AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[RejZoR]

Benchmarks are pointless if you can't compare the score to anything...

 

[entropy13]

It's still nothing new that AMD's high-end "will be highly competitive" with Intel's mainstream chips...

 

[Melvis]

Old seen it before, and another ES?? FFS

 

[reverze]

It's still nothing new that AMD's high-end "will be highly competitive" with Intel's mainstream chips...

if we talk about performance then they will have no problem competing with "mainstream" CPUs like your i7 2600 at a better price/quality

 

[entropy13]

if we talk about performance then they will have no problem competing with "mainstream" CPUs like your i7 2600 at a better price/quality

Except they aren't AMD's "mainstream" CPUs.

 

[arnoo1]

Lol in Super pi is my q9550 on stock still faster 9sec orso not 19s xd fail

 

[reverze]

Except they aren't AMD's "mainstream" CPUs.

i didnt know mainstream hardware depended on brand now whatever label you throw at it, amd can compete with sandy bridge and bring a more competetive price, like it or not.

 

[DarkOCean]

Except they aren't AMD's "mainstream" CPUs.

From the price perspective they are.

 

[Oblivion-330]

Lol in Super pi is my q9550 on stock still faster 9sec orso not 19s xd fail

Lol...


Anyway, check out that TDP! 186W is that for real or just listed since its an es chip?

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

How can it bring a more competitive price? Unless they decide to make the FX-8130P $250 or less the prices are exactly the same for AM3+ and 1155.

 

[jpierce55]

Lol...


Anyway, check out that TDP! 186W is that for real or just listed since its an es chip?

I would guess the fact this processor is not officially supported caused an error. I believe AMD already releases a power consumption chart once, or maybe it was a fake listed someplace.

If it is dead on with SB and an equal price or less it is really all the more people should have expected.

 

[blibba]

Lol in Super pi is my q9550 on stock still faster 9sec orso not 19s xd fail

I see what you're saying, and it's a good point, but there's no need to back it up with gratuitous exaggeration or plain BS. Q9550s take just over 10 seconds to complete SuperPi 1M at 4.6GHZ, which is a huge overclock.

 

[seronx]

http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in

3.2GHz Zambezi 8130P ES vs 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge-P1 i7 2600K

Zambezi wins

Fudzilla offers us a comparison to the i7 2600K

....it pulls ahead in other tests. For example, in x264 encoding tests, Zambezi ES scores 136fps in the first pass and 45fps in the second pass, whereas the Core i7 2600K manages 100fps and 36fps respectively.

The Zambezi ES manages to stay ahead in 3Dmark 11 tests as well. It scores P6250, while the 2600K hovers around the 6000 mark. In Cinebench R10 AMD’s new flagship pulls off a score of 24434 and outpaces the 2600K, ....

 

[Benetanegia]

i didnt know mainstream hardware depended on brand now whatever label you throw at it, amd can compete with sandy bridge and bring a more competetive price, like it or not.

I don't think so. Everything is rumor until now, but based on the wafer shot leaked, BD is around 50% bigger than SB. Considering that, Intel will always win a price war. Internal manufacturing instead of outsourcing (even if it's GF) means slightly better prices too.

In reality, in order to be competitive BD should be anything from 25% to 50% faster than SB so as to differentiate from SB or Intel can always lower the price. And of course once SB-E and Ivy launch is game over once again. Insert coin.

 

[nINJAkECIL]

If the price and performance is on par with 1-7 2600K, then we'll see an interesting battle between Intel and AMD.

And I'm not talking about who has the fastest cpu. Because I believe that is reserved for LGA2011, and I'm still not sure AMD can catch up with that.

 

[DeerSteak]

Well, let's see. I have a Phenom II X4 955 at 4GHz. Let's play with the chess benchmark's numbers for a moment.

The Bulldozer was 29.58 times as fast as a Pentium III 1GHz.
My Phenom II is 19.52 times as fast.

29.58/8 = 3.6975 @ 3.2GHz
19.52/4 = 4.88 @ 4GHz, or 4.88*3.2/4 = 3.904 (theoretical) if I was running at the same 3.2GHz clock.

9370 kilonodes per second on my Phenom, BTW.

So at least on this example, Bulldozer @ 3.2GHz is slower than Phenom II @ 3.2GHz per core.

Anybody with a Sandy Bridge setup want to run the benchmark? I ran it over LogMeIn from work and it took all of a minute, tops. Phenom II gets clobbered pretty regularly by Sandy Bridge. I have to think an i7 2600K would clobber both of these results on a per-core basis, though my guess is the extra 4 cores for Bulldozer will give it an edge overall.

 

[Thefumigator]

Well, let's see. I have a Phenom II X4 955 at 4GHz. Let's play with the chess benchmark's numbers for a moment.

The Bulldozer was 29.58 times as fast as a Pentium III 1GHz.
My Phenom II is 19.52 times as fast.

29.58/8 = 3.6975 @ 3.2GHz
19.52/4 = 4.88 @ 4GHz, or 4.88*3.2/4 = 3.904 (theoretical) if I was running at the same 3.2GHz clock.

9370 kilonodes per second on my Phenom, BTW.

So at least on this example, Bulldozer @ 3.2GHz is slower than Phenom II @ 3.2GHz per core.

Anybody with a Sandy Bridge setup want to run the benchmark? I ran it over LogMeIn from work and it took all of a minute, tops. Phenom II gets clobbered pretty regularly by Sandy Bridge. I have to think an i7 2600K would clobber both of these results on a per-core basis, though my guess is the extra 4 cores for Bulldozer will give it an edge overall.

Does the chess bench uses all 8 cores? Are you sure? Maybe it uses 6 or 4. I would take those possibilities too just in case.

 

[Benetanegia]

Does the chess bench uses all 8 cores? Are you sure? Maybe it uses 6 or 4. I would take those possibilities too just in case.

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-07-11/43d.jpg

Logical processors found: 8

Used: 8

 

[DeerSteak]

Does the chess bench uses all 8 cores? Are you sure? Maybe it uses 6 or 4. I would take those possibilities too just in case.

It's right in the screenshot saying it's using 8. I'm sure it's very easy to do in parallel since each thread shouldn't depend on results from any other thread. Though I suppose without a screenshot of task manager you can't be absolutely sure. All the same, my 4 cores were all maxed out at 100% each.

edit: I do enough that can use multiple cores that I'll still upgrade to BD and try overclocking right around release. I already replaced my K9A2-CF (DDR2 board) with an M5A97 EVO based entirely on TechPowerUp's review of the board. I'm in this for the long haul.

 

[Thatguy]

I don't think so. Everything is rumor until now, but based on the wafer shot leaked, BD is around 50% bigger than SB.

You know that statement is pure fud right ?

 

[Octavean]

How can it bring a more competitive price? Unless they decide to make the FX-8130P $250 or less the prices are exactly the same for AM3+ and 1155.

Quite right,…..

The leaked AMD pricing seemed to suggest that the AMD Bulldozer FX 8130P (unlocked high-end) was expected to compete with the Core i7 2600k given its price equivalent (not undercut but equivalent).

Matching performance and price of a competitor is no small feat I’m sure but Bulldozer is somewhat late to the party and not cheaper. Intel managed to mangle Sandy bridge P67 chipset launch, recover from it and even launch a second chipset (Z68) all before AMD could come to market with Bulldozer.

Also keep in mind that Intel can simply drop prices on the current Sandy Bridge LGA1155 Core i7 2600k and launch a faster Core i7 (2700k !?!) at the same ~$320 price point thus marginalizing Bulldozers planned launch price / performance ratio.

I’m starting to think Intel delayed Sandy Bridge-E because they don’t want to compete with themselves at that performance level. After all Sandy Bridge-E would have to be significantly faster to justify its existence and Sandy Bridge-E CPU prices would start at ~about $300.

 

[Thefumigator]

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-07-11/43d.jpg

Logical processors found: 8

Used: 8

Uhmmm. I still not sure on this one, could be that bulldozer looses in multicore efficiency rather than loosing clock for clock in core vs core comparison against a Phenom 2.

 

[Casecutter]

I’d say that a 990FX mobo’s and FX-8130P together will be a much more competitive price package for the gaming enthusiast particularly once OC'd. Given AMD has had a price to performance lead in gaming against Intel up till now, I see Bulldozer as really becoming the preeminent platform for gaming. Especially considering the long term socket compatibility of AM3+, them coupled with Southern Islands, AMD has positioned it's self nicely.

 

[Octavean]

Double post