Leaked Bulldozer benches ???

A

aphasia

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
1,137
originally from XtremeSystems
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/showpost.php?p=4830335&postcount=303

features a 8 core BD engineering sample, base clock of 2.82GHz.
indicative of a real BD cpu...? who knows if it's even real.

dw85dd.jpg
 
AMD_Gamer said:
Looks like something from an Intel troll.
Click to expand...

But anything showing bulldozer rape intels must be true because bulldozer is the best and will destroy everything intel has to offer. Right :rolleyes:
 
why is super pi so unique that it makes that supposed amd chip so much faster in there?
 
velocityx said:
why is super pi so unique that it makes that supposed amd chip so much faster in there?
Click to expand...

It is time in seconds to complete, so lower is better.

Regarding these numbers, I believe an X4 scores higher then these, and X6 for sure.
 
Leaks are bound to happen as launch approaches. Hopefully some with non-ES processors start to appear with pictures of the hardware running for proof.

Otherwise this is going to be a long few weeks until release. ;)
 
xIronCrossx said:
But anything showing bulldozer rape intels must be true because bulldozer is the best and will destroy everything intel has to offer. Right :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

anything that shows numbers similar/worse than the current AMD offerings are probably bull shit, these look/smell like bull shit anyhow.....i honestly doubt that BD will rape SB, its a remote possibility, but lets face it, if they come within ~15% ill be more than happy.

edit: especially considering my 1090T with a modest overclock gets just shy of 7.0 on Cinebench R11.5 and just above 18s on SuperPi 1m
 
yea, 15 percent would be nice. although I heard that the zambezi cpus will be more expensive, more close to intel pricing so they better perform closer to intel or it's gonna be an awkward situation for amd.
 
Those scores are from a poster at Chiphell who had an ES. The problem was that it was very early platform, and had multiple issues. The main being the processor only running at a low clock and not reaching the rated 2800Mhz and resulting is terrible benchmark results.
 
SicKlown42012 said:
Those scores are from a poster at Chiphell who had an ES. The problem was that it was very early platform, and had multiple issues. The main being the processor only running at a low clock and not reaching the rated 2800Mhz and resulting is terrible benchmark results.
Click to expand...

I think I saw this somewhere... it was consistently running at idle due to the power states not working on the chipset or something? It was dragging along at like 800mhz or something even with all cores loaded.
 
SicKlown42012 said:
Those scores are from a poster at Chiphell who had an ES. The problem was that it was very early platform, and had multiple issues. The main being the processor only running at a low clock and not reaching the rated 2800Mhz and resulting is terrible benchmark results.
Click to expand...

Yep, like I said, BS.
 
my intel t2390 in my laptop just did 32 in super pi. in fact my old amd x2 939 used to do super pi in 30 seconds. there in no way these are real.
 
Well if its an early ES then its true but not true of newer ones. So yes these wont be the final product.

But my x4 955 @ 3.6ghz did super pi 1m in 19 seconds while my stock W3520 did it in I think 14 or 15. Btw I am quite sure its single threaded so more cores wont help.
 
InternationalHat said:
It was dragging along at like 800mhz or something even with all cores loaded.
Click to expand...
There does seem to be a problem, but running at 800MHz seems very unlikely. The original thread has disappeared and I read through coolaler's discussion and no such thing is mentioned as having come from the original poster.

3DMark '06 CPU and Cinebench scale linearly with CPU speed and those scores aren't going to be 3.5x faster than what was shown. ;) Something was probably wrong, but not that.
 
agree with the sentiment regarding pi scores.
something's definitely not right here.
my q6600 @ 3.7 does it in 14 flat, high 13's with speedstep disabled
 
meh there is enough wrong with those scores that its not even worth the speculation..
 
pxc said:
There does seem to be a problem, but running at 800MHz seems very unlikely. The original thread has disappeared and I read through coolaler's discussion and no such thing is mentioned as having come from the original poster.

3DMark '06 CPU and Cinebench scale linearly with CPU speed and those scores aren't going to be 3.5x faster than what was shown. ;) Something was probably wrong, but not that.
Click to expand...

I was reading the bulldozer blog thread on overclock.net. Their "leaked" screenshot has different results. Both are probably complete BS anyway.
 
These are not from AMD.

And I have high confidence that they are not real.

And I have extremely high confidence that they are not reflecting the performance of the processor.
 
JF-AMD said:
These are not from AMD.

And I have high confidence that they are not real.

And I have extremely high confidence that they are not reflecting the performance of the processor.
Click to expand...

wow.. I am surprised nobody pointed that out on the 1st page... Oh wait..
 
wow.. I am surprised nobody pointed that out on the 1st page... Oh wait..
Click to expand...

JF-AMD is an AMD representative. His statements should carry more weight then the rest of us who have never seen the bulldozer in action..
 
drescherjm said:
JF-AMD is an AMD representative. His statements should carry more weight then the rest of us who have never seen the bulldozer in action..
Click to expand...

I don't care who he represents.. His statements have proven not to be nothing but typical inaccurate PR jibberish.
 
These results look fake, most likely from an Intel fanboy. Seriously, I hate when people doctor false information just to gain attention.
 
I can just imagine the AMD fanboys shaking with rage when they saw the first post, that alone makes this thread with worth it.

:D
 
I can just imagine the Intel fanboys giving each other high five's when they saw the first post, Some people will do anything to make some people mad... Wait isn't that a Troll?
 
dw85dd.jpg


I checked out the source and the leaker actually said the cpu is running at 200x4(800MHz) aka idle

So, the prediction is 4(3.75-3.5 rounded)x that number is the actual performance

For Cinebench

3.18 x 4 = 12.72 pts

For SuperPi

30 / 4 = 7.62825 seconds

3D Mark I do not know how it is calculated so ya :\

Most likely the leaker put it on the wrong bios
 
Last edited:
seronx said:
I checked out the source and the leaker actually said the cpu is running at 200x4(800MHz) aka idle
Click to expand...
The source was deleted. Other threads where the info was copied had people *speculating* that it was running at 800MHz. That's very unlikely. Something is funny about those benchmarks, including the possibly of other problems, or that the numbers were just made up.

Final hardware should soon be more widely available so trustworthy leaked benchmarks may finally start appearing. Hopefully that's soon.
 
pxc said:
The source was deleted. Other threads where the info was copied had people *speculating* that it was running at 800MHz. That's very unlikely. Something is funny about those benchmarks, including the possibly of other problems, or that the numbers were just made up.

Final hardware should soon be more widely available so trustworthy leaked benchmarks may finally start appearing. Hopefully that's soon.
Click to expand...

I trust JF on this but I am also hoping for that 4x ;)
 
Not buying it, a cinebench 12 score would be pushing 2 points more than a friggin 5-5.1 sandy bridge.
 
voklskier4452 said:
I would be impressed if AMD made it to 15s at stock speeds for super pi.
Click to expand...

I hope they do, I want to get that old celly D 356 and Super pi it at a 7800 Mhz clock... it would still be slow. well not 7800 but 6800 is more accurate.
 
JF-AMD said:
These are not from AMD.

And I have high confidence that they are not real.

And I have extremely high confidence that they are not reflecting the performance of the processor.
Click to expand...

Do you have "high confidence" that a BD will NOT work on socket AM3 ?

IMO you are ignorant or being used as a tool. Either way, what you say means nothing.
 
OhMyGod said:
Do you have "high confidence" that a BD will NOT work on socket AM3 ?

IMO you are ignorant or being used as a tool. Either way, what you say means nothing.
Click to expand...

Will not be supported was the world he used. Could mean wouldn't work, or could mean that AMD is not supporting it. To JFAMD it would probably mean the same thing, as a public figure and a VP he is still going to need to walk the corporate line when it comes to things like that, otherwise it adds confusion with AMD saying one thing and their VP saying another.
 
OhMyGod said:
Do you have "high confidence" that a BD will NOT work on socket AM3 ?

IMO you are ignorant or being used as a tool. Either way, what you say means nothing.
Click to expand...

We are not supporting BD on AM3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top