Leaked Bulldozer benches ???

Funkmaster_A said:
In response to the semi-tangent regarding whether it's "really a dual-core":
Let's say I took a dual-core CPU, and removed a core (not sure how, but it doesn't really matter). What's left would basically be a single-core CPU.
Click to expand...

FYI... quite easy just disable one core in the bios.

Then the remaining core would have full access to the rest of the system. Harddrives, memory, including all the L3 cache etc.

Funkmaster_A said:
Let's say I took a BD module, and removed a "single-core CPU" from that module. Is what's left a single core CPU, or is it more like 80% of a single-core CPU?
Click to expand...

Not quite since there is really only one complete core per module, if you removed one complete
core there would be no scheduler, etc for whats leftover.

What AMD has basically done is taken a full core and said hey we could really put twice the work through this core if we added a second IPU and they shared a kick butt APU.

Really it to the consumer it will be seem like a very good HT implementation as opposed to doubling the # of processors.

Funkmaster_A said:
If it's the latter, then it's weird to call something plus 80% of something as "two somethings."
Click to expand...

Not weird but marketing, current CPU's share alot of things, memory interconnects HT Bus, L2 cache, L3 cache... etc.


@tangoseal

Seriously? If that was directed at me I'm honored. I'm a huge AMD fan. Not sure of your anatomy descriptions are correct to the topic however.

@seronx
Take a guess at the treading? Do you think it will get 180% of the performance of a 4 core P2 at the same frequency?


My thoughts, hopes.

8-series BD will get 140-160% of the performance of a 4 core P2 at the same frequency.

Also I don't really care about the whole thermal throttling. It basically messes up a good overclock in my past experiance.
 
tlc4tvm said:
FYI... quite easy just disable one core in the bios.

Then the remaining core would have full access to the rest of the system. Harddrives, memory, including all the L3 cache etc.



Not quite since there is really only one complete core per module, if you removed one complete
core there would be no scheduler, etc for whats leftover.

What AMD has basically done is taken a full core and said hey we could really put twice the work through this core if we added a second IPU and they shared a kick butt APU.

Really it to the consumer it will be seem like a very good HT implementation as opposed to doubling the # of processors.



Not weird but marketing, current CPU's share alot of things, memory interconnects HT Bus, L2 cache, L3 cache... etc.


@tangoseal

Seriously? If that was directed at me I'm honored. I'm a huge AMD fan. Not sure of your anatomy descriptions are correct to the topic however.

@seronx
Take a guess at the treading? Do you think it will get 180% of the performance of a 4 core P2 at the same frequency?


My thoughts, hopes.

8-series BD will get 140-160% of the performance of a 4 core P2 at the same frequency.

Also I don't really care about the whole thermal throttling. It basically messes up a good overclock in my past experiance.
Click to expand...


the 8XXX series of BD will get 320-400% performance over a 4 core P2 at 300-500mhz lower than P2

Do to advancements in throughput, bandwidth and latencies

8XXX = 8 Threads of integer
4-core P2 = 4 Threads of integer

Even if somethings are shared....there is no real loss in performance in real benchmarks/games/programs....you might see some deterioration in synthetic benchmarks but those can be easily patched

If you put the 4110 Bulldozer side by side to a Phenom II(Quad-core) Bulldozer will most likely out perform it in less cycles(same for the six-core to 6110)
 
Last edited:
seronx said:
You can see real easily that AMD Bulldozer is missing a second FP Unit
Click to expand...


That is a problem with the person who made those pictures, not with AMD. We have one 128-bit FP per core, just like the existing architecture.
 
tlc4tvm said:
In short there is a penalty for placing two cores within the same module.
Click to expand...
You haven't demonstrated this and neither has anyone else. All you're doing at this point is handwaving and beating down strawmen, badly at that.
 
Funkmaster_A said:
Let's say I took a BD module, and removed a "single-core CPU" from that module. Is what's left a single core CPU, or is it more like 80% of a single-core CPU?
Click to expand...
Its a single core CPU if you removed the other scheduler and other associated logic.

Funkmaster_A said:
If it's the latter, then it's weird to call something plus 80% of something as "two somethings."
Click to expand...
No it isn't if you're comparing performance since it doesn't scale linearly with the number of cores, which is where that 80% comes from.

edit: exactly \/\/\/\/\/
 
Last edited:
In the world of single core processors, when you went from 1P to 2P, you got about 90% performance scaling.

Was that second processor "less than a core"?
 
Based on what I am seeing here, my guess is that the new BD CPU should be pretty impressive.

I have been rather disappointed by the latest Intel chipsets. The chipsets themselves seem to be very stable and well made (aside from the dying SATA ports on P67). In that regard they remind me of the old BX 100mhz chipsets for Pentium.

On the other hand, and this is a big deal to me, Intel has crippled them with no USB 3.0, limited SATAIII, limited PCIE lanes, etc.

If BD performs well, and has a nice chipset to match, I would consider switching (back) to AMD.

How have the latest AMD chipsets performed as far as stability/data corruption? Can they do Nvidia SLI?
 
They're stable and no they can't generally do nV SLI because nV are a bunch of dicks. The 9xx chipset will have SLI though, we don't know how good it is otherwise but it seems to be mostly a 8xx derviative otherwise.
 
Dozer is a shadow in the woods.

Please AMD, we need some officials.
 
lordsegan said:
How have the latest AMD chipsets performed as far as stability/data corruption? Can they do Nvidia SLI?
Click to expand...

34a.jpg


Looks like it
 
DarkStryke said:
That Crosshair V board is looking mighty nice if BD can bring the performance.
Click to expand...
I know... 7 SATA/1 eSATA, 6 USB 3.0... I wonder why it has "DDR3-1800 (O.C.)" support if Bulldozer chips support 1866 stock? Also, will there be a Crosshair V Formula Black/Extreme Black, you know to go with an AMD FX-8k Black processor?

After that, add: 16GB (or 32GB if they come out with 8GB modules) Corsair Vengance Black DDR3-2000, either 4 XFX Radeon 6970 Black Editionss or 2 6990 Black Editions... Toss it all a Corsair 800D with an AX1200... :D

Now all Asus needs to create is a Dual G34/Dual 990FX EATX/HPTX 'unofficial' enthusiast board... I know, not gonna happen, but one can wish!
 
Oh the sexy's... I would love to get my hands on that Crosshair V, But the only real feature of it over the M5a99x that I am interested in is the intel NIC.. I am afraid I will have to buy a NIC seporate, but looking at the features that M5a99x evo will probably be the replacement for my MSI 890 GXM that I have now. I Wish asus would go with something other then all these damn blue motherboards.. Straight black would work..

Edit: M5a99x EVO
 
Last edited:
tlc4tvm said:
@tangoseal

Seriously? If that was directed at me I'm honored. I'm a huge AMD fan. Not sure of your anatomy descriptions are correct to the topic however.
Click to expand...

No not at you. Just general public. There has been so much fanboy action in this thread so far where people state clearly that the Bulldozer sucks etc....

They have no idea whatsoever.

There are people that are posting all these graphics of chip architecture etc.... c'mon seriously???

Here is the architecture for World War III:

Iran Nukes Israel
Israel Nukes Syria
Syria Nukes Iraq and Iran and Israel
Afghanistan nukes Pakistan
Pakistan attempts to nuke America
America Nukes everyone
Somewhere in the middle of all this nuking AMD nuked Intel with Bulldozer.

For now this is my architecture. It must be true because I said so and since it's on the Internet it TRUE.

Now lets see how bulldozer is really made come June.

sigh and to boot look at my signature. Am I fanboying for AMD?

Okay fine BD might only have one FPU but it has the superior power of 666 Intel FPU's slammed in one little unit. It's so powerful that it can rearrange the molecular structure of dark matter in mere seconds. Intel has nothing on the one measely FPU that BD has. I know this because I learned it on the Internet wiki daddy.
 
Now how many PCIe lanes does dozer realy have? I would like to know if I am going to have to purchase an NF200 board again. I hope AMD delivers some lanage! (<-----slang)
 
tangoseal said:
Now how many PCIe lanes does dozer realy have? I would like to know if I am going to have to purchase an NF200 board again. I hope AMD delivers some lanage! (<-----slang)
Click to expand...
Similar to the 890FX (afaik), the 990FX will have 44/46 PCI-E lanes (minus 4 for the NB-SB link). So, dual x16 or triple/quad x8. SLi will be enabled on 990X/990FX boards. No NF200 needed.
 
bastage said:
Actually would be "x16 x8 x8" or "x8 x8 x8 x8"
Click to expand...
According to the specs on the Asus Crosshair V Formula and Sabertooth 990FX, there will be dual x16 and x16, x8, x8. Quad x8 may be reserved for the Crosshair V Extreme.
 
JMccovery said:
According to the specs on the Asus Crosshair V Formula and Sabertooth 990FX, there will be dual x16 and x16, x8, x8. Quad x8 may be reserved for the Crosshair V Extreme.
Click to expand...

Yep.. I just didn't list dual.
 
seronx said:
Intel is one of the better makers at Gbit LAN thingies

Most Intel Gbits out perform Bigfoot's Killer 2100
Click to expand...

Yep. I would love it if realtek made as good of nic's as intel. But intel makes about the best.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
But, all we need to know now is Can Bulldozer/Zambezi run Crysis 1 and 2 at the same time in the same instance
 
Last edited:
AMD_Gamer said:
Since Crysis 2 is freebie giveaway material maybe they will include it with every CPU.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 2 copies with every CPU, motherboard, hard drive, SSD and GPU sold! That way Crytek can 'sell' more than Crysis 1 and show that consolized gaming is the future! :D
 
Im excited I really hope Dozer competes with 2600K. I want an true 8 core so bad. I do heavy amounts of video encoding so it will really help.

Secondly I want the competition. Thirdly I want a reason to get rid of Sandy so I can get true 16x 8x 8x PCIe lanes for my GPUs.
 
My Phenom II can pull a 7.6 with a modest overclock. I'd not get too excited about that, even if it is real.
 
tangoseal said:
Im excited I really hope Dozer competes with 2600K. I want an true 8 core so bad. I do heavy amounts of video encoding so it will really help.

Secondly I want the competition. Thirdly I want a reason to get rid of Sandy so I can get true 16x 8x 8x PCIe lanes for my GPUs.
Click to expand...


its not a true 8 core processor though it is more efficient than Intel's hyperthreading technology.
 
Afti said:
My Phenom II can pull a 7.6 with a modest overclock. I'd not get too excited about that, even if it is real.
Click to expand...

you fail.. 7.9 MAX's out WEI.. And my Phenom II x4 955 pulls only 7.4 overclocked to 3.9 Ghz.
 
An X6 1055T at 3.7 gets the aforementioned 7.6.

Yes, it's the maximum result, but WEI is kind of low-hanging fruit; it's a bad benchmark which produces fairly meaningless results.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
its not a true 8 core processor though it is more efficient than Intel's hyperthreading technology.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect opportunity to ask...

What about Bulldozer makes you think it's not a "true 8 core processor"? I could understand the nit-pick of each core not having a dedicated FPU, but that's kind of weak.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FX 4110 is a 4-core processor, i.e. a 2-module Bulldozer. Beating a 6-core Thuban with 50% more cores by a hefty amount is quite nice, no? How much does the processor score change from a 3 GHz Thuban to a 3.7 GHz?

It's true the actual WEI score (what the hell is 7.6) isn't useful, however, it is scaled from 4 real benchmarks (which to me are more useful than SuperPi at least). The gap in performance between 7.6 and 7.9 may actually be very great (especially as 7.9 is the ceiling, if you know what I mean [which yes, makes the scores less than helpful]).

Edit: I'm not saying it's impossible to fake a video, but it does require more work. I haven't seen a non-HT 4-core processor that scores 7.9 regardless of how high it's clocked.
 
Last edited:
pxc said:
This is a perfect opportunity to ask...

What about Bulldozer makes you think it's not a "true 8 core processor"? I could understand the nit-pick of each core not having a dedicated FPU, but that's kind of weak.
Click to expand...

Each core has a dedicated 128 Bit/3D Now! thingy mobbor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top