Wednesday, May 4th 2011
![AMD](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/amd-v1723816949774.png)
AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface
Here are the first performance projections of the AMD FX-series processors. FX-series is the market name of the latest line of 8-core, 6-core, and 4-core processors by AMD, based on its new Bulldozer architecture. The performance projections come from AMD's internal presentations to its industry partners, which was leaked to sections of the media.
In the performance projection, a compound bar graph, an AMD platform comprising of an 8-core FX series processor (unknown model, clock speed) with AMD Radeon HD 6670 discrete graphics, was pitted against its main competitor, Intel Core i7-2600K with its integrated Intel HD graphics. Perhaps AMD is suggesting that FX 8-core model used here along with a HD 6690 graphics card costs the same as a Core i7-2600K.The tests used were synthetic, Futuremark PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage P (performance preset). In PCMark Vantage, the AMD FX processor is shown to have performed the same as the Core i7-2600K. In 3DMark Vantage, the AMD platform with its HD 6670 graphics card outperformed close to 4 times over the Intel platform.
Interestingly, the AMD FX + HD 6670 platform appears to be just about 20% faster than a platform consisting of Phenom II X6 1100T and Radeon HD 6670, in both the tests. The other platforms in the graph include AMD's Llano A-Series APUs. They're slower than Intel's Core i3-2100 in PCMark Vantage, but faster in 3DMark Vantage.
Overall, it appears that with AMD's new processor lineup, AMD will continue to rely on performance per Dollar, rather than pure processing performance, to be competitive with Intel. No doubt the performance and energy efficiency seems to have gone up, but Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture is faster at whatever today's processors are meant for (x86 processing).
Source:
DonanimHaber
In the performance projection, a compound bar graph, an AMD platform comprising of an 8-core FX series processor (unknown model, clock speed) with AMD Radeon HD 6670 discrete graphics, was pitted against its main competitor, Intel Core i7-2600K with its integrated Intel HD graphics. Perhaps AMD is suggesting that FX 8-core model used here along with a HD 6690 graphics card costs the same as a Core i7-2600K.The tests used were synthetic, Futuremark PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage P (performance preset). In PCMark Vantage, the AMD FX processor is shown to have performed the same as the Core i7-2600K. In 3DMark Vantage, the AMD platform with its HD 6670 graphics card outperformed close to 4 times over the Intel platform.
Interestingly, the AMD FX + HD 6670 platform appears to be just about 20% faster than a platform consisting of Phenom II X6 1100T and Radeon HD 6670, in both the tests. The other platforms in the graph include AMD's Llano A-Series APUs. They're slower than Intel's Core i3-2100 in PCMark Vantage, but faster in 3DMark Vantage.
Overall, it appears that with AMD's new processor lineup, AMD will continue to rely on performance per Dollar, rather than pure processing performance, to be competitive with Intel. No doubt the performance and energy efficiency seems to have gone up, but Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture is faster at whatever today's processors are meant for (x86 processing).
133 Comments on AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface
Not good news for AMD, but it could be worse. Let's hope the FX is priced competitively, but I have a feeling the 2600K will be cheaper...
i3 170%
i7 250%
And for those who cant read it says projections, so thats not even 100%, its more of a "possible" or "guesstimate" So take this graph with a grain of salt.
makes me want to go sandy or ivy bridge in Q4 all the more.
I'll wait for more reviews though.:) But really there isn't much of a reason for me to upgrade anyways, so i'll probably be content with my 1055T for a while longer.
8 core doesnt mean more performance in 3dmark vantage, if they launch less cores with higher clocks, 8core
am3+ should not have graphics cores built in. meaning it should sport higher clocks.
this is prolly amd FX krisna projections, which then looks impressive.
Speculations so far, A series look good for laptops though, but if trend continues it'll be a sandy.
I need some serious performance improvement for the cpu part!
Actually with APU AMD is pushing in the right direction(balanced CPU and GPU performance for casual users - browsing, HD video playback, light gaming).
These high performance CPUs aren't mainstream market.
Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.
I think It wont affect performance much, and I think AMD know what they're doing, but looks like the 8 core got a gpu built in too, in the performance projections... meaning those 8 core clock speeds cant be high, AM3+ doesnt support gpu so they should be able to run way faster....
I hope...
Taking in account C-50 / E-350 performance, this chart is just b.....s.
But if it's not, I guess power consumption / price really must be AMD target now, which would be a right move in my oppinion, future proof, but a little too early... Truth be told, 90% of computers sold to people (not for research), probably will never requested the full processing power even of the i5-2500k for a loooooooooong time..... IMHO
As for gammers, well...... it won't take long until real high performance parts costs an arm and leg.....
So i think you need to reconsider that statement.
This picture shows how much actually is shared:
This die shot gives a clear view on the 'modules':
one FETCH
one DECODE
one FPU
two Integer scheduler
one L2 Cache for module.
one L1 instruction cache
Same number of transistors with sandy 2600K
Yes , 8-core Bulldozer is a true 4-core chip with excellent HYPER TRANSPORT technology !!! Not true 8-core !!
Bulldozer architecture is very elastic !! That is the power and secret for bulldozer ... 2x128bit FMAC or 1x256bit FMAC or 4x64bit !!!