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
I don`t have any review with sli 2x16 and thuban or deneb, but bulldozer is defferent. bulldozer not a thuban or deneb ......therefore ι cant see any meaning for this comparison!
I am sure that native crossfire 2x16 and native sli 2x16 are better than crossfire 2x8 in 1155 platform and sli with nf200...because are natively (no latency) with full bandwidth ! If bulldozer has the same performance as 2600k i think AM3+ will be much better for multi gpus
just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd.. :rolleyes:
but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..
I think I will wait and see some real world performance , This is just how they pimped the last 4 years of CPU's to us ! When they hit the market and people got them in there hands they found them less than what was being reported to them from AMD I just laughed and laughed !
up to 3,1Ghz default frequency + 1Ghz with cpu boost frequency !! Very good news for over-clockers !! And that with the first stepping , first 32nm chip from AMD, first chip with H-K metal gate from AMD !! Very good job !
I hope Amd makes it this time..., but my doubts are becoming bigger...
A good question I'd like to see here, however, is where a quad/hex Zambezi chip would land on that chart. As PCMark isn't the world's greatest program at taking advantage of additional cores, my guess is they wouldn't be far from where the 8core Zambezi is. On the other hand, I envision an 8 core Zambezi destroying a 4 core Zambezi in things like video encoding.
www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,review-32126-4.html
This indicates the benchmark does not make very good use of more cores. Hence,the top end Bulldozer CPU is doing a good job if it is matching a Core i7 2600K.
www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Intel_i7_2600K_i5_2500K/8.html