be using the two 128-bit FP units separately instead as 1 unified 256-bit FP unit. We already know that BDs integer performance is pretty reasonable. AVX is also obviously going to run faster on Intel processors considering Intel developed it as well.

Also you have to consider the performance benefits per core. Consider for a moment a quad-core Intel processor with hyper-threading. You have 8 threads to use, but if all 4 cores are doing the same task using the same resources, HT isn't going to boost the speed very much. BD on the other hand has dedicated resources for each thread so the gain per thread is better by the time you start using hyper-threading.

Hyper-threading helps doing different tasks simultaneously where BD (on paper,) is better at doing similar tasks concurrently. BD has its architectural deficiencies, but AMD has more room to make its IPC better while saving a lot of die space. All in all, AMD is trying to efficiently use CPU space because they know that there will come a point where CPUs can't become smaller (and we're slowly but surely getting to that point.)

All in all, yeah, Intel is winning the CPU game but that doesn't mean that they will always be winning it. Think about it. Last year Intel had 54 billion USD in revenue and AMD had a little under 6.6 billion. The difference in size of each of these companies is huge. Intel simply has more resources and more money to invest into CPU innovation. I also might add that AMD also has a GPU market they have to satisfy, so CPUs isn't their only game. All in all,  I think that experience with GPUs is what will make AMD processors take off. AMD knows how to play the concurrency game.


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 19, 2012)

Glad to see AMD's finally bringing out a new chip to the enthusiasts to play with.

good luck this time AMD! I hope it's faster then PII, and much better then BD


----------



## Steevo (Sep 19, 2012)

Andy77 said:


> Recognize rhetoric when you see it...
> 
> 
> Higher IPC parts can't really clock high, which high clocking parts like BD can make up in performance just because of that. Add to it the capabilities, it's not just a clocking chip for benchers.
> ...



HIgh IPC can't clock high?


Is that why no one with a Intel I series gets above 3Ghz?


----------



## NeoXF (Sep 19, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Hopefully, Steam Roller should literally make it disappear.



Yeah... Like Phenom II did with Phenom... let's hope FX-8350 isn't to FX-8150 JUST what Phenom X4 9650 was to Phenom X4 9600 tho...



TheGuruStud said:


> I'm in. I can run it at this speed on air. Like its purpose, it'll be stop gap till steamroller, for me.
> 
> At this clock is where the limitations in BD start to break down. It scales better than 100%.
> With the fixes in steam roller and even higher clocks, it should do well.



It's shown to run on AMD's in-house closed-loop water-cooling kit... of course you have to consider every possibility... 1. It's and ES sample 2. It's a binned sample, so as to perform as well as possible, ES or not 3. AMD in-house water-cooler isn't exactly the best cooling out there 4. It's bench stable on decent voltages apparently.



nt300 said:


> That was back in April of 2012. It very clear that the desktop Piledriver are going to be beasts in performance and priced very well. In this respect, AMD really has no choice but to offer better price/performance vs anything Intel has out. AMD need to sell and keep selling real bad.
> 
> Some crazy rumour about Piledriver is really a Bulldozer but higher clocked is garbage talk. Dont remember where I read this, but this will not be the case, we r talking about the same design but greatly tweaked with added MMX instructions for Piledriver.
> 
> Piledriver IMO will not be a slouch, it's should perform very well and finally outperform any Phenom II's out.



Well, considering Zambezi could beat, clock for clock, i7 Sandy Bridge in about 2-3 tests out of 20 (such as x264 HD second pass or WinRAR)... Piledriver could at least bring the same scenario vs i7 Ivy Bridge as well as close the gap in others, while hopefully lowering power usage quite a bit as well (which is one of it's main weaknesses IMO).


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2012)

Cinebench R13(The benchmark running with the FX-8350) is more optimized for Bulldozer.  You'll finish workloads faster with a FX-8150 with less power than a Phenom II with R13 and R14.





Andy77 said:


> BD's longer inst pipeline was a step in concurrent processing which is a "cure" for the limitation Si bring.


Bulldozer has a shorter pipeline than Nehalem.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Sep 19, 2012)

Super XP said:


> *You missed the guys point*. Benchmarks are coded to perform better on Intel and punish none Intel CPU's. This is a basic and we'll known fact.


No I didn't. AMD fanboys seem to always fall back on the " all benchmarks are Intel compile" excuse. As far as I'm aware GCC 4.7.0, Clang etc aren't Intel, and BD still needs some *very* specialised apps and coding in order to shine.


----------



## D007 (Sep 19, 2012)

Why mention the processor runs at 5ghz but run it at 4.8ghz? To me that says it doesn't run at 5 at all. If it was stable at 5, they'd of left it at 5.. That's my 2 cents anyway.. But I like 5.. 5 is a nice, round number.


----------



## seronx (Sep 19, 2012)

D007 said:


> Why mention the processor runs at 5ghz but run it at 4.8ghz? To me that says it doesn't run at 5 at all. If it was stable at 5, they'd of left it at 5.. That's my 2 cents anyway.. But I like 5.. 5 is a nice, round number.


The processor ran @ 5 GHz 
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-09-18/87b.jpg
9.06 = 5 GHz
8.73 = 4.8 GHz

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...ns-test-fans&p=5137550&viewfull=1#post5137550


----------



## Super XP (Sep 19, 2012)

I already have FX 8120 @ 4.40 GHz - 8-Cores running with low volts. I can only imagine 5.0GHz  Give me Piledriver with higher clocks and lower power.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 20, 2012)

seronx said:


> Bulldozer has a shorter pipeline than Nehalem.



Wrong. Intel used a 14-stage pipeline ever since the Core 2 series processors.


----------



## seronx (Sep 20, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Wrong. Intel used a 14-stage pipeline ever since the Core 2 series processors.


http://www.realworldtech.com/nehalem/


> At this IDF, Intel is announcing the details of Nehalem, a second generation 45nm microprocessor and the next step in the evolution of their flagship line. Nehalem differs from the previous generation in that it was explicitly designed not only to scale across all the different product lines, but to be optimized for all the different product segments, from mobile to MP server. This implies a level of flexibility above and beyond the Core 2. Nehalem refines almost every aspect of the microprocessor, although the most substantial changes were to the system architecture and the memory hierarchy. This article describes in detail the architecture and pipeline of Nehalem, a quad-core, eight threaded, 64 bit, 4 issue super-scalar, *out-of-order MPU with a 16 stage pipeline*, 48 bit virtual and 40 bit physical addressing, implemented in Intel’s high performance 45nm process which uses high-K gate dielectrics and metal gate stacks


^-- source Singhal, Ronak. Inside Intel Next Generation Nehalem Microarchitecture. Intel Developers Forum, April 1, 2008.

Bulldozer has a 15 stage pipeline
Nehalem has a 16 stage pipeline
Sandy Bridge has an 18 stage pipeline

No wonder why Nehalem and Sandy Bridge has less power consumption it has less gates per stage!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 20, 2012)

general geewizz about pipelines

courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs232/fa2011/lectures/l14.pdf


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 20, 2012)

seronx said:


> http://www.realworldtech.com/nehalem/^-- source Singhal, Ronak. Inside Intel Next Generation Nehalem Microarchitecture. Intel Developers Forum, April 1, 2008.
> 
> Bulldozer has a 15 stage pipeline
> Nehalem has a 16 stage pipeline
> ...



I believe my source more than your source. :shadedshu


 
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/manual/64-ia-32-architectures-optimization-manual.pdf

Troll less please.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 20, 2012)

Ohez noez. You mean read, AND comprehend?


Its easier to flail around about megahurts and how IPC doesn't matter. 


I think about 80% of that pdf is accurate, but would either need convincing fro the other 20%, or would argue the advantages/disadvantages of some items. Such as the compiler removing all hazards, how much time does that take if we run it in real time VS how much larger do we make a dataset by making items redundant to prevent issues (hard faults and stalls). 

Many things are due to X86 and its own issues, and the lack of programming in pure X64, as well the almost inherent need to move to a coutingiously mapped memory space with OS controlled and aware redundancy. Add to this the hardware to schedule between OpenCL or CUDA but transparent to the software (NOT DRIVER LEVEL!!!) and you increase application performance to the same level as developed platforms get.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 20, 2012)

Steevo said:


> the lack of programming in pure X64



You don't program X64, it just represents 64-bit memory blocks where the CPU can do math operations on numbers up to 2^64 instead of 2^32. X86 has no problem doing operations in 64-bit on a 64-bit processor. Not sure what you're trying to actually say here. Sorry.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 20, 2012)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms241064(v=vs.80).aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa496329

Yeah, faster than PAE.


----------



## seronx (Sep 20, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Troll less please.


Ronak Singhal is the lead architect of Nehalem.





Aquinus said:


> You don't program X64, it just represents 64-bit memory blocks where the CPU can do math operations on numbers up to 2^64 instead of 2^32. X86 has no problem doing operations in 64-bit on a 64-bit processor. Not sure what you're trying to actually say here. Sorry.


x86 can only do 32-bit(and less) math/ops.


----------



## Steevo (Sep 20, 2012)

seronx said:


> Ronak Singhal is the lead architect of Nehalem.x86 can only do 32-bit math/ops.



X86 can do X64, but it takes longer. More memory addresses available and able to be addressed without needing translated means faster processing.


----------



## seronx (Sep 20, 2012)

Steevo said:


> *X86 can do X64, but it takes longer.* More memory addresses available and able to be addressed without needing translated means faster processing.


Only the reverse is true.
*X64 can do X86, but it takes longer.*
x86 CPUs can not run x64 code.


----------



## xorbe (Sep 20, 2012)

You guys aren't going to resolve the # of pipe stages unless someone spells out what each stage does or what opcode it references. 14-18 vs 15, it's all in the same ballpark.  It's not like 10 vs 24 or something.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Sep 20, 2012)

xenocide said:


> They need quite a sizeable (10%+) performance gain with PD to remain competitive.  I want AMD to be good, but I cannot justify getting a new CPU every year or so and still being behind Intel's curve.  I can buy an Intel CPU like the Q6600 (which I did) and have it for 3 years (which I did) and it was still running fine, then upgrade to a new Intel CPU like the i5-2500k (did that too) and I guarantee it will be good for another 2 years at least.  In that same time frame I would have had to upgrade my AMD CPU like 3 times and would still be behind in performance (would have had to go Phenom I->Phenom II->FX and probably gotten new motherboards).  I'll take 2 purchases over 5-6.



Then you should complain to software devs and AMD about support in windows apps. Guess who's taking all the cash to provide intel only optimized code and using their compiler only (which is a cheater)?

Linux users have no problems with AMD's performance. It's fast. Software is the problem, not hardware (although there's plenty of limitations in BD).


----------



## Super XP (Sep 20, 2012)

Fully agree, Software is the major issue. And how to resolve this?


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 20, 2012)

I think the real key is that just because AMD doesn't run as fast as Intel doesn't mean AMD processors are slow.


----------



## DaveLTX (Oct 14, 2012)

OneMoar said:


> probly because it won't pass a 3DMark11 run =/
> so it runs at 5Ghz and still gets beat by a core i3 running at 3.5
> AMD is Disappoint
> perhaps they will learn and throw bulldozer in the trash and hire some fresh talent and start over sad to see AMD like this
> they need to realise that clock speed is no longer relevant


I might be new here 
But guess what? AMD Had to rush bulldozer and the sudden leaving of the engineers ruined bulldozer
And so off they have gone and in with the professionals ... i am smelling a good day ahead
OH, i don't know what you mean by i3 beat THE i3 is only good at single thread for sure.
The FX-8150 is the same price as a i5-2500k and the FX does things better.
Of course. Vishera. Forget about the BD crap and move on


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 14, 2012)

DaveLTX said:


> I might be new here
> But guess what? AMD Had to rush bulldozer and the sudden leaving of the engineers ruined bulldozer
> And so off they have gone and in with the professionals ... i am smelling a good day ahead
> OH, i don't know what you mean by i3 beat THE i3 is only good at single thread for sure.
> ...



this is old news, why are you even bringing it up


----------

