AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface

[DeerSteak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Accurate claims are not unsubstantiated claims...

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"

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

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)

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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!

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)

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]

While do you need 8 cores for gaming?

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

 

[DeerSteak]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

 

[DeerSteak]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Pestilence]

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]

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

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)

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

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)

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]

[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.