AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface

[TheMailMan78]

Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?

 

[legends84]

I dont take the chart seriously until the bulldozer official release.. for now, sandy bridge is the king

 

[rem82]

ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...

MSI NF980-G65 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI HDMI ATX ...

Ok you have right ! Τhese mobos are not deliver in my country ..

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

 

[Fourstaff]

Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?

If its AMD's then its inflated like always. If its some joker guesstimating, then this chart is completely useless. In other words, its useless either way.

 

[Jonap_1st]

ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...

MSI NF980-G65 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI HDMI ATX ...

maybe this time it will not use nforce chipset for north brigde, just put them directly into 990FX mobo without needing "extra" chip..

 

[btarunr]

Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?

AMD's charts.

 

[Googoo24]

AMD's charts.

So these "slides" are confirmed to be authentic?

 

[TheMailMan78]

AMD's charts.

Are you sure man? They don't look like AMD charts to be honest. They usually use a black background and such. If they are real they are full of fail graphically and informatively.

 

[Jonap_1st]

Are you sure man? They don't look like AMD charts to be honest. They usually use a black background and such. If they are real they are full of fail graphically and informatively.

i dont know, maybe this will help

just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd..

 

[TheMailMan78]

i dont know, maybe this will help

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-01-24/177a.jpg

just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd..

Yeah that looks more like an AMD chart to me. The other one looked bogus.

 

[Jonap_1st]

Yeah that looks more like an AMD chart to me. The other one looked bogus.

maybe because its only show comparison on pcmark and 3dmark only, not on all real life application..

but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..

 

[trickson]

LOL .

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 !

 

[rem82]

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 !

 

[trickson]

http://pic2.178.com/64/641528/month_1104/f55bd9d9c7da7cef100db841dac11333.jpg

+ 1Ghz with cpu boost frequency !! Very good news for over-clockers !!

That is on Engineering samples , Once they come out to us it is the luck of the draw .

 

[Googoo24]

but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..

Not forming an opinion until official benches hit.

 

[alucasa]

Hmmm...
I hope Amd makes it this time..., but my doubts are becoming bigger...

 

[TheMailMan78]

maybe because its only show comparison on pcmark and 3dmark only, not on all real life application..

but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..

I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the graph itself. Marketing teams are very picky about company appearance. The first charts are ether fake or AMD's marketing team is slacking as they are not consistent with any previous graph "feel".

LOL .

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 !

Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?

 

[Jonap_1st]

Not forming an opinion until official benches hit.

maybe those "scorpious sheet" its not official, so it's okay. but a few people here had something to say as long as its not insulting..

I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the graph itself. Marketing teams are very picky about company appearance. The first charts are ether fake or AMD's marketing team is slacking as they are not consistent with any previous graph "feel".

Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?

 

[legends84]

hope the bulldozer can overclock well also like sandy bridge

 

[trickson]

Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?

Not what I meant at all , But yes they all inflate there preliminary marks , This is a fact all of them do but some are more on point than others , AMD is ok but has been a tad off as of late , Still a good solid Chip-maker , I just do not trust the #'s not till people get them and run there own tests and benchmarks is all .

 

[wahdangun]

WTF, what the hell all this core count nonsense, CORE COUNT IS NOT IMPORTANT, I don't care if amd use 1000 core to compete with intel 4 core, take a look at gpu do you think amd is a sucker because its 1553 core radeon hd 6970 compete with a 512 core g force gtx 580, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS PERFORMANCE/TDP/PRICE, different architecture use difference way, if bulldozer can compete in that 3 area then its a success for amd

 

[devguy]

I'm curious why so many of you think the i7 2600k is a slow CPU? It is one fast chip that I really respect, and to see AMD's Zambezi chip doing slightly better in PCMark, is to me a really good sign. To be honest, my performance estimates put the Zambezi chips between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

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.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A Core I7 2600K beats a Core i7 990X in PCMark Vantage:

http://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.

 

[nINJAkECIL]

AMD wants us to think their platform (CPU+GPU, chipset) better than Intel. That's what I believe the pics on the 1st post do. That's why it's 3Dmark vantage and pcmark vantage being shown.On the other hand, the CPU alone, I dont think it will do better than 2600K, especially in single threaded apps.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Even when you consider the 100MHZ increase in clockspeed and an extra 4 threads the Core i7 2600K is under 10% faster than a Core i5 2500K in PCMark Vantage:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Intel_i7_2600K_i5_2500K/8.html