Monday, July 11th 2011
AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface
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.
Source:
DonanimHaber
317 Comments on AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface
Still waiting for final silicon to pass judgement on Bulldozer.
Zambezi ES FX-8130P beats i7 2600K
Engineer Sample beats Retail Sample of competition
:roll:
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
man throw in a super model and add a couple of explosions and this would b more entertaining than any summer block buster.:laugh:
In Intel "Biased" benchmarks(majority; lol)
:roll:
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
:toast:
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
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 ;)
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
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 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 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
Edit: Should have checked the link. I was right though.
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 Like anyone would bet $10 that it wouldn't be
and like Zambezi's performance my post count increases over time
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:rolleyes:
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.:D
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 But the idea is that
Intel over estimates since i7
AMD under estimates since Barcelona And you contribute NOTHING!
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
Numbers and pictures CAN be faked.