# [Coolaler] AMD Piledriver FX Vishera Engineering Sample Benchmarks



## Metric

Quote:


> areless received from the meters in the country sent a mysterious little box ~
> 
> CPU-Z-ah ....... Han bowl of cream, I do not know!
> According to the sender that the first batch of ~ This is A pile-driver pile driving machine Piledriver engineering samples has been handed the mill hands ~
> 
> This had to sell the old stems!! Palindrome did the younger brother of Pobai ~ plate and pipe to help move to the new district.
> Why??? ... Because there will be no test data
> 
> Cpu deity photos ... tomorrow to make up ~ work today, came close to being the boss chasing play, so hurry. Less COPY photo ~ "~~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/185938_499298813418103_1139833792_n.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cinebench 11.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/329375_499421580072493_1898386655_o.jpg
> 
> 
> Spoiler: rest of the benches
> 
> 
> 
> 3DMark 06
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/202416_499421983405786_729584999_o.jpg
> 
> 3DMark Vantage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/622325_499428010071850_1320080374_o.jpg
> 
> WINRAR 4.2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/413266_499448143403170_494164829_o.jpg
> 
> AIDA64
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/409616_172931729498676_1150291952_n.jpg


Source

Source (Translated)

AMD Engineering Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8

3.3GHz base clock/3.9GHz turbo, which would peg this as the lowest of the three FX-8 Vishera CPUs.

An FX-8300 @ 2.2GHz NB, with DDR3 1333MHz. The Aida64 bench shows what appears to be DDR3 2400 memory clocked to 2520 CL9 1.65V "easily."

The user stresses this is an early batch ES. However, this will almost certainly be the retail stepping and fab process will not have changed much, if at all, once retail parts are on sale.

mod e: keeping the custom thread title since the translated one makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Metric

IPC is never static across the range of workloads, so those who used the Trinity results as a sign that 15% is a representation of average increases, should realize that was never going to be realistic. If the Cinebench R11.5 bench is correct, you're looking at an IPC increase shy of 10% (mid-high 9s) in CB.

Using an extremely crude estimate, based on the CB results, would see the FX-8 series look somewhat like this in CB Multithread.

FX 8300 score @ 3.3GHz = 5.73 -replaces- FX 8100 score @ 2.8GHz = 4.62

FX 8320 score @ 3.5GHz = 6.08 -replaces- FX 8120 score @ 3.1GHz = 5.04

FX 8350 score @ 4.0GHz = 6.95 -replaces- FX 8150 score @ 3.6GHz = 6.01

Those numbers are not in any way exact (including the Zambezi scores) and should only be seen as very rough estimates. Other similarly crude Vishera estimates, see the FX-8350 somewhere in the range of 7.22 or so in CB Multithread.

While different configurations and testing methods can not be directly compared, here are some CB results from different sites.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/9/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53054-intel-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-cpu-review-11.html



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

































-edit-

AMD Eng Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8

Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 M5A97 EVO R2.0 User's Manual - Page 91 - http://www.manualowl.com/m/Asus/M5A97-EVO-R2.0/Manual/295316?page=91












Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> 3.5.1 The items in this menu show the CPU-related information that the BIOS automatically detects. The items shown in this screen may be different due to the CPU you installed. UEFI BIOS Utility - Advanced Mode CPU Configuration Exit Main Back Ai Tweaker Advanced\ CPU Configuration > Advanced Monitor Boot Tool CPU Configuration
> 
> Socket 942: *AMD Eng Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8 8 Cores Running @3300 MHz 1375 mV Max Speed: 3300 MHz Intended Speed: 3300 MHz Not loaded* Cache per Core L1 Instruction Cache: 64 KB/2-way L1 Data Cache: 16 KB/4-way   L2 Cache: 2048 KB/16-way Total L3 Cache per Socket: 8 MB/64-way


Memory Performance Gains On The Crosshair V Formula-Z & Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 - http://rog.asus.com/141502012/crosshair-v-motherboards/memory-performance-gains-on-the-crosshair-v-formula-z-sabertooth-990fx-r2-0/

Quote:


> Below we have listed the typical performance using a 4-DIMM G.Skill kit of 16GB 2,400MHz DDR3 (with an initial QVL listed below). We'll follow up with more Crosshair V Formula-Z and Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 news in the coming days, so keep an eye on ROG front page, AMD fans!
> 
> Crosshair V Formula-Z: 2,540MHz CL9
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sabertooth 990FX R2.0: 2,528MHz CL10
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initial 2,400MHz DDR3 QVL list
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






AMD Engineering Sample, ZD358246W6K54_41/35/20_2/8 (ES)









http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/553394_173759949415854_670476713_n.jpg

Piledriver
- FX-6300 3.5GHz base/4.1GHz turbo, 95W


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Bulldozer
- FX-6100 3.3GHz base/3.9GHz turbo, 95W
- FX-6200 3.8GHz base/4.1GHz turbo, 125W


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Metric*
> 
> IPC is never static across the range of workloads, so those who used the Trinity results as a sign that 15% is a representation of average increases, should realize that was never going to be realistic. If the Cinebench R11.5 bench is correct, you're looking at an IPC increase shy of 10% (mid-high 9s) in CB.
> Using an extremely crude estimate, based on the CB results, would see the FX-8 series look somewhat like this in CB Multithread.
> FX 8300 score @ 3.3GHz = 5.73 -replaces- FX 8100 score @ 2.8GHz = 4.62
> FX 8320 score @ 3.5GHz = 6.08 -replaces- FX 8120 score @ 3.1GHz = 5.04
> FX 8350 score @ 4.0GHz = 6.95 -replaces- FX 8150 score @ 3.6GHz = 6.01
> Those numbers are not in any way exact (including the Zambezi scores) and should only be seen as very rough estimates. Other similarly crude Vishera estimates, see the FX-8350 somewhere in the range of 7.22 or so in CB Multithread.
> While different configurations and testing methods can not be directly compared, here are some CB results from different sites.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/9/
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53054-intel-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-cpu-review-11.html
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.


----------



## Alatar

Edited to better fit our news formatting.

Also please guys let's keep the thread clean and the discussion friendly and professional.

Thanks.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Metric*
> 
> IPC is never static across the range of workloads, so those who used the Trinity results as a sign that 15% is a representation of average increases, should realize that was never going to be realistic. If the Cinebench R11.5 bench is correct, you're looking at an IPC increase shy of 10% (mid-high 9s) in CB.
> Using an extremely crude estimate, based on the CB results, would see the FX-8 series look somewhat like this in CB Multithread.
> FX 8300 score @ 3.3GHz = 5.73 -replaces- FX 8100 score @ 2.8GHz = 4.62
> FX 8320 score @ 3.5GHz = 6.08 -replaces- FX 8120 score @ 3.1GHz = 5.04
> FX 8350 score @ 4.0GHz = 6.95 -replaces- FX 8150 score @ 3.6GHz = 6.01
> Those numbers are not in any way exact (including the Zambezi scores) and should only be seen as very rough estimates. Other similarly crude Vishera estimates, see the FX-8350 somewhere in the range of 7.22 or so in CB Multithread.
> While different configurations and testing methods can not be directly compared, here are some CB results from different sites.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/9/
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53054-intel-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-cpu-review-11.html
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.
Click to expand...

In this benchmark only right? BD will need more than a 10% gain overall to catch up with SB I would think, it's worse than the Bloomfield i7s in many cases.


----------



## <({D34TH})>

And that's just an engineering sample!









I'm looking forward on how does the 6-core Piledriver performs.


----------



## Electroneng

This looks like a decent performance gain over BD! Cannot wait to play with one of these!


----------



## JunkoXan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.


if does put it on par with SB then that'll save me alot and i mean alot of money


----------



## fivestring

I'm proud of AMD. They may still be behind but price will be the deciding factor here. Plus OCing gthese thing will be awesome!

I'm tired of this 960T anyways lol


----------



## funfortehfun

Welcome back AMD.


----------



## Atomfix

This news brings a tear to my eye.......

Thank you lord that I skipped Bulldozer.


----------



## TopicClocker

I really hope AMD steps up their game and deliver some killer quad core chips, It's not all about the number of processing cores, C'mon AMD! Before I get an intel chip


----------



## MountainDewMadOScar

It begins


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.


How is this on par with SB? It's still behind a PhenomII.

Just look at that the CB scores, and where the 2700K is.

Also, it's kinda funny that CB recognizes it as a 4C/8T CPU.



Is this better than Bulldozer? Absolutely, it was nearly impossible to get any worse.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.


How so? The Cinebench screenshot says otherwise. Look at the PD result of 5.73 compared to the 2700K result of 8.81. Doesn't seem to be on par to me, considering there's only a 180 Mhz difference between them.


----------



## Electroneng

Not up to Sandy but a nice performance boost for AMD!


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> How is this on par with SB? It's still behind a PhenomII.
> Just look at that the CB scores, and where the 2700K is.
> Also, it's kinda funny that CB recognizes it as a 4C/8T CPU.


I was wondering the same thing at stock my 2600k does much better in cinebench. GRANTED these are ES but we're less than 2 months from go time. My guess is that within 30 days production will start. There isn't a lot of time for major overhauls. I wont be staying up on release night to look at the benchmarks. I know what they're going to be.. Better than BD worse than SB.

Welcome back AMD?


----------



## Lazloisdavrock

Not up to Sandy just yet


----------



## nicodemus

my old 920 was a pretty sweet chip, so if PD can beat that PpW, even if only slightly, i'd be happy. will get one for the wife most likely.


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> How is this on par with SB? It's still behind a PhenomII.
> Just look at that the CB scores, and where the 2700K is.
> Also, it's kinda funny that CB recognizes it as a 4C/8T CPU.
> 
> Is this better than Bulldozer? Absolutely, it was nearly impossible to get any worse.


That 2700k is no doubt overclocked, look at stock scores in the 2nd post.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> How so? The Cinebench screenshot says otherwise. Look at the PD result of 5.73 compared to the 2700K result of 8.81. Doesn't seem to be on par to me, considering there's only a 180 Mhz difference between them.


That 2700k is no doubt overclocked, look at stock scores in the 2nd post.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Electroneng*
> 
> Not up to Sandy but a nice performance boost for AMD!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> I was wondering the same thing at stock my 2600k does much better in cinebench. GRANTED these are ES but we're less than 2 months from go time. My guess is that within 30 days production will start. There isn't a lot of time for major overhauls. I wont be staying up on release night to look at the benchmarks. I know what they're going to be.. Better than BD worse than SB.
> Welcome back AMD?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazloisdavrock*
> 
> Not up to Sandy just yet


This is the lowest end 8 core cpu, look at the 2nd post in this thread.


----------



## GTR Mclaren

8120 is just 150$..if they launch the 8300 at 200$ they will have a killer chip


----------



## 4LC4PON3

they are still not at phenom level. depressing


----------



## Atomfix

I also wonder about the BIOS he's using with that Crosshair V, none of the current BIOS's support Piledriver atm, unless he's using some sort of classified BIOS from ASUS??


----------



## fivestring

According to this thread it took a clock of 4.6GHz for a 2700k to reach 8.85. So theres no way that chip did it at 3.5GHz no matter how bad the OC was on the chip in the thread.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1160043/top-30-cinebench-r11-5-cpu-scores

I still cant find a bench of a stock clock 2700K, but I will post if I find it.


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4LC4PON3*
> 
> they are still not at phenom level. depressing


Wrong. Try again. Please reread everything before posting =/


----------



## DMHernandez

I would take those cinebench numbers with a grain of salt, I know for sure that those 3930k numbers are not even close to stock, I'll wait for an english review with all the specs on other CPUs before passing judgement.
From what I've seen, the 3770k and 2700k aren't stock either, I don't know if the PD is OC'd but if it isn't, you can't really compare those numbers.

Just getting out of the way, I'm an intel user and don't really care for AMD chips, but if you are going to compare, make it fair.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/04/23/intel-core-i7-3770k-review/4


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> That 2700k is no doubt overclocked, look at stock scores in the 2nd post.


Yea, you're right.

2600K at stock gets 6.87, and an 1100T gets 5.9.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Multi-threaded,2407.html

Either way, it's not quite up to Sandy levels, and people shouldn't make such claims.









It's definitely a step up though.









This chip is on par with an i7-960.


----------



## Obakemono

Looks like as we get closer to launch the steppings should get better. Looking forward to this. Heck, even the APUs coming out are monsters.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Yea, you're right.
> 2600K at stock gets 6.87, and an 1100T gets 5.9.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Multi-threaded,2407.html
> Either way, it's not quite up to Sandy levels, and people shouldn't make such claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely a step up though.


like I said my stock 2600k gets a better score than that PD. But to be fair its an ES. We'll just have to see what the benches are when the chip is released.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fivestring*
> 
> According to this thread it took a clock of 4.6GHz for a 2700k to reach 8.85. So theres no way that chip did it at 3.5GHz no matter how bad the OC was on the chip in the thread.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1160043/top-30-cinebench-r11-5-cpu-scores
> I still cant find a bench of a stock clock 2700K, but I will post if I find it.


Cinebench doesn't report OCd speeds for current intel CPUs. (at least in most situations)


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Yea, you're right.
> 2600K at stock gets 6.87, and an 1100T gets 5.9.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/Cinebench-11.5-Multi-threaded,2407.html
> Either way, it's not quite up to Sandy levels, and people shouldn't make such claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely a step up though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This chip is on par with an i7-960.


Check the 2nd post where he Metric did some math, he estimated the top end PD to come out to 6.95 in cinebench which beats a 2600k








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> like I said my stock 2600k gets a better score than that PD. But to be fair its an ES. We'll just have to see what the benches are when the chip is released.


It's also a basemodel, there are 2 more steps above this cpu.


----------



## AznDud333

yay x86 competition..
althought 4core 8thread looks a bit odd..i thought bd uses CMT instead of HT..


----------



## fivestring

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> Cinebench doesn't report OCd speeds for current intel CPUs. (at least in most situations)


Yea thats why I posted the link because those where user submitted clock speeds.


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AznDud333*
> 
> yay x86 competition..
> althought 4core 8thread looks a bit odd..i thought bd uses CMT instead of HT..


BD and PD do use CMT. HT is Intel only


----------



## Tom Thumb

Definitely looking better!


----------



## faMine

Looks like AMD is coming back. Finally bringing the real numbers. I'm quite excited for this.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Check the 2nd post where he Metric did some math, he estimated the top end PD to come out to 6.95 in cinebench which beats a 2600k


Yeah I saw that, I can't really comment on that. I'd rather go with the solid numbers we have.

Clock for clock it's on par with an i7-960 and a 1090T.

The higher clocked PD will pull higher scores, simply due to their higher clocks, right?

I'd be interested to see how high these will clock 24/7 stable. ( Not LN2 or Liquid Helium







)

I'm sure these will also have lower power consumption as well, which was something that made BD look really bad.

P.S. Glad we can keep this thread civil.


----------



## Obakemono

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *faMine*
> 
> Looks like AMD is coming back. Finally bringing the real numbers. I'm quite excited for this.


Agreed. 110%


----------



## faMine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Obakemono*
> 
> Agreed. 110%


one mirrion


----------



## GTR Mclaren

what they really need to fix is power draw


----------



## S.M.

And thus, everything ever stated by people who know anything panned out.


----------



## Derp

Not really impressive. The only bench that I have installed from the OP is vantage and my 920 from 2008 beats it by 2439 points. That's with a 400MHz *lower* clock speed and the same speed ram too. I know its just one bench but this shouldn't be happening.


----------



## <({D34TH})>

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> what they really need to fix is power draw


I read somewhere that PD aims to fix that. I can't remember what's the source, though.


----------



## TrueForm

My choice to go Intel instead of waiting for PD was the right choice.


----------



## ThePath

Why people are saying "AMD is coming back" ? LOL

I don't see anything revolutionary in those results. Looks PD is an minor evolution of BD, not a revolution. Ivy bridge still gets better score in cinebench


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> Why people are saying "AMD is coming back" ? LOL
> I don't see anything revolutionary in those results. Looks PD is an minor evolution of BD, not a revolution. Ivy bridge still gets better score in cinebench


Suggest you reread everything :]

You are comparing a high end intel cpu to the lowest end 8 core PD. The higher end PD chips should match SB and IB easily.


----------



## Obakemono

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> And thus, everything ever stated by people who know anything panned out.


I would call PD a revision of BD. And yes, many did say that this would happen.


----------



## HanSomPa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> Why people are saying "AMD is coming back" ? LOL
> I don't see anything revolutionary in those results. Looks PD is an minor evolution of BD, not a revolution. Ivy bridge still gets better score in cinebench


They finally have a competitive product out. Well not out yet, but they will


----------



## faMine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanSomPa*
> 
> They finally have a competitive product out. Well not out yet, but they will


I'm quite excited for this myself. I'd love to overclock AMD again!


----------



## coupe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *<({D34TH})>*
> 
> I read somewhere that PD aims to fix that. I can't remember what's the source, though.


Resonant clock mesh is the tech that aims to do that.


----------



## Obakemono

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *faMine*
> 
> I'm quite excited for this myself. I'd love to overclock AMD again!


BD is way easy to OC than PII, IMO. I have my 8120 running @3.4 base and 4.2 turbo with ease. It was a PITA to get my 1090T to go to 3.9 and be stable.


----------



## faMine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Obakemono*
> 
> BD is way easy to OC than PII, IMO. I have my 8120 running @3.4 base and 4.2 turbo with ease. It was a PITA to get my 1090T to go to 3.9 and be stable.


I agree. That's what made Phenom II so much fun to clock. My 2500k is so easy to clock but there's no fun in that









G3RG is right though, this is definitely an improvement. I can tell he's excited.


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Obakemono*
> 
> BD is way easy to OC than PII, IMO. I have my 8120 running @3.4 base and 4.2 turbo with ease. It was a PITA to get my 1090T to go to 3.9 and be stable.


You have way more room to overclock that 8120.... disable turbo and go for 4.5hz+ "base"


----------



## Dmac73

These scores are very marginally better if not the same as BD. From what i'm seeing here, these results are not replicative of IPC increases found in recent Trinity benchmarks so i'm hesitant to believe this is a Vishera chip(early ES or not).


----------



## faMine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Two, these scores are very marginally better if not the same as BD. From what i'm seeing here, these results are not replicative of IPC increases found in recent Trinity benchmarks so i'm hesitant to believe this is a Vishera chip(early ES or not).


Different chips.

Lays vs. Ruffles.


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Suggest you reread everything :]
> You are comparing a high end intel cpu to the lowest end 8 core PD. The higher end PD chips should match SB and IB easily.


No, I was comparing it to the estimated score of FX-8350 (see the second post in this thread)

As for the lowest end 8 core PD, even i5 3570 scores higher in cinebench


----------



## faMine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> No, I was comparing it to the estimated score of FX-8350 (see the second post in this thread)
> As for the lowest end 8 core PD, even i5 3570 scores higher in cinebench


once again, lowest end 8 core


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> what they really need to fix is power draw


15h's power draw is actually quite good if you look at its idle power gating. Total consumed KWh per month is more important than highest wattage you can pull from the chip. It's not as good as ivy, but the price difference isn't enough to buy you a candy bar.

I'm sure Vishera at _least_ made small improvements on power gating and voltage leaks. Resonant Clock Mesh should bring pretty large increases over Zambezi power draw.


----------



## Cannon19932006

Remaining skeptical of any results until launch.

I am excited about some ipc increase, and better clocks due to 32nm refinement improvements, and resonant clock mesh. Here's hoping for 5ghz+ 24/7 on air.


----------



## computerparts

Vishera ES from 2011


----------



## xoleras

I want to believe but I seriously have my doubts.......

Too early to tell, will wait and see. Not going to fall for any type of hype again.


----------



## frozne

Seems a little weird that for a brand new engineering sample for piledriver that it has 2011 on the chip.


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> Remaining skeptical of any results until launch.
> I am excited about some ipc increase, and better clocks due to 32nm refinement improvements, and resonant clock mesh. Here's hoping for 5ghz+ 24/7 on air.


The aida 64 bench was at 4.85ghz, so it seems PD OCs pretty well


----------



## F8AL

when i was just loosing all hope, This brings joy to my life







!!!!!!!!!


----------



## trulsrohk

It is better then Nehalem, which is what the Bulldozer said they were going for but didn't deliver, so from that perspective I guess it's a win









But I would like to build an AMD rig again so hopefully these pan out pretty well


----------



## Asterox

It should be noted for comparison that the FX-8120 / 3.1GHz, has a 5.05 score in Cinebench 11.5, while this new Piledriver processor at 3,3ghz has a score of 5.73 in Cinebench 11.5.









I wonder why this test with new Piledriver Desktop CPU, is not done on Windows 8 it would be very interesting to see.


----------



## Metric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frozne*
> 
> Seems a little weird that for a brand new engineering sample for piledriver that it has 2011 on the chip.


Bulldozer










Llano


----------



## mayford5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *computerparts*
> 
> 
> Vishera ES from 2011


I to had some questions about that. Maybe they didn't have a newer heat spreader.









Either way I will wait to see what happens at launch. I want this to be good so bad but I don't think this is any evidence or proof of piledriver. It just seems too convenient.


----------



## nicfolder

even if PD has an IPC like I7 920, this beast is going to OC past 5.5 on air


----------



## erunion

So much hype...this should be fun to watch.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> So much hype...this should be fun to watch.


what Hype.... we have Trinity to base our optimistic views


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> what Hype.... we have Trinity to base our _optimistic views_


^^ This.


----------



## Azuredragon1

i really hope this is true i don't went to go intel


----------



## Celeras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Suggest you reread everything :]
> You are comparing a high end intel cpu to the lowest end 8 core PD. The higher end PD chips should match SB and IB easily.


That's what we call speculation. And based on AMDs performance history, it'd be a baseless speculation as well. Not to mention that taking this long to merely "match" something as old as SB wouldn't even be noteworthy to begin with.


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celeras*
> 
> That's what we call speculation. And based on AMDs performance history, it'd be a baseless speculation as well. Not to mention that taking this long to merely "match" something as old as SB wouldn't even be noteworthy to begin with.


Can you please clarify what in my statement was speculation?


----------



## MadGoat

this thing better clock to the nutz with not a drop of power more than my thuban @ 4ghz...

Otherwise its out of the AMD camp for me.

As for the cinebench score:



VS my X6 @ 3.3...


----------



## Lazloisdavrock

that the other 8 core PD's "should" match SB, is what he may be talking about


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Is this better than Bulldozer? Absolutely, it was nearly impossible to get any worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. Bulldozer was like any redesigned from (nearly) scratch chip and kinda sucky or practically equal to the previous generation chip it was meant to replace, it could have been *much* worse. (eg. Pentium-66, clocked lower than normal, motherboards barely capable of the 66Mhz bus speed, FDIV bug, etc)
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Check the 2nd post where he Metric did some math, he estimated the top end PD to come out to 6.95 in cinebench which beats a 2600k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah I saw that, I can't really comment on that. I'd rather go with the solid numbers we have.
> 
> Clock for clock it's on par with an i7-960 and a 1090T.
> 
> The higher clocked PD will pull higher scores, simply due to their higher clocks, right?
> 
> I'd be interested to see how high these will clock 24/7 stable. ( Not LN2 or Liquid Helium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> I'm sure these will also have lower power consumption as well, which was something that made BD look really bad.
> 
> P.S. Glad we can keep this thread civil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is just how high it clocks, I'd imagine that a PD at ~5.5Ghz would be equal to SB in CB at least.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> what they really need to fix is power draw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have, that was the main thing Trinity proved.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> Why people are saying "AMD is coming back" ? LOL
> 
> I don't see anything revolutionary in those results. Looks PD is an minor evolution of BD, not a revolution. Ivy bridge still gets better score in cinebench
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IPC is close enough to SB that it's actually probable that PD could clock higher enough to make up for it, proving the point of the longer pipelined architecture.
> 
> Everyone knew it was a revision of PD, it's kinda like DX10.1 in that the original release was gimped so product would be out sooner (8800GTX in DX10s case, BD in..well, BDs case) and the next release was effectively the original release without the shortcuts designed to save time.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Obakemono*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *faMine*
> 
> I'm quite excited for this myself. I'd love to overclock AMD again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BD is way easy to OC than PII, IMO. I have my 8120 running @3.4 base and 4.2 turbo with ease. It was a PITA to get my 1090T to go to 3.9 and be stable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try getting your BD to 5Ghz, you're right up against that 1090Ts limits but no-where near BDs hence why it's so much easier, it'd be easy to clock a 1090T to 3.6Ghz.
Click to expand...


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadGoat*
> 
> this thing better clock to the nutz with not a drop of power more than my thuban @ 4ghz...
> Otherwise its out of the AMD camp for me.
> As for the cinebench score:
> 
> VS my X6 @ 3.3...


That's not bad considering a thuban will max out at 4.0-4.2 usually while this same ES sample was overclocked to 4.85 in the the AIDA benchmark.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> 15h's power draw is actually quite good if you look at its idle power gating. Total consumed KWh per month is more important than highest wattage you can pull from the chip.


Most of my systems are loaded 24/7. If they weren't, I'd turn them off. Idle power...not so relevant for me.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> The aida 64 bench was at 4.85ghz, so it seems PD OCs pretty well


Hoping for ~5GHz being an acceptable 24/7 clock, but I'd like to see some retail stepping and extended stability tests (though who wouldn't?).


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celeras*
> 
> That's what we call speculation. And based on AMDs performance history, it'd be a baseless speculation as well. Not to mention that taking this long to merely "match" something as old as SB wouldn't even be noteworthy to begin with.


what´s speculation? 2 module/4T Trinity hangs with Llano and even beats it on cinebench(single/muliti thread) that´s very impressive, why? because Trinity use PD cores(without L3) and Llano uses Starts core(without L3) but you know whats even more imprissive? that the cores found on Llano are enhanced stars core, what this means? that a 3 module Vishera will also hang with a true 6 core Phenoms, and the 4 module will outright beat them


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> That's not bad considering a thuban will max out at 4.0-4.2 usually while this same ES sample was overclocked to 4.85 in the the AIDA benchmark.


I wonder why he didn't run CB at 4.85, I want to see *that* score.

@Brutuz, I can almost guarantee you that PD won't do 5.5 GHZ stable on air.

I bet it's closer to 4.8 - 5.0 24/7 *stable* on air. Not being pessimistic, but rather realistic.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I wonder why he didn't run CB at 4.85, I want to see *that* score.
> @Brutuz, I can almost guarantee you that PD won't do 5.5 GHZ stable on air.
> I bet it's closer to 4.8 - 5.0 24/7 *stable* on air. Not being pessimistic, but rather realistic.


high end Vishera will have Turbo boost to 4.7, what makes you think this baby wont do 5.5 on air? heck I would say 6 Ghz on air will be possible and 10Ghz world records....


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazloisdavrock*
> 
> that the other 8 core PD's "should" match SB, is what he may be talking about


Why don't you just compare it as Quad 256 Bit FPU (AMD) vs Quad 256 Bit FPU (Intel)


----------



## Lazloisdavrock

6ghz on air. lol


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> high end Vishera will have Turbo boost to 4.7, what makes you think this baby wont do 5.5 on air? heck I would say 6 Ghz on air will be possible and 10Ghz world records....


Alright, I'll just quote you now, as you quoted me, and we'll see who's right soon enough.









If Bulldozer taught us anything, is not to make outrageous claims without solid proof.

6GHZ on air? I'll believe it when I see it. If it ever does happen, it better not be to take a CPUZ screenshot, *I'm talking 24/7 STABLE overclocks.*


----------



## thepoopscooper

if these cpus are <$200, they are a win in my books! i mean, as good as a 2600k! thats great!!!


----------



## Disturbed117

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> high end Vishera will have Turbo boost to 4.7, what makes you think this baby wont do 5.5 on air? *heck I would say 6 Ghz on air will be possible* and 10Ghz world records....


I can't see this happening for quite some time.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Alright, I'll just quote you now, as you quoted me, and we'll see who's right soon enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Bulldozer taught us anything, is not to make outrageous claims without solid proof.
> 6GHZ on air? I'll believe it when I see it. If it ever does happen, it better not be to take a CPUZ screenshot, *I'm talking 24/7 STABLE overclocks.*


Fx-8350 4.7GHZ toorbo boost.. http://www.overclock.net/t/1284892/softpedia-amd-s-vishera-piledriver-fx-8320-and-fx-8300-8-core-processors-revealed-piledriver-expected-to-launch-enter-production-in-q3-2012


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Disturbed117*
> 
> I can't see this happening for quite some time.


PD will make you a believer...


----------



## Lazloisdavrock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> PD will make you a believer...


the same was said with all the hype before BD


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> what makes you think this baby wont do 5.5 on air?


History, and the results shown here.

You are talking about a 15%+ increase in top end clock stable clocks without a die shrink, on a respin that is focusing on improving IPC and power consumption. This is exceptionally rare.

I'm expecting a moderate bump in clock potential, but I would be very surprised if many people were able to run much over 5GHz, without extreme cooling, 24/7. GHz on air, if you are talking about anything more than a suicide run, is a ludicrous prediction.

Also, if the best they can get out of the engineering sample is 4.85GHz, expecting 20% more out of the final product is usually a stretch.


----------



## Deacon

Just gonna leave this here. Out of boredom I got my hands on the 3770k Anand review and played around with the data they had in it:


 AMD FX-81502500k2600k3770k3930K3960X SYSMARK 2012 Overall1471792122282382413dsmax 916.117.420.121.82121.6Cinebench 11.55.995.426.867.6110.1910.52x264 HD 3.03 1st Pass75.510094.9104.2103.5107.4TrueCrypt3.32.63.43.75.14.7Adobe Photoshop CS414.812.611.310.311.411       Performance:247.89304.4337.3365.3377.8385.2Price(Dollars):1902202903405701030       Price/Performance(P/P)*100)130.4684211138.4116.3107.466.2837.4

Nothing pops out, everything we already knew, except when we add price to it:

Higher is Better



Only the 2500k beats the FX8150, sadly the anand review didn't had the 3570k data, also it had the 1100T data in it but since its nearly impossible to find it for sale and if you do its overpriced, didn't add it. Anyway thats why AMD still manage to sell so many BD its cheap...

On topic Didn't we learn already not to trust dark Chinese sites? I'm pretty sure PD won't be the break tro everyone wants it to be will just be an improve and mature BD well price to compete with Intel.


----------



## Usario

C0 is literally *the* first Vishera stepping. Considering that the 8100 gets around 4.55 at 2.8GHz (though realistically boosting up to ~3.1GHz) and this gets 5.73 at 3.3GHz (dunno if turbo is working on it; usually on the earliest samples turbo is either disabled or dysfunctional)... not bad I'd say, especially for an early stepping.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I wonder why he didn't run CB at 4.85, I want to see *that* score.
> @Brutuz, I can almost guarantee you that PD won't do 5.5 GHZ stable on air.
> I bet it's closer to 4.8 - 5.0 24/7 *stable* on air. Not being pessimistic, but rather realistic.


That's a bit of a conservative estimate. Average 24/7 overclocks on the 8150 seem to be 4.6-4.8GHz.


----------



## GameBoy

Unlikely that this is a Vishera chip. Trinity clearly shows superior single threaded performance compared to Bulldozer, and the benches in the OP do not.

(FX-8150 results for reference)









Most likely just a C0 FX-81** chip.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> Fx-8350 4.7GHZ toorbo boost.. http://www.overclock.net/t/1284892/softpedia-amd-s-vishera-piledriver-fx-8320-and-fx-8300-8-core-processors-revealed-piledriver-expected-to-launch-enter-production-in-q3-2012


I am not talking about *TURBO* boost, I'm talking *BASE* clocks.

When I see PD @ 6.0 base clock on air, I will buy one without thinking twice about it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> That's a bit of a conservative estimate. Average 24/7 overclocks on the 8150 seem to be 4.6-4.8GHz.


Like I said earlier, after the Bulldozer launch, I'd rather have a conservative estimate and be impressed later, instead of outrageous claims that lead to disappointment.









How much has really changed from BD to PD to truly have 6.0 GHZ base clocks on air? I just don't see it.


----------



## raptorxrx

Quote:


> I'm an intel user and don't really care for AMD chips, but if you are going to compare, make it fair.


And that's how it should be. What annoys me when people get in their "AMD" or "INTEL" worlds, is that it's better for _every consumer involved_ to have competition. Even though I prefer Intel, I'll still take a better priced AMD processor because than I can get a better deal on my Intel proc. And quality/performance goes up more too.

Comon' AMD, I hope you nail a grand slam.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> Fx-8350 4.7GHZ toorbo boost


It makes sense to put the max turbo clock as close to what the chips are reasonably capable of as possible.

Expecting vastly more than this is silly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deacon*
> 
> On topic Didn't we learn already not to trust dark Chinese sites?


Coolaler's tests are usually fairly accurate and representative.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> That's a bit of a conservative estimate.


Conservative estimates usually match up pretty well with conservative changes.


----------



## MadGoat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> That's not bad considering a thuban will max out at 4.0-4.2 usually while this same ES sample was overclocked to 4.85 in the the AIDA benchmark.


The only way I'll except Vishera is *IF* it does your supposed 4.8ghz with the same power and heat (or less) as my thuban @ 4ghz... *AND* can net performance that is realistic to a cinebench score of at least *8*


----------



## Dhalgren65

Wow.
I'll _accept_ PD with an amount of appreciation commensurate with my perception of the amount of improvement.
I was amazed by the difference between Phenom I and Phenom II.
I was thrilled by the leap from Phenom II x4 to X6.
I am currently enthralled with the difference between the 1090T(OC'd 24/7 to 4.1) and my new FX 8120(OC'd _so far_to 4.5)
As we learned,steppings can be the key.
(not to mention OS support,optimization,etc)
Can't wait,interesting to watch the hype/anti-hype ramp up...


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Celeras*
> 
> That's what we call speculation. And based on AMDs performance history, it'd be a baseless speculation as well. Not to mention that taking this long to merely "match" something as old as SB wouldn't even be noteworthy to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> what´s speculation? 2 module/4T Trinity hangs with Llano and even beats it on cinebench(single/muliti thread) that´s very impressive, why? because Trinity use PD cores(without L3) and Llano uses Starts core(without L3) but you know whats even more imprissive? that the cores found on Llano are enhanced stars core, what this means? that a 3 module Vishera will also hang with a true 6 core Phenoms, and the 4 module will outright beat them
Click to expand...

BD beats Phenom II when both are overclocked in my experience, at least. PD would definitely beat it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> @Brutuz, I can almost guarantee you that PD won't do 5.5 GHZ stable on air.
> 
> I bet it's closer to 4.8 - 5.0 24/7 *stable* on air. Not being pessimistic, but rather realistic.


Agreed, it won't be an SB killer but it will be _the_ budget chip to get, and that it will max out around 5.2Ghz at most on air (ie. Golden chips only territory)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> How much has really changed from BD to PD to truly have 6.0 GHZ base clocks on air? I just don't see it.


RCM, I guess.
I can see it being able to clock higher on say, LN2, but being temperature limited or voltage limited for 24/7 OCing.


----------



## Tsumi

At least 15% better than Bulldozer is what I expect with the same or less power consumption.

As I recall, RCM only works well below 4 ghz, as you increase clock speed, RCM's effectiveness is reduced.

There were a lot of design tweaks with Piledriver, as outlined in Anandtech's Trinity review. There were the changing of "soft" edges to "hard" edges (or flops, I forget the terminology), with hard ones having lower power consumption but significantly harder to implement, and various other tweaks, all with the goal of significantly reducing power consumption, with a few front-end tweaks for minorly improving IPC.


----------



## ilhe4e12345

well this looks promising.....looks like im gonna be trying to pick me up an 8 core PD


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Metric*
> 
> IPC is never static across the range of workloads, so those who used the Trinity results as a sign that 15% is a representation of average increases, should realize that was never going to be realistic. If the Cinebench R11.5 bench is correct, you're looking at an IPC increase shy of 10% (mid-high 9s) in CB.
> Using an extremely crude estimate, based on the CB results, would see the FX-8 series look somewhat like this in CB Multithread.
> FX 8300 score @ 3.3GHz = 5.73 -replaces- FX 8100 score @ 2.8GHz = 4.62
> FX 8320 score @ 3.5GHz = 6.08 -replaces- FX 8120 score @ 3.1GHz = 5.04
> FX 8350 score @ 4.0GHz = 6.95 -replaces- FX 8150 score @ 3.6GHz = 6.01
> Those numbers are not in any way exact (including the Zambezi scores) and should only be seen as very rough estimates. Other similarly crude Vishera estimates, see the FX-8350 somewhere in the range of 7.22 or so in CB Multithread.
> While different configurations and testing methods can not be directly compared, here are some CB results from different sites.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/9/
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53054-intel-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-cpu-review-11.html
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.
Click to expand...

Nice ... JOB?


----------



## BizzareRide

Not impressed so far


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Nice ... JOB?


What? It's true. If his math is correct PD is on par with a 2600k.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GameBoy*
> 
> Unlikely that this is a Vishera chip. Trinity clearly shows superior single threaded performance compared to Bulldozer, and the benches in the OP do not.
> (FX-8150 results for reference)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely just a C0 FX-81** chip.


If the 8150 was running at 3.6GHz (which it was probably not) that's still a... welp... 4% increase in IPC. However, since the 8150 was probably boosting to ~3.9GHz, it seems like an 18% IPC increase for Vishera, *if* this chip was actually running at 3.3GHz. And let's also consider this is a supposedly higher-clocking design and an early ES.


----------



## DarkBlade6

AMD I want to love you but you dont give me any reason.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkBlade6*
> 
> no ? the 2700k scores 8.81 at stock


No, it scores around 7-7.1. I'm not even going to bother googling this for you.


----------



## QuackPot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JunkoXan*
> 
> if does put it on par with SB then that'll save me alot and i mean alot of money


Which will be rendered nill and void when it comes to the electricity bill and a custom HSF.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4LC4PON3*
> 
> they are still not at phenom level. depressing


Don't worry, a hotfix will make it all better.


----------



## PureBlackFire

oh PD.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4LC4PON3*
> 
> they are still not at phenom level. depressing


It's decidedly above Phenom II in practically every benchmark I've seen, just about. Bulldozer was able to beat PhII when both were overclocked, too.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *QuackPot*
> 
> Which will be rendered nill and void when it comes to the electricity bill and a custom HSF.
> Don't worry, a hotfix will make it all better.


What? Piledriver has been proven to be far more energy efficient than Bulldozer. Look at Trinity.


----------



## DarkBlade6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> No, it scores around 7-7.1. I'm not even going to bother googling this for you.


ok well then this 2700k is probably OCd http://www.abload.de/img/329375_49942158007249ltshe.jpg


----------



## QuackPot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> What? Piledriver has been proven to be far more energy efficient than Bulldozer. Look at Trinity.


But compared to SB, which my point was aimed at.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkBlade6*
> 
> ok well then this 2700k is probably OCd http://www.abload.de/img/329375_49942158007249ltshe.jpg


Yeah. Cinebench has a problem with, well, not actually knowing the clock speed of any modern Intel CPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *QuackPot*
> 
> But compared to SB, which my point was aimed at.


How well it'll stack up compared to SB is anyone's guess really; laptop power consumption is far more difficult to measure. While I doubt they'll bring efficiency up that high I don't think the difference will be anywhere near as bad as it was with BD. The difference will probably be like the difference between Tahiti and GK104... yeah, GK104 uses noticeably less power, but not enough to make anyone really care all that much other than people who are already set on GK104. (If this comparison makes this devolve into a GPU flamewar, I swear....)


----------



## JunkoXan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *QuackPot*
> 
> Which will be rendered nill and void when it comes to the electricity bill and a custom HSF.


not really when compared to BD, only hsf i would need is a hyper 212+ which i got in another system right now and will use that once Vishera results are solidified to be better then BD...


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkBlade6*
> 
> ok well then this 2700k is probably OCd http://www.abload.de/img/329375_49942158007249ltshe.jpg


Yes, we already established the 2700K in that chart is OC'd.


----------



## paulerxx

I'm hoping these chips match Sandy Bridge...At least.


----------



## Warmonger

If these can match SB I will certainly aim my next build with Vishera being the heart of it. As long as AMD can do what they are good at, and price them accordingly. I would pay $250-275 for a FX-8350 that matches a $309 2700k all day long.


----------



## LongRod

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> I'm hoping these chips match Sandy Bridge...At least.


That would be very nice, because I prefer Intel for my CPU's, and that would force Intel to have to lower the prices of Haswell to compete.

Lets hope PD is a winner for AMD.


----------



## geoxile

I think I'll wait for the one after Vishera. Hopefully it'll show the most relative improvement


----------



## iZZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.


Man I hope this is the case. It's been to long.


----------



## 996gt2

Sigh, it's taken AMD almost 2 years to get to a point where they are perhaps *almost* as good as SB in this one benchmark.

Maybe exciting for some, but to me it's just kind of sad.


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *paulerxx*
> 
> I'm hoping these chips match Sandy Bridge...At least.


In single thread it will be slower than even Nehalem

And SB is old. U should compare it to Ivy brIdge anyway


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> If these can match SB I will certainly aim my next build with Vishera being the heart of it. As long as AMD can do what they are good at, and price them accordingly. I would pay $199 for a FX-8350 that matches a $219 i5 2500k all day long.


Bulldozer has a die size 315 mm^2.
i5-2500k/i7-2700k is 216mm^2.
i5-3570k/i7-3770k is 160mm^2.

AMD has made deep pricing cuts to stay relevant. ($245 down to $189)

Selling a way more expensive chip for less, I just don't see the positive spin on this for AMD.

Edit: Being able to price in between the i5 and i7(~$250) like the original launch price should be the minimum bar for success for vishera.


----------



## Lazloisdavrock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *996gt2*
> 
> Sigh, it's taken AMD almost 2 years to get to a point where they are perhaps *almost* as good as SB in this one benchmark.
> Maybe exciting for some, but to me it's just kind of sad.


agreed


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Still slower than my mobile i7 3720QM.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *996gt2*
> 
> Sigh, it's taken AMD almost 2 years to get to a point where they are perhaps *almost* as good as SB in this one benchmark.
> Maybe exciting for some, but to me it's just kind of sad.


If only that was the case.

By the looks of it, they are at Nehalem levels, granted it clocks higher than Nehalem. But Nehalem was 45nm and launched in 2009.

So AMD has caught up to a 3 year old chip? Sandy Bridge has been on the market for 20 months now.

Glad we're finally seeing some decent competition I guess. ( if you want to call it that )

We needed Vishera 2 years ago.


----------



## S.M.

You guys need to just sit back and wait.

I want to see single threaded performance, I want to see power consumption, I want to see price and I want to see what they overclock too.

This is just an ES.

AMD just needs to offer a respectable alternative to what is on the shelves.

People need to keep in perspective how little money AMD is operating on.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> You guys need to just sit back and wait.
> I want to see single threaded performance, I want to see power consumption, I want to see price and I want to see what they overclock too.
> This is just an ES.


I agree with everything you just said.


----------



## Djmatrix32

I wonder how old the Engineering chip is it's self that might be a factor.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> You guys need to just sit back and wait.
> I want to see single threaded performance, I want to see power consumption, I want to see price and I want to see what they overclock too.
> This is just an ES.
> AMD just needs to offer a respectable alternative to what is on the shelves.
> People need to keep in perspective how little money AMD is operating on.


How is it exciting that AMD has caught up to a chip released late 2008?

My apologies that I don't buy claims of 6.0 GHZ base clocks for PD, there must be something wrong with my logic.


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I wonder why he didn't run CB at 4.85, I want to see *that* score.
> @Brutuz, I can almost guarantee you that PD won't do 5.5 GHZ stable on air.
> I bet it's closer to 4.8 - 5.0 24/7 *stable* on air. Not being pessimistic, but rather realistic.


The other guy who posted took it a bit too far, but i'd like to point out that high end air already gets bulldozer to 4.8-5. So i expect to break 5ghz. One would hope they made refinements to the 32nm process, as well as the addition of Resonant clock mesh, which can be used to decrease power consumption or increase overclock potential.

i expect to see max stable overclocks on air of 5.5ghz, this is all speculation of course, but not done blindly.


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> How is it exciting that AMD has caught up to a chip released late 2008?
> My apologies that I don't buy claims of 6.0 GHZ base clocks for PD, there must be something wrong with my logic.


No one said AMD only competing with Sandy bridge just recently isn't sad.

But AMD is improving and thus improving all other forms of competition. I'm not an AMD fan, I've owned more Intel chips that I have AMD. Up until recent personal reasons I preferred buying Intel. If there was a third or fourth or fifth competitor that would be fantastic.

You are honestly critiquing a free sandwich.


----------



## rockosmodlife

Well, taking into account we don't have solid numbers for the higher end chips, I'm pretty hopeful for those to be decent (not that his one isn't). I don't understand some of the comments here, acting as if someone states that PD is looking ok, it is taken as a chip of Intels is somehow inferior. It's two different companies, with different processes. No matter how much we feel BD failed, I think we can all agree that we want to see improvements with Vishera chips.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> No one said AMD only competing with Sandy bridge just recently isn't sad.
> But AMD is improving and thus improving all other forms of competition. I'm not an AMD fan, I've owned more Intel chips that I have AMD. Up until recent personal reasons I preferred buying Intel. If there was a third or fourth or fifth competitor that would be fantastic.
> You are honestly critiquing a free sandwich.


But that's the thing, they're not even competing with Sandy Bridge just yet. That's what makes this even sadder.

I know people are making those claims, but that's all they are, CLAIMS. That's the problem with these type of threads, someone makes that claim, and everybody believes it, and end up disappointed when the actual chip is released below the "expectations".

I would love to see AMD be more competitive, as I have more AMD rigs than I do Intel, but I can't blindly praise them when there is nothing to praise.

You can see me as the bad guy or whatever, but not once have I made false statements. Statements that AMD fans don't want to hear, that's a different story. Maybe you should blame AMD for putting out chips at their given performance levels compared to their competition. If they outperformed Intel I'd be the first one to praise them wholeheartedly.

Catching up to Nehalem is nothing to get excited about, I've had that kind of performance for 2 1/2 years now. ( Yes I know, PD will clock higher, I sure hope so considering it's on 32nm and released in late 2012. )


----------



## alcal

The way I see it, AMD is the only entity standing between us and $500 2500k's. Even if intel afficionados can't find it in them to applaud AMD's decent, if tardy performance, they should at least bear in mind that AMD, by existing, saves them money. This is why I'm always sad when I see people hate on AMD. It's like rooting AGAINST the underdog... who does that?

Anyways, 75% of what makes me check up on OCN every hour has been the impending release of some sorts of Vishera benchmarks so good find OP!


----------



## Primus

I honestly can't even keep up with all of AMD's ridiculous ES benchmarks, so trying to figure out if these PD ESs are on par with current or last generation Intel is a headache. If it can match the 2500K or 2600K in *real world benchmarks* and it's priced at ~$200, it will be a decent chip and I will probably snag one if I need the extra CPU power.


----------



## PiOfPie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *996gt2*
> 
> Sigh, it's taken AMD almost 2 years to get to a point where they are perhaps *almost* as good as SB in this one benchmark.
> Maybe exciting for some, but to me it's just kind of sad.


Context. It's taken AMD 2 years to get to a point where they are perhaps almost as good as SB in this one benchmark *with one-tenth the R&D budget*.

(This, of course, assumes that this chip is, in fact, a legit E.S.)


----------



## steve210

i hope well see some better benchmarks soon in a few months


----------



## Otterclock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alcal*
> 
> The way I see it, AMD is the only entity standing between us and $500 2500k's. Even if intel afficionados can't find it in them to applaud AMD's decent, if tardy performance, they should at least bear in mind that AMD, by existing, saves them money. This is why I'm always sad when I see people hate on AMD. It's like rooting AGAINST the underdog... who does that?
> Anyways, 75% of what makes me check up on OCN every hour has been the impending release of some sorts of Vishera benchmarks so good find OP!


But hating on companies is the fun kind of hating. Really though it would be cool to see AMD do well. Also Intel would probably be facing an anti-trust nightmare if amd were no longer there, methinks.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> what they really need to fix is power draw


They did, significantly.

AMD's Trinity APU can fit an ~FX-4100 within a 45W TDP or better. The A10-5700 has four 3.4Ghz (4Ghz turbo) integer cores in a 65W TDP - a TDP rating that INCLUDES the HD 7660G graphics as well.

I anticipate Vishera will be able to use resonant clock mesh as well.

I'm looking forward to the drop in upgrade; I knew the 990XA investment in a year ago would somehow be worth it


----------



## alcal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Otterclock*
> 
> But hating on companies is the fun kind of hating. Really though it would be cool to see AMD do well. Also Intel would probably be facing an anti-trust nightmare if amd were no longer there, methinks.


But an antitrust suit wouldn't make a competitor appear out of thin air. I wonder would would happen if AMD kicked the bucket... Would the government bail it out? I guess it depends on the election to some extent but it's probably a question that won't have to be asked just yet.


----------



## JunkoXan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> They did, significantly.
> AMD's Trinity APU can fit four 3.4Ghz (4Ghz turbo) integer cores in a 65W TDP (A10-5700). And that INCLUDES the HD 7660G graphics as well.
> 
> I anticipate Vishera will be able to use resonant clock mesh as well.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the drop in upgrade; I knew the 990XA investment in a year ago would somehow be worth it


if Vishera pulls up good improvements over BD and a good margain over Phenom II then my 990FX investments of going through 2 motherboards and on my third right now (990FX Sabertooth) will be worth it


----------



## G3RG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alcal*
> 
> But an antitrust suit wouldn't make a competitor appear out of thin air. I wonder would would happen if AMD kicked the bucket... *Would the government bail it out?* I guess it depends on the election to some extent but it's probably a question that won't have to be asked just yet.


Highly doubt it, I doubt they'd even bail Intel out. As big as they are they aren't THAT big.


----------



## Capt

Definitely getting the FX 8320. It seems like amd is finally fixing things up.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Highly doubt it, I doubt they'd even bail Intel out. As big as they are they aren't THAT big.


Oh naive one. Too big to fail is determined by the size of your political contributions.


----------



## Artikbot

Wait, did I see it superseeding a 100MHz slower-clocked Nehalem with the same config (4C/8T) in Cinebench?

So, seems like AMD finally got to get this arch right...

If it matches (and probably slightly beats) Nehalem clock per clock it means it nearly matches Sandy (which wasn't a big IPC improvement over Neha anyway), which in turn, means it's not probably more than a 10% slower than Ivy!

Seems like the X6 will finally get his well rewarded rest









And my server will be happy to have a brand spanking new CPU to play with


----------



## Evil Penguin

Steamroller's where it's at.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Evil Penguin*
> 
> Steamroller's where it's at.


They better put a BIG improvement on that, as Haswell's promising to hit hard.

Edit: Five thousandth post! Yay!


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Evil Penguin*
> 
> Steamroller's where it's at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They better put a BIG improvement on that, as Haswell's promising to hit hard.
> 
> Edit: Five thousandth post! Yay!
Click to expand...

From what I've seen Haswell is mostly integrating more parts onto the CPU and improving the GPU with only modest improvements for the CPU? Feel free to link me to something proving me wrong.


----------



## Adrenaline

Not Bad Im Curious To see how to 4 And 6 Core PD's stand out









I dont see why the Codename is Still Zambezi ?


----------



## Atomfix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadGoat*
> 
> this thing better clock to the nutz with not a drop of power more than my thuban @ 4ghz...
> Otherwise its out of the AMD camp for me.
> As for the cinebench score:
> 
> VS my X6 @ 3.3...


I just scored 6.36 with my 1055T @ 3.6GHz and NB @ 3000MHz

Then at 4.36GHz, I scored 7.57


----------



## Liranan

I, for one, am pretty excited. I've been waiting years for an upgrade to my dying system and it's about time AMD released something nice. I was considering getting an 8120 but the single core performance was somewhat disappointing. But if Vishera is as good as it seems to be I will definitely get one, as I really need more cores and an 8 core CPU is perfect for me.


----------



## EliteReplay

im getting my FX8320 or 8350 as soon as it hits the shelves..


----------



## ThePath

If PD can match SB in multi-theaded benchmarks, then doesn't mean PD is on par SB

If you look CPU intensive applications like PCSX2 that can't take advantage of all cores you will see how horrible bulldozer architecture
Quote:


> 69.72 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost ON)
> 
> 66.12 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.3 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF)
> 
> 62.02 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 - 4.7 GHz OC (2 Modules, Turbo Boost OFF)
> 
> 55.36 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 - 4.1 GHz OC (Turbo Boost OFF)
> 
> 42.67 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD FX-8120 - 3.1 GHz Stock (Turbo Boost OFF)


http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2


----------



## Kyronn94

Really interested to see how Piledriver turns out.

I know that these will be compatible with 990FX boards, but what about my M5A78L-M?
It's the 760G chipset.

I'll hopefully grab an 8 Core if it's a good enough improvement over my Phenom II.


----------



## Chewy

I'll sit on the bench and wait to see how this turns out, I wont be getting my hopes up again......... This reeks of De ja vu


----------



## Carniflex

Can anyone remind me when was this new revision of the bulldozer supposed to release ? This autumn I think ?


----------



## Adrenaline

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Can anyone remind me when was this new revision of the bulldozer supposed to release ? This autumn I think ?


Ive Heard October Or November.


----------



## SRV

I really hope PD will be good alternative.

Sadly, not to buy one, but to see some IB price reductions. ATM IB is just too expensive. -20% price would be fair.


----------



## black96ws6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> If PD can match SB in multi-theaded benchmarks, then doesn't mean PD is on par SB
> If you look CPU intensive applications like PCSX2 that can't take advantage of all cores you will see how horrible bulldozer architecture
> http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2


This.

We already know Bulldozer matches the 2500k in true multi-threaded apps, but loses badly in single-threaded and poorly coded games, console ports, or anything that requires a lot of CPU computational power due to the number of objects on screen or heavy use of A.I.

I also see comments like "AMD is back!", and I see no one has learned anything. People are getting their hopes up again just like last time before BD was released, based on narrowly-focused leaked slightly better than BD ES multi-threaded benchmarks.

And finally, "It's the lowest end cpu! The high end will be better!" Really? The architecture between the lowest and highest PD isn't changing, it's just higher clock speeds. "But you can OC it to 4.8+ Ghz!" Great, but SB\IB OC well too, and have for the last 2+ years (with SB). You think PD's extra hundred Mhz and small IPC improvements will be enough to compete with a 4.5+Ghz SB\IB?

Some will take this as negative comments, but I and others got burned by BD in the past waiting and waiting, when I could've upgraded to SB much earlier. Thank goodness I didn't rush out and buy a BD MB and waited to see the true BD results.

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Bit_reaper

I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed this but doesn't it seem a bit fishy that the Piledriver registers as a 4 core 8 thread CPU in cinebench? The BD (FX8120/FX8150) registers as a 8 core 8 thread CPU and Piledriver uses the same dual integer clusters design as BD so by that reasoning is should also register as an 8 core CPU.

Or is the Vishera a 2 module CPU with some new AMD version of hyper-threading?


----------



## tout

All I want is an improvement over my Phenom 1090T, I don't care about what it does compared to Intel's lineup, I don't own an Intel motherboard and probably never will.


----------



## windowszp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.


Yeah but won't SB be 2 years old when this releases?


----------



## CarlosSpiceyWeiner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *funfortehfun*
> 
> Welcome back AMD.


^


----------



## LBGreenthumb

Finally something to upgrade to, I still love my phenom II 980 X4 but I would like to see 8 threads in my PC


----------



## darkcloud89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> If PD can match SB in multi-theaded benchmarks, then doesn't mean PD is on par SB
> If you look CPU intensive applications like PCSX2 that can't take advantage of all cores you will see how horrible bulldozer architecture
> http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2


PCSX2 isn't great for comparisons. It's fairly heavily optimized for Intel CPUs


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkcloud89*
> 
> PCSX2 isn't great for comparisons. It's fairly heavily optimized for Intel CPUs












I hear that every time. It's never the architecture, it's always optimized for Intel.

PCSX2 is optimized for dual cores that's why it is much faster on Intel not because it is optimized for it.

I seem to remember BD having terrible single thread performance.

From the developers,
Quote:


> Originally Posted by Krakatos
> Using more than 2 cores is not easy, but if possible we'd like to do that in the future.
> 
> That's it. No dates set, no guarantees in any way. But yes, if we can, we would like to. Just an idea for the future.
> Originally Posted by cottonvibes
> as krakatos said, yes we would like to support quadcores, but to do so efficiently is a big task.
> 
> if things go well with our plans, we will support more multithreading in the future.
> when exactly? we can't say. hopefully not to far into the future (sometime this year i'm hoping)
> 
> but that doesn't mean we'll get 100% FPS gains from each core, it'll probably be around a 20~30% speed boost total.
> dual core users will also benefit as well (maybe 5~15%)
> 
> of course i'm just being optimistic, but quad-core support is something i've wanted to see in pcsx2 for along time, so don't think the users are the only ones that want this
> Also their list of recommended CPU's for this emulator will give you some more ideas:
> 
> Recommended Processors:
> 
> Intel Core 2 Duo / Core i3 @ 3.2Ghz or faster
> Intel Core i5 / i6 / i7 @ 2.66Ghz or faster
> AMD Phenom II / Athlon II (X2, X3 or X4) @ 3.4Ghz or faster


Even my mobile i7 @ 2.6GHz is still faster than PD.


----------



## Seid Dark

Nehalem IPC + overclockable to at least 5 GHz combined with (hopefully) low price = win







Of course I'm prepared to be disappointed horribly, just like with Bulldozer.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> If PD can match SB in multi-theaded benchmarks, then doesn't mean PD is on par SB
> If you look CPU intensive applications like PCSX2 that can't take advantage of all cores you will see how horrible bulldozer architecture
> http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-CPU-Benchmark-designed-for-PCSX2-based-on-FFX-2


Most people don't care about how PCSX2 performs ,the program is mostly optimized for Intel systems.
I would say if FX 8350 offers 15-20% it is a big step up from Bulldozer.
And haters gonna hate







.


----------



## kzone75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed this but doesn't it seem a bit fishy that the Piledriver registers as a 4 core 8 thread CPU in cinebench? The BD (FX8120/FX8150) registers as a 8 core 8 thread CPU and Piledriver uses the same dual integer clusters design as BD so by that reasoning is should also register as an 8 core CPU.
> 
> Or is the Vishera a 2 module CPU with some new AMD version of hyper-threading?


With the windows patches it shows as 4 core 8 thread in CB.. Without the patches, it shows 8 cores.


----------



## Hukkel

If the PD gives us the 9% IPC upgrade to Phenom II level but with lower power consumption and still maintain BD prices then it is a good value for money cpu. And a nice upgrade for people owning a Phenom II that would like more cores for whatever reason. Intel should not even be mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Artikbot

I just realized... What the crap is wrong with the Cinebench scores?

8.81 and 9.77 for a 2700K and a 3770K respectively? Yeah sure:


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kzone75*
> 
> With the windows patches it shows as 4 core 8 thread in CB.. Without the patches, it shows 8 cores.


OK. Thanks for clearing that up. +rep


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkcloud89*
> 
> PCSX2 isn't great for comparisons. *It's fairly heavily optimized for Intel CPUs*


proof ? You showed no evidence that it is heavily optimized for intel

Keep in mind that dolphin emulator doesn't run well on Bulldozer as well. Those emulators simply favor per core performance over many cores.


----------



## Bruennis

Rise up AMD... RISE! lol

This is exciting news and good for competition


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> Most people don't care about how PCSX2 performs ,the program is mostly optimized for Intel systems.
> I would say if FX 8350 offers 15-20% it is a big step up from Bulldozer.
> And haters gonna hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I offer you to come back upon release and say the same thing to us all.

There's far too many sheep in this thread........ Who take nothing but a load of wish washy unconfirmed benchmarks and are ready again to lay their arms open to see their beloved amd fail once again. Truth is your going to end up paying a premium for chips that can just about manage to hold it together with 3-4yr old intel nehalm cpu's Multi and single threaded. Yet your somehow getting the deal of the century LOL

Did BD teach you anything??


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> There's far too many sheep in this thread........ Who take nothing but a load of wish washy unconfirmed benchmarks and are ready again to lay their arms open to see their beloved amd fail once again.


What if I said you that if we didn't support AMD, you wouldn't be able to afford your beloved 2500k?









We buy the alternative because it performs good enough for what we pay, and because we support a 'fair' market.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> What if I said you that if we didn't support AMD, you wouldn't be able to afford your beloved 2500k?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We buy the alternative because it performs good enough for what we pay, and because we support a 'fair' market.


This gets said in every amd / intel thread on ocn

Truth is laws would prevent intel from becoming said monopoly and thus riping off the consumer, Intel would be torn apart and a competitor created, most likely a new company within a company under a different name, then the cycle would continue intel vs ????

I am all for fair trade, but some comments in this thread are rediculous, seriously some are ready to drop their pants and be spanked all over again. Lets just wait for the truth upon release before we start throwing money at the screen


----------



## jtom320

None of this is really impressive. Bulldozer already did fine in multi-threaded benches. What all you guys are freaking out about is an 8 core CPU just now barely maybe matching a quad w/o hyperthreading.

In fact all this shows me is this chip is still going to get slaughtered in single threaded performance. Which in many ways is still more important.


----------



## Desert Rat

Are any of improvements going to be passed on to the server cpu's? I want to build another 4p with the newer generation cpu's but power improvements are necessary for sure.


----------



## czin125

how is it compared to the 6core nehalem?


----------



## darkcloud89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that every time. It's never the architecture, it's always optimized for Intel.


The devs have stated on the forum that it's optimized for Intel because it's what they're using. Or you can look in the source, it's there.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> I offer you to come back upon release and say the same thing to us all.
> There's far too many sheep in this thread........ Who take nothing but a load of wish washy unconfirmed benchmarks and are ready again to lay their arms open to see their beloved amd fail once again. Truth is your going to end up paying a premium for chips that can just about manage to hold it together with 3-4yr old intel nehalm cpu's Multi and single threaded. Yet your somehow getting the deal of the century LOL
> Did BD teach you anything??


Most of the time those unconfirmed benchmarks ending up true, the leaked BD benchmarks upon release all ended up true about how bad cfc it was when compared to the Phenom II. If PD is about 15% clock for clock better than BD or at least as good as Nehalm and can do 4.5 GHz+ it is a profit since most Nehalm CPUs won't cut it at those high clocks. So we get performance between Nehalm and Sandy Bridge.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *czin125*
> 
> how is it compared to the 6core nehalem?


Gulftowns? If the results here are true, it doesn't match it in single core performance or when all cores are used. Gulftowns are still better than say a 3770K when it comes to heavily multithreaded stuff.


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkcloud89*
> 
> The devs have stated on the forum that it's optimized for Intel because it's what they're using. Or you can look in the source, it's there.


Here is quote I found
Quote:


> Umm just a small correction^
> *PCSX2 isn't "optimized for intel";] it works same well on both AMD and Intel cpu's, only difference intel cpu's are simply faster at the same clock speed, that has nothing to do with PCSX2 itself.*
> If you compare some Athlon/Phenom II vs Bulldozer - both made by AMD you'll also see the first one is faster than the last one at same clocks, and that's even when using SSE4 on the last one while first one is obviously outdated and limited to SSE2, faster architecture simply wins over marketing, you cannot get quality for low price;]. AMD sells cpu's cheaply for a reason;]. They aren't worth more.(I say that as AMD - both cpu&gpu, owner).


http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-Effective-EE-clockspeed?pid=244707#pid244707


----------



## -X3-

Keep in mind that even if PD ends up to be on par with SB in multithreading, it won't mean that it's on par with SB in gaming. PD can still fail when using multi GPU setups, there's no evidence it won't.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alcal*
> 
> The way I see it, *AMD is the only entity standing between us and $500* 2500k's. Even if intel afficionados can't find it in them to applaud AMD's decent, if tardy performance, they should at least bear in mind that AMD, by existing, saves them money. This is why I'm always sad when I see people hate on AMD. It's like rooting AGAINST the underdog... who does that?
> Anyways, 75% of what makes me check up on OCN every hour has been the impending release of some sorts of Vishera benchmarks so good find OP!


No basic principles of economics are what stand between you and a 500 dollar 2500k. The market could not bear a price increase of 150% on mid ranged (yes 2500k is midranged) CPUs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Highly doubt it, I doubt they'd even bail Intel out. As big as they are they aren't THAT big.


Um, they provide about 95% of all the server chips on the planet. They are that big and they would be bailed out in a heartbeat. AMD on the other hand... I doubt you'd be seeing them bailed out. Especially when there actually other CPU makers (just not x86)

2. Server Processor Market Share: Intel's share in the server market currently stands at 94.5%, a marginal increase from 2010.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> I'll sit on the bench and wait to see how this turns out, I wont be getting my hopes up again......... This reeks of De ja vu


It does reek of De ja vu. I for one am not buying into it until I see multi benchmark articles from the reliable sources.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> *What if I said you that if we didn't support AMD, you wouldn't be able to afford your beloved 2500k?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We buy the alternative because it performs good enough for what we pay, and because we support a 'fair' market.


Um a duopoly is not a "fair" market. I don't know what reality you live in, but they are rarely FAIR and almost always price fixed and price setters.

Trust me.. AMD is not keeping the price of the 2500k down. What is keeping the price of the 2500k down is ECONOMICS. Go learn about it. The market couldn't bear a super high priced 2500k as a mid ranged chip. If you notice the i7 990 , the SB-E and the IB-E will all be MUCH HIGHER priced because that is a market that CAN BEAR THE PRICE INCREASE AND HAS NO COMPETITION. A 2500k would NEVER be that expensive in a monopoly.


----------



## badrapper

The RCM was used in Trinity on a much smaller scale (60% approx I read), whereas in Vishera, AMD is going all out (Fully deployed I think). The GLOFO 32nm has improved also (GLOFO 28nm article) and other improvements also have been added but 32nm improvement alone is 7% i read, we can expect Vishera to be what BD should have been, I expect it to be on par SB price wise but am hoping performance wise.


----------



## Warmonger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> None of this is really impressive. Bulldozer already did fine in multi-threaded benches. What all you guys are freaking out about is an 8 core CPU just now barely maybe matching a quad w/o hyperthreading.
> In fact all this shows me is this chip is still going to get slaughtered in single threaded performance. Which in many ways is still more important.


Uh, this means the FX-8350 should about par with the 3770k in multi-threaded benchmarks. Quite a rise for AMD, they only have to tackle single thread performance and they will be back in the race. Tho we can only expect the worst from AMD until they prove us wrong.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-X3-*
> 
> Keep in mind that even if PD ends up to be on par with SB in multithreading, it won't mean that it's on par with SB in gaming. PD can still fail when using multi GPU setups, there's no evidence it won't.


Its not the processors fault for poor multi-GPU support. Its the lack of chipset updates AMD is notorious for. Hopefully the new chipset that releases with Vishera will help counter some of these problems.

@Topic


----------



## -X3-

Quote:


> Its not the processors fault for poor multi-GPU support. Its the lack of chipset updates AMD is notorious for. Hopefully the new chipset that releases with Vishera will help counter some of these problems.


I wasn't referring to multi GPU support, I was referring to how these processors handle dual GPU setups.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> Uh, this means the FX-8350 should about par with the 3770k in multi-threaded benchmarks. Quite a rise for AMD, they only have to tackle single thread performance and they will be back in the race. Tho we can only expect the worst from AMD until they prove us wrong.
> Its not the processors fault for poor multi-GPU support. Its the lack of chipset updates AMD is notorious for. Hopefully the new chipset that releases with Vishera will help counter some of these problems.
> @Topic


No it means it matches the 2600k in multi-threaded benchmarks. And it (still) gets killed in everything else. And that's not really a rise either. The FX 8xxx _always_ competed in multi-threaded scenarios. The problem with the chip has _always_ been single threaded and lightly threaded workloads.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> Um a duopoly is not a "fair" market. I don't know what reality you live in, but they are rarely FAIR and almost always price fixed and price setters.
> Trust me.. AMD is not keeping the price of the 2500k down. What is keeping the price of the 2500k down is ECONOMICS. Go learn about it. The market couldn't bear a super high priced 2500k as a mid ranged chip. If you notice the i7 990 , the SB-E and the IB-E will all be MUCH HIGHER priced because that is a market that CAN BEAR THE PRICE INCREASE AND HAS NO COMPETITION. A 2500k would NEVER be that expensive in a monopoly.


I lolled so hard. Amateur economics at its best.

Go look up what Intel were like in the beginning x86, charging hundreds for a 50MHz increase. You might want to pay that much but the rest if us don't.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

OK...now where is the AMD rep on their white horse to debunk this bench as fake? LOL I enjoyed that so much in the Bulldozer days.

Hope its true...and I am going to assume that this bench is going to be at least close to what we will see at launch. Granted there is no time to really change anything at this point, but there is no telling when this engineering sample was made. Would have been nice to see the score a bit higher, but I will take this happily providing the CPU+Motherboard price is what it should be.

I still wouldn't rush out to buy the first steppings of PD...I have a feeling there are still some tweaks coming.


----------



## 8800GT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> I lolled so hard. Amateur economics at its best.
> Go look up what Intel were like in the beginning x86, charging hundreds for a 50MHz increase. You might want to pay that much but the rest if us don't.


In the "beginning x86", that had to be 20 years ago where 50mhz would have been a phenomenal increase in processing power. Even the 486's that were 33mhz and 50mhz CPU's were in the 90's. So 50mhz very well could have been the factor between a low end processor and a high end processor such as a Dual core and a Hex-core. Also, take a look at the Research and Development budget intel has. It's absolutely staggering compared to AMD's and has always been. Why shouldn't they charge more for a more advanced piece of silicon? They have to recover part of their overhead don't they? That's simple economics.


----------



## 8800GT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> In the "beginning x86", that had to be 20 years ago where 50mhz would have been a phenomenal increase in processing power. Even the 486's that were 33mhz and 50mhz CPU's were in the 90's. So 50mhz very well could have been the factor between a low end processor and a high end processor such as a Dual core and a Hex-core. Also, take a look at the Research and Development budget intel has. It's absolutely staggering compared to AMD's and has always been. Why shouldn't they charge more for a more advanced piece of silicon? They have to recover part of their overhead don't they? That's simple economics.


I actually just looked it up. x86 started with the 8086 back in the late 70's starting with 5mhz cpu's, which further proves my point.


----------



## FoamyV

Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


----------



## Poisoner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


Just keep what you have and enjoy it.


----------



## tout

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> This gets said in every amd / intel thread on ocn
> Truth is laws would prevent intel from becoming said monopoly and thus riping off the consumer, Intel would be torn apart and a competitor created, most likely a new company within a company under a different name, then the cycle would continue intel vs ????
> I am all for fair trade, but some comments in this thread are rediculous, seriously some are ready to drop their pants and be spanked all over again. Lets just wait for the truth upon release before we start throwing money at the screen


Then explain to me Microsoft's pricing of Windows.... it's worth about the cost of a game and yet they have been charging way more than that for years now with no direct competitor.


----------



## -X3-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


Do *NOT* send it back.


----------



## Vagrant Storm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


I'd keep your 3770k

At best the PD will be equal to it or so close that you will not notice anything outside of a bench.

At the worst...your 3770k could be a decent amount better overall

We need more benches from other CPUs to know anything for sure...and pricing.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> Uh, this means the FX-8350 should about par with the 3770k in multi-threaded benchmarks. Quite a rise for AMD, they only have to tackle single thread performance and they will be back in the race. Tho we can only expect the worst from AMD until they prove us wrong.
> Its not the processors fault for poor multi-GPU support. Its the lack of chipset updates AMD is notorious for. Hopefully the new chipset that releases with Vishera will help counter some of these problems.
> @Topic


That pic is Rev OR-C0 of FX/Bulldozer still zambzi cores, not piledriver.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


Send the 3770K back asap


----------



## Tsumi

To all the doubters:

I can almost guarantee that Vishera will be at least 15% better than Bulldozer, and on average 20% better, optimistically, it would be more. This is in all areas, both single-threaded and multi-threaded.

My proof?

Trinity. Anandtech reported up to 15% IPC increase for Trinity over Bulldozer, with average increases somewhere in the 7-10% range. Trinity lacks L3 cache and the further refinements to the Piledriver core. The leaked clock speeds of Vishera is ~11% higher than Zambezi for the top models (4.0 vs 3.6). So, a conservative 5% IPC increase with a 11% increase in clock speed nets us a CPU that's at least 15% better than Zambezi in all areas. Optimistically, the L3 cache and refinements should push IPC increases to at least 10%, so 20% increase in performance as compared to Zambezi is not unlikely.

15-20% better might not make it better than SB/IB, but it definitely closes the gap by a significant margin.

Also, Intel is NOT going to drop prices. They may make small drops (maybe $10-20 at most), but historically, Intel never drops prices in response to the competition or as their processors get outdated.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tout*
> 
> Then explain to me Microsoft's pricing of Windows.... it's worth about the cost of a game and yet they have been charging way more than that for years now with no direct competitor.


Windows worth the cost of a game??

I think you will find windows is far more complex and requires much. Much more research and man power to develop and maintain


----------



## icehotshot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


I hope that was sarcastic....lol

Cause if not then









There isn't a chance PD will be _better_ than ivy. Unless someone wants to bet me a gtx 680 on it.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tout*
> 
> Then explain to me Microsoft's pricing of Windows.... it's worth about the cost of a game and yet they have been charging way more than that for years now with no direct competitor.


Are you implying developing games = Windows OS?

Wow, just wow.


----------



## Warmonger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> No it means it matches the 2600k in multi-threaded benchmarks. And it (still) gets killed in everything else. And that's not really a rise either. The FX 8xxx _always_ competed in multi-threaded scenarios. The problem with the chip has _always_ been single threaded and lightly threaded workloads.


Congrats, you quoted my post word for word.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


Keep it, it will still be better then Vishera in single thread performance. Which is the main important thing in computing as 90% of your applications are single or double threaded. Plus it will still hold its own in multi-threaded workloads. Enjoy the chip, its the best you can get in a 4 core package at the moment and probably for the next year.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> That pic is Rev OR-C0 of FX/Bulldozer still zambzi cores, not piledriver.


I just realized the date at the bottom.







It was posted by the same poster of the benches in OP.


----------



## mayford5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that every time. It's never the architecture, it's always optimized for Intel.
> PCSX2 is optimized for dual cores that's why it is much faster on Intel not because it is optimized for it.
> I seem to remember BD having terrible single thread performance.
> From the developers,
> Even my mobile i7 @ 2.6GHz is still faster than PD.


I agree with you. It is actually always the architecture. Look way back at the flop that was netburst. People never said anything about things being coded better or made excuses back then. They said it was the pipes and guess what. It is the same in this case as well. It is the architecture. Now are they ok chips? yes they are OK chips. Should we take these so called benchmarks worth a grain of salt? You bet. According to this "Leaked" bench your mobile I7 is faster yes(I guess thats the case, you never posted anything to compare numbers to.) and sure maybe PD will be just another big bust but you know there are quite a few that own BD that are happy with it. Quite a few that would rather not buy Intel and they are happy with that. That is their perogative so why we have to go and start flame wars and whine about who needs to just go away for whatever reason is the real question. Why we have to speculate that a chip not even mature enough to make retail samples will reach 6Ghz is another good question. Here is what I know, AMD has been around for a while and will more than likely be around for a little bit longer. Intel will continue to be the X86 king and still make crappy on die graphics cards. Why you ask? Because that is the way it has always been

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> I offer you to come back upon release and say the same thing to us all.
> There's far too many sheep in this thread........ Who take nothing but a load of wish washy unconfirmed benchmarks and are ready again to lay their arms open to see their beloved amd fail once again. Truth is your going to end up paying a premium for chips that can just about manage to hold it together with 3-4yr old intel nehalm cpu's Multi and single threaded. Yet your somehow getting the deal of the century LOL
> Did BD teach you anything??


It taught me lots. It taught me to be leary about benchmarks and to not throw my hands in the air and get angry when someone posts something contrary to what I believe. However I will still probably buy a PD when they come out so I can do my own benches just like I did with the FX4100 I bought. If you look at the CPU in my sig you can see that I chose for myself what was best for me, not you or a Fanboi from either side. I don't hate Intel and I don't love AMD what I do love is technology. The Hatred that is being strewn about in this thread really hurts the community of tech forums.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> None of this is really impressive. Bulldozer already did fine in multi-threaded benches. What all you guys are freaking out about is an 8 core CPU just now barely maybe matching a quad w/o hyperthreading.
> In fact all this shows me is this chip is still going to get slaughtered in single threaded performance. Which in many ways is still more important.


If we assume that these are real then yes you are 100% correct. Viewing the physicals of this cpu I couldn't say it is real or fake. All I can say is lets wait and see it the best way to come at this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> *Most of the time those unconfirmed benchmarks ending up true, the leaked BD benchmarks upon release all ended up true* about how bad cfc it was when compared to the Phenom II. If PD is about 15% clock for clock better than BD or at least as good as Nehalm and can do 4.5 GHz+ it is a profit since most Nehalm CPUs won't cut it at those high clocks. So we get performance between Nehalm and Sandy Bridge.


OK so here is the deal. When one instance is true that doesn't equal most ok. I have seen plenty of leaked benches all the way back to the pentium days that were horribly wrong. Just saying.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *-X3-*
> 
> Keep in mind that even if PD ends up to be on par with SB in multithreading, it won't mean that it's on par with SB in gaming. PD can still fail when using multi GPU setups, there's no evidence it won't.


I would have to agree with you on your statement. However there isn't any evidence that it will either. When I was benching the FX4100, I was using two 5770s. I know they are not the highest end but they weren't bad. Overall the actual hit in performance was not from the gpu utilization. It was the fact that the FX4100 was slower than my 960T. Both GPUs were being utilized about 95-96% in most of the games I was benchmarking in.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badrapper*
> 
> The RCM was used in Trinity on a much smaller scale (60% approx I read), whereas in Vishera, AMD is going all out (Fully deployed I think). The GLOFO 32nm has improved also (GLOFO 28nm article) and other improvements also have been added but 32nm improvement alone is 7% i read, we can expect Vishera to be what BD should have been, I expect it to be on par SB price wise but am hoping performance wise.


Well said. evn though I agree with you though I don't think comparing Trinity with PD is exactly apples to apples. I am not sure why we think that it will directly transfer performance as Trinity is still a bit of a different product than the normal CPUs we are speaking about in PD.


----------



## seg//fault

Quote:


> Not as good as processor from two years ago.


Just give up already and focus on your little toy netbook processors.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Desert Rat*
> 
> Are any of improvements going to be passed on to the server cpu's? I want to build another 4p with the newer generation cpu's but power improvements are necessary for sure.


Servers get all the fun stuff and more. Always have. (*-E CPUs and BD/PD are all basically crippled versions of server CPUs with unlocked multis)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> Uh, this means the FX-8350 should about par with the 3770k in multi-threaded benchmarks. Quite a rise for AMD, they only have to tackle single thread performance and they will be back in the race. Tho we can only expect the worst from AMD until they prove us wrong.
> Its not the processors fault for poor multi-GPU support. Its the lack of chipset updates AMD is notorious for. Hopefully the new chipset that releases with Vishera will help counter some of these problems.


There is no 'new' chipset. It still runs AM3+ and 900-series.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


Keep it and enjoy, the 3770K is a monster of a chip.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> Windows worth the cost of a game??
> I think you will find windows is far more complex and requires much. Much more research and man power to develop and maintain


Microsoft doesn't really give a crap about Windows XP/7/8/whatever. They sell it to OEMs on the cheap in bulk. What they care about is Office and their server OSs, you know, the things that bring in the real money.


----------



## Bruennis

At best, Vishera will equal Sandy Bridge in performance possibly beating it by an insignificant amount across some tests as it is newer and has had a looooonnnggg time for refinement. But I would not be surprised whatsoever if it falls short of this task. It would be pretty disappointing if it doesn't match the overall performance of Sandy Bridge


----------



## Mr Stabby

this would have been a great cpu 2 years ago, meh.


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mayford5*
> 
> I have seen plenty of leaked benches all the way back to the pentium days that were horribly wrong. Just saying.


I learned my lesson about "leaked benchmarks" in 1999, when someone posted supposedly "leaked" benchmarks of the original Athlon before its release. It was barely faster than a K6-2 and still killed by a P3 in FPU performance.

Then the real Athlon showed up and threw Intel into a total panic mode for the first time in its history. They had the i820 chipset disaster, the failed introduction of RDRAM, the Coppermine 1133 recall, and the rushed intro of the Pentium 4, all in a span of less than two years.

Piledriver won't do that to Intel, but it will keep AMD in the game.


----------



## sage101

Still not impressed with those numbers, even my X6 1600T beats this piledriver sample on Cinebench


----------



## Metric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> There is no 'new' chipset. It still runs AM3+ and 900-series.


Correct. Only BIOS updates to the existing 900-series, revised 900-series (such as the R2.0 line from Asus), and a few new 900-series.

Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 M5A97 EVO R2.0 User's Manual - Page 91 - http://www.manualowl.com/m/Asus/M5A97-EVO-R2.0/Manual/295316?page=91









Quote:


> 3.5.1 The items in this menu show the CPU-related information that the BIOS automatically detects. The items shown in this screen may be different due to the CPU you installed. UEFI BIOS Utility - Advanced Mode CPU Configuration Exit Main Back Ai Tweaker Advanced\ CPU Configuration > Advanced Monitor Boot Tool CPU Configuration
> 
> Socket 942: *AMD Eng Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8 8 Cores Running @3300 MHz 1375 mV Max Speed: 3300 MHz Intended Speed: 3300 MHz Not loaded* Cache per Core L1 Instruction Cache: 64 KB/2-way L1 Data Cache: 16 KB/4-way   L2 Cache: 2048 KB/16-way Total L3 Cache per Socket: 8 MB/64-way


Memory Performance Gains On The Crosshair V Formula-Z & Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 - http://rog.asus.com/141502012/crosshair-v-motherboards/memory-performance-gains-on-the-crosshair-v-formula-z-sabertooth-990fx-r2-0/

Quote:


> Below we have listed the typical performance using a 4-DIMM G.Skill kit of 16GB 2,400MHz DDR3 (with an initial QVL listed below). We'll follow up with more Crosshair V Formula-Z and Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 news in the coming days, so keep an eye on ROG front page, AMD fans!
> 
> Crosshair V Formula-Z: 2,540MHz CL9
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sabertooth 990FX R2.0: 2,528MHz CL10
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initial 2,400MHz DDR3 QVL list
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## ThePath

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FoamyV*
> 
> Damn it, and i just bought a 3770k a few days ago, i'm never lucky with these kinds of things. Should've waited. I'll see if i can send it back if these things are that good. What would you guys think?


LOL !! Actually you are very luck. If you wait then your are wasting time for an inferior product.


----------



## Capt

PD will most likely match the 2500K but will be a bit less than the 2600K and It won't even reach ivy-bridge.


----------



## Bruennis

Who's getting the itch to build a Vishera setup for the hell of it? I


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> PD will most likely match the 2500K but will be a bit less than the 2600K and It won't even reach ivy-bridge.


Say Wut??


----------



## Newwt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> PD will most likely match the 2500K but will be a bit less than the 2600K and *It won't even reach ivy-bridge*.


Fine with me if the 8350 is around the 2600k, that will save me 2-300$ from switching to intel. And to the bold thats not saying much since Ivy is barely better than SB itself.


----------



## Warmonger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> PD will most likely match the 2500K but will be a bit less than the 2600K and It won't even reach ivy-bridge.


The FX-8120 already matches the 2500k when overclocked. Its just the single thread performance that killed Bulldozer. From the looks of it Vishera will at least beat out the Phenom II's, this is the only goal AMD has to accomplish for Vishera to be a success.


----------



## Bruennis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> PD will most likely match the 2500K but will be a bit less than the 2600K and It won't even reach ivy-bridge.


Believable. AMD has chip on shoulder and will be looking for redemption. Whether they'll fail or exceed expectations remains to be seen. I would take these first tests with a grain of salt.


----------



## Quantium40

Maybe my 990x board will be useful, I keep hoping.

I miss the days of AMD awesomeness, like the Athlon Thunderbird, Opty 165, etc.


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.


Or more importantly, it makes this the new Phenom II.









Deneb is to Nehalem what PileDriver is to Sandy Bridge.

Hopefully they can provide a little bit better performance in terms of per-core performance.









Gettin' there AMD, Keep it up!


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> Who's getting the itch to build a Vishera setup for the hell of it? I


I'll be buying one as well. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who didn't nerd rage when BD's performance was mapped out. It seems there may have been a few.


----------



## yawa

I'm all over this man. Whole reason I held on to my motherboard this long.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> I lolled so hard. Amateur economics at its best.
> Go look up what Intel were like in the beginning x86, charging hundreds for a 50MHz increase. You might want to pay that much but the rest if us don't.


It was 100s more for a large percentage increase. We're being charged more now for much less of an increase in IPS (read Phenom 2 versus FX-8150 at release was 150 dollars more). It was going from a 33 Mhz CPU to a 60 Mhz CPU thats almost a 100% increase. That's like taking a 3.3Ghz 2600k and turning it into a 6.6Ghz 3600k. And just fyi. There was MORE competition in the market of the 90s x86 than there is now.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8800GT*
> 
> I actually just looked it up. x86 started with the 8086 back in the late 70's starting with 5mhz cpu's, which further proves my point.


Yes he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about and its pretty clear.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tout*
> 
> Then explain to me Microsoft's pricing of Windows.... it's worth about the cost of a game and yet they have been charging way more than that for years now with no direct competitor.


Um they have 2 competitors. Its called OSX and Linux. If you don't like microsoft you can switch. Building an OS is VASTLY more complicated and resource (read money) intensive than designing a little game.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> Trust me.. AMD is not keeping the price of the 2500k down. What is keeping the price of the 2500k down is ECONOMICS. Go learn about it. The market couldn't bear a super high priced 2500k as a mid ranged chip. If you notice the i7 990 , the SB-E and the IB-E will all be MUCH HIGHER priced because that is a market that CAN BEAR THE PRICE INCREASE AND HAS NO COMPETITION. A 2500k would NEVER be that expensive in a monopoly.


$500 2500k isn't that much of a craze. After all, it's an enthusiast part. Although $500 2600k sounds more realistic. Copypaste into Ivy.

If you let me take a guess, Intel's parts are priced so cheap this round (remember Nehalems? Goddamnit, those were expensive!) because with no real competition from AMD, they decided to smash the pricing and take away the only benefit AMD had, and it was being a cheaper alternative.

With that front covered, AMD had literally _nothing_ to fight Intel. And after this dominiom (Sandy/Ivy), if AMD cannot come up with a comeback, Haswell will be priced like Nehalem, or even higher. Don't doubt it a second.

We better pray for Vishera to deliver, either this 'affordable enthusiast CPU' round will be over.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> We better pray for Vishera to deliver, either this 'affordable enthusiast CPU' round will be over.


I agree with that sentence. and I do hope that Vishera delivers. Competition , even limited, is good for the market in most cases.

edit--- to be fair I dont consider the 2500k enthusiast level I consider it mid level. SB-E and IB-E and 990 are what I consider "enthusiast"


----------



## levathar

Sorry, but I have here a Z77 board that was waiting for a _nicely priced_ Ivy Bridge, and to my own amazement the prices were still too high.

I had to stick to a pentium chip and will continue waiting for Ivy prices to come down...

AND I HOPE PD can deliver so I can use it in my asrock 870 extreme board...

Sumarizing, Intel has the performance, yes, but it costs too much. AMD is cheaper and hopefully is just some 20% slower.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *levathar*
> 
> Sumarizing, Intel has the performance, yes, but it costs too much. AMD is cheaper and hopefully is just some 20% slower.


You can get an i7 920 for ~$125 here on OCN.

Even high end brand new Z77 boards will run you less than 200$(Same as high end AMD boards), and a 2500/2600K for a very fair price(You don't have to wait for IB price reduction, Sandy is pretty much just as good).

My point is that Intel _doesn't_ cost too much.

If you want to go AMD, that's great. I'm going to pick up an 8350 in all likelyhood for some OC fun, but it won't be because it's so cheap(Because it won't be).


----------



## Tsumi

When will you guys learn that Intel only lowers prices in rare occasions?


----------



## 161029

Piledriver sounds promising. Crossing my fingers.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> When will you guys learn that Intel only lowers prices in rare occasions?


They've been lowering them for years now, consistently. Current performace/efficiency vs price is very fair and might i say, phenomenal. Maybe outside of EE 6 core products which even then pull their weight in price/performance for the right users.


----------



## Bruennis

When can be Intel slaves, or we can be Piledrivers!


----------



## AMD2600

I expect the high-end Piledriver chips to be around $260 just like the high-end BD chips were when they came out.


----------



## Adrenaline

Do you Guys think that Piledriver will work on a 880G Chipset board with the correct Bios Update


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adrenaline*
> 
> Do you Guys think that Piledriver will work on a 880G Chipset board with the correct Bios Update


No. Not from what i've read.


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

If it is affordable, it will be good competition for Intel. If it isn't...the downward spiral continues.


----------



## Adrenaline

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> No. Not from what i've read.


Damn it, Do They even sell Micro ATX 9** Series Boards?


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> You can get an i7 920 for ~$125 here on OCN.
> Even high end brand new Z77 boards will run you less than 200$(Same as high end AMD boards), and a 2500/2600K for a very fair price(You don't have to wait for IB price reduction, Sandy is pretty much just as good).
> My point is that Intel _doesn't_ cost too much.
> If you want to go AMD, that's great. I'm going to pick up an 8350 in all likelyhood for some OC fun, but it won't be because it's so cheap(Because it won't be).


Yea, the Marketplace here is awesome! I snagged an i3 2100 for about $40 under retail and a 2500K for about $50 under retail!









As for Piledriver....

AMD still has a long way to go, although the current sales on the PII 965 BE for about $75 shipped is a really solid one!


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> They've been lowering them for years now, consistently. Current performace/efficiency vs price is very fair and might i say, phenomenal. Maybe outside of EE 6 core products which even then pull their weight in price/performance for the right users.


They release CPUs at a price point. The CPU stays at that price point forever. What happens is Intel replaces the CPU with a new CPU at the same price point, but the old CPU does not get its price lowered. Sure, the retailers might lower price by $10 or 15, but that's it.

Point is, if you're waiting for the 3770k or 3570k to go down in price, don't bother. The best you can do is wait to see if Newegg gives a gift card promotion with it or something similar.


----------



## black96ws6

Is anyone else not seeing a huge improvement here?

PD - 4986:


BD - 5452 - 5900:


PD - 18705:


BD - 17980 - 18851:


----------



## kzone75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adrenaline*
> 
> Damn it, Do They even sell Micro ATX 9** Series Boards?


Haven't seen one. I think (do note that I only think) micro ATX will stay FM1/FM2 only.


----------



## jtom320

So basically best case scenario is Vishera matches a 2600k in multi-threaded and gets dominated in single threaded workloads.

Right where we started. :sigh:


----------



## Skripka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adrenaline*
> 
> Damn it, Do They even sell Micro ATX 9** Series Boards?


Nope.

For performance mATX your only choices are Intel and Asus Gene or Gigabyte Sniper. Which really blows.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> It was 100s more for a large percentage increase. We're being charged more now for much less of an increase in IPS (read Phenom 2 versus FX-8150 at release was 150 dollars more). It was going from a 33 Mhz CPU to a 60 Mhz CPU thats almost a 100% increase. That's like taking a 3.3Ghz 2600k and turning it into a 6.6Ghz 3600k. And just fyi. There was MORE competition in the market of the 90s x86 than there is now


No it wasn't. Intel charged a hell of a lot more for their CPU's than they do today. The price difference between small increments in MHz was huge and I'm talking about the 586's (Pentium), not their predecessors because going from a 4MHz 086 to an 8 MHz 286 was a huge step. Even when AMD entered the x86 market Intel were still ridiculously extortionate, simply because they were the only ones left and they had brand recognition.

Going from Pentium 60 to Pentium 70 or 75 was a massive difference, far bigger than from a 2500K to a 3770 today, without offering the performance one would expect. And those Pentium 100 and 133 Overdrives were more expensive than the Extreme chips of today. Why do you think enthusiasts used to buy Celeron 500's and overclock them, they were simply the best price/performance as the Pentiums were simply not worth their price.

I don't remember the chips up until 386 well, I was a little too young for them but 386 and beyond I do remember.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> No it wasn't. Intel charged a hell of a lot more for their CPU's than they do today. The price difference between small increments in MHz was huge and I'm talking about the 586's (Pentium), not their predecessors because going from a 4MHz 086 to an 8 MHz 286 was a huge step. Even when AMD entered the x86 market Intel were still ridiculously extortionate, simply because they were the only ones left and they had brand recognition.
> Going from Pentium 60 to Pentium 70 or 75 was a massive difference, far bigger than from a 2500K to a 3770 today, without offering the performance one would expect. And those Pentium 100 and 133 Overdrives were more expensive than the Extreme chips of today. Why do you think enthusiasts used to buy Celeron 500's and overclock them, they were simply the best price/performance as the Pentiums were simply not worth their price.
> I don't remember the chips up until 386 well, I was a little too young for them but 386 and beyond I do remember.


I think he's right. Intel's never going to charge 500 dollars for a 2500k because regardless of AMD no one is going to spend that kind of money. That would push their high end chips up into the 2000 dollar range and again no one is going to spend that kind of money.


----------



## mayford5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> I think he's right. Intel's never going to charge 500 dollars for a 2500k because *regardless of AMD no one is going to spend that kind of money.* That would push their high end chips up into the 2000 dollar range and again no one is going to spend that kind of money.


Well normally things work on supply and demand here in the US. If there wasn't another x86 chip maker the demand would go up for Intel and the supply would not be enough to keep up. Seeing this is everywhere but the very basics of economics I couldn't say if this is true for tech but when yields are low it sure seems that way.

Yes I know the gvt would step in and split the company but they would still be part of Intel. Look what happened with Microsoft.

The bolded: That is the way the govt thinks about taxation on cigarettes but people keep buying them. I know "Nicotine is a drug man and you can get hooked on it. The younger you start the more damage you can do.. Word". Anyways, I know some keep saying that the regulations will keep it down, or people won't pay that much but people will. I have seen people pay $100/MB for memory. That is not a typo. Anybody remember SIPPS(single inline pin package) Wiki Page on SIPPS those were freaking expensive. On my Dad's 8086 we bought 320KB to piggy back on top of the original 320K on the board for $60 (that was a huge discount). People will pay what is asked if it is the best and the only thing available for their addictions or passions.


----------



## aroc91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mayford5*
> 
> Well normally things work on supply and demand here in the US. If there wasn't another x86 chip maker the demand would go up for Intel and the supply would not be enough to keep up. Seeing this is everywhere but the very basics of economics I couldn't say if this is true for tech but when yields are low it sure seems that way.
> Yes I know the gvt would step in and split the company but they would still be part of Intel. Look what happened with Microsoft.
> The bolded: That is the way the govt thinks about taxation on cigarettes but people keep buying them. I know "Nicotine is a drug man and you can get hooked on it. The younger you start the more damage you can do.. Word". Anyways, I know some keep saying that the regulations will keep it down, or people won't pay that much but people will. I have seen people pay $100/MB for memory. That is not a typo. Anybody remember SIPPS(single inline pin package) Wiki Page on SIPPS those were freaking expensive. On my Dad's 8086 we bought 320KB to piggy back on top of the original 320K on the board for $60 (that was a huge discount). People will pay what is asked if it is the best and the only thing available for their addictions or passions.


For the vast majority of the population, computer hardware is not an addiction or a passion. There's a facet to supply and demand called elasticity. Things like tobacco and food have a low price elasticity of demand, meaning demand doesn't change when price changes. Electronics, on the other hand, are elastic good (or luxury goods). The demand for an elastic good changes at a greater rate than the price. If the price of the 2500k increased by 50%, for example, demand for it would fall by more than 50%. This would decrease total revenue, so increasing tech prices is generally not a good idea.


----------



## mayford5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> For the vast majority of the population, computer hardware is not an addiction or a passion. There's a facet to supply and demand called elasticity. Things like tobacco and food have a low price elasticity of demand, meaning demand doesn't change when price changes. Electronics, on the other hand, are elastic good (or luxury goods). The demand for an elastic good changes at a greater rate than the price. If the price of the 2500k increased by 50%, for example, demand for it would fall by more than 50%. This would decrease total revenue, so increasing tech prices is generally not a good idea.


Thank you for clearing that up for me(not being stupid being serious). I honestly didn't know. I hate economics. Took it in HS and college and it just doesn't make sense to me. Give me a network to run or router/switch to program, or even some wireless to configure and I am totally at home.


----------



## Rookie1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aroc91*
> 
> For the vast majority of the population, computer hardware is not an addiction or a passion. There's a facet to supply and demand called elasticity. Things like tobacco and food have a low price elasticity of demand, meaning demand doesn't change when price changes. Electronics, on the other hand, are elastic good (or luxury goods). The demand for an elastic good changes at a greater rate than the price. If the price of the 2500k increased by 50%, for example, demand for it would fall by more than 50%. This would decrease total revenue, so increasing tech prices is generally not a good idea.


BUT...if you have a de facto reliance on a software to run on said system that requires better and better hardware...and considering how dependent on chips the US has become...that said...Intel will never be able to go back to the "glory" days because of the ARM market.


----------



## scumty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *996gt2*
> 
> Sigh, it's taken AMD almost 2 years to get to a point where they are perhaps *almost* as good as SB in this one benchmark.
> Maybe exciting for some, but to me it's just kind of sad.


Time isn't important.
Arrive late but arrive strong.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> They release CPUs at a price point. The CPU stays at that price point forever. What happens is Intel replaces the CPU with a new CPU at the same price point, but the old CPU does not get its price lowered. Sure, the retailers might lower price by $10 or 15, but that's it.
> Point is, if you're waiting for the 3770k or 3570k to go down in price, don't bother. The best you can do is wait to see if Newegg gives a gift card promotion with it or something similar.


I hope that is Intel centric only,,, because I remember my 1055T @ $180+ then the price dropped... Also I have seen the 2500K drop in price....So I think that your point of the CPU staying at one price point is non existent..

Unless I am missing something.....I have never seen CPU's hold their original price point or CPU prices stay static...at all.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> They release CPUs at a price point. The CPU stays at that price point forever. What happens is Intel replaces the CPU with a new CPU at the same price point, but the old CPU does not get its price lowered. Sure, the retailers might lower price by $10 or 15, but that's it.
> Point is, if you're waiting for the 3770k or 3570k to go down in price, don't bother. The best you can do is wait to see if Newegg gives a gift card promotion with it or something similar.


Is that so?
Quote:


> Chipzilla chomped 34 percent off its Core i7 970, bringing it down from $885 to $583 in thousand-unit quantities. Perhaps even more attractive, however, is the 48 percent price cut that reduced the Core i7 960 from $562 to $294.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intel_drops_price_core_i7_970_and_960_cpus

Don't feel like digging up more examples, but there goes your $10 - $15 price drop "theory".


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fivestring*
> 
> I'm proud of AMD. They may still be behind but price will be the deciding factor here. Plus OCing gthese thing will be awesome!
> I'm tired of this 960T anyways lol


hrmm..does it unlock? Maybe we could work something out








If the price of 2500K dropped by 50%..That's all people would buy








It would be the #1 selling chip*.*


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> hrmm..does it unlock? Maybe we could work something out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the price of 2500K dropped by 50%..That's all people would buy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be the #1 selling chip*.*


If you end up buying a 960T, make sure you don't pay over $65!








http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113176


----------



## Rookie1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> If you end up buying a 960T, make sure you don't pay over $65!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113176












Why do I always miss those deals?!


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Is that so?
> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intel_drops_price_core_i7_970_and_960_cpus
> Don't feel like digging up more examples, but there goes your $10 - $15 price drop "theory".


The 960 received the price cut to replace the 950. Same thing happened when the 950 replaced the 930. The 930 and 950 never saw cuts bringing them down from their ~$300 price point. And everyone knows the 930/950/960 are essentially the exact same silicon...

The 970 was just priced way too close to the 980x, so it made sense for that to happen.

I did not see significant price cuts on the i5 750, even when it was replaced by the 760. 760 didn't get any significant price cuts either when the 2500k replaced it. Same story with the 3570k. None of the EE processors ever received price cuts.

If Intel feels really pressured (core2quad vs phenom II), or two current products of vastly different capabilities overlap in price, they will lower prices. Otherwise, they just phase it out in favor of a new product.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> The 960 received the price cut to replace the 950. Same thing happened when the 950 replaced the 930. The 930 and 950 never saw cuts bringing them down from their ~$300 price point. And everyone knows the 930/950/960 are essentially the exact same silicon...
> The 970 was just priced way too close to the 980x, so it made sense for that to happen.
> I did not see significant price cuts on the i5 750, even when it was replaced by the 760. 760 didn't get any significant price cuts either when the 2500k replaced it. Same story with the 3570k. None of the EE processors ever received price cuts.
> If Intel feels really pressured (core2quad vs phenom II), or two current products of vastly different capabilities overlap in price, they will lower prices. Otherwise, they just phase it out in favor of a new product.


It's funny, that's not what you said earlier.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> They release CPUs at a price point. *The CPU stays at that price point forever*. What happens is Intel replaces the CPU with a new CPU at the same price point, *but the old CPU does not get its price lowered.* Sure, the retailers might lower price by $10 or 15, but that's it.


Like I said, I can dig up more examples, but I've already proved my point.


----------



## trog

Hmm i held out hitting an AM3+ board with USB/SATA 3.0 and this makes my spidey senses tingle


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> I agree with that sentence. and I do hope that Vishera delivers. Competition , even limited, is good for the market in most cases.
> edit--- to be fair I dont consider the 2500k enthusiast level I consider it mid level. SB-E and IB-E and 990 are what I consider "enthusiast"


K parts are enthusiast. Remember the i5-655K? Thing was more expensive than some i7s. Because it had unlocked multiplier.

Athlon FX parts had no match on their time, and were unlocked too, thus had outrageous pricepoints, similar to SB-E X series and Gulftown X series parts.

And even when AMD was able to more or less keep the pace, BE parts had also high pricepoints compared to non-BE parts. The 1090T is the most obvious of them. A 400MHz higher base clock and unlocked multiplier, but it was a 50% more expensive than a 1055T.
Sure you paid some binning there, but the most part of the premium was due to it being geared towards the enthusiast market.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trog*
> 
> Hmm i held out hitting an AM3+ board with USB/SATA 3.0 and this makes my spidey senses tingle


I got an USB3/SATA3 AM3 board when purchased the Phenom, but be sure if I get Vishera I'll be swapping it out. Damned thing has a horrible LLC.

Set vcore to 1.55V, if you disable LLC it will fall to 1.45V. If you enable LLC it will skyrocket to 1.63V. What the hell is this?!


----------



## moonmanas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> K parts are enthusiast. Remember the i5-655K? Thing was more expensive than some i7s. Because it had unlocked multiplier.
> Athlon FX parts had no match on their time, and were unlocked too, thus had outrageous pricepoints, similar to SB-E X series and Gulftown X series parts.
> And even when AMD was able to more or less keep the pace, BE parts had also high pricepoints compared to non-BE parts. The 1090T is the most obvious of them. A 400MHz higher base clock and unlocked multiplier, but it was a 50% more expensive than a 1055T.
> Sure you paid some binning there, but the most part of the premium was due to it being geared towards the enthusiast market.
> I got an USB3/SATA3 AM3 board when purchased the Phenom, but be sure if I get Vishera I'll be swapping it out. Damned thing has a horrible LLC.
> Set vcore to 1.55V, if you disable LLC it will fall to 1.45V. If you enable LLC it will skyrocket to 1.63V. What the hell is this?!


I had the same board as you I upgraded to the latest beta bios and put in an FX4100, the bios defaulted the CPU/NB to 1.5v and there was no way to change it! So I got UD5. Some weeks later someone else posted on here they had the same issue. So yes you will probably need shot of that board if you want am3+ cpu...


----------



## obsidian86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trog*
> 
> Hmm i held out hitting an AM3+ board with USB/SATA 3.0 and this makes my spidey senses tingle


my sapphire pure black 990 has been sitting in its box waiting for this since may

I might be getting a cheap 6990 to add to my 6970 but i first wanna see how vishera does in gaming


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonmanas*
> 
> I had the same board as you I upgraded to the latest beta bios and put in an FX4100, the bios defaulted the CPU/NB to 1.5v and there was no way to change it! So I got UD5. Some weeks later someone else posted on here they had the same issue. So yes you will probably need shot of that board if you want am3+ cpu...


According to ASUS it has full support for Bulldozer, but it makes no sense to keep it if I cannot overclock it properly.

Plus, when I upgrade my CPU I love getting a new shiny motherboard, a new shiny memory kit, a new PSU, and sometimes even a new HD


----------



## scumty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Are you implying developing games = Windows OS?
> Wow, just wow.


Lol you implied windows actually had effort put into it.
Good one you should try stand up, funny guy this one.


----------



## Adrenaline

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kzone75*
> 
> Haven't seen one. I think (do note that I only think) micro ATX will stay FM1/FM2 only.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skripka*
> 
> Nope.
> For performance mATX your only choices are Intel and Asus Gene or Gigabyte Sniper. Which really blows.


Hmm Thats Not Good, Means If i want to buy Piledriver I'll Have to get new Motherboard and Case


----------



## tout

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> Windows worth the cost of a game??
> I think you will find windows is far more complex and requires much. Much more research and man power to develop and maintain


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Are you implying developing games = Windows OS?
> Wow, just wow.


No one said anything about the development being the same. Do you guys know how to read? It's worth about $60. Video games are worth about $20 tops.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> Um they have 2 competitors. Its called OSX and Linux. If you don't like microsoft you can switch. Building an OS is VASTLY more complicated and resource (read money) intensive than designing a little game.


Linux is free, hardly a competitor. OSX I wouldn't consider worth anything because it's merely another version of a Unix based OS... should be free too but because it's owned and run by Apple they charge money for it. There is no direct competitor to Windows at this point in time. That would require all software to run on them just as well as Windows but since developers want to make money and Microsoft has basically pushed out all the competitors... which was my point... a monopoly (and declared as such years ago) but yet still allowed to grossly overcharge for it's product... hence my point if you read what I wrote.

I swear nobody on this forum, with all their technical intellect, can for the life of them read between the lines or think past the words printed on the page in front of them.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scumty*
> 
> Lol you implied windows actually had effort put into it.
> Good one you should try stand up, funny guy this one.


I am secretly the creator of all Windows, I make them during my breaks breaks, which is why they take so long to release. But actually they're so easy to make anyone could do it.


----------



## fetzher

upgrade from my fx6100 to i5 3570k with a asrockz77 extreme3 or waiting for pd? need help


----------



## mam72

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fetzher*
> 
> upgrade from my fx6100 to i5 3570k with a asrockz77 extreme3 or waiting for pd? need help


Don't sit around waiting for things just buy the 3570K as you know that it preforms well. That can't be said for PD, because it isn't out yet.


----------



## mayford5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mam72*
> 
> Don't sit around waiting for things just buy the 3570K as you know that it preforms well. That can't be said for PD, because it isn't out yet.


^ This


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tout*
> 
> No one said anything about the development being the same. Do you guys know how to read? It's worth about $60. Video games are worth about $20 tops.
> Linux is free, hardly a competitor. OSX I wouldn't consider worth anything because it's merely another version of a Unix based OS... should be free too but because it's owned and run by Apple they charge money for it. There is no direct competitor to Windows at this point in time. That would require all software to run on them just as well as Windows but since developers want to make money and Microsoft has basically pushed out all the competitors... which was my point... a monopoly (and declared as such years ago) but yet still allowed to grossly overcharge for it's product... hence my point if you read what I wrote.
> I swear nobody on this forum, with all their technical intellect, can for the life of them read between the lines or think past the words printed on the page in front of them.


That is strictly your opinion and not one standing on solid economic ground.

Just because something is free does not mean that it is not a substitute good. Linux and OSX are both substitutes for Windows. You're basically asking the market to provide an exact replica of windows and then name it something else and make it cheaper. A) thats not going to happen and B) Windows was never a monopoly the reason microsoft was sued for monopoly was because they were supplying other types of software with their operating system for free (software that now costs money btw)

I did read between the lines and I thought it was stupid thats why I corrected you. The reason games aren't twenty dollars anymore is because development costs went up.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fetzher*
> 
> upgrade from my fx6100 to i5 3570k with a asrockz77 extreme3 or waiting for pd? need help


If you live near a microcenter you can get the i5 3570k with an asrock mobo + 8GBs of 1600mhz ram+ Hyper 212+ for around $350 (which is what I did). Currently rocking a fully stable 4.6ghz overclock with not one problem yet.


----------



## Particle

It's worth keeping in mind that a given amount of US currency has about 50% less buying power it did in 1985. If you want 1995 as a reference, the devaluation is about 30%.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tout*
> 
> No one said anything about the development being the same. Do you guys know how to read? It's worth about $60. Video games are worth about $20 tops.
> Linux is free, hardly a competitor. OSX I wouldn't consider worth anything because it's merely another version of a Unix based OS... should be free too but because it's owned and run by Apple they charge money for it. There is no direct competitor to Windows at this point in time. That would require all software to run on them just as well as Windows but since developers want to make money and Microsoft has basically pushed out all the competitors... which was my point... a monopoly (and declared as such years ago) but yet still allowed to grossly overcharge for it's product... hence my point if you read what I wrote.
> I swear nobody on this forum, with all their technical intellect, can for the life of them read between the lines or think past the words printed on the page in front of them.


Nice way to change your tune









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tout*
> 
> Then explain to me Microsoft's pricing of Windows.... it's worth about the cost of a game and yet they have been charging way more than that for years now with no direct competitor.












You originally said windows was worth the cost of a game. I said the reason windows was much more expensive was because of development and upkeep costs

Learn how to read


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adrenaline*
> 
> Not Bad Im Curious To see how to 4 And 6 Core PD's stand


2c/4T Pd is already beating true quad core AMD cpus...


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warmonger*
> 
> From the looks of it Vishera will at least beat out the Phenom II's, this is the only goal AMD has to accomplish for Vishera to be a success.


it already does(trinity vs llano)


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fetzher*
> 
> upgrade from my fx6100 to i5 3570k with a asrockz77 extreme3 or waiting for pd? need help


I always say 'If you're not in an urge, you can always wait'.

And that's what I do. I won't be in an urge until my X6 feels sluggish. And for the looks of the things, that isn't gonna happen anytime soon.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> 2c/4T Pd is already beating true quad core AMD cpus...


Only in *Integer* and no where near in/and FPU/Gflops.


----------



## GameBoy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> 2c/4T Pd is already beating true quad core AMD cpus...


There are no AMD CPUs with 2 cores and 4 threads... CPU-Z (and other programs) are just reporting it wrong.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GameBoy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> 2c/4T Pd is already beating true quad core AMD cpus...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no AMD CPUs with 2 cores and 4 threads... CPU-Z (and other programs) are just reporting it wrong.
Click to expand...

pretty much. the windows scheduler update just made BD 8 cores read like an i7 (4C/8T) when the thing has (and you can argue till the cows come home about it not being "full cores" or whatever) 8 real, physical cores in it. a pretty lame fix as it did pretty much nothing for performance.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> Only in *Integer* and no where near in/and FPU/Gflops.


2 module PD beats a true quad core llano on cinebench, both single and mutli threaded...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GameBoy*
> 
> There are no AMD CPUs with 2 cores and 4 threads... CPU-Z (and other programs) are just reporting it wrong.


sorry I meant 2M/4T(2 module/4T are not true Quad cores), in the past(BD) a 4M/8T was not able to beat a hexacore Phenom(using cine bench as benchmark) but now if a 2M/4T PD is beating Quad core Llano(enhanced Phenom cores without L3 cache) this means a 4M/8T could also beat a 32nm Octa core Phenom which is what everybody wanted instead of BD...

4M/8T PD will beat the socks off a hexa core phenom(on cinebench, using recent PD benchmarks)


----------



## trog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *obsidian86*
> 
> my sapphire pure black 990 has been sitting in its box waiting for this since may
> I might be getting a cheap 6990 to add to my 6970 but i first wanna see how vishera does in gaming


I am doing far more encoding now and down the road so i would really zoom in on the kind of price/performance the 6-8 core PDs bring to the table







Prefer to stick to mATX boards though


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> pretty much. the windows scheduler update just made BD 8 cores read like an i7 (4C/8T) when the thing has (and you can argue till the cows come home about it not being "full cores" or whatever) 8 real, physical cores in it. a pretty lame fix as it did pretty much nothing for performance.


4M/8T PD is not a true Octacore, and the fix seems only logical, to treat the second integer core as a Virtal Thread, why? well the OS sees 4 Real cores(full cores) and 4 extra threads and if the OS has only 4 things to do, it will send that work to the full 4 modules(4 full cores) instead of using only 2 modules, this does bring(in theory) more performance.. just like how you would expect an OS to do with Intel HT tech, it would make no sense for the OS to send the 4 jobs to the two real cores that have HT even if they do have 4 Threads..... makes sense to me to treat a 4M/8T PD as a Hyper Threaded+(the + is because PD has a full integer core, but lacks other hardware to make it a full core) and only use the entire 8T when need it


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> Only in *Integer* and no where near in/and FPU/Gflops.


With the old FP instruction sets, the modular design does fall behind. Consider all the new instruction sets supported and the performance advantage they can provide in many usage scenarios and the performance increase is clear.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> pretty much. the windows scheduler update just made BD 8 cores read like an i7 (4C/8T) when the thing has (and you can argue till the cows come home about it not being "full cores" or whatever) 8 real, physical cores in it. a pretty lame fix as it did pretty much nothing for performance.


IIRC Windows treats it like a 4C/8T with the hotfix so that it uses only one integer unit per module in ≤4 threaded workloads, which sometimes can make a noticeable difference.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fetzher*
> 
> upgrade from my fx6100 to i5 3570k with a asrockz77 extreme3 or waiting for pd? need help


Piledriver isn't as powerful as Ivybridge, but the cost to go Ivy from your position just isn't worth it. I would just wait for PD and get it IF you need it.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> 2 module PD beats a true quad core llano on cinebench, both single and mutli threaded...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry I meant 2M/4T(2 module/4T are not true Quad cores), in the past(BD) a 4M/8T was not able to beat a hexacore Phenom(using cine bench as benchmark) but now if a 2M/4T PD is beating Quad core Llano(enhanced Phenom cores without L3 cache) this means a 4M/8T could also beat a 32nm Octa core Phenom which is what everybody wanted instead of BD...
> 4M/8T PD will beat the socks off a hexa core phenom(on cinebench, using recent PD benchmarks)


This is not how Bulldozer works, read up about the modules in the cores before you post the same incorrect information twice.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> pretty much. the windows scheduler update just made BD 8 cores read like an i7 (4C/8T) when the thing has (and you can argue till the cows come home about it not being "full cores" or whatever) 8 real, physical cores in it. a pretty lame fix as it did pretty much nothing for performance.
> 
> 
> 
> With the old FP instruction sets, the modular design does fall behind. Consider all the new instruction sets supported and the performance advantage they can provide in many usage scenarios and the performance increase is clear.
> IIRC Windows treats it like a 4C/8T with the hotfix so that it uses only one integer unit per module in ≤4 threaded workloads, which sometimes can make a noticeable difference.
Click to expand...

Correct. It was changed to always utilize one thread on every module before putting a second thread onto a module. The update didn't really help performance much(at least in benchmarks) so I'd imagine windows was usually doing that before anyways.

There is a decent performance hit when running two threads on one module. About 10% by this test.


----------



## Metric

AMD Engineering Sample, ZD358246W6K54_41/35/20_2/8 (ES)



Piledriver
- FX-6300 3.5GHz base/4.1GHz turbo, 95W

Bulldozer
- FX-6100 3.3GHz base/3.9GHz turbo, 95W
- FX-6200 3.8GHz base/4.1GHz turbo, 125W

No benchmarks yet.


----------



## Slipgate

95 Watt 6 core I'm all over that =) I have a 6100 already but want to use my awesome cooler which isn't so awesome but it's easy to install.


----------



## Yankee495

I'm just hoping AMD can make a CPU that makes it worth upgrading my X4 [email protected] Just once I'd like to upgrade in the same socket! And Intel used to run so much cooler. I'd like to see a reasonably priced 95W X6 or X8 that can beat a PII X4 or X6 by a margin that would make it worth while for me to spend any money. 10% @ $300 is not the answer for me. I've been looking at PII X6's and for the price is just about isn't worth it.

People complain at the Intel prices but they do hold the crown. Honestly I'd like to see an all out war like back in the old days when it seemed like every 6 months a new chip came out that was worth the upgrade if you could afford it. And we all love this unlocked multiplier market, at lease we got one thing we begged for year after year.


----------



## Domino

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G3RG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Nice ... JOB?
> 
> 
> 
> What? It's true. If his math is correct PD is on par with a 2600k.
Click to expand...

Only took...a ...while...and still competing with a generation behind.

Not impressive by the least, especially when these are priced competitively on performance as opposed to pricing.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Only took...a ...while...and still competing with a generation behind.
> Not impressive by the least, especially when these are priced competitively on performance as opposed to pricing.


Those chicks haven't hatched yet.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GameBoy*
> 
> There are no AMD CPUs with 2 cores and 4 threads... CPU-Z (and other programs) are just reporting it wrong.


Nah, they are getting it perfectly right. I'm counting cores by FPU's as what I do is mostly putting floating point loads on CPU (relatively FFT heavy simulations of wave propagation in solids). I'm still on opinion that calling a module two cores is marketing. Although that horse has been beaten already on multiple occasions and I guess its best to just agree to disagree on this matter


----------



## hotrod717

Cannot wait to get one of these.







Was seriously starting to think i would have to go to the darkside. Shame on me!


----------



## frozne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Only took...a ...while...and still competing with a generation behind.
> Not impressive by the least, especially when these are priced competitively on performance as opposed to pricing.


If it is equal to SB, i don't see what the issue is. IVB is what, on average a 6-8% improvement on SB in terms of performance? I'll buy PD based on that, especially given the large overclocking headroom they usually have. In terms of pricing, I hope they do the same thing Intel did (I can't imagine that they wouldn't). After Intel priced down SB, the IVB replacements were about 30 dollars more. An 83xx PD between 170-220 is worth it from what I have seen so far.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino*
> 
> Only took...a ...while...and still competing with a generation behind.
> Not impressive by the least, especially when these are priced competitively on performance as opposed to pricing.


IB vs SB performance is impressive?


----------



## jtom320

It's not even close to being equal to a 2600k. Single threaded it still gets killed even if all this is true.

Which is the important part.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> IB vs SB performance is impressive?


Yes considering the last time intel had a tick all we got was dual core i5s and the 980X/970. With no improvements per core.


----------



## mayford5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Nah, they are getting it perfectly right. I'm counting cores by FPU's as what I do is mostly putting floating point loads on CPU (relatively FFT heavy simulations of wave propagation in solids). I'm still on opinion that calling a module two cores is marketing. Although that horse has been beaten already on multiple occasions and I guess its best to just agree to disagree on this matter


I know I fought you on that before but I am starting to agree with you. If you take performance into account as well it probably would be a better way to classify.


----------



## Particle

You can't use performance as a basis to classify physical and logical topology. By that logic you'd be justified calling a Xeon Phi a 20-core despite it clearly having 50 P54C derived cores.

The real problem is that you guys are trying to shoe horn a modern construct into one of two existing classifications, neither of which accurately describes what it is. The answer for if it's more correct to call it a quad core or eight core is humorously that both options are wrong.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> You can't use performance as a basis to classify physical and logical topology. By that logic you'd be justified calling a Xeon Phi a 20-core despite it clearly having 50 P54C derived cores.
> The real problem is that you guys are trying to shoe horn a modern construct into one of two existing classifications, neither of which accurately describes what it is. The answer for if it's more correct to call it a quad core or eight core is humorously that both options are wrong.


I'd much rather call it A hybrid. >.> imo.


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> You can't use performance as a basis to classify physical and logical topology. By that logic you'd be justified calling a Xeon Phi a 20-core despite it clearly having 50 P54C derived cores.
> The real problem is that you guys are trying to shoe horn a modern construct into one of two existing classifications, neither of which accurately describes what it is. The answer for if it's more correct to call it a quad core or eight core is humorously that both options are wrong.


And this is why we should call BD's and piledrivers 4 module CPU's or quad module's. So its AMD's quad module's vs Intel's quad core's.


----------



## mufdvr3669

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> And this is why we should call BD's and piledrivers 4 module CPU's or quad module's. So its AMD's quad module's vs Intel's quad core's.


Who cares what someone else calls it. I call the 8150 a single core and Intel an eight core. So according to my opinion the amd smokes Intel on core per core yet changes nothing in actual benchmarks.


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mufdvr3669*
> 
> Who cares what someone else calls it. I call the 8150 a single core and Intel an eight core. So according to my opinion the amd smokes Intel on core per core yet changes nothing in actual benchmarks.


I care. Having a discussion with another person is easier when it clear whats been talked about. If someone stays they are going to buy a 4 core piledriver it's confusing as its not clear if they mean the 2 module CPU or the 4 module CPU. If they just say 4 module CPU its instantly clear which model they are talking about and hence less chance for confusion.


----------



## BizzareRide

Can't believe we have people with Ivy Bridges freaking out when the results show that PD only around 10% faster...

Its still 50%+ slower in IPC.


----------



## Capt

Can't wait to grab one of these bad boys.


----------



## Scorpion667

Watching AMD performance charts is like watching a Forever Alone try to get out of the friend zone.
EMBARASSING


----------



## mufdvr3669

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BizzareRide*
> 
> Can't believe we have people with Ivy Bridges freaking out when the results show that PD only around 10% faster...
> Its still 50%+ slower in IPC.


It's sad someone with an IB would freak out actually. This isn't like your favorite sports team losing, it's a dang processor.


----------



## black96ws6

I still don't understand people saying they can't wait to get one.

Seriously, I am not seeing a difference or barely a difference between BD and PD in multi or single-threaded? Am I just missing something?

Someone want to chime in here?

BD: 5.99



PD: 5.73


----------



## superericla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BizzareRide*
> 
> Can't believe we have people with Ivy Bridges freaking out when the results show that PD only around 10% faster...
> *Its still 50%+ slower in IPC.*


What about IPS? That's more important than IPC in a lot of situations anyways and is better at showing overall processor speed.


----------



## Particle

It depends on what you're trying to compare. If you want to compare how fast a CPU is compared to another including clock frequency differences then IPS describes that. It's useful if you want to compare how fast CPU X versus CPU Y is as a finished product and is what we do when we benchmark. You can see this quite literally, especially in old school benchmarks, where the results are related in xIPS such as MIPS. If instead you want to compare two CPUs excluding clock frequency then IPC describes that. It's useful when you want to compare how much a given architecture can manage compared to another. This is what you want to do if you're debating architectural improvements themselves like we're doing here. If frequency of the final product increased by 50% it isn't simply enough to be happy with the extra performance. We'd want to know where it came from, and that requires talking about IPC instead of just overall throughput. We're not just trying to compare the final package.


----------



## Capt

PD could still be faster than what this website shows it to be. It's still very early to talk about PD.


----------



## Otterclock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alcal*
> 
> But an antitrust suit wouldn't make a competitor appear out of thin air. I wonder would would happen if AMD kicked the bucket... Would the government bail it out? I guess it depends on the election to some extent but it's probably a question that won't have to be asked just yet.


Out of thin air, it can. 1984, The United States vs. AT&T. The U.S. Department of Justice forced it to split into seven independent companies. "Ma' Bell" was no more.


----------



## Tonim89

We are talking about AMD.

They much less money to play with and research than Intel. It's a miracle we still see some competition in the x86-64 segment.

Lookin at price-performance, this chip could be the best4buck in the last years. If it gets the price point under the 2500K, and the performance shown in this thread, i think is a WIN for AMD.


----------



## <({D34TH})>

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> I still don't understand people saying they can't wait to get one.
> Seriously, I am not seeing a difference or barely a difference between BD and PD in multi or single-threaded? Am I just missing something?
> Someone want to chime in here?
> BD: 5.99
> 
> PD: 5.73


You are comparing a *engineering sample based on the 8300, the slowest PD 8-Core,* to a *8150, the fastest BD 8-Core.* At best, the 8300 is meant to replace the 8120 (CB 5.04)/8120.


----------



## mufdvr3669

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *<({D34TH})>*
> 
> You are comparing a *engineering sample based on the 8300, the slowest PD 8-Core,* to a *8150, the fastest BD 8-Core.* At best, the 8300 is meant to replace the 8120 (CB 5.04)/8120.


And not to mention some people don't buy it to run cinebench benchmarks.


----------



## Heuchler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tonim89*
> 
> We are talking about AMD.
> They much less money to play with and research than Intel. It's a miracle we still see some competition in the x86-64 segment.
> Lookin at price-performance, this chip could be the best4buck in the last years. If it gets the price point under the 2500K, and the performance shown in this thread, i think is a WIN for AMD.


one of the few posts that was worth reading in this thread. like always it starts very good and soon went down hill.

wish AMD didn't make everybody change motherboard every 12months. socket 1156, socket 1336, socket 1156 and now socket 2011. not including server side.

point is - if you have an AM3+ motherboard this might be a good upgrade (x4, x6 or zambezi owners).

if they offered a new processor for my LGA 775 motherboards that would bring it to current processor speed I wouldn't mind. And Intel would get my money.
But that I can pickup a X6 1045T from microcenter for $100 (with a free mobo) and overclock to run head-to-head with an i7-920.

I have build and overclocked i5-750, i7-920 and i5-2500k. In the end, my old X4 runs rather well with my current video card. I always love seeing people
asking for help on what to upgrade with a $200 budget. And instead of spending $50 on a x4 (coming from a dual core AM2+ system) and $150 on video card
(GTX 660 ti or Radeon 6870). people always recommend getting a brand new intel platform. $200 sand bridge cpu/motherboard combo don't do magic if the graphic card
is old or entry level.

Matching components is rather important for people without infinite resources.

seems like Vishera is what Zambezi should have been from the start.

I'm planning on getting a Vishera combo from Microcenter on launch if they fixed the power leaks (when overclocking). Trinity was a very good indicator and the beginning
of the thread was very good. Single tasking isn't that important to me since back to the OS/2 warp days. And if all the rumors about the next generation game counsel are true.
Counsel ports could have a significant advantage on AMD platforms.


----------



## Asterox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> I still don't understand people saying they can't wait to get one.
> *Seriously, I am not seeing a difference or barely a difference between BD and PD in multi or single-threaded? Am I just missing something?*
> Someone want to chime in here?
> BD: 5.99
> 
> PD: 5.73


Things are just very simple question is whether you see the difference?









*FX-8150/3.6ghz/Cinebench 11.5 - 5.99

Piledriver/ 3.3ghz/Cinebench 11.5 - 5.73
*

Piledriver processor that replaces the FX-8150, will have a minimum 4.0 stock CPU frequency and this Piledriver CPU at 3.3GHz in Cinebench 11.5 replaces the FX-8120.









*FX-8120/3.1ghz/Cinebench 11.5 - 5.04*

http://www.overclock.net/t/1291114/coolaler-amd-piledriver-fx-vishera-engineering-sample-benchmarks/60#post_17878079


----------



## ChronoBodi

dunno if this links count, but, you think Cinebench 11.5 might be biased toward intel? As in, the program lets intel uses all instructions, but when it encounters AMD cpu, it only lets it execute older instructions even though it may be capable of the same newer instructions.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49


----------



## Tonim89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heuchler*
> 
> one of the few posts that was worth reading in this thread. like always it starts very good and soon went down hill.
> wish AMD didn't make everybody change motherboard every 12months. socket 1156, socket 1336, socket 1156 and now socket 2011. not including server side.
> point is - if you have an AM3+ motherboard this might be a good upgrade (x4, x6 or zambezi owners).
> if they offered a new processor for my LGA 775 motherboards that would bring it to current processor speed I wouldn't mind. And Intel would get my money.
> But that I can pickup a X6 1045T from microcenter for $100 (with a free mobo) and overclock to run head-to-head with an i7-920.
> I have build and overclocked i5-750, i7-920 and i5-2500k. In the end, my old X4 runs rather well with my current video card. I always love seeing people
> asking for help on what to upgrade with a $200 budget. And instead of spending $50 on a x4 (coming from a dual core AM2+ system) and $150 on video card
> (GTX 660 ti or Radeon 6870). people always recommend getting a brand new intel platform. $200 sand bridge cpu/motherboard combo don't do magic if the graphic card
> is old or entry level.
> Matching components is rather important for people without infinite resources.
> seems like Vishera is what Zambezi should have been from the start.
> I'm planning on getting a Vishera combo from Microcenter on launch if they fixed the power leaks (when overclocking). Trinity was a very good indicator and the beginning
> of the thread was very good. Single tasking isn't that important to me since back to the OS/2 warp days. And if all the rumors about the next generation game counsel are true.
> Counsel ports could have a significant advantage on AMD platforms.


Any major changes in the CPU archtecture demands a new socket, no matter if it is Intel or AMD. The difference is that Intel adopted the Tick-Tock system, launching a new socket every 2 years. The first big change in the K9 architecture came followed by a new socket (Agena ring any bells?). The same happened in the FX-Series.

If you decide to buy any Intel-based platform, you know it will be dead in two years. Even though, you get enough performance for 4 years, instead of 2... no point complaining about socket changes.


----------



## Particle

That's not really that accurate. Only changes to the external architecture or significant power distribution changes necessitate a new socket. If you want to add DisplayPort output direct from the socket, change memory types, change the physical package size/shape, go to triple channel RAM, or something like that which impacts IO or power then sure you'll need a new socket. You could heavily revamp the CPU logic itself, however, without necessarily needing a new socket.


----------



## IvantheDugtrio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tonim89*
> 
> Any major changes in the CPU archtecture demands a new socket, no matter if it is Intel or AMD. The difference is that Intel adopted the Tick-Tock system, launching a new socket every 2 years. The first big change in the K9 architecture came followed by a new socket (Agena ring any bells?). The same happened in the FX-Series.
> If you decide to buy any Intel-based platform, you know it will be dead in two years. Even though, you get enough performance for 4 years, instead of 2... no point complaining about socket changes.


Not exactly. Socket 1156 only lasted one tick which was especially annoying since at the time I built my mini-ITX rig it was horribly outdated the moment sandy bridge came out, along with the fact that changing motherboard in this case (NES) is especially difficult (things like the I/O shield are glued to the back).


----------



## S.M.

What I don't understand is why AMD is trying to appeal to the enthusiast overclocking market. There's hardly any money here.

Bulldozer was grossly under-clocked. I've had my hands on several FX-8120's and they all perform 4.2Ghz on stock voltages with no massaging and producing very little added heat. It's as if they kept the clocks low on purpose to allow users massive and fun overclocks of over almost 2000Mhz, or they are keeping them low on purpose to save for their next revision. The latter is a business strategy I don't understand implementing when you are behind and have very little market share. Competitiveness and reputation pay higher dividends than frugal restrictions saved for successors. I don't know how terrible GloFlo is but I can't imagine their QC to be so bad that AMD is releasing clocks so low to cover their bases for lowest common denominator.

What if they just released a consumer desktop line with a locked multiplier and optimized clock speeds. The only thing stopping them is power consumption but BD's idle power gating and RCM more than make up for peak power consumption for the average user. Besides that, how often do you have someone in a retail store ask about power consumption when computer shopping? Hardly ever.

Even my A6-3420m and everyone else's mobile Llano is incredibly under-clocked and over-volted. Stock clock is 1.5Ghz at 1.325v, but it easily performs 2.8Ghz at 1.32v and 2200Mhz at 1.112v within the same thermal envelope. Except in this case power consumption is not the issue, because the idle profile is 800Mhz at 0.932v and it is completely rock stable at 0.715v and I am still testing lower voltages.

I don't see the enthusiast market bringing in enough money AMD needs. They need a rock solid and competitive desktop powerplant that OEMs want. Then they need to take that money and invest in R&D and marketing to become a household name.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> What I don't understand is why AMD is trying to appeal to the enthusiast overclocking market. There's hardly any money here.
> Bulldozer was grossly under-clocked. I've had my hands on several FX-8120's and they all perform 4.2Ghz on stock voltages with no massaging and producing very little added heat. It's as if they kept the clocks low on purpose to allow users massive and fun overclocks of over almost 2000Mhz, or they are keeping them low on purpose to save for their next revision.


The opposite is likely true, they are trying to appeal to OEMs at the expensive of enthusiasts. 125 Watts is already 30 watts higher than SB at 95W(and 30% higher). 125W may have been a hard ceiling, the most OEMs would tolerate.

AMDs growing number of 95W chips seems to provide proof of that.


----------



## geoxile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IvantheDugtrio*
> 
> Not exactly. Socket 1156 only lasted one tick which was especially annoying since at the time I built my mini-ITX rig it was horribly outdated the moment sandy bridge came out, along with the fact that changing motherboard in this case (NES) is especially difficult (things like the I/O shield are glued to the back).


1156 was around for a tock and a tick (tocks come first). In fact... your i5 650 is the tick, the die shrink.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *<({D34TH})>*
> 
> You are comparing a *engineering sample based on the 8300, the slowest PD 8-Core,* to a *8150, the fastest BD 8-Core.* At best, the 8300 is meant to replace the 8120 (CB 5.04)/8120.


3.3ghz vs 3.6ghz is all you had to say, not to mention there were no clock for clock performance differences vs B0 Bulldozer and production Bulldozer.

The results are disheartening, that is all.


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> The results are disheartening, that is all.


Disheartening?


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IvantheDugtrio*
> 
> Not exactly. Socket 1156 only lasted one tick which was especially annoying since at the time I built my mini-ITX rig it was horribly outdated the moment sandy bridge came out, along with the fact that changing motherboard in this case (NES) is especially difficult (things like the I/O shield are glued to the back).


Uh, you get a new I/O shield with any new mobo purchase. Remove CPU, insert into new mobo. VOILA! Magic, apparently, for you.

Also, 1156 is far from outdated or overrated. While you're complaining about it, I'm getting +60 FPS minimum in BF3, maxed out all but textures (on high) and only with a mild overclock.

So much for "horribly outdated."
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> Disheartening?


If you don't see this as disheartening... what do you see it as? Promising? Is AMD ready to sweep Haswell?!


----------



## mufdvr3669

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> 3.3ghz vs 3.6ghz is all you had to say, not to mention there were no clock for clock performance differences vs B0 Bulldozer and production Bulldozer.
> The results are disheartening, that is all.


b0 stepping got 5.63 when overclocked to 4ghz for the 8 core version according to here http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1615522. this 3.3ghz trinity beats that. Might be a slight increase when it get to production version.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mufdvr3669*
> 
> Who cares what someone else calls it. I call the 8150 a single core and Intel an eight core. So according to my opinion the amd smokes Intel on core per core yet changes nothing in actual benchmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> I care. Having a discussion with another person is easier when it clear whats been talked about. If someone stays they are going to buy a 4 core piledriver it's confusing as its not clear if they mean the 2 module CPU or the 4 module CPU. If they just say 4 module CPU its instantly clear which model they are talking about and hence less chance for confusion.
Click to expand...

It's an 8 core CPU, some people say 4 cores but by their logic you can't really consider (say) a 386 to have a core as it doesn't have an FPU at all.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BizzareRide*
> 
> Can't believe we have people with Ivy Bridges freaking out when the results show that PD only around 10% faster...
> 
> Its still 50%+ slower in IPC.


IPC means just as much as clock speed on its own, absolutely nothing. We have the rough IPC results but what if (I don't think it's likely or that it would happen) it OCed a lot better than BD, IB, etc? Clock speed could make up the IPC.

IPC also changes depending on what workload, PD would be faster than IB for some tasks (eg. Handbrake transcoding) because BD has equal IPC to SB and IB there.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> dunno if this links count, but, you think Cinebench 11.5 might be biased toward intel? As in, the program lets intel uses all instructions, but when it encounters AMD cpu, it only lets it execute older instructions even though it may be capable of the same newer instructions.
> 
> http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49


A quick google search does show that they used the Intel Compiler, but I thought Intel had removed the purposely gimp CPUs based on brand as opposed to what they can actually do.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *<({D34TH})>*
> 
> You are comparing a *engineering sample based on the 8300, the slowest PD 8-Core,* to a *8150, the fastest BD 8-Core.* At best, the 8300 is meant to replace the 8120 (CB 5.04)/8120.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.3ghz vs 3.6ghz is all you had to say, not to mention there were no clock for clock performance differences vs B0 Bulldozer and production Bulldozer.
> 
> The results are disheartening, that is all.
Click to expand...

Actually, there were. A lot of pre-release benchmarks showed BD to be fairly slower than it really is, the reality is that it's about equal if a tiny bit faster than a Phenom II when both are overclocked.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mufdvr3669*
> 
> b0 stepping got 5.63 when overclocked to 4ghz for the 8 core version according to here http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1615522. this 3.3ghz trinity beats that. Might be a slight increase when it get to production version.


Funny there's no graph with that one. Because 1200Mhz increase would have net significantly more than only a 1 point increase. However, the 4.6 score for 2.8ghz B0 in CB is spot on. As it should be. So my statement still stands.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Actually, there were. A lot of pre-release benchmarks showed BD to be fairly slower than it really is, the reality is that it's about equal if a tiny bit faster than a Phenom II when both are overclocked.


Maybe the A0 models. Anything other than that you can blame on early BIOS or faulty turbo, unless you would like to sift through it all and prove me otherwise. Because we were both there, in every BD thread 1 year before release or more.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> Disheartening?


Yes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*
> 
> If you don't see this as disheartening... what do you see it as? Promising? Is AMD ready to sweep Haswell?!


Don't give _me_ a bad a rep. This is clearly a troll. Disheartening is simply my opinion on things, as i like AMD.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Actually, there were. A lot of pre-release benchmarks showed BD to be fairly slower than it really is, the reality is that it's about equal if a tiny bit faster than a Phenom II when both are overclocked.


A lot of post-release benchmarks still show it being slower than a Phenom II.


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*
> 
> If you don't see this as disheartening... what do you see it as? Promising? Is AMD ready to sweep Haswell?!


Oh, so you were expecting AMD to improve 50% with one revision on the same socket and chipset.

AMD only stated a 10% increase in x86, which could come from many factors of IPS, very likely clock speed. But instead promised large improvements in other forms of usability. Specifically power consumption.

Trinity's only goal was to decrease power consumption, yet people assumed it should be something that it isn't. In fact, mobile Trinity performs anywhere from 1 to 5 percent slower than Llano but provides much more battery life.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> Oh, so you were expecting AMD to improve 50% with one revision on the same socket and chipset.
> AMD only stated a 10% increase in x86, which could come from many factors of IPS, very likely clock speed. But instead promised large improvements in other forms of usability. Specifically power consumption.
> Trinity's only goal was to decrease power consumption, yet people assumed it should be something that it isn't.


I don't even think this is quite a 10% increase though. With Trinity we were seeing closer and beyond 15% IPC increase in certain benchmarks over BD.

Trinity's main goal was reducing die space requirement for the CPU, for more GPU area. The power savings are nice, too.


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> I don't even think this is quite a 10% increase though. With Trinity we were seeing closer and beyond 15% IPC increase in certain benchmarks over BD.
> Trinity's main goal was reducing die space requirement for the CPU, for more GPU area. The power savings are nice, too.


That doesn't make sense because the 7xxx IGPs they're using are also die shrinks of the previous 6xxx IGPs.


----------



## mufdvr3669

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Funny there's no graph with that one. Because 1200Mhz increase would have net significantly more than only a 1 point increase. However, the 4.6 score for 2.8ghz B0 in CB is spot on. As it should be. So my statement still stands.
> .


So because there are no graphs you don't believe it. BTW the 4.6 score was an overclock to 3.2ghz of the b0 version which is about what a production bulldozer at 2.8ghz scores. So my statement still stands, that the preproduction version might be slower than the production version. BTW pics of the score can be found here to further authenticate this "funny" thing. http://www.chiphell.com/thread-210890-1-1.html


----------



## Tonim89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> That doesn't make sense because the 7xxx IGPs they're using are also die shrinks of the previous 6xxx IGPs.


Not exactly/only a die shrink, since they have less shader units and perform considerably higher than Llano.

Trinity is a nice parameter to speculate about Vishera, but is not the only one.


----------



## erunion

I was under the impression that bulldozer modules were developed as part of AMD's plan to move to HSA. Halfing the number of FPU makes more sense when combined with an integrated GPU.

So it seems ironic that Llano got Stars and Zembezi got bulldozer.


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> I was under the impression that bulldozer modules were developed as part of AMD's plan to move to HSA. Halfing the number of FPU makes more sense when combined with an integrated GPU.
> So it seems ironic that Llano got Stars and Zembezi got bulldozer.


You can achieve HSA with any architecture. AMD has done it on Bobcat, Stars and Piledriver.

AMD's "Module" is just a clustered integer core. Implemented to compete with hyper-threading. Multi-threaded benchmarks between Thuban and Bulldozer perform similar when it's the only program running. But my FX-8120 handles 10+ workloads much better than my 1055t did. Not that I do that too often.


----------



## HanakoIkezawa

this thread is nothing but 35 pages of circles


----------



## HAVO

thats a quick run of my 8120 @3.32ghz..

so yea, there is an improvement


----------



## tambok2012

ALL I WANT IS THE FX-4300

.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> You can achieve HSA with any architecture. AMD has done it on Bobcat, Stars and Piledriver.
> AMD's "Module" is just a clustered integer core. Implemented to compete with hyper-threading. Multi-threaded benchmarks between Thuban and Bulldozer perform similar when it's the only program running. But my FX-8120 handles 10+ workloads much better than my 1055t did. Not that I do that too often.


AMD hasn't achieved HSA yet. They use the term to mean integrating the GPU fully into the CPU as a co-processor with shared memory space, that's a few years out still.

Like I said, I believe bulldozer modules were created to provide the CPU cores for that eventual product.


----------



## ebduncan

I don't expect much from the new chips. Certainly not going to be an intel killer, many hyped bulldozer to be. Truth be told it would have been nice if it launched with the first Core series processors came out. Everything people complain about the FX processors pretty much the first gen i7's had. = high power draw.. However they were king at their time, so they got put in better light.

Pile driver will still be a slower than sandy bridge single thread. Bulldozer was slower single thread than phenom 2. What we will likely see from Pile driver is ipc matching phenom 2 level maybe a tad higher, not much though.

vs Intel Pile-Driver is likely to be in the same position vs Ivy Bridge as Bulldozer was vs Sandy bridge. In other words Gaming = ivy bridge, mutithread= piledriver.

The only X factor there is, is if Pile driver proves to be a even better overclocker than Bulldozer. If people can manage 5.5-6ghz outta these things under liquid cooling, then well Tables might just turn in all areas. I doubt this will be the case, however i do believe Pile Driver will overclock better than Bulldozer. We are likely to see 5ghz+ more commonly.

Simple fact is Ivy Bridge is 30-55% faster in Single thread clock for clock vs Bulldozer. Even if Pile driver is 15% faster than Bulldozer in IPC. Ivy Bridge would still be 15-40% faster single thread depending on the workload. Most people are not getting 4.7ghz+ out of IVY Bridge. So on the low side of things a Ivy Bridge at 4.7ghz, would require a 5.4ghz-6.4 ghz clock speed to match its performance in single thread depending on the workload. 5.4ghz might be possible lol, but i doubt 6.4ghz would be.

In other words its likely not much is going to change. Pile Driver will be a decent cpu, depending on what price it launches at, and if it made good strides in power consumption under load. It already had a really nice and low idle wattage.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*
> 
> dunno if this links count, but, you think Cinebench 11.5 might be biased toward intel? As in, the program lets intel uses all instructions, but when it encounters AMD cpu, it only lets it execute older instructions even though it may be capable of the same newer instructions.
> http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49


Phoronix saw some notable performance increases on BD when compiling everything from source in Gentoo with -O3 aggressive optimizations and a specialized version of the Open64 compiler. An overclocked FX in AIDA64, which claims to optimize for specific systems, isn't far behind the 3960X. FMA4 can net an up to 20x speed boost over the 2600k with BD occasionally (with the benefit being much, much smaller most of the time of course). BD is also very competitive with the 2600k when AVX and especially AES are involved -- look at TrueCrypt; BD is up there with the Intel hexacores.

Then there are some programs that just can't or won't be optimized for. In the end IMO Steamroller's platform revamp combined with HSA will be BD's saving grace, not the rare optimized program.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> AMD hasn't achieved HSA yet. They use the term to mean integrating the GPU fully into the CPU as a co-processor with shared memory space, that's a few years out still.
> *Like I said, I believe bulldozer modules were created to provide the CPU cores for that eventual product.*


This.


----------



## MLSCrow

Dissect as you please, but we all know that an i7 2600K at stock speeds, scores around 6.83 in Cinebench 11.5 Multi-threaded. Overclocked to 4.9, it scores 9.54, therefore, it can be deduced that the 8.81 that was scored by the 2700K in the ES leaked pictures, was clocked at around 4.5GHz, give or take a hundred MHz. We also know that an FX8150 BD at stock speeds (3.6GHz base) scores 5.99 in CB11.5MT. Overclocked to 4.818GHz (air), it can achieve 7.95. An FX8120 (3.1GHz) scores 5.04. So, based on these legitimate numbers (Bit-tech, Anandtech, Overclockersclub.com, Legitreviews, and more) we can then deduce that a 3.3GHz version of BD _should_ score somewhere around the 5.46 to 5.52 zone.

Since the ES sample, at 3.32GHz, scored a 5.73, that's _about_ a 5% performance increase over a BD of the same GHz level. That is not the 10-15% improvement we were told by AMD, however, by these numbers, we can deduce that an FX8350, overclocked to 5.0GHz, which I think is going to be doable, will net an approximate CB11.5MT score of _around_ 8.7, which is better than a 2500K overclocked to 5.0GHz _(7.71)_, better than a 3570K clocked to 5GHz _(8.22)_, better than a 2600K stock _(7.49)_ and almost as good as a 2600K at 4.5GHz _(8.81)_.

Now, _If_ AMD delivers on the additional 5-10% performance that they have told us to expect from Vishera (and that's a big "_if_"), we would then see the [email protected] scoring anywhere from 9.13 to 9.57, which would then put it truly in the realm of both SB and IB (equally overclocked) and we will all finally have a decent alternative to Intel, if it's priced appropriately, that is...at least for all the Cinebench players out there. ROFL


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MLSCrow*
> 
> Dissect as you please, but we all know that an i7 2600K at stock speeds, scores around 6.83 in Cinebench 11.5 Multi-threaded. Overclocked to 4.9, it scores 9.54, therefore, it's fairly safe to assume that the 8.81 that was scored in the ES leaked pictures, was a 2700K clocked to around 4.5GHz, give or take a hundred MHz. We also know that an FX8150 BD at stock speeds (3.6GHz base) scores 5.99 in CB11.5MT. Overclocked to 4.818GHz (air), it can achieve 7.95. An FX8120 (3.1GHz) scores 5.04. So, based on these legitimate numbers (Bit-tech, Anandtech, Overclockersclub.com, Legitreviews, and more) we can then deduce that a 3.3GHz version _should_ score somewhere around the 5.46 to 5.52 zone.
> Since the ES sample, at 3.32GHz, scored a 5.73, that's about a 5% performance increase over a BD of the same GHz level. That is not the 10-15% improvement we were told by AMD, however, by these numbers, we can deduce that an FX8350, overclocked to 5.0GHz, which I think is going to be doable, will net an approximate CB11.5MT score of _around_ 8.7, which is better than a 2500K overclocked to 5.0GHz _(7.71)_, better than a 3570K clocked to 5GHz _(8.22)_, better than a 2600K stock _(7.49)_ and almost as good as a 2600K at 4.5GHz _(8.81)_.
> Now, _If_ AMD delivers on the additional 5-10% performance that they have told us to expect from Vishera (and that's a big "_if_"), we would then see the [email protected] scoring anywhere from 9.13 to 9.57, which would then put it truly in the realm of both SB and IB (equally overclocked) and we will all finally have a decent alternative to Intel, if it's priced appropriately, that is...at least for all the Cinebench players out there.


Considering the difference between B0 and B2 Bulldozer and looking at this C0 I really would be surprised if they didn't hit the 10-15% IPC boost target.

That said, I love Cinebench. Very productive and entertaining. I spend most of my time running it.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> That said, I love Cinebench. Very productive and entertaining. I spend most of my time running it.


The irony!! I can feel it on my mind!!

C0 and C2 bulldozer had nonexistant differences (almost) because it was already mature enough, but Piledriver is an iteration, so it's more likely to get a microcode update. Although I wouldn't expect any performance difference.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Considering the difference between B0 and B2 Bulldozer and looking at this C0 I really would be surprised if they didn't hit the 10-15% IPC boost target.
> That said, I love Cinebench. Very productive and entertaining. I spend most of my time running it.


Hilarious









+ Rep


----------



## Adrenaline

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tambok2012*
> 
> ALL I WANT IS THE FX-4300
> 
> .


Yep I agree cant wait to get One


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Actually, there were. A lot of pre-release benchmarks showed BD to be fairly slower than it really is, the reality is that it's about equal if a tiny bit faster than a Phenom II when both are overclocked.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the A0 models. Anything other than that you can blame on early BIOS or faulty turbo, unless you would like to sift through it all and prove me otherwise. Because we were both there, in every BD thread 1 year before release or more.
Click to expand...

There were a few truthful ones but there were a lot that showed lower performance than retail, however even if I get proof there's so many variables that it really ends up being moot.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Actually, there were. A lot of pre-release benchmarks showed BD to be fairly slower than it really is, the reality is that it's about equal if a tiny bit faster than a Phenom II when both are overclocked.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of post-release benchmarks still show it being slower than a Phenom II.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the real world says what? I don't care if the Phenom II I have sitting in my drawer runs 3DMark faster, I don't use that regularly. It's practically equal in performance.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> There were a few truthful ones but there were a lot that showed lower performance than retail, however even if I get proof there's so many variables that it really ends up being moot.
> Yeah, and the real world says what? I don't care if the Phenom II I have sitting in my drawer runs 3DMark faster, I don't use that regularly. It's practically equal in performance.


Benchmarks doesn't mean only synthetics like 3Dmark.

Here is one, for example.


----------



## icehotshot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> vs Intel Pile-Driver is likely to be in the same position vs Ivy Bridge as Bulldozer was vs Sandy bridge. In other words Gaming = ivy bridge, mutithread= piledriver.


I'm pretty sure it was, Intel for gaming, Bulldozer for multithreaded apps while on a _small budget_ and Intel for multithreaded apps without a small budget.

AMD is competing with Intel's midrange that is why I don't see how PD is going to crush anything. Everyone with a 2600k is still going to have a faster chip and that is basically going to be 2 years old by the time PD is released.


----------



## Tonim89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Benchmarks doesn't mean only synthetics like 3Dmark.
> Here is one, for example.


This chart only shows that Just Cause 2 is clock hungry, and have a slightly preference for Sandy Bridge to run better.

And I don't really trust this chart completely. I never saw any Phenom to be beaten by a 14 fps (i5 2400 vs X4 955 - 100 MHz difference) in this resolution. Maybe in 1024x768 it could happen, but not in 1080p.


----------



## patricksiglin

@Brutuz, I can almost guarantee you that PD won't do 5.5 GHZ stable on air.

I bet it's closer to 4.8 - 5.0 24/7 *stable* on air. Not being pessimistic, but rather realistic.[/quote]

Still would be impressive at those speeds.


----------



## HAVO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MLSCrow*
> 
> Dissect as you please, but we all know that an i7 2600K at stock speeds, scores around 6.83 in Cinebench 11.5 Multi-threaded. Overclocked to 4.9, it scores 9.54, therefore, it can be deduced that the 8.81 that was scored by the 2700K in the ES leaked pictures, was clocked at around 4.5GHz, give or take a hundred MHz. We also know that an FX8150 BD at stock speeds (3.6GHz base) scores 5.99 in CB11.5MT. Overclocked to 4.818GHz (air), it can achieve 7.95. An FX8120 (3.1GHz) scores 5.04. So, based on these legitimate numbers (Bit-tech, Anandtech, Overclockersclub.com, Legitreviews, and more) *we can then deduce that a 3.3GHz version of BD should score somewhere around the 5.46 to 5.52 zone.*
> Since the ES sample, at 3.32GHz, scored a 5.73, that's _about_ a 5% performance increase over a BD of the same GHz level. That is not the 10-15% improvement we were told by AMD, however, by these numbers, we can deduce that an FX8350, overclocked to 5.0GHz, which I think is going to be doable, will net an approximate CB11.5MT score of _around_ 8.7, which is better than a 2500K overclocked to 5.0GHz _(7.71)_, better than a 3570K clocked to 5GHz _(8.22)_, better than a 2600K stock _(7.49)_ and almost as good as a 2600K at 4.5GHz _(8.81)_.
> Now, _If_ AMD delivers on the additional 5-10% performance that they have told us to expect from Vishera (and that's a big "_if_"), we would then see the [email protected] scoring anywhere from 9.13 to 9.57, which would then put it truly in the realm of both SB and IB (equally overclocked) and we will all finally have a decent alternative to Intel, if it's priced appropriately, that is...at least for all the Cinebench players out there. ROFL


dont "deduce" it, use my result i posted man



there you have a [email protected] 3.32ghz (5.34 points)

now i dare you to do the same math you did all over again


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MLSCrow*
> 
> AMD delivers on the additional 5-10% performance that they have told us


they already have delivered this 15% performance encrease, heck and that PD Module was lacking the L3 cache the BD Module was test against, Trinity delivers upto 15% performance encrease over BD even if it lacks the L3 Cache, now with the L3 cache we may even see 20% performance encrease...









Toms Hardware Review..."Piledriver clearly completes our workload much faster, yielding a 15% improvement, per clock cycle, over Bulldozer."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-2.html

guys keep in mind this is a ES Chip, one can expect 20% performance encrease(thanks to L3 and other tweaks) on Retail Vishera...


----------



## drbaltazar

why do some compare server chip vs desktop chip!intel and amd are so close.are they winthin margin of error in cinebench?i see the number but i dont know the value for that test to be within margin of error!looks insanelly close!


----------



## taimat

AMD IS BACK!!!


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HAVO*
> 
> dont "deduce" it, use my result i posted man
> 
> there you have a [email protected] 3.32ghz (5.34 points)
> now i dare you to do the same math you did all over again


7% IPC increase.


----------



## drbaltazar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Benchmarks doesn't mean only synthetics like 3Dmark.
> Here is one, for example.


mm!so someone with a amd x4 980 worthy machine will be having good service from their faitfull old machine!not the fastest but fast enough that the average homer wont care?good info!espacially with the economy being harsh,majority will try to extend the life of their computer!


----------



## Bit_reaper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> why do some compare server chip vs desktop chip!intel and amd are so close.are they winthin margin of error in cinebench?i see the number but i dont know the value for that test to be within margin of error!looks insanelly close!


Cinebench is in my experience very accurate provided you run it with minimal background processes (but that's the case no mater what benchmark you run). Cinebench error margin is probably around +-0,02 points but again like in all benchmarks you should run it multiple times to ensure the result is accurate and reliable. It might look like they are very close but even a 0.10 point difference can be seen a performance advantage and something like 1.00 point is a very large difference.


----------



## icehotshot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *taimat*
> 
> AMD IS BACK!!!


WAT


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> So much hype...this should be fun to watch.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *taimat*
> 
> AMD IS BACK!!!


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> 7% IPC increase.


Again this is an ES Chip, Only if we had a retail PD cpu we could compare to BD......hey guess what? we already do... and clock vs clock Trinity PD is beating BD by a good 15% and that´s lacking the L3 Cache... one can expect a 20% performance boost on retail vishera

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> they already have delivered this 15% performance encrease, heck and that PD Module was lacking the L3 cache the BD Module was test against, Trinity delivers upto 15% performance encrease over BD even if it lacks the L3 Cache, now with the L3 cache we may even see 20% performance encrease...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toms Hardware Review..."Piledriver clearly completes our workload much faster, yielding a 15% improvement, per clock cycle, over Bulldozer."
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-2.html
> guys keep in mind this is a ES Chip, one can expect 20% performance encrease(thanks to L3 and other tweaks) on Retail Vishera...


----------



## MLSCrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HAVO*
> 
> dont "deduce" it, use my result i posted man
> 
> there you have a [email protected] 3.32ghz (5.34 points)
> now i dare you to do the same math you did all over again


No, thanks.







On a serious note, I'm very well aware of all kinds of possibilities, potentials, variables, differences, etc. between all systems, test setups, chips, etc. My deductions were just for fun. Even if you take away (or add) a few tenths of a point to any of the values I came up with, it doesn't matter. It's all general and not meant at all to represent accuracy. I do, however, still believe that clocked at 5GHz, Vishera will be a successor to Phenom II, finally, but will it be any good for gaming? Realistically, prolly not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> they already have delivered this 15% performance encrease, heck and that PD Module was lacking the L3 cache the BD Module was test against, Trinity delivers upto 15% performance encrease over BD even if it lacks the L3 Cache, now with the L3 cache we may even see 20% performance encrease...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toms Hardware Review..."Piledriver clearly completes our workload much faster, yielding a 15% improvement, per clock cycle, over Bulldozer."
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-2.html
> guys keep in mind this is a ES Chip, one can expect 20% performance encrease(thanks to L3 and other tweaks) on Retail Vishera...










We'll see soon enough.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> Again this is an ES Chip, Only if we had a retail PD cpu we could compare to BD......hey guess what? we already do... and clock vs clock Trinity PD is beating BD by a good 15% and that´s lacking the L3 Cache... one can expect a 20% performance boost on retail vishera


Quoted for future reference.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MLSCrow*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see soon enough.


no need to wait, we can already see how a retail PileDriver CPU perform http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-2.html


----------



## Mr-Mechraven

TBH i don't buy a cpu to beat another cpu from another manufacturer, i buy based on price and the functions i require for it to perform. For my needs the FX8120 has been anything but a flop it has more than quadrupled my work output if not more. Speculation speculation speculation, we can all um and er over whether Piledriver will be 10%15%or even 20% better but until we have a real cpu tested within a real PC we just don't know. Im not trying to dampen anyones thirst for a debate just voicing my opinion.

I think Piledriver will definitely offer a worthy performance increase over BD , how much ? Who knows ? But if it is the case then im interested for sure. Im gonna wait until they are out and have been throughly tested by a trustworthy source.


----------



## mam72

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Mechraven*
> 
> Wow how polite, and no, im not dumb but thanks for the sentiment. I am merely saying that until a finished product is available, all the talk of whether its going to be 10%15% or 20% is speculation regardless of tested engineering samples. Sure the results show potential but until its finished it is just speculation.


I agree with you there about it being speculation, I am sure this should be in the rumor section. Who knows this could be a troll about PD.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr-Mechraven*
> 
> all the talk of whether its going to be 10%15% or 20% is speculation regardless of tested engineering samples. Sure the results show potential but until its finished it is just speculation.


whats there to speculate? the Trinity based PD on the bench marks are production type CPUs no ES..! and this Retail PD shows a 15% encrease in performance clock vs clock to BD while lacking L3 Cache, whats there to speculate? its Retail Trinity no ES Chip, if you cant see that then you are beyond hope


----------



## frozne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mam72*
> 
> I agree with you there about it being speculation, I am sure this should be in the rumor section. Who knows this could be a troll about PD.


Well PD has already been benched from Desktop Trinity. So I could see 12-15%+ improvement. There are also thoughts that the Trinity PD is an early revision and Vishera will be even more improved on it, but that is speculation. Of all the things discussed about Vishera, I am definitely more confident that the 15% IPC will happen than I am that it will keep its high overclock ability and have much improved power savings at higher clocks.


----------



## nicfolder

again, Trinity is Retail quality, not ES quality, no speculation at all when a retail Trinity PileDriver cores (lacking L3 Cache) beats a retail BD by 15%, by adding the L3 the performance can only increase









here again...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-2.html

Retail Trinity...


----------



## aznpersuazn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fivestring*
> 
> I'm proud of AMD. They may still be behind but price will be the deciding factor here. Plus OCing gthese thing will be awesome!
> I'm tired of this 960T anyways lol


I just got mine, and I am, too! Can't wait for PD to get into my system. That way I can sell my mobo, two Phenom processors, the sniper series ram (8GB), 430W PSU. I will trade those in for a Sabertooth 990FX R2.0, 600W PSU, 16GB Samsung WondeRam, PD CPU!


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> I still don't understand people saying they can't wait to get one.
> Seriously, I am not seeing a difference or barely a difference between BD and PD in multi or single-threaded? Am I just missing something?
> Someone want to chime in here?
> BD: 5.99
> 
> PD: 5.73


PD is at 3.3 and BD is turboing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HAVO*
> 
> 
> thats a quick run of my 8120 @3.32ghz..
> so yea, there is an improvement


Thank you







Shows about 7% increase in IPC in CB, which isn't bad I suppose. Hopefully the extra speed increases will make up the rest of the 10-15%. Now, if PD inherited Tinity's better power consumption and heat output, which is likely, then nice.


----------



## black96ws6

Most aren't getting it. Not just CB, which shows a minor improvement, however if BD is turboing and BD has a higher clock and whatever else you want to throw in there, everyone must've missed these too?

PD - 4986:


BD - 5452 - 5900:


PD - 18705:


BD - 17980 - 18851:


Again...where's the huge improvement?

This doesn't scream "AMD is Back!!" to me


----------



## ebduncan

guess you missed the part where those benchmarks on the pd were done at 3.3ghz.

if you compare the vantage scores between the 8150 and the (pd ES perhaps)

8150= 5.2363 score per mhz (3600mhz)

PD ES= 5.6681 score per mhz (3300 mhz)

So if the PD ES was at 3600mhz would score roughly 20405 or 8% faster. at 4ghz its 22672 just a tad below the 2600k. pd is set to launch at 4ghz across all cores. At 5ghz 28340 is near 980 speeds in this bench.

anywho, its an improvement, but i would take these numbers with a gain of salt, why because this is not a retail sample, and the benchmarks were done with ddr3 1333mhz ram and the fact that these benchmarks are usally fake to begin with.


----------



## Dmac73

A lot of good posts from people taking the time to do some math lately. Looking around 6-8% IPC increase from this sample... Nothing stellar, but an improvement none the less.

I never did think IPC increases would be the rebirth of AMD anyways with this uarch. It's clockspeed. If the average retail stepping can do 5ghz and good chips do 5.2ghz, AMD will have a fine chip.


----------



## BizzareRide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> IPC means just as much as clock speed on its own, absolutely nothing. We have the rough IPC results but what if (I don't think it's likely or that it would happen) it OCed a lot better than BD, IB, etc? Clock speed could make up the IPC.


IPC means a lot more than clock speed, go look back at the AMD FX and Netburst days and tell me IPC doesn't mean anything.

Since their all around the same speed, clock speed was never in contention. Ghz is a myth. Expecting PD to over clock better is just wishful thinking.

PD performs well in Handbrake because it uses Intel's AVX instruction I believe.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *black96ws6*
> 
> This doesn't scream "AMD is Back!!" to me


let me post this again for posters like you...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> again, Trinity is Retail quality, not ES quality, no speculation at all when a retail Trinity PileDriver cores (lacking L3 Cache) beats a retail BD by 15%, by adding the L3 the performance can only increase
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here again...
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-2.html
> Retail Trinity...


----------



## black96ws6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> let me post this again for posters like you...


Thanks. But why would I rush out and buy Piledriver though (Or anything that begins with "Pile"







, if I had a 960T, 1100T, BD, or nothing recent and wanted a new computer?

If someone has to change out their MB\PSU\etc, why not just get a 2500\2600\IB chip? A 300 Mhz difference between the differing chips in the benchmarks is not going to make a big difference.

Now if PD can clock to say, 6Ghz, then, THAT would be interesting, because sure it may not have the grunt of the Intel chips at stock, but it can make up for that with OC'd clockspeed...

OR, if AMD prices these things right so they're just a much a better value than SB\IB, that would work too...but you know they're most likely going to be priced slightly higher than BD (at least initially)...


----------



## Acefire

Why god can't they just make an x8, x10, and x12 Phenom II ?!?!?! Please just go back to Phenom II and then add moar coars!


----------



## tambok2012

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acefire*
> 
> Why god can't they just make an x8, x10, and x12 Phenom II ?!?!?! Please just go back to Phenom II and then add moar coars!












or

maybe

Phenom II cores with Bulldozer Overclocking capabilities

Phenom II in 4.6 ghz @ stock voltage like FX-4100


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tambok2012*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> maybe
> Phenom II cores with Bulldozer Overclocking capabilities
> Phenom II in 4.6 ghz @ stock voltage like FX-4100


32nm llano is stars core (p2 without l3) and it maxes out at about 3.8ghz from what i've seen... Why does everyone assume amd just switched their arch for the hell of it? Has it ever occured that perhaps it had reached a certain limit?


----------



## MLSCrow

I know the Tom's article on Trinity. I've been reading every possible thing I can on PD, though AMD has done an amazing job of shutting their mouth on this one, contrary to what they did with BD, which is hopefully a good sign, but if history has taught us anything, it's not to expect the best case scenario.

In this thread, we are discussing the ES sample, which showed only a 5% improvement over BD, not the 15% that we'd like. That is why I have to "speculate" as to what performance would be like, if the additional 5-10% was added, which I did calculate and which could also be deduced from Trinity benches. Cinebench is not the end-all-be-all of performance benchmarks. We will just have to wait and see what Vishera is like. That's it. Plain and simple. In the meantime, we can fart our all the meaningless numbers we want.

So, again if Vishera is indeed 15% faster than BD, _on averag_e, then I think that Cinebench players will have a nice alternative to Intel _if_they price them appropriately, and that is a pretty big if. Gamers on the other hand will still be better off buying Intel, imo.


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BizzareRide*
> 
> IPC means a lot more than clock speed, go look back at the AMD FX and Netburst days and tell me IPC doesn't mean anything.
> Since their all around the same speed, clock speed was never in contention. Ghz is a myth. Expecting PD to over clock better is just wishful thinking.
> PD performs well in Handbrake because it uses Intel's AVX instruction I believe.


lol
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MLSCrow*
> 
> So, again if Vishera is indeed 15% faster than BD, _on averag_e, then I think that Cinebench players will have a nice alternative to Intel


lol


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acefire*
> 
> Why god can't they just make an x8, x10, and x12 Phenom II ?!?!?! Please just go back to Phenom II and then add moar coars!


it lacks a lot of features that the FX supports, AVX, SSE4.1, AES and more,
also a Phenom II at 32nm wouldn't probably work at clock speeds as high as BD, it would have a huge die size (if you added the missing instructions I guess) and use even more power (if you wanted a 8 core PII)... I think.

anyway, 10% IPC improvement + higher clock seems good.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acefire*
> 
> Why god can't they just make an x8?! Please just go back to Phenom II and then add moar coars!


because its a dead end design?, and maybe because Trinity is already beating enhanced phenoms?(Llano uses 32 nm enhanced stars core, but lacks L3 cache just like trinity), think about it, if 4M/8T Pile Driver can outperform a True Quad Core(with enhanced stars core) and using less energy at that(not mentioning PD will OC much higher than any phenom out there) why would AMD build a Phenom II X8 when they can achieve more performance using less energy and while saving money(cheaper to build PD than Phenom)?

would a Phenom X8 OC to 5Ghz? I dont think so


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nicfolder*
> 
> would a Phenom X8 OC to 5Ghz? I dont think so


well I guess they could( 4GHZ 12 core Opteron http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1780855) but I guess it wont be as energy friendly as PD...


----------



## cre8ive65

Dammit, just bought a 3570k, i could've saved the money and waited for piledriver. :/

Ah well, hopefully i can go back to AMD in my next build 3-4 years down the road.


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> Dammit, just bought a 3570k, i could've saved the money and waited for piledriver. :/
> Ah well, hopefully i can go back to AMD in my next build 3-4 years down the road.


two years old Hexacores(980x) will still beat your butt in 3 years time


----------



## bao28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> Dammit, just bought a 3570k, i could've saved the money and waited for piledriver. :/
> Ah well, hopefully i can go back to AMD in my next build 3-4 years down the road.


Me too :s
But its ok,
I intend on selling the 3570 or give it to my wife and get meself a PD cpu


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bao28*
> 
> Me too :s
> But its ok,
> I intend on selling the 3570 or give it to my wife and get meself a PD cpu


In what way do you expect PD to be an upgrade over what you have?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> In what way do you expect PD to be an upgrade over what you have?


Some people enjoy downgrading. Nothing wrong with that.









I kid I kid, for those who are about to take that personally.


----------



## cre8ive65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bao28*
> 
> Me too :s
> But its ok,
> I intend on selling the 3570 or give it to my wife and get meself a PD cpu


IMO thats a waste, wait till the steamroller AM4 vs Haswell fight starts. I won't upgrade my rig till 2 generations after Steamroller AM4 vs Haswell.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shows about 7% increase in IPC in CB, which isn't bad I suppose. Hopefully the extra speed increases will make up the rest of the 10-15%. Now, if PD inherited Tinity's better power consumption and heat output, which is likely, then nice.


Now keep in mind that IPC will change over each workload, there will be some where it either doesn't improve at all on BD or barely does and some where it gets a dramatic improvement.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> A lot of good posts from people taking the time to do some math lately. Looking around 6-8% IPC increase from this sample... Nothing stellar, but an improvement none the less.
> 
> I never did think IPC increases would be the rebirth of AMD anyways with this uarch. It's clockspeed. If the average retail stepping can do 5ghz and good chips do 5.2ghz, AMD will have a fine chip.


I think it's both, neither are the be all, end all of any CPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BizzareRide*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> IPC means just as much as clock speed on its own, absolutely nothing. We have the rough IPC results but what if (I don't think it's likely or that it would happen) it OCed a lot better than BD, IB, etc? Clock speed could make up the IPC.
> 
> 
> 
> IPC means a lot more than clock speed, go look back at the AMD FX and Netburst days and tell me IPC doesn't mean anything.
> 
> Since their all around the same speed, clock speed was never in contention. Ghz is a myth. Expecting PD to over clock better is just wishful thinking.
> 
> PD performs well in Handbrake because it uses Intel's AVX instruction I believe.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. The K6-3 and 6x86 have insanely high IPC, to the point where if you *only* compared the average IPC across era specific workloads (ie. They'd run 16bit stuff, an Athlon64 would run 3dMark2005 and the SB/IB would run 3Dmark vantage) they'd still be up there with modern chips, however the lack of clock speed would hold them back even if the designs worked well for 32bit and 64bit execution. IPC is the new myth, everyone puts stock in that without paying attention to clocks; it doesn't matter if I have an average IPC of 4 (iirc SB maxes out around 2) if my clock speed is only 100Mhz, it still won't beat anything modern.

IPS is what really matters and guess what, it takes both IPC and clock speed into the equation, both matter *together*, singularly they don't matter at all, it's like if clock speed was how fast a car can go in pure KM/H and IPC was the turning ability, sure in some workloads only one will really matter but in most it's a combination, you could have a car that can turn on the spot at high speeds but it won't go fast enough to beat a car with a worse cornering ability but much higher speeds.

And no, if Handbrake used AVX then SB would gain an advantage from it too, video transcoding is one of the things BDs architecture loves; it's just as fast as SB/IB in it and iirc can even be a bit faster with AVX, another thing BD loves is AES encryption, iirc it's as fast as an Intel hexacore (Or is pretty close at least) at that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tambok2012*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Acefire*
> 
> Why god can't they just make an x8, x10, and x12 Phenom II ?!?!?! Please just go back to Phenom II and then add moar coars!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> maybe
> 
> Phenom II cores with Bulldozer Overclocking capabilities
> 
> Phenom II in 4.6 ghz @ stock voltage like FX-4100
Click to expand...

Good luck getting a Phenom II to 4.6Ghz @ stock voltage, the short pipeline just isn't capable of it. Even SB has a fairly lengthy pipeline of 16-19 iirc.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Now keep in mind that IPC will change over each workload, there will be some where it either doesn't improve at all on BD or barely does and some where it gets a dramatic improvement.


Of course, but he gave us a direct clock-for-clock comparison instead of us having to guess if turbo was on. As it stands, it's the one comparison we have outside of trinity, and it's compared to what it will be replacing. More benchmarks would be nice, but even this may be fake (although it's in the realm of reason, so...).

It doesn't matter to me much as when I get PD I'll be overclocking it till I hit the wall. All I really need at this point it more cores for VMs and faster encoding. 32GB support would be nice too, yay even bigger ramdisks.

Onwards with waiting for NDA drop Launch!


----------



## bao28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> In what way do you expect PD to be an upgrade over what you have?


I'm not







i was just disappointed i couldnt get 5ghz with the 3570k. Maybe i will be disappointed again...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Some people enjoy downgrading. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kid I kid, for those who are about to take that personally.


Yeah, my wifes computers seems approaching end of life, takes centuries boot out of asus logo. So a 3570k would be a good upgrade from her e6550, even though she only uses firefox lol.


----------



## smash_mouth01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Of course, but he gave us a direct clock-for-clock comparison instead of us having to guess if turbo was on. As it stands, it's the one comparison we have outside of trinity, and it's compared to what it will be replacing. More benchmarks would be nice, but even this may be fake (although it's in the realm of reason, so...).
> It doesn't matter to me much as when I get PD I'll be overclocking it till I hit the wall. All I really need at this point it more cores for VMs and faster encoding. 32GB support would be nice too, yay even bigger ramdisks.
> Onwards with waiting for NDA drop Launch!


Isn't it the case that when turbo kicks in it shuts down cores?


----------



## kikkO

I wonder when Suplex and Powerbomb is coming out.


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> It's an 8 core CPU, some people say 4 cores but by their logic you can't really consider (say) a 386 to have a core as it doesn't have an FPU at all.


My argument for it being a "4 core CPU" has nothing to do with that sort of 'logic' - have you seen their OWN patent for it? It clearly labels a "module" a "CORE." There's 4 modules. So there's 4 cores, by their own definition.

Are you going to argue with the engineers that drew the diagrams??! http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?265710-AMD-Zambezi-news-info-fans-!&p=4950314&viewfull=1#post4950314 Hell, I wouldn't even argue with HIM about it, since he knows more about AMD than all of us put together (I mean Chew) - but to argue with their engineers?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Don't give _me_ a bad a rep. This is clearly a troll. Disheartening is simply my opinion on things, as i like AMD.


I'm not giving you anything, and I'm not trolling. Been here longer than you, and have way more "rep." (Not that I see this as a pissing contest, but since you brought it up..) By merely labeling me as such, you're accomplishing what you accused me of doing. Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.









It is not "disheartening." It's downright disastrous. Well, maybe it could be both.

What makes you think I dislike AMD? Obviously that's the way you feel, or you wouldn't have brought it up. I'd like to point out the system I use 60% or more of the time is a complete, top to bottom, AMD system. See sig-rig #2.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> A lot of post-release benchmarks still show it being slower than a Phenom II.


Yep, in many workloads it is. Quite a bit slower actually. Sure, in others, it wins, but not many OCNers spend 99% of their time encoding (and SB would still be better - QuickSync) or doing 3d rendering. For those that do a lot of rendering, hey, at least they have an option. ...all .0001% of the market!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S.M.*
> 
> Oh, so you were expecting AMD to improve 50% with one revision on the same socket and chipset.
> AMD only stated a 10% increase in x86, which could come from many factors of IPS, very likely clock speed. But instead promised large improvements in other forms of usability. Specifically power consumption.
> Trinity's only goal was to decrease power consumption, yet people assumed it should be something that it isn't. In fact, mobile Trinity performs anywhere from 1 to 5 percent slower than Llano but provides much more battery life.


No, I wasn't, so stop assuming. Makes an ass out of you and me, and all?

I expected them to get their act together and release something like Phenom II. Still wasn't faster than Intel's offerings, but wasn't falling further and further and further down the rabbit hole.

Is it too much to ask for the 15% IPC + 10 plus % better clockspeeds? That's what they promised, and it doesn't seem like they've delivered to me. That would have increased performance by as much as 25% off the bat. ..It's not anywhere close. That's why this is a disaster.

Sucks too, cause I wanted to replace my 965 with one.

RE: Trinity, uh no. A-10 clearly outperforms Llano were it's meant to: Gaming. (and sure, Batt life, no doubt.) It's only mildly weaker for CPU tasks, and who on Earth uses a laptop for heavy CPU work? Now, stop confusing MOBILE Trinity with DESKTOP Vishera. Mmk? Maybe then we'll be on the same page and actually understand each other.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kikkO*
> 
> I wonder when Suplex and Powerbomb is coming out.


Lol, I'd rather see Juji gatame and omoplata!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bao28*
> 
> I'm not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i was just disappointed i couldnt get 5ghz with the 3570k. Maybe i will be disappointed again...
> Yeah, my wifes computers seems approaching end of life, takes centuries boot out of asus logo. So a 3570k would be a good upgrade from her e6550, even though she only uses firefox lol.


Sounds like she would be fine with a SB/IvB pentium. If you want faster boot speeds, buy an SSD, not a CPU.


----------



## IvantheDugtrio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*
> 
> Uh, you get a new I/O shield with any new mobo purchase. Remove CPU, insert into new mobo. VOILA! Magic, apparently, for you.
> Also, 1156 is far from outdated or overrated. While you're complaining about it, I'm getting +60 FPS minimum in BF3, maxed out all but textures (on high) and only with a mild overclock.
> So much for "horribly outdated."
> If you don't see this as disheartening... what do you see it as? Promising? Is AMD ready to sweep Haswell?!


You don't seem to understand. Upgrading anything in a custom case (in this case an Nintendo Entertainment System) where some things have to be glued together (like the I/O shield and parts of the motherboard needed to be glued to the case for rigidity) and have made upgrading difficult. If socket 1156 supported more CPU's through sandy bridge then it would have been worth more but instead it was part of the same generation as socket 775 for all Core 2 CPU's.


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> RE: Trinity, uh no. A-10 clearly outperforms Llano were it's meant to: Gaming. (and sure, Batt life, no doubt.) It's only mildly weaker for CPU tasks, and who on Earth uses a laptop for heavy CPU work? Now, stop confusing MOBILE Trinity with DESKTOP Vishera. Mmk? Maybe then we'll be on the same page and actually understand each other.


ummm the trinity benchmarks of the A10 surpass llano in just about all areas...... only a few Floating point benchs is it a on par or tad slower with llano.

Anyways pursuinginsanity you have some trolling issues.... might want to install a patch for that.

Some people just look for reasons to dislike Bulldozer, and well now piledriver. Wait for official benchmarks before opening your mouths, or is that to much to ask? Like some others have said Trinity uses pile-driver cores, which have ALREADY proven to be 7-15% faster than Zambezi cores clock for clock depending on workload WITH out L3 cache. What does this mean for Piledriver in the desktop? nothing

Its a cpu, just like all other things read the reviews to see if it will fit your needs for the price your looking for.

I personally went with the Bulldozer the first go around because one i received it for free as part of a reviewers kit, and second it makes a nice home for a server, AES encryption, and still has enough grunt to play games if i choose to. I also do alot of 3d rendering. I will likely succeed to Piledriver when my reviewers kit comes.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smash_mouth01*
> 
> Isn't it the case that when turbo kicks in it shuts down cores?


Ah... no. Turbo will increase the speed of all cores if there is room left in the TDP a little bit, or it will slow down some cores to boost others more then they would otherwise if you don't need the performance across all cores.

The result is you can have (using quad as a theoretical example):

3.3 - 3.3 - 3.3 - 3.3 (stock)
3.5 - 3.5 - 3.5 - 3.5 (all core turbo)
3.9 - 3.9 - 2.2 - 2.2 (some core turbo)

This obviously isn't exactly how any one CPU works, but it's the concept behind it, more or less. Trinity takes it one step further, allowing the GPU a place in the turbo options in addition to the CPU itself.

All I was getting at is that in CB, the 8150 -should- have used it's all-core turbo, making it faster then 3.6, and thus skewing results. HAVO posted his 8120 running at simply 3.3, no turbo, which gives us an accurate comparison.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*
> 
> Now, stop confusing MOBILE Trinity with DESKTOP Vishera.


Uses the same parts. Trinity is a low TDP FX-4300 minus L3 cache, with a GPU added to it and different clock speeds. Thats it. Trinity _is_ piledriver.
Quote:


> Like some others have said Trinity uses pile-driver cores, which have ALREADY proven to be 7-15% faster than Zambezi cores clock for clock depending on workload WITH out L3 cache. What does this mean for Piledriver in the desktop? nothing


It means that we can safely assume 7-15% or slightly more (_maybe_ 20%, but thats pushing it) increase in speed clock for clock comparing PD to BD. That is not nothing.


----------



## S.M.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pursuinginsanity*


I don't understand why you are saying he is arguing with AMD engineers when you're the only one doing so. AMD doesn't call their Module a "core", they call it a clustered integer core. You being upset that the arch is an alternative scalable solution differentiating from the typical norm isn't a reason to spread misinformation. I can affinity 8 separate cores on 8 separate VMs without the compromise of logical threads.

http://www.sgi.com/partners/technology/downloads/ADM_Bulldozer_Core_Technology.pdf

Also, AMD never promised a 15% increase in IPC. This is speculation from Trinity. AMD only promised an increase of 10% x86 over Zambezi, and 25% over Husky. Their 30% increase for notebook statement refers to productivity, aka battery life.

Disaster? 7% speculated IPC improvement on a revision created to improve usability and IPS... in Cinebench...on an ES is a disaster?


----------



## nicfolder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> It means that we can safely assume 7-15% or slightly more (_maybe_ 20%, but thats pushing it) increase in speed clock for clock comparing PD to BD. That is not nothing.


That´s right

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-2.html


----------



## MadGoat

I have good hopes for Vishera... realistic hopes...

but I'm not holding my breath for it either... None of us should.

Us x6 users probably wont have a worthwhile AMD upgrade until steamroller me thinks...


----------



## Capt

One way or another, 5% or 10% will be more than enough for me to buy it and this is directly from Tom's HW.
Quote:


> We took the A10-5800K, set it to 3.8 GHz, turned off Turbo Core and any power-saving feature that'd spin the chip down. Then, we took FX-8150, overclocked it to 3.8 GHz, and disabled all of the same features. By running a single-threaded workload like iTunes, we could neutralize the difference in core count (though, if anything, FX could have benefited from its 8 MB L3). Nevertheless, Piledriver clearly completes our workload much faster, yielding a 15% improvement, per clock cycle, over Bulldozer.


----------



## aweir

The translation is meaningless; it talks of the CPU selling old stems, bowls of cream, and users stealing sofas. Where are the benchmarks? A cpu-z screenshot is NOT a benchmark... the title is misleading.


----------



## SCollins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> A quick google search does show that they used the Intel Compiler, but I thought Intel had removed the purposely gimp CPUs based on brand as opposed to what they can actually do.


They did not fix the compiler, the FTC ruled that they had to pay to reimburse software house for the compiler and recompiled/rebuilt software, the intel code compiler is such a blight on the computing industry, that it even effects some of AMD's in house librarys for fortran iirc as well as a few others. Bottom line, fpu performance will suck on any amd or non intel cpu, so long as it was compiled with the ICC


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> They did not fix the compiler, the FTC ruled that they had to pay to reimburse software house for the compiler and recompiled/rebuilt software, the intel code compiler is such a blight on the computing industry, that it even effects some of AMD's in house librarys for fortran iirc as well as a few others. Bottom line, fpu performance will suck on any amd or non intel cpu, so long as it was compiled with the ICC


this. Only thing the FTC did was make intel admit they were doing this, and pay amd.... since it went to settlement instead of actually court, to be dragged on for years. Since they were never forced to fix the problem, you can bet your rear even their newest compiler is optimized for Intel cpus only, while non intel cpus take non optimized path.

The sad part is Intels compiler is the best compiler there is currently, a lot of the open source ones are incomplete and lack modern optimizations for new instruction sets.


----------



## Mumak

Haven't read the entire thread, but..
according to the CPU-Z screenshots, that's not a Piledriver-based CPU.


----------



## Carniflex

Speaking of cores and if 386 is a "core" or not bcos it does not have FPU. I feel I must point out that there was quite good reason why a FPU was integrated into the CPU's as it does affect performance in some workloads by quite significant margin. So in this sense its kinda step backwards. I must ofc acknowledge that this would not be such a huge issue if the HSA would be already functional and it would be possible to offload the floating point loads into the integrated GPU in a way that does not need recompiling of the code. At the moment, however, its a step backwards in my opinion.

As far as 386 goes then for me its not a core ofc as it does no have a FPU. It's a primitive processor from the past. Considering where we are atm computation power wise its very stone age thing. Calling the modern CPU's a "x86" is more like slight nod towards their legacy, considering that the actual "x86" command set part is rather minor compared to all the extended command sets in them.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Speaking of cores and if 386 is a "core" or not bcos it does not have FPU. I feel I must point out that there was quite good reason why a FPU was integrated into the CPU's as it does affect performance in some workloads by quite significant margin. So in this sense its kinda step backwards. I must ofc acknowledge that this would not be such a huge issue if the HSA would be already functional and it would be possible to offload the floating point loads into the integrated GPU in a way that does not need recompiling of the code. At the moment, however, its a step backwards in my opinion.
> 
> As far as 386 goes then for me its not a core ofc as it does no have a FPU. It's a primitive processor from the past. Considering where we are atm computation power wise its very stone age thing. Calling the modern CPU's a "x86" is more like slight nod towards their legacy, considering that the actual "x86" command set part is rather minor compared to all the extended command sets in them.


In about 10% (At most) of operations, nearly everything is integer based and the possibility of using a GPU as the FPU instead really is worth the slight decrease in speed (Considering AMDs current FPUs are actually pretty beefy).
So what was the 386 then? Unless you're saying it was a CPU but didn't have a core...A core is merely the pipeline, the FPU is and always has been an additional thing considering most workloads are integer and will remain that way.


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> In about 10% (At most) of operations, nearly everything is integer based and the possibility of using a GPU as the FPU instead really is worth the slight decrease in speed (Considering AMDs current FPUs are actually pretty beefy).
> So what was the 386 then? Unless you're saying it was a CPU but didn't have a core...A core is merely the pipeline, the FPU is and always has been an additional thing considering most workloads are integer and will remain that way.


If core would be merely a pipeline then i7's would be 8 core's







. I consider 386 as a primitive processor and would not start defining processors by the cores until the first multicore processors emerged. At first, if I remember correct, they were just two pieces of silicon in the same envelope. So my definition of a "core" is kinda ancient in this regard as for me a "core" is a autonomous unit which could, in theory, operate on its own. Ofc in modern chips all the support structure like memory controllers and stuff are already shared between cores so my "definition" is behind the curve in this regard.

But that horse has been beaten already on multiple occasions and my grumpiness which is directed at the current situation is mostly of a result of running mostly floating point heavy loads (simulation of wave propagation in microstructured solids making heavy use of FFT). I might sing a different song perhaps if I would not care as much about floating point performance.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> If core would be merely a pipeline then i7's would be 8 core's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I consider 386 as a primitive processor and would not start defining processors by the cores until the first multicore processors emerged. At first, if I remember correct, they were just two pieces of silicon in the same envelope. So my definition of a "core" is kinda ancient in this regard as for me a "core" is a autonomous unit which could, in theory, operate on its own. Ofc in modern chips all the support structure like memory controllers and stuff are already shared between cores so my "definition" is behind the curve in this regard.
> But that horse has been beaten already on multiple occasions and my grumpiness which is directed at the current situation is mostly of a result of running mostly floating point heavy loads (simulation of wave propagation in microstructured solids making heavy use of FFT). I might sing a different song perhaps if I would not care as much about floating point performance.


HT is a scheduler to shove more down the pipeline, not a second pipeline.

Also, What you use it for really doesn't make any difference in the world for what it actually is. I could always use a bicycle on its back wheel only, but its still a bike, it didn't magically transform into a unicycle.


----------



## SCollins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> this. Only thing the FTC did was make intel admit they were doing this, and pay amd.... since it went to settlement instead of actually court, to be dragged on for years. Since they were never forced to fix the problem, you can bet your rear even their newest compiler is optimized for Intel cpus only, while non intel cpus take non optimized path.
> The sad part is Intels compiler is the best compiler there is currently, a lot of the open source ones are incomplete and lack modern optimizations for new instruction sets.


According to Agner, the problem is still present on newer compiler revisions, he last wrote about this last year. It is however patchable iirc.


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> According to Agner, the problem is still present on newer compiler revisions, he last wrote about this last year. It is however patchable iirc.


the compiler is patch-able yes. What ever the case i stopped using the Intel compiler. I use Mircosoft's now. Honestly i don't even know why Intel has to check processor brand. There should be only one thing checked and that's supported instruction sets. I don't know why Amd even choose to go to settlement, i would have fought them Intel lawyers until they were bleeding from the rear. What they are doing is basically racism of the computing world .


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> In about 10% (At most) of operations, nearly everything is integer based and the possibility of using a GPU as the FPU instead really is worth the slight decrease in speed (Considering AMDs current FPUs are actually pretty beefy).
> So what was the 386 then? Unless you're saying it was a CPU but didn't have a core...A core is merely the pipeline, the FPU is and always has been an additional thing considering most workloads are integer and will remain that way.
> 
> 
> 
> If core would be merely a pipeline then i7's would be 8 core's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I consider 386 as a primitive processor and would not start defining processors by the cores until the first multicore processors emerged. At first, if I remember correct, they were just two pieces of silicon in the same envelope. So my definition of a "core" is kinda ancient in this regard as for me a "core" is a autonomous unit which could, in theory, operate on its own. Ofc in modern chips all the support structure like memory controllers and stuff are already shared between cores so my "definition" is behind the curve in this regard.
> 
> But that horse has been beaten already on multiple occasions and my grumpiness which is directed at the current situation is mostly of a result of running mostly floating point heavy loads (simulation of wave propagation in microstructured solids making heavy use of FFT). I might sing a different song perhaps if I would not care as much about floating point performance.
Click to expand...

HT isn't an extra core, it's tricking the OS that there is so it can send more instructions into the one pipeline in otherwise blank bits, this is why some applications (eg. LinX) show lower performance with HT on due to cache thrashing and the like, BDs CMT is literally the opposite in that HT duplicates the front-end but leaves the back-end as original whereas CMT duplicates the back-end (The pipelines, etc) without duplicating the front-end.
That's all in laymans terms, before someone jumps down my throat on the inaccuracies.


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> HT isn't an extra core, it's tricking the OS that there is so it can send more instructions into the one pipeline in otherwise blank bits, this is why some applications (eg. LinX) show lower performance with HT on due to cache thrashing and the like, BDs CMT is literally the opposite in that HT duplicates the front-end but leaves the back-end as original whereas CMT duplicates the back-end (The pipelines, etc) without duplicating the front-end.
> That's all in laymans terms, before someone jumps down my throat on the inaccuracies.


Linx shows a 10%+ increase here using 4 threads instead of 2 (dual core CPU with HT),

but I agree
HT doesn't add extra execution units, but rather uses them more efficiently, I can't see how anyone would call the i7 a "8 core CPU",
while bulldozer adds more of some of them (integer cores...)


----------



## Seronx

Quote:


> Intel's proprietary HT Technology is used to improve parallelization of computations (doing multiple tasks at once) performed on PC microprocessors. For each processor core that is physically present, the operating system addresses two virtual or logical cores, and shares the workload between them when possible. The main function of hyper-threading is to decrease the number of dependent instructions on the pipeline.


-wikipedia

SIMD -> SMT -> SIMT -> NIMT -> MIMD

MCMT is basically SIMT applied to clusters of executions cores.
Quote:


> The SIMT GPUs take a single instruction, takes it through a shared front-end, and distributes it to different "threads" running in different lanes. Essentially, replicated execution units. Memory may or may not be replicated; the GPUs seem often to decouple memory from the execution lanes, as is needed for non-stride-1 accesses.
> 
> MCMT, as in Bulldozer, shares the front end, replicates in each cluster the scheduler, execution units, and L1 data cache. MCMT is typically superscalar, but if we examined the limit case of a non-superscalar MCMT, it would be taking one instruction, and distributing it to only one of the clusters.


-andy glew

Bulldozer is MCMT
Graphic Core Next is SIMT

You have SIMD
Willamette -> SMT
Bulldozer -> MCMT

Usage wise they are stuck between SIMD and SIMT.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8670/imagewh.png
^MCMT/Bulldozer
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9666/image2uig.png
^MCMT/Bulldozer

Andy Glew is basically the mastermind of everything CPU wise for AMD Bulldozer/Bobcat-derived architectures.


----------



## gsdeweese

ok i was reading this thread so i decided to run cinebench 11.5 just to see and for comparison purposes , so hope this helps alittle. Also im not really a fan boy of either but i find it really hard to pass up a good deal . if your curious about the low temps my whole rigs on top end water . and for all the nay sayers my system is 100% 24/7 stable thanks to some good folks in some other threads @ ocn


----------



## gsdeweese

i'll take middle of the pack for 200.00 any day


----------



## Seronx

Bulldozer -> Disabled Parts, Memory Bottleneck(deals with disabled parts), Floating Point Bottleneck.
Piledriver -> Floating Point Bottleneck.
Steamroller -> X new problems.
Excavator -> Less X new problems.

All four Bulldozer-derived architectures in a nutshell.


----------



## gsdeweese

not o mention guys but your comparing procs that will all be sub 250.00 to procs that range anywhere from 350.00 upto 1000.00 hell at that point they're not in the same ballpark , for that mater they're not even playing the same sport ! my point is that if your on a budget or just dont want to shell out that kinda cash amd's a good middle of the road kinda cpu , if you need that little bit of extra performance quit bashing amd for what they are and go get an intel . lets face it the days of the athlon woopin up on intel are gone


----------



## Carniflex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gsdeweese*
> 
> not o mention guys but your comparing procs that will all be sub 250.00 to procs that range anywhere from 350.00 upto 1000.00 hell at that point they're not in the same ballpark , for that mater they're not even playing the same sport ! my point is that if your on a budget or just dont want to shell out that kinda cash amd's a good middle of the road kinda cpu , if you need that little bit of extra performance quit bashing amd for what they are and go get an intel . lets face it the days of the athlon woopin up on intel are gone


Some do that indeed, however, quite many I have seen have done comparison with i5's which is sitting at the same price point of ~200 $. AMD offer has its merits in specific loads but as it stands currently the i5 seem to going to be remaining as general "king of the hill" at that pricepoint for now for doing everything reasonably well at that point. That out of the way AMD will be able to offer good deals if they will price the piledriver according to its performance and don't repeat the crap pricing they did at bulldozer launch.


----------



## gsdeweese

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> Some do that indeed, however, quite many I have seen have done comparison with i5's which is sitting at the same price point of ~200 $. AMD offer has its merits in specific loads but as it stands currently the i5 seem to going to be remaining as general "king of the hill" at that pricepoint for now for doing everything reasonably well at that point. That out of the way AMD will be able to offer good deals if they will price the piledriver according to its performance and don't repeat the crap pricing they did at bulldozer launch.


True enough , but from my earlier post i've shown that i was able to hit 2600k levels with my amd 8150 , but to hit those levels requires alot of overclocking and those levels of voltage required the use of at a minimum a h100 watercooler and the temps were still not that great at load . but i do understand the point that your making , well put .


----------



## dragosmp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> HT isn't an extra core, it's tricking the OS that there is so it can send more instructions into the one pipeline in otherwise blank bits, this is why some applications (eg. LinX) show lower performance with HT on due to cache thrashing and the like, BDs CMT is literally the opposite in that HT duplicates the front-end but leaves the back-end as original whereas CMT duplicates the back-end (The pipelines, etc) without duplicating the front-end.
> That's all in laymans terms, before someone jumps down my throat on the inaccuracies.


Just my 2cents

You forgot to mention something though. HT is not just modified front end, though it can be seen this way. The HT pipeline itself is modified in such a way as to take advantage of the beefier front end that can send instructions from the "real" and the "virtual" core. As far as I remember the transistor count of a HT enable pipeline is something like 5% larger than it would have been otherwise, I have read this on RWT a while ago.
Since not all the pipe/FE/BE is doubled (practically what a second ALU would be) one can find an algorithm, LinX or other, that would suffocate this admittedly beefier pipeline. As I see it a current HT-enabled core is composed by a beefier FE, very slightly beefier pipe, while CMT ALUs use a different type of beefier FE and completely separate pipelines.


----------



## Dirkonis

Waited for a justification on going AM3+, now I feel a little better about it. Looking forward to seeing what their 6 core PD can do.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seronx*
> 
> Bulldozer -> Disabled Parts, Memory Bottleneck(deals with disabled parts), Floating Point Bottleneck.
> Piledriver -> Floating Point Bottleneck.
> Steamroller -> X new problems.
> Excavator -> Less X new problems.
> All four Bulldozer-derived architectures in a nutshell.


yeah I wonder about that memory bottleneck The only thing I could think of was the Crossbar still only supports Single writes vs the module's Dual write capability. ( my god its from the K8 days) I think it needs a ring but of some sort.

yeah The floating point is TOO slow. I wonder if that has anything to do with a "singular scheduler" it how ever is dual thread according to AMD schematics

anyone notice Steamroller has less cache back down to 512Kbytes ?
Any kind of Miss in the L2 cache does not go to said "victim cache L3" in FX in stead it has to go all the way out to main memory for congruences.
The cache latency not a problem either Core 2 duo used about 18-20 cycles on it's L2 cache although it's associativity was higher pre-Kbyte.

I think their is a TLB overflow causing some sort of thrashing also.


----------



## ebduncan

wait Amd's Floating point sucks? this is news to me

Just because amd paired two integer cores with 1 fpu, doesn't mean its floating performance sucks. I know everyone loves sisoft sandra so here we go.



the float performance is just fine, some might say its due to new instruction sets, but its both are true really. Amd's FPU units are good.


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> wait Amd's Floating point sucks? this is news to me
> Just because amd paired two integer cores with 1 fpu, doesn't mean its floating performance sucks. I know everyone loves sisoft sandra so here we go.
> 
> the float performance is just fine, some might say its due to new instruction sets, but its both are true really. Amd's FPU units are good.


I didn't say it sucked, I said it's too SLOW.

SiSoft Sandra had to be updated, to support FX, and llano.
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/5/25/sisoft-sandra-2011-sp2b-updates-for-amd-fusion-llano2c-fx-bulldozer.aspx


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> wait Amd's Floating point sucks? this is news to me
> 
> Just because amd paired two integer cores with 1 fpu, doesn't mean its floating performance sucks. I know everyone loves sisoft sandra so here we go.
> 
> 
> 
> the float performance is just fine, some might say its due to new instruction sets, but its both are true really. Amd's FPU units are good.


Check real-world out. It's good but not great.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Demonkev666*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> wait Amd's Floating point sucks? this is news to me
> Just because amd paired two integer cores with 1 fpu, doesn't mean its floating performance sucks. I know everyone loves sisoft sandra so here we go.
> 
> the float performance is just fine, some might say its due to new instruction sets, but its both are true really. Amd's FPU units are good.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it sucked, I said it's too SLOW.
> 
> SiSoft Sandra had to be updated, to support FX, and llano.
> http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/5/25/sisoft-sandra-2011-sp2b-updates-for-amd-fusion-llano2c-fx-bulldozer.aspx
Click to expand...

"Given that we know what AMD did with memory controllers in their Fusion A-Series (Llano) APU and FX-Series (Bulldozer) CPU processors (read: not a whole lot)"

Holy crap, do they know anything about what AMD has actually done internally to their chips? Because you can get an IMC to go from struggling with 1866Mhz often to being one of the highest clocking in the industry with just timings...


----------



## Metric

Quote:


> Next Gen AMD FX CPUs and AMD FX CPUs and desktop AMD A4 & A6 APUs *available in late Q3 2012*. Subject to change.


Quote:


> So the desktop portfolio for the "VOLÁN" platform, consisting of consists of a Vishera-FX socket AM3 + and a Radeon HD 7000 from the FX-8350, the FX-6300 and the FX 4320; the beginning called *FX-8300 is reserved as its predecessor (FX-8100) OEMs such as HP*. The new FX flagship added 4.0 GHz base clock and so 400 MHz more than the FX-8150. The FX-6300 succeeded the FX-6100 with 3.5 to 4.1 GHz and FX 4320 running 4.0 to 4.2 GHz. In addition, the quick reference guide reveals the frequencies of the smallest Trinity APU, the A4-5300; These were only under embargo to learn - all other specs are known.
> 
> The Vishera-such as the Trinity chips are expected in October or November. Yesterday was still a rumor to stir, that the development of the Vishera CPUs was stopped.
> 
> via


----------



## Heuchler

AMD Piledriver (FX-Vishera) Core Frequencies Confirmed - Flagship FX-8350 Throttles upto 4.2GHz
http://wccftech.com/amd-piledriver-fxvishera-core-frequencies-confirmed-flagship-fx8350-throttles-upto-42ghz/


----------



## Tsumi

Interesting that the turbo is so low on the 8350, would have expected it to be higher.


----------



## cre8ive65

Looks cool! I'll start crying if it matches my 3570k stock vs stock @ 1080P in most games. I miss AMD :/


----------



## allikat

If this is the case, I may well go back to AMD... Clocking Sb is duller than dishwater.


----------



## PiOfPie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Interesting that the turbo is so low on the 8350, would have expected it to be higher.


It kind of makes me worry that Vish is going to hit a voltage brick wall around the same place that Zambezi did. The A10 is a 65W processor (unless AMD typo'd) in spite of having an iGPU on the chip and a 3.4Ghz base clock. Then you have the FX-4320 which sits at 4 Ghz base, has no iGPU, and has a 95W TDP. Pretty big spike there...


----------



## LiquidHaus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Interesting that the turbo is so low on the 8350, would have expected it to be higher.


it just be the highest stable frequency they could get granted the terrible cpu cooler that is included upon purchase.

...saves them money i guess


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of makes me worry that Vish is going to hit a voltage brick wall around the same place that Zambezi did. The A10 is a 65W processor (unless AMD typo'd) in spite of having an iGPU on the chip and a 3.4Ghz base clock. Then you have the FX-4320 which sits at 4 Ghz base, has no iGPU, and has a 95W TDP. Pretty big spike there...
Click to expand...

not really is has 15% more clock speed, and also has L3 . If you didn't notice the FX-6300 also has a tdp of 95 watts. We are talking about a base Frequency of 4ghz across all cores, in a 95 watt TDP. Compared to current FX processors, the Fx-4100 which has a tdp of 125 and 3.6ghz base and 3.8 turbo. While more impressively the the Fx 4170- 4.2ghz base 4.3ghz turbo, same 125watt TDP. So the new pile driver cores in the FX-4300 is pretty much a FX-4170 difference being the FX-4300 is a 95 watt part vs the 4170 at 125 watt.

Pile driver shows some clear power savings, Don't expect miracles for it to save power over previous generation. It will still consume a good bit of power when over-volted and overclocked. However it will be less than current FX processors, and whats looks like to be rather large power savings.

Launch date is October 17th.


----------



## UsernameGoesHer

LOL 8 cores and still only as good as a first gen i7.


----------



## mufdvr3669

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UsernameGoesHer*
> 
> LOL 8 cores and still only as good as a first gen i7.


Using the first benchmark in Cinebench the fastest processor would be about 25% faster than the i7 960. That is for an engineering sample too.


----------



## UsernameGoesHer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mufdvr3669*
> 
> Using the first benchmark in Cinebench the fastest processor would be about 25% faster than the i7 960. That is for an engineering sample too.


5.73 = 1.25x5.48?

Good math there, li'l buddy.


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HAVO*
> 
> 
> thats a quick run of my 8120 @3.32ghz..
> so yea, there is an improvement


YaY! Improvement!








..but is it better than Thuban? Hmmmm..unfortunately no







I gimped the cpu/nb and htt, too
















So..In the end ..AMD is still failing to bring a better-performing cpu to market..This is disappointing.


----------



## Stefy

If it turns out to be on par with SB, I'll buy it for sure. Price's going to be excellent as well.


----------



## UsernameGoesHer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stefy*
> 
> If it turns out to be on par with SB, I'll buy it for sure. Price's going to be excellent as well.


Prove it.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> YaY! Improvement!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..but is it better than Thuban? Hmmmm..unfortunately no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gimped the cpu/nb and htt, too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..In the end ..AMD is still failing to bring a better-performing cpu to market..This is disappointing.


So you don't think AMD can make up that 1/10th of a point in the extra 700Mhz they'll give the 8350? Strongest PD is 4.0 stock, not 3.3.

IPS, not IPC.


----------



## UsernameGoesHer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> So you don't think AMD can make up that 1/10th of a point in the extra 700Mhz they'll give the 8350? Strongest PD is 4.0 stock, not 3.3.
> IPS, not IPC.


Nice useless point there. 1/10th of a point can mean the difference between AM2 single cores and an intel xeon if the benchmark is set up that way.


----------



## MadGoat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UsernameGoesHer*
> 
> Nice useless point there. 1/10th of a point can mean the difference between AM2 single cores and an intel xeon if the benchmark is set up that way.


wow, relax and stop pouncing on everyone ...

PD 8350 @ 4ghz will be a nice improvement over a Phenom II @ 4ghz no matter how you slice it. And looking forward to OC'ing PD on top of that.

Furthermore, CPU's don't live and die by Cinebench ...


----------



## UsernameGoesHer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadGoat*
> 
> wow, relax and stop pouncing on everyone ...
> PD 8350 @ 4ghz will be a nice improvement over a Phenom II @ 4ghz no matter how you slice it. And looking forward to OC'ing PD on top of that.
> Furthermore, CPU's don't live and die by Cinebench ...


Why are you comparing a CPU to something 2 generations old?


----------



## mufdvr3669

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UsernameGoesHer*
> 
> 5.73 = 1.25x5.48?
> Good math there, li'l buddy.


From the first post.

"AMD Engineering Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8

3.3GHz base clock/3.9GHz turbo, which would peg this as the *lowest* of the three FX-8 Vishera CPUs."

Your benchmark score is the slowest of the new processors. Reading comprehension failure.

"Why are you comparing a CPU to something 2 generations old?"

Here is you comparing it to the first i7 "LOL 8 cores and still only as good as a first gen i7."

Now go reread 2 sentences above. It's like a loop of failure.


----------



## MadGoat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UsernameGoesHer*
> 
> Why are you comparing a CPU to something 2 generations old?


Well first its fairly well known that BD failed to impress the Phenom II generation buyers and many decided to stay with their current Phenom II Processor, or move to a Thuban based core.

This Being the Case, there are a VERY large group of AMD users looking forward to a "Upgrade" for their Phenom II Processors. (Hence the comparison).

And second, comparing different generations of processor is not out of this world. Its a necessary question to be asked.

And third, your subtle level or patronization in this thread is masking your responses as vacuous.


----------



## Carniflex

Well Ars has reposted a nice review done by the Tech
http://www.overclock.net/t/1298227/ars-inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-todays-cpus

So .. if the CPU clock is all they improve then dunno if it will "save" them for the gaming crowd. Then again depending on your min fps tolerance AMD can be still pretty decent for gaming. For example I'm not really complaining with 1055T @ 3.9 GHz.

Anyway - if the October launch date is true then not that long anymore until NDA is lifted and everyone spills their beans. I'm hoping they improve substantially over their current gen but I'm not holding my breath. We'll see.


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UsernameGoesHer*
> 
> Why are you comparing a CPU to something 2 generations old?


Why are you?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Carniflex*
> 
> So my definition of a "core" is kinda ancient in this regard as for me a "core" is a autonomous unit which could, in theory, operate on its own.


Virtually no core of a monolithic multi-core part can operate entirely independently.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> the compiler is patch-able yes. What ever the case i stopped using the Intel compiler. I use Mircosoft's now. Honestly i don't even know why Intel has to check processor brand. There should be only one thing checked and that's supported instruction sets.


Even within Intel branded parts, there are CPUs that will operate differently or poorly if only instruction sets were optimized for. Optimize for SSE on a P3 and you cripple SSE performance on a P4 and most later processors. The chips have very different implementations of the same instruction set that have to be taken into account.

Of course, part of the reason AMD CPUs default to the unoptimized paths is competitive bias, but that's _far_ from the entire story.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> I don't know why Amd even choose to go to settlement, i would have fought them Intel lawyers until they were bleeding from the rear. What they are doing is basically racism of the computing world .


AMD chose to settle to avoid a protracted legal battle when they were in dire financial straights.

I think this is a terrible analogy. ICC is a proprietary Intel property, not some arbitrary and largely fictional categorization system for sapient beings.


----------



## Stefy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UsernameGoesHer*
> 
> Prove it.


Prove what?

Notice the word "if".


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *HAVO*
> 
> 
> thats a quick run of my 8120 @3.32ghz..
> so yea, there is an improvement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YaY! Improvement!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..but is it better than Thuban? Hmmmm..unfortunately no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gimped the cpu/nb and htt, too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So..In the end ..AMD is still failing to bring a better-performing cpu to market..This is disappointing.
Click to expand...

Clock for clock? If so, that BD can outclock your Thuban _by far_.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Clock for clock? If so, that *BD can outclock your Thuban* _by far_.


That's about the only thing BD has going for it.

Being a 32nm processor, that has a brand new architecture, with longer pipelines, if it didn't clock higher, it would be an utter failure.

Higher clock speeds are BD's only saving grace, to make up for its lower IPC compared to Phenom II.

Don't worry, you don't have to lecture me on IPS, I am well aware of it.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Clock for clock? If so, that *BD can outclock your Thuban* _by far_.
> 
> 
> 
> That's about the only thing BD has going for it.
> 
> Being a 32nm processor, that has a brand new architecture, with longer pipelines, if it didn't clock higher, it would be an utter failure.
> 
> Higher clock speeds are BD's only saving grace, to make up for its lower IPC compared to Phenom II.
> 
> Don't worry, you don't have to lecture me on IPS, I am well aware of it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's the entire point of the architecture, it's not as bad as the later (actually bad) P4s but it's only a bit longer than an SB/IB, once AMD finishes optimising it it'll bear some nice fruit. Trinity already is looking pretty nice for its price range.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Exactly, it's the entire point of the architecture, it's not as bad as the later (actually bad) P4s but it's only a bit longer than an SB/IB, once AMD finishes optimising it it'll bear some nice fruit. Trinity already is looking pretty nice for its price range.


It definitely is, when are Trinity desktop processors coming out do you know?

Is it still "no earlier than October" anything solid out there?

I plan on building an HTPC with Trinity.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Exactly, it's the entire point of the architecture, it's not as bad as the later (actually bad) P4s but it's only a bit longer than an SB/IB, once AMD finishes optimising it it'll bear some nice fruit. Trinity already is looking pretty nice for its price range.
> 
> 
> 
> It definitely is, when are Trinity desktop processors coming out do you know?
> 
> Is it still "no earlier than October" anything solid out there?
> 
> I plan on building an HTPC with Trinity.
Click to expand...

I'm going to hazard a guess it's "When our Llano stocks are nearly all gone"


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I'm going to hazard a guess it's "When our Llano stocks are nearly all gone"


Yikes, people are waiting for Trining over Llano though.









So I guess we'll stick with "Launch is at Launch"

This is why I haven't really been following this launch, one day, the processors will show up, and I'll assess the situation then.


----------



## cre8ive65

Word on the street is that Piledriver is AMD's last enthusiast level CPU line, from now on, just APU's.


----------



## SCollins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Virtually no core of a monolithic multi-core part can operate entirely independently.


but in the begging of multicore cpu's, they actually did.
Quote:


> Even within Intel branded parts, there are CPUs that will operate differently or poorly if only instruction sets were optimized for. Optimize for SSE on a P3 and you cripple SSE performance on a P4 and most later processors. The chips have very different implementations of the same instruction set that have to be taken into account.
> Of course, part of the reason AMD CPUs default to the unoptimized paths is competitive bias, but that's _far_ from the entire story.


well, p3 doesn;t support sse2, so it seems like if you want to implement instructions, you should do a good job and be agnostic about vendor brand, unless you wanna rig the game.
Quote:


> AMD chose to settle to avoid a protracted legal battle when they were in dire financial straights.
> I think this is a terrible analogy. ICC is a proprietary Intel property, not some arbitrary and largely fictional categorization system for sapient beings.


ICC is used in massive numbers of software studios, and has infected the entire software ecosystem. Its a virus that must be rooted out.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I'm going to hazard a guess it's "When our Llano stocks are nearly all gone"
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, people are waiting for Trining over Llano though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess we'll stick with "Launch is at Launch"
> 
> This is why I haven't really been following this launch, one day, the processors will show up, and I'll assess the situation then.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they have tonnes because people are just buying PCs much less than everyone thought this quarter.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> Word on the street is that Piledriver is AMD's last enthusiast level CPU line, from now on, just APU's.


AMD shot that down, and it was their last AM3+ CPU, not enthusiast level, there still would be the k level APUs. (Which, may I remind you, is what the 2500k, 2600k, etc are)


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SCollins*
> 
> but in the begging of multicore cpu's, they actually did.


Yes, the very first multi-core chips from AMD and Intel were both single core dies on the same package. However the very next incarnation combined two cores on one die and had them share components neither core could do without.

If your definition of a core is a something that can act as a CPU completely independently, then even the first Athlon 64 X2s (which shared a memory controller and HTT bus) and Core 2 Duo (which share the same FSB and L2), wouldn't have two cores.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SCollins*
> 
> well, p3 doesn;t support sse2, so it seems like if you want to implement instructions, you should do a good job and be agnostic about vendor brand, unless you wanna rig the game.


I said SSE, not SSE2. Point is that if you just optimize for instructions sets, sometimes performance is crippled due to different implementations of the same instruction sets. Why would Intel ignore factors that would harm performance on it's own hardware in it's own compiler?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SCollins*
> 
> ICC is used in massive numbers of software studios, and has infected the entire software ecosystem. Its a virus that must be rooted out.


And when there is a superior alternative, it surely will be.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I said SSE, not SSE2. Point is that if you just optimize for instructions sets, sometimes performance is crippled due to different implementations of the same instruction sets. Why would Intel ignore factors that would harm performance on it's own hardware in it's own compiler?


Out of curiosity, what do you think Intel does with the CPU branding? It looks up what instruction sets it uses and compiles for those.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Yes, the very first multi-core chips from AMD and Intel were both single core dies on the same package. However the very next incarnation combined two cores on one die and had them share components neither core could do without.


AMD's first dual core was a single die, not a glue job. It was designed as an actual dual core CPU unlike the Pentium D.


----------



## Mr Frosty

I don't get AMD, they have the resources to make an awesome chip and yet they using Bulldozer?

You can pour all the glitter you want onto a turd but it's still a turd.

A die shrunk Phenom 2 would of been awesome and a much better option then Bulldozer as it

- Would be smaller so more yields
- Consumed less power
- Offered much more performance


----------



## Schmuckley

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> So you don't think AMD can make up that 1/10th of a point in the extra 700Mhz they'll give the 8350? Strongest PD is 4.0 stock, not 3.3.
> IPS, not IPC.


I could make up wayy more than that by OCing this chip to 4.0 ..and the cpu/nb @ 3000-ish..
The purpose was to compare on even ground..


----------



## dimwit13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> I don't get AMD, they have the resources to make an awesome chip and yet they using Bulldozer?
> You can pour all the glitter you want onto a turd but it's still a turd.
> A die shrunk Phenom 2 would of been awesome and a much better option then Bulldozer as it
> - Would be smaller so more yields
> - Consumed less power
> - Offered much more performance


its all about the APU now.
BD is just the early stage of APUs, they will get better as time passes.
AMD knows what they are doing, just give them some time.
they are looking 4-5 years down the road.

-dimwit-


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> I could make up wayy more than that by OCing this chip to 4.0 ..and the cpu/nb @ 3000-ish..
> The purpose was to compare on even ground..


What even ground? Bulldozer from the beginning was designed as a high clocking design, not a high IPC design.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> I could make up wayy more than that by OCing this chip to 4.0 ..and the cpu/nb @ 3000-ish..
> The purpose was to compare on even ground..


Good, now get the PD chip to 4.8 or higher like we know BD can. Once again, there goes your thuban.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> What even ground? Bulldozer from the beginning was designed as a high clocking design, not a high IPC design.


Some people live and die by IPC, always forgetting that IPS is all that matters.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Out of curiosity, what do you think Intel does with the CPU branding? It looks up what instruction sets it uses and compiles for those.


That's not all it does. It looks up CPUID which gives way more information than just the instruction sets the part is capable of.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> AMD's first dual core was a single die, not a glue job. It was designed as an actual dual core CPU unlike the Pentium D.


You are correct. I was thinking there was a dual core AMD chip before the A64 X2/Opteron, but I was mistaken.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Some people live and die by IPC, always forgetting that IPS is all that matters.


It's not that cut and dry. You can look at throughput or average clock efficiency. They're two different metrics that measure two different aspects of performance. Both are necessary to have an intelligent conversation about processors. Just make sure to pick the right "tool" for the job you're trying to do. If you're talking about overall performance, you're right--use IPS. If you're wanting to discover improvements to clock efficiency between iterations of a single architecture instead, you're wrong--use IPC. Both are valid ways to compare cores and both matter a great deal. It's not so open and shut so as to say IPS is the final word in what matters.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> It's not that cut and dry. You can look at throughput or average clock efficiency. They're two different metrics that measure two different aspects of performance. Both are necessary to have an intelligent conversation about processors. Just make sure to pick the right "tool" for the job you're trying to do. If you're talking about overall performance, you're right--use IPS. If you're wanting to discover improvements to clock efficiency between iterations of a single architecture instead, you're wrong--use IPC. Both are valid ways to compare cores and both matter a great deal. It's not so open and shut so as to say IPS is the final word in what matters.


Actually, that's also wrong. An architecture could be optimized for higher clocks. Just look at the usual revisions that happen, like the change from C2 Denebs to C3 Denebs, or C0 to D0 Nehalems.

IPS is what matters in raw throughput. If you're looking at efficiency, then you want to look at IPS/watt.


----------



## Mr Frosty

IPS is important and is affected by both clock speed and IPC

A chip that has very high IPC but average clock speeds will performance the same as a chip with lower IPC but with over average clock speeds.

The trick is to balance the two, the original Athlon 64 had a much higher IPC then the Pentium 4 and didn't need to be clocked as high to beat it, Intel had to compensate the Pentiums 4's lack of IPC by trying to clock it as high as possible.

Same thing is happening now, Bulldozer has poor IPC and AMD are trying to compensate by using high clock speeds, trouble is that unlike the Athlon vs Pentuim 4 era Intel don't just have a high clocking CPU, they have a high clocking, high IPC CPU.

If you have both the highest IPC and can also offer high clock speeds then you have the fastest product, AMD can offer the clock speeds but they're a long way off being able to offer the IPC to challenge Intel.

It's ok saying that AMD are slowly tweaking things and raising IPC but you have to remember that Intel are also raising the IPC and tweaking there chips at the same time too.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Actually, that's also wrong. An architecture could be optimized for higher clocks. Just look at the usual revisions that happen, like the change from C2 Denebs to C3 Denebs, or C0 to D0 Nehalems.
> IPS is what matters in raw throughput. If you're looking at efficiency, then you want to look at IPS/watt.


You don't appear to understand what I wrote. You're just repeating what the guy I quoted said which doesn't really bring anything new to the table. Of course IPC doesn't take frequency into account. That's intentional and happens to be the objective. The metric you're using (IPS) doesn't measure the aspect of performance I said IPC is useful for examining.

When I say efficiency, I'm not talking about power efficiency. I'm talking about clock efficiency; how much work can be done within a static number of clock cycles. Average instructions per cycle is the only way to define that. It's not about measuring the final raw performance increase nor is it about measuring how much work can be done with a given amount of electrical power, and that's a mistake you appear to be having trouble avoiding.


----------



## ebduncan

i hope you guys know that all of you are way off topic. Your arguing over ipc and ips, and what ever else.

This thread is about pile-driver engineering benchmarks, don't feed the trolls.


----------



## Ashtyr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Good, now get the PD chip to 4.8 or higher like we know BD can. Once again, there goes your thuban.
> .


Well my 1055T in Cinebench gives me 7.27 to 4.1 GHz, , not much difference with OC FX8xxx


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> I don't get AMD, they have the resources to make an awesome chip and yet they using Bulldozer?
> You can pour all the glitter you want onto a turd but it's still a turd.
> A die shrunk Phenom 2 would of been awesome and a much better option then Bulldozer as it
> - Would be smaller so more yields
> - Consumed less power
> - Offered much more performance


So where are all your facts to back your clam? PII was already on it's last leg architecture wise. ah screw it, this thread went in the dumps before it was even posted.


----------



## pony-tail

We will not know how good/bad Vishera is until they are actually out and about .
I am hoping they are good enough to do what I need - at a good/decent price . I do not know when they will arrive maybe weeks maybe months , sooner would suit me , but AMD seems very tight lipped about what is going on , but I guess that is better than hype or just plain B.S. .
It does however , from what I have read appear that there will be some , modest improvement - but even that is not guaranteed at this stage and I definitely do not see an Intel killer even on price performance basis . but as I have already stated , if it is good enough and at the right price I will be buying a couple - maybe 3 . If not 3 of my machines will remain Thuban and my game rig will go Intel I am not in a big hurry as the thubans are doing pretty-much all that I need and even on my game rig an 1100T with a pair of 6870s is doing pretty well .


----------



## cre8ive65

Sorry to be a noob, but i keep hearing IPS and IPC, what is the difference? what do they stand for/mean?


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> You don't appear to understand what I wrote. You're just repeating what the guy I quoted said which doesn't really bring anything new to the table. Of course IPC doesn't take frequency into account. That's intentional and happens to be the objective. The metric you're using (IPS) doesn't measure the aspect of performance I said IPC is useful for examining.
> When I say efficiency, I'm not talking about power efficiency. I'm talking about clock efficiency; how much work can be done within a static number of clock cycles. Average instructions per cycle is the only way to define that. It's not about measuring the final raw performance increase nor is it about measuring how much work can be done with a given amount of electrical power, and that's a mistake you appear to be having trouble avoiding.


But why does IPC, or "clock efficiency" as you put it, matter? If Bulldozer had been released as AMD intended (much higher clocks with the lower IPC compared to Phenom), it would have been an improvement even if IPC was lowered. In the end, what enthusiasts care about is IPS, and what servers/mobile care about is IPS/watt.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> Sorry to be a noob, but i keep hearing IPS and IPC, what is the difference? what do they stand for/mean?


IPS is instructions per second. IPC is instructions per clock. IPC is the amount of work a core can do in one clock cycle. IPS is the result of multiplying the IPC by the frequency.

Instructions/cycle X cycles/second = instructions/second

IPS is what matters in terms of the raw amount of work the CPU can do. More specifically, it refers to the amount of work a single core can do with a single-threaded load.


----------



## PiOfPie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> Sorry to be a noob, but i keep hearing IPS and IPC, what is the difference? what do they stand for/mean?


IPC=Instructions per cycle
IPS=instructions per second. People on here generally say that the easiest way to think about it is as a product of IPC and clock speed (IPS=IPC x clock speed)

Being a healthcare guy, the metaphor that I use for myself is that of a heart. Your heart's got two methods of pumping blood when demand for it rises. It can either contract harder so that it moves a greater amount of blood (vaguely similar to IPC), or it can beat faster (clock speed).

Another way to think about it: one horse is hooked up to a mill that allows it to crush 2 pounds of grain every time it travels in a circle once.
A second horse is hooked up to a mill that only allows it to crush 1 pound of grain for every time around the mill, but horse #2 is moving twice as fast as horse #1. (Lower IPC, higher clock speed)
Who's producing more grain? Neither.

Stupid metaphor, I know, but dumb comparisons like that work for me, at least.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> Sorry to be a noob, but i keep hearing IPS and IPC, what is the difference? what do they stand for/mean?


IPC = Instructions Per Clock. How many instructions a CPU can run in a certain number of cycles. I.E., 2500k has better IPC then a 1090T. It can do more instructions in 3.3Ghz.

IPS = Instruction Per Second. IPS is IPC x Clock Speed, or the total performance of the CPU over a certain amount of time. A 2500k at 4.5 will have more IPS then a 2500k at 4.0, though the IPC is the same.


----------



## pursuinginsanity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThePath*
> 
> In single thread it will be slower than even Nehalem
> And SB is old. U should compare it to Ivy brIdge anyway


Agreed on both accounts.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> If only that was the case.
> By the looks of it, they are at Nehalem levels, granted it clocks higher than Nehalem. But Nehalem was 45nm and launched in 2009.
> So AMD has caught up to a 3 year old chip? Sandy Bridge has been on the market for 20 months now.
> Glad we're finally seeing some decent competition I guess. ( if you want to call it that )
> We needed Vishera 2 years ago.


Nehalem was released in Nov. 2008.

...So even if it catches up, and I doubt it (~15% IPC would put it slightly faster/on par with Phenom II, not Nehalem - 2.66ghz Nehalems beat even 3.4+ghz Phenom IIs, ignoring hyperthreading completely) that means AMD finally did it - 4 years later.

They have got a -lot- of catching up to do.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> They did, significantly.
> AMD's Trinity APU can fit an ~FX-4100 within a 45W TDP or better. The A10-5700 has four 3.4Ghz (4Ghz turbo) integer cores in a 65W TDP - a TDP rating that INCLUDES the HD 7660G graphics as well.
> 
> I anticipate Vishera will be able to use resonant clock mesh as well.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the drop in upgrade; I knew the 990XA investment in a year ago would somehow be worth it


You're forgetting that Trinity doesn't have any L3 cache (or if it does, my bad) and that L3 cache is normally a pretty big power draw.

Check out the power differences between a Phenom II x4 and an Athlon II x4 at the same clock speed. ~25 watt increase.

Trinity looks nice, but it's not exactly relevant, especially when you add in overclocking. We all know what BD does with power draw when pushed, and it's staggering to begin with.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> But why does IPC, or "clock efficiency" as you put it, matter?


It has no bearing on final performance of course, but it's a useful (if academic) tool for measuring how efficient the logic is by itself. You can't measure that without isolating performance from frequency. As an engineer-y type enthusiast, I'm interested in learning about the architecture's logical implementation between revisions and not just how high that logic can be clocked. You should know that I design core logic as a hobby, so I may have different objectives than you when it comes to what I'm interested in knowing about.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> *It has no bearing on final performance of course*, but it's a useful (if academic) tool for measuring how efficient the logic is by itself. You can't measure that without isolating performance from frequency. As an engineer-y type enthusiast, I'm interested in learning about the architecture's logical implementation between revisions and not just how high that logic can be clocked. You should know that I design core logic as a hobby, so I may have different objectives than you when it comes to what I'm interested in knowing about.


Of course IPC affects final and actual real world performance







What a silly thing to say... You change the IPC by any amount and it affects the whole performance of the chip.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> Of course IPC affects final and actual real world performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a silly thing to say... You change the IPC by any amount and it affects the whole performance of the chip.


You can also change the clock speed by any amount and it would also affect the whole performance of the chip... your point?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> It has no bearing on final performance of course, but it's a useful (if academic) tool for measuring how efficient the logic is by itself. You can't measure that without isolating performance from frequency. As an engineer-y type enthusiast, I'm interested in learning about the architecture's logical implementation between revisions and not just how high that logic can be clocked. You should know that I design core logic as a hobby, so I may have different objectives than you when it comes to what I'm interested in knowing about.


Makes sense that you want to know for the sake of knowing.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> You can also change the clock speed by any amount and it would also affect the whole performance of the chip... your point?


That IPC is more important then people think, if you can't out clock the competition ( Like AMD can't ATM ) then that's where IPC becomes very important.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> Of course IPC affects final and actual real world performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a silly thing to say... You change the IPC by any amount and it affects the whole performance of the chip.


Not really. If you want to talk about final, real world performance then frequency is an inseparable part of that equation (IPS). You could have two CPUs with average IPC index of 0.5 and 1.0 but clocked at 2 GHz and 1 GHz respectively. In that scenario, IPC by itself had no impact on realized performance due to the difference in clock potential. Perhaps amusingly, this also happens to be the point the guy who doesn't like what I say keeps harping on.

I don't understand how the subtleties in the difference between IPC and IPS seem lost on people. The two concepts are not difficult to understand. When talking about performance, what IPC is to IPS is very similar to what say bus width is to bandwidth. It matters academically if your bus is 32 or 64 bits wide since that's how much data you'll move per clock cycle. Without a time dimension though, you have no way to judge bandwidth (what will end up mattering in the real world [plus latency]). To get that time dimension you have to have frequency. It's an inherent part of that concept.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> Not really. If you want to talk about final, real world performance then frequency is an inseparable part of that equation (IPS). You could have two CPUs with average IPC index of 0.5 and 1.0 but clocked at 2 GHz and 1 GHz respectively. In that scenario, IPC by itself had no impact on realized performance due to the difference in clock potential. Perhaps amusingly, this also happens to be the point the guy who doesn't like what I say keeps harping on.
> I don't understand how the subtleties in the difference between IPC and IPS seem lost on people. The two concepts are not difficult to understand. When talking about performance, what IPC is to IPS is very similar to what say bus width is to bandwidth. It matters academically if your bus is 32 or 64 bits wide since that's how much data you'll move per clock cycle. Without a time dimension though, you have no way to judge bandwidth (what will end up mattering in the real world [plus latency]). To get that time dimension you have to have frequency. It's an inherent part of that concept.


Everything is related to IPS as you've said

Clock speed * IPC = IPS

IPS being the chips absolute real world performance metric and in most cases is enough to conclude a chips performance but when you have 2 different architectures that offer roughly the same clock speeds but yet differ so much in real world performance you have to look at other methods of comparing the 2 to determine which offers the best performance.

And since both offer the same clock's you have to look at the other part of the equation, IPC!

IPC is and has always been more important then sheer clock speed, you look back at history and you'll see that IPC has ruled the roost over clock speed.

Also having a high IPC throughput alleviates the need for a high clocking CPU, AMD for some unknown reason chose to go backwards in terms of IPC throughput which is fine and there's nothing wrong with it but they didn't increase the clock speeds enough to compensate for it which has resulted in a chip that is ultimately slower then it's predecessor.

In your example you listed 0.5 at 2Ghz being equal to 1.0 at 1Ghz which is exactly correct but that's not the situation AMD are in at the moment.

It's more like 1.60 at 1Ghz vs 1.0 at 1Ghz which is not enough for AMD to be competitive on any level, these little 5-10% IPC increases they seem to be aiming for every refresh is not high enough, they need to be aiming at 20-25% increase per refresh if they're to stand a chance of catching Intel, at the rate AMD are going it'll take 3-4 refreshes to even catch up to Intel first generation Neahelm architecture.

And for some reason AMD or Bulldozer users always seem to dismiss to importance of IPC in favor of IPS without acknowledging the relationship that both have.

IPC also is the only way to compare CPU's when running lightly threaded applications, you can't compare the IPS when running 1-2 threaded applications as 1-2 threads is only going to use a small percentage of the available IPS of a Quad core chip and it's in that case that IPS becomes meaningless.

If you have 2 engines, a V8 and a V6 that rev to the same ( Clock speed ) and produce the same BHP ( IPS ) then the you would have to look at the available torque ( IPC ) to determine which ultimately is the better engine.


----------



## Fuell

Why can no AMD threads stay on topic? If you want to discuss IPS and IPC use a different thread in a different subforum or find a news article about it. If you want to talk about Intel, there a nice little Intel forum here too!

I'm interested in info on Vishera CPU's, and all I get is pages and pages of circle jerking and pointless blabber. Seriously people, think for a second about the news rules before you just dive into the reply box for once, FOR ONCE.

OT: Trinity info makes me very interested in Vishera performance. I'm wondering if AMD got all the small problems that plagues them right and if it helped much. RCM looks promising on Trinity vs Llano for power consumption, which is a big issue for BD, so I can't wait to see how it helps PD. I've always been curious how much of a difference it would make. On Trinity, its a new arch compared to Llano so its hard to judge, but if it were on BD as it is, how much of a difference would it make I wonder, and how much higher would it allow you to push the clocks... Lots of things to keep an eye out for this time around with AMD. Just hope they don't fudge this and force me to wait for SR.


----------



## Particle

You may have missed the last page or so of this thread where I appeared to be the only person expressing an interest in (and defending the importance of) IPC between BD and PD amid others insisting that IPS was all that mattered.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> IPC is and has always been more important then sheer clock speed, you look back at history and you'll see that IPC has ruled the roost over clock speed.


If that were the case then we'd all still be using P3's and K6's, as their IPC was much higher than their successive architectures.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> If that were the case then we'd all still be using P3's and K6's, as their IPC was much higher than their successive architectures.


So no one would of tried to improve them


----------



## Imglidinhere

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> If that were the case then we'd all still be using P3's and K6's, as their IPC was much higher than their successive architectures.


Only the successor to the Pentium III was the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium 4 was just a test.







The Core 2 was more than a match for anything out there and it still takes out BD. We need those benches out now. XD REALLY kill AMD's glorious bulldozer architecture.









Anyway, I still hope Piledriver will be a good chip. Hopefully these rumors about AMD cancelling their performance desktop CPU line are false.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> Only the successor to the Pentium III was the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium 4 was just a test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Core 2 was more than a match for anything out there and it still takes out BD. We need those benches out now. XD REALLY kill AMD's glorious bulldozer architecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I still hope Piledriver will be a good chip. Hopefully these rumors about AMD cancelling their performance desktop CPU line are false.


AMD is killing their CPU line, and moving to an all-APU lineup. That doesn't mean there won't be performance parts. It just means their performance parts will be APUs, not CPUs.


----------



## JunkoXan

would be nice if they could do a high performance one where a 7770 could crossfire of course the clocks may need to be lower then a standard 7770 prolly be like a 7750


----------



## Flying Toilet

If Trinity has a ~10-15% increase over Bulldozer with no L3, then I can't wait to see what not only Piledriver in a desktop can do, but what it can do in a server... 64 cores delivering >15% increase in performance? Cancer will be done for in a matter of days.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> AMD is killing their CPU line, and moving to an all-APU lineup. That doesn't mean there won't be performance parts. It just means their performance parts will be APUs, not CPUs.


Correct me if I am wrong but this has not been confirmed by AMD,at this point it is speculation,no?


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but this has not been confirmed by AMD,at this point it is speculation,no?


AMD's HSA plans means that all of their lineup will eventually consist of only APUs. When this will happen is the uncertain part. Currently, their roadmap does not have any plans for a CPU counterpart to the Steamroller cycle, so there is some speculation that AMD is killing off the CPU line with Steamroller.

That does not mean they won't have performance desktop parts, it just means their performance desktop parts will be APUs.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> But why does IPC, or "clock efficiency" as you put it, matter?
> 
> 
> 
> It has no bearing on final performance of course, but it's a useful (if academic) tool for measuring how efficient the logic is by itself. You can't measure that without isolating performance from frequency. As an engineer-y type enthusiast, I'm interested in learning about the architecture's logical implementation between revisions and not just how high that logic can be clocked. You should know that I design core logic as a hobby, so I may have different objectives than you when it comes to what I'm interested in knowing about.
Click to expand...

IPC does have bearing on final performance, but it isn't a good measure of performance on its own.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> You can also change the clock speed by any amount and it would also affect the whole performance of the chip... your point?
> 
> 
> 
> That IPC is more important then people think, if you can't out clock the competition ( Like AMD can't ATM ) then that's where IPC becomes very important.
Click to expand...

Just like how if you can't have higher IPC than the competition clocks become very important.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> If that were the case then we'd all still be using P3's and K6's, as their IPC was much higher than their successive architectures.
> 
> 
> 
> So no one would of tried to improve them
Click to expand...

Generally the higher IPC you have, the lower your max overclocking speed is, Intel has somehow gotten both on air. (A great example is the Cyrix 6x86, it had higher IPC than everything else out but it hit a clock speed wall before the AMD K6 and any of the Intel CPUs at the time)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> The Core 2 was more than a match for anything out there and it still takes out BD.


No, it doesn't, I went from a E6700 to a Phenom II to BD and each had a slight performance increase in some games at least, everyone goes on about how C2D matches Phenom II and BD is beaten by Phenom II, in reality when properly clocked Phenom II beats C2D and Bulldozer ends up matching PhII, you have the CPU/NB clocks to OC too, and with BD you sync the HTT Link and CPU/NB clock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> Only the successor to the Pentium III was the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium 4 was just a test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Core 2 was more than a match for anything out there and it still takes out BD. We need those benches out now. XD REALLY kill AMD's glorious bulldozer architecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I still hope Piledriver will be a good chip. Hopefully these rumors about AMD cancelling their performance desktop CPU line are false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD is killing their CPU line, and moving to an all-APU lineup. That doesn't mean there won't be performance parts. It just means their performance parts will be APUs, not CPUs.
Click to expand...

That was rumour, not ever proven. In fact, AMD have said otherwise I'm fairly sure, even if it is happening then you're right, no CPUs doesn't mean low performance CPUs, the 3770k are APUs remember.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> That was rumour, not ever proven. In fact, AMD have said otherwise I'm fairly sure, even if it is happening then you're right, no CPUs doesn't mean low performance CPUs, the 3770k are APUs remember.


Its confirmed that AMDs servers are going HSA. And AMD never said otherwise. I assume you are talking about this article. You'll notice it says nothing about continuing to make stand alone CPUs. Its a non-denial.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> That was rumour, not ever proven. In fact, AMD have said otherwise I'm fairly sure, even if it is happening then you're right, no CPUs doesn't mean low performance CPUs, the 3770k are APUs remember.
> 
> 
> 
> Its confirmed that AMDs servers are going HSA. And AMD never said otherwise. I assume you are talking about this article. You'll notice it says nothing about continuing to make stand alone CPUs. Its a non-denial.
Click to expand...

Ah, the actual source for that story; I read one that obviously didn't quote it right.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Ah, the actual source for that story; I read one that obviously didn't quote it right.


Not your fault, that author was obviously claiming more than he could prove.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> IPC does have bearing on final performance, but it isn't a good measure of performance on its own.
> Just like how if you can't have higher IPC than the competition clocks become very important.
> Generally the higher IPC you have, the lower your max overclocking speed is, Intel has somehow gotten both on air. (A great example is the Cyrix 6x86, it had higher IPC than everything else out but it hit a clock speed wall before the AMD K6 and any of the Intel CPUs at the time)
> No, it doesn't, I went from a E6700 to a Phenom II to BD and each had a slight performance increase in some games at least, everyone goes on about how C2D matches Phenom II and BD is beaten by Phenom II, in reality when properly clocked Phenom II beats C2D and Bulldozer ends up matching PhII, you have the CPU/NB clocks to OC too, and with BD you sync the HTT Link and CPU/NB clock.
> That was rumour, not ever proven. In fact, AMD have said otherwise I'm fairly sure, even if it is happening then you're right, no CPUs doesn't mean low performance CPUs, the 3770k are APUs remember.


Let me ask you something, how high does an 8150 need to be clocked to match the IPC of a 2600K running @ 5GHZ. What ever the answer is, can BD on it air? ( I don't feel like doing the Math, but because you love IPS so much, due tell.







)


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> IPC does have bearing on final performance, but it isn't a good measure of performance on its own.
> Just like how if you can't have higher IPC than the competition clocks become very important.
> Generally the higher IPC you have, the lower your max overclocking speed is, Intel has somehow gotten both on air. (A great example is the Cyrix 6x86, it had higher IPC than everything else out but it hit a clock speed wall before the AMD K6 and any of the Intel CPUs at the time)
> No, it doesn't, I went from a E6700 to a Phenom II to BD and each had a slight performance increase in some games at least, everyone goes on about how C2D matches Phenom II and BD is beaten by Phenom II, in reality when properly clocked Phenom II beats C2D and Bulldozer ends up matching PhII, you have the CPU/NB clocks to OC too, and with BD you sync the HTT Link and CPU/NB clock.
> That was rumour, not ever proven. In fact, AMD have said otherwise I'm fairly sure, even if it is happening then you're right, no CPUs doesn't mean low performance CPUs, the 3770k are APUs remember.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you something, how high does an 8150 need to be clocked to match the IPC of a 2600K running @ 5GHZ. What ever the answer is, can BD on it air? ( I don't fill like doing the Math, but because you love IPS so much, due tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
Click to expand...

God knows, I doubt most of them could reach that clock though.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> God knows, I doubt most of them could reach that clock though.


So in other words, AMD needs to keep working on increasing IPC, as they can't rely solely on high clock speeds to make up for its low IPC.









Surely you remember the "Megahertz Myth" AMD was so adamant about.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> So in other words, AMD needs to keep working on increasing IPC, as they can't rely solely on high clock speeds to make up for its low IPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you remember the "Megahertz Myth" AMD was so adamant about.


How about they work on improving both IPC and frequency, as they are doing with Piledriver?


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> God knows, I doubt most of them could reach that clock though.
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words, AMD needs to keep working on increasing IPC, as they can't rely solely on high clock speeds to make up for its low IPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you remember the "Megahertz Myth" AMD was so adamant about.
Click to expand...

Oh, definitely, Intel has the benefit of high clock speeds and high IPC, otherwise BDs clock speeds would put it in a much better light.


----------



## cyberpunkz

How well does it perform in games? any game benchmarks?


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> How about they work on improving both IPC and frequency, as they are doing with Piledriver?


Totally.









I'm still not sure how high PD will clock, I don't see it going beyond 4.8 - 5.0 on air. But if it has at least Nehalem IPC *it'll be good*, due to its higher clock speeds, but it'll obviously still be behind SB/IB.

Steamroller seems to be where it's at.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Oh, definitely, Intel has the benefit of high clock speeds and high IPC, otherwise BDs clock speeds would put it in a much better light.


It's exactly what I'm saying.









When AMD has a high clocking chip with IPC > SB ________________. Feel FREE to finish this sentence.









For now, all I'm looking forward to is Trinity for desktop for an HTPC, and plan on buying a Trinity laptop soon, just haven't got around to it.

Based on numbers it's safe to say PD is a definite improvement over BD.

Believe it or not, I'm an AMD fan at heart, as I've built more AMD rigs over the years. My current rig was my first Intel rig in like 7 years. Everything before that was AMD, and before that I went back and forth between Intel & AMD. I just tell it how I see it, one way or the other, people don't often agree with me and that's fine.


----------



## totallynotshooped

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Let me ask you something, how high does an 8150 need to be clocked to match the IPC of a 2600K running @ 5GHZ. What ever the answer is, can BD on it air? ( I don't feel like doing the Math, but because you love IPS so much, due tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Remember BD doing over 8 GHz?
That was probably it.


----------



## ebduncan

how high do you have to clock a 8150? to match a 5ghz sandy bridge?

6ghz or so. However a 5ghz FX will still beat a 5ghz sandy bridge in some benchmarks. IPC and IPS change depending on workload. Thanks to instruction sets and optimized software the bulldozer does put up a fight in some programs.

The current FX processors clock to 5ghz+ on air, and are usually limited in their clock speed because of cooling. In other words its really hard to keep the monsters cool due to their high energy consumption at higher clock speeds/ voltages. Pile Driver offers better power consumption thus will run cooler, and is likely to see higher clocks. My 8120 for example reachs 5.2ghz on a a simple antec 920. If i could bare the fan noise i would run it at that speed.

I don't think 5.5ghz or higher will be out of the question with good cooling on Pile-Driver. Anyways we a little over a month away from release date. Kinda surprising we haven't seen anymore benchmarks leaked yet.


----------



## astrovasilis

http://www.obr-hardware.com/2012/09/preview-amd-fx-8350-piledriver-last.html

SO;


----------



## Capt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *astrovasilis*
> 
> http://www.obr-hardware.com/2012/09/preview-amd-fx-8350-piledriver-last.html
> SO;


I'd wait for a more proper review.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *astrovasilis*
> 
> http://www.obr-hardware.com/2012/09/preview-amd-fx-8350-piledriver-last.html
> SO;












Pretty good on multithreaded stuff. Looks like it is up to 15% .


----------



## Brutuz

5% on Single threaded...Hmm, seems AMD is matching Intels transition to IB for that but gaining more when you use multiple threads...Now to see if it clocks just as high.


----------



## PiOfPie

I would be interested to see if any of these benches improved more on Win8; would be cool to see how the new scheduler plays around with PD.


----------



## damric

Old engineering sample is old.

Says on the chip, made in 2011.


----------



## ebduncan

honestly that preview is not exactly credible. Guy curses to much to be a legit review.

Anyways, The question with Pile-driver is How high it can overclock and what will its power consumption be.


----------



## cre8ive65

Considering how an engineering sample matches a 2600k (I would assume hyper threaded and stock for stock) that's pretty good!


----------



## cre8ive65

I really don't care if everything else from now own are APU's, so long as they are a viable option against the highest i7. like:

A4/6=i3
A8=i5
A10=i7

If they did something like that, and performance would be comparable, I'd go for it!


----------



## Hukkel

What a lovely thread filled with Intel vs AMD people again.

I for one am glad AMD is trying to step up their game and give us better cpus. One shouldn't assume an increase of more than 10% for en evolution of a previous architecture. If they can go over the Phenom II again clock for clock they are on the right track again.

I don't care who has the fastest chip out there. It will always be value vs money. AMD sells them cheaper and has a worse speed clock for clock. I can live with that. And if they ever get close to Sandy Bridge soon then good for them. SB is an amazing architecture and more than plenty for most users anyway.


----------



## Timeofdoom

If you haven't seen it yet, there's quite the discussion about whether these "ES zambezi's" are legit or not over at SemiAccurate: http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6626

Some folks over there thinks that these ES's are fake, considering the revision numbers. Basically bulldozer cores with a few tweaks as a "proof-of-concept" instead of piledriver cores as seen in Trinity. However that wouldn't really explain the Zambezi name..


----------



## erunion

Read the thread. Half think its piledriver and half think its tweaked bulldozer. Since PD is tweaked BD, I say they are both right.


----------



## Homeles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Read the thread. Half think its piledriver and half think its tweaked bulldozer. Since PD is tweaked BD, I say they are both right.


See, I'm suspicious, and this is why:










There is clearly more SRAM on the Trinity die than on the alleged Vishera die.


----------



## Timeofdoom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erunion*
> 
> Read the thread. Half think its piledriver and half think its tweaked bulldozer. Since PD is tweaked BD, I say they are both right.


Hadn't really noticed, since all I saw was a sea of flames.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Homeles*
> 
> See, I'm suspicious, and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is clearly more SRAM on the Trinity die than on the alleged Vishera die.


That is actually quite interesting. Is the last picture from OBR? (I tried to find it, really, but I couldn't. I am bad at german.)


----------



## Homeles

It's from the SA thread. There's a link that leads to a post that links to the article. Here you go: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.planet3dnow.de%2Fcgi-bin%2Fnewspub%2Fviewnews.cgi%3Fid%3D1346580414

I noticed that yesterday when I saw the "Vishera die shot," but I decided that it's certainly plausible that the Piledriver cores on Vishera are different from the ones on Vishera.

A really interesting thing about that source is their talk about the dedicated integer divide unit (something I didn't know existed) being on Llano and Bulldozer. It was disabled on Bulldozer and Llano, as it was buggy, but was fixed on Trinity. It may or may not be fixed on Vishera.


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Homeles*
> 
> See, I'm suspicious, and this is why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is clearly more SRAM on the Trinity die than on the alleged Vishera die.


Interesting. I didn't really look at the die shot closely until now. But it really does look like its the same image color adjusted.


----------



## erunion

Well, OBR wouldn't have photoed the die himself. The only way that could be a real die shot would be if he had an embargoed image made by AMD. Throw in these peculiarities, and I'm leaning towards that picture having nothing to do with that engineering sample.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> The current FX processors clock to 5ghz+ on air, and are usually limited in their clock speed because of cooling.


Typical result of 5+ GHz on air/water and stable? That assertion would not reflect the reality I know.


----------



## Sarinaide

I have kind of just watched all the FX 8350 alleged engineering samples come out over the last week or so and honestly on study it looks as fake and poor a photoshopping as it can get, then you look at the source and you see OBR, serial Intel and Nvidia fanboi who blogs utter drivel to get hits. I will put my neck out on the block and say everything including these engineering samples are fake.

It was AMD officially that stated the metal level changes from Zambezi to Vishera, that would fundamentally make the die setup different they look exactly the same. How can Vishera be Zambezi family when they are designated different family names, irrespective of Vishera merely being a rework on Zambezi, it is still nevertheless Vishera and not Zambezi.

Then we go to dear Cinebench benches, when has AMD ever used a 4C/8T catagorization of its Flagship processors, particularly how hypercritical they were of Intels HT ~ SMT lite. If you can't photoshop well get someone who can.


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> Typical result of 5+ GHz on air/water and stable? That assertion would not reflect the reality I know.


yes, if you know what your doing 5ghz+ is not hard to do, at least on the higher binned parts. Such as 4170/ 6200/8150. Fx processors have trouble with Heat just like the phenom 2's/ thuban did. Most users just jack up the voltage to achieve a higher overclock. While yes you commonly need more voltage to run higher clocks. With the Fx processors higher voltage increases the TDP and thus more heat is created, and is harder to keep cool. On High end air you really want to be below 50c full load for best clocks. Under water you can get lower and allow for more voltage to be used. In overclocking the FX cpu finding the voltage wall is critical. Ie how much voltage does it take your chip to run at 800mhz. How much voltage does it need to run at 1000mhz.. The cpu's scale with voltage and clocks till you hit your voltage wall. Then the voltage much be increase more and more to get higher clocks.

Since todays cpu's have so many controllers built into the cpu itself raising just the cpu vcore will still limit your overclock. Voltage to the northbridge and memory controllers also need to be adjusted.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sarinaide*
> 
> I have kind of just watched all the FX 8350 alleged engineering samples come out over the last week or so and honestly on study it looks as fake and poor a photoshopping as it can get, then you look at the source and you see OBR, serial Intel and Nvidia fanboi who blogs utter drivel to get hits. I will put my neck out on the block and say everything including these engineering samples are fake.
> 
> It was AMD officially that stated the metal level changes from Zambezi to Vishera, that would fundamentally make the die setup different they look exactly the same. How can Vishera be Zambezi family when they are designated different family names, irrespective of Vishera merely being a rework on Zambezi, it is still nevertheless Vishera and not Zambezi.
> 
> Then we go to dear Cinebench benches, when has AMD ever used a 4C/8T catagorization of its Flagship processors, particularly how hypercritical they were of Intels HT ~ SMT lite. If you can't photoshop well get someone who can.


I have no idea on the results, but those die-shots are definitely fake IMO, just photoshopped BD.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical result of 5+ GHz on air/water and stable? That assertion would not reflect the reality I know.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, if you know what your doing 5ghz+ is not hard to do, at least on the higher binned parts. Such as 4170/ 6200/8150. Fx processors have trouble with Heat just like the phenom 2's/ thuban did. Most users just jack up the voltage to achieve a higher overclock. While yes you commonly need more voltage to run higher clocks. With the Fx processors higher voltage increases the TDP and thus more heat is created, and is harder to keep cool. On High end air you really want to be below 50c full load for best clocks. Under water you can get lower and allow for more voltage to be used. In overclocking the FX cpu finding the voltage wall is critical. Ie how much voltage does it take your chip to run at 800mhz. How much voltage does it need to run at 1000mhz.. The cpu's scale with voltage and clocks till you hit your voltage wall. Then the voltage much be increase more and more to get higher clocks.
> 
> Since todays cpu's have so many controllers built into the cpu itself raising just the cpu vcore will still limit your overclock. Voltage to the northbridge and memory controllers also need to be adjusted.
Click to expand...

AMDs a lot funner to clock than Intel IMO, you can go a lot of ways to the same thing, like you mentioned BD and Phenom II both clock better with lower temperatures than more voltage, you do need to raise the voltage but if a chip is unstable at 5Ghz (for example) it might all be down to being 5c too hot and not the voltage. I've seen quite a few times where Phenom II has become unstable at a certain speed merely because it's summer all of a sudden.


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> AMDs a lot funner to clock than Intel IMO, you can go a lot of ways to the same thing, like you mentioned BD and Phenom II both clock better with lower temperatures than more voltage, you do need to raise the voltage but if a chip is unstable at 5Ghz (for example) it might all be down to being 5c too hot and not the voltage. I've seen quite a few times where Phenom II has become unstable at a certain speed merely because it's summer all of a sudden.


correct sir.

in the winter time my ambient temps are lower as i keep the house at 70f, but in the summer I keep the house at 75f. Just to reduce energy costs, this ambient temp effects the difference between me running 4.9ghz or 5.2ghz. Granted i can still run at 5.2ghz in the summer time, just the fans get to annoying.

But yes with Fx and phenom 2 cpus you want to keep temps under 50c for best results. if your at 55c full load and are unstable with any amount of voltage you throw at it, get the temps below 50c and then that overclock may become stable. You might actually need less voltage.


----------



## Sarinaide

Looked at slides of recent Piledriver core architecture and those dieshots look absolutely nothing like a Piledriver core, but yeah popular sentiment is that its photoshoped and that the alleged Engineering sample is for all intents and purposes a post released Zambezi debugged sample, my guess is around January-February time, prior to Piledriver engineering, just to see where they can squeeze out some performance.


----------



## Alastair

Ok just spent three days reading this ENTIRE thread. I'm really excited for Piledriver FX's. But can somebody answer a quick question? What will be a worthy upgrade over a phenom 965 c3 @ 4.2ghz?
2 module piledriver FX or 3 module? I still don't quite understand the cores vs. modules argument but I don't really care. I'm just interested in the best upgrade for my buck. Will a 5GHz+ 2 or 3 module Piledriver FX beat my phenom?

EDIT: Hey Sarinaide!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's good to see a fellow South African up in here!


----------



## clutchguy

3 days is a long time to spend on rumors but I'll add more fuel to the fire: http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/06/a-brief-look-at-amds-steamroller-core/

They claim that single core could be improved by more than 30%??







In that case, my next build will be based on these cores!


----------



## Alastair

Yeah that's great and all. But which will bring more bang for buck over PII 965 @ 4.2GHz? Two module or Three module Piledriver FX? Judging by what I am hearing I am leaning towards a three module. I am purely interested in gaming performance for windows 7 I as am not planning on gong to windows 8 at all.


----------



## frozne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *clutchguy*
> 
> 3 days is a long time to spend on rumors but I'll add more fuel to the fire: http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/06/a-brief-look-at-amds-steamroller-core/
> They claim that single core could be improved by more than 30%??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case, my next build will be based of these cores!


Not shocking. One major change is the modules in steamroller will have 2 decodes instead of 1. The single decode is a major bottleneck in bulldozers design. The concept has already been tested. You can increase the 8150's IPC by roughly 20% by disabling 1 core per module in the bios. That essentially turns it into a 4 core where each core has 1 decode with no sharing. You gimp your multithreaded performance, but it is promising if they can add the decoder per module and still keep the amount of cores.


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> Not shocking. One major change is the modules in steamroller will have 2 decodes instead of 1. The single decode is a major bottleneck in bulldozers design. The concept has already been tested. You can increase the 8150's IPC by roughly 20% by disabling 1 core per module in the bios. That essentially turns it into a 4 core where each core has 1 decode with no sharing. You gimp your multithreaded performance, but it is promising if they can add the decoder per module and still keep the amount of cores.


yes the decoder is a bottleneck. They say the one decoder when all cores are taxed limits cpu throughput to 80%, i remember seeing this on a AMD slide. They just figured this bottleneck would not been seen often. With 2 decode units and a revamped l1 and l2. Steam Roller is where the big improvements will come.

The revamped l2 is a interesting concept, instead of the static l2 per core we are used to , steam roller will introduce dynamic l2, which changes size based on load between the cores. Doubt that will help performance much, but should be a nifty power saving feature.

Overall there is a-lot to be excited about with Steam Roller. Pile-Driver not so much, as it is just tweaks some minor bottlenecks and clock resistance mesh. Its like going from pheonom 2 to thuban. Thubans are better than phenom 2's but the difference isn't all that much to get excited about. Steam Roller actually dives into architectural improvements. Pretty sure their will also be a die shrink to 28nm with steam-roller. Guys over at Amd are announcing a 30-45% improvement over current FX. That is huge, That basically leap frogs intel. Will have to wait for final silicon, and wait we will as its not expected until late 2013.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alastair*
> 
> Yeah that's great and all. But which will bring more bang for buck over PII 965 @ 4.2GHz? Two module or Three module Piledriver FX? Judging by what I am hearing I am leaning towards a three module. I am purely interested in gaming performance for windows 7 I as am not planning on gong to windows 8 at all.


Really depends on what the release prices are. But if you're looking for a definite upgrade from your Phenom II, you'll want at least the 3 module/6 core.


----------



## Alastair

That sounds logical. But games aren't optimized to utilize more then four cores. So I am hoping that the two module will be able to surpass the phenom 2 x4's by a large enough margin to make it worth while because I think the launch price of of the three module will be about R2000+- (+-$240). My price range will be around the R1600 ($190) mark. Any ideas what the prices might be on release day?


----------



## PiOfPie

The problem with a two-module CPU is that for things other than integer math, it would act like a dual-core processor, so even if Piledriver's IPC does turn out to be on par/a bit better than Phenom II, it wouldn't be much of an upgrade. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally games are a lot more floating point than integer, yes?

2-module CPUs will put out less heat--->can be overclocked higher---->will probably be better than PII on single/dual threaded games (most). But it might start choking on the few titles out there that can actually run 4 threads at once. This is probably why everyone's recommending that you go with a 3/4 module Piledriver.

As for price? No word yet, though if AMD does set the A10 at $130 like the stories are going, it looks like they'll probably be priced pretty competitively. More competitively than Bulldozer was, at least.


----------



## Demonkev666

no.
basing that off the single runs Vs multi cores in something like cinebench 11.5r

Problem with that is a single core gets full use from the front End and L2 cache.

when you split it up the front end you go from 4 way decoder to a 2 way decoder for each cores.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alastair*
> 
> That sounds logical. But games aren't optimized to utilize more then four cores. So I am hoping that the two module will be able to surpass the phenom 2 x4's by a large enough margin to make it worth while because I think the launch price of of the three module will be about R2000+- (+-$240). My price range will be around the R1600 ($190) mark. Any ideas what the prices might be on release day?


The 4 module/8 core part is the most likely one to be in the $250 range. The 3 module/6 core is probably at most $200, with the 2 module/4 core being $150 at most. There will also be other lower clocked versions of each part that will be below those price points.

Just my guess, don't take my word for it, but an educated guess based on the Bulldozer release.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PiOfPie*
> 
> The problem with a two-module CPU is that for things other than integer math, it would act like a dual-core processor, so even if Piledriver's IPC does turn out to be on par/a bit better than Phenom II, it wouldn't be much of an upgrade. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally games are a lot more floating point than integer, yes?
> 
> 2-module CPUs will put out less heat--->can be overclocked higher---->will probably be better than PII on single/dual threaded games (most). But it might start choking on the few titles out there that can actually run 4 threads at once. This is probably why everyone's recommending that you go with a 3/4 module Piledriver.
> 
> As for price? No word yet, though if AMD does set the A10 at $130 like the stories are going, it looks like they'll probably be priced pretty competitively. More competitively than Bulldozer was, at least.


I can't speak for PhIIs that clocked higher than 3.6Ghz 24/7 and 3.8Ghz benching, but my 2 module BD was equal to it at 4.8Ghz, iirc while it only has one FP pipeline per module it's a lot wider and faster than the PhII one was, or something like that so total performance isn't down too far.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PiOfPie*
> 
> The problem with a two-module CPU is that for things other than integer math, it would act like a dual-core processor, so even if Piledriver's IPC does turn out to be on par/a bit better than Phenom II, it wouldn't be much of an upgrade. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally games are a lot more floating point than integer, yes?
> 
> 2-module CPUs will put out less heat--->can be overclocked higher---->will probably be better than PII on single/dual threaded games (most). But it might start choking on the few titles out there that can actually run 4 threads at once. This is probably why everyone's recommending that you go with a 3/4 module Piledriver.
> 
> As for price? No word yet, though if AMD does set the A10 at $130 like the stories are going, it looks like they'll probably be priced pretty competitively. More competitively than Bulldozer was, at least.


Uh nah it doesn't really work like that. The single FPUs in each module are capable of performing two 128-bit operations simultaneously IIRC. 256-bit AVX and the like, then it does function like a quad-core... but it doesn't do too bad at all with those instruction sets. There may be fewer actual units, but their speed increased considerably. You can see this in Cinebench, which is mostly FP.


----------



## Alastair

Maybe I might skip Piledriver and hope that Steamroller will be backwards compatible with AM3+ like AMD has done in the past, as you all seem to predict that Steamroller will be on a new socket....









EDIT: Or I just be patient and wait for the actual processors to be released and I just wait for the benchmarks.....


----------



## PiOfPie

Thanks for all the architecture info, guys. Rep to each of you.


----------



## Alastair

Is this Vishera/Trinity 2 module die?
Found it here:


----------



## cre8ive65

I'm excited for steamroller, It removes the decode bottleneck by giving each core its own as opposed to having 2 cores share one, i.e. 2 decodes per module, not 1 per module as it is now. Did the piledriver sample not get 2600k performance? I believe it did, that's just a sample and look at how well its doing. But If i were a phenom II user, (I am, but its in my home server and it hasn't had any performance issues) I would hold out for steamroller if possible. Just my opinion


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> I'm excited for steamroller, It removes the decode bottleneck by giving each core its own as opposed to having 2 cores share one, i.e. 2 decodes per module, not 1 per module as it is now. Did the piledriver sample not get 2600k performance? I believe it did, that's just a sample and look at how well its doing. But If i were a phenom II user, (I am, but its in my home server and it hasn't had any performance issues) I would hold out for steamroller if possible. Just my opinion


The main bottlenecks are elsewhere in Bulldozer, iirc it was the Soft-Edge flops and the small L1 cache; most of it is very small though. There's not any fixes that will magically up performance by 10% by themselves, it's all small things that have to add up, having two fast decoders as opposed to one fast one will definitely help but it won't be the one thing that fixes performance.

And as fast as a 2600k in what benchmark? The FX-8120 and FX-8150 both trade blows at the same clock speeds as a 2600k in the easiest form of x264 encoding already.


----------



## frozne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> The main bottlenecks are elsewhere in Bulldozer, iirc it was the Soft-Edge flops and the small L1 cache; most of it is very small though. There's not any fixes that will magically up performance by 10% by themselves, it's all small things that have to add up, having two fast decoders as opposed to one fast one will definitely help but it won't be the one thing that fixes performance.
> And as fast as a 2600k in what benchmark? The FX-8120 and FX-8150 both trade blows at the same clock speeds as a 2600k in the easiest form of x264 encoding already.


The shared resources with the decoder being the main culprit are the biggest things. The flop change was mostly for power consumption. The decoder change could add between 10-15% by itself. The benchmarks for 4c/4m vs 4c/2m were between 18-30% in favor of 4c/4m, which is no resource sharing. However the decoder isn't the only thing shared, so I wouldn't say it accounts for all of that performance gain, but it is probably one of the major factors.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frozne*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> The main bottlenecks are elsewhere in Bulldozer, iirc it was the Soft-Edge flops and the small L1 cache; most of it is very small though. There's not any fixes that will magically up performance by 10% by themselves, it's all small things that have to add up, having two fast decoders as opposed to one fast one will definitely help but it won't be the one thing that fixes performance.
> And as fast as a 2600k in what benchmark? The FX-8120 and FX-8150 both trade blows at the same clock speeds as a 2600k in the easiest form of x264 encoding already.
> 
> 
> 
> The shared resources with the decoder being the main culprit are the biggest things. The flop change was mostly for power consumption. The decoder change could add between 10-15% by itself. The benchmarks for 4c/4m vs 4c/2m were between 18-30% in favor of 4c/4m, which is no resource sharing. However the decoder isn't the only thing shared, so I wouldn't say it accounts for all of that performance gain, but it is probably one of the major factors.
Click to expand...

Most of that is down to small parts, the scheduler is the biggest part, yes, but it is still relatively small in the bigger picture; it isn't a make or break thing, the many, many small changes AMD also will make that won't be covered by the media are.


----------



## Capt

Here is to hoping PD surpasses i3!


----------



## Phoenixlight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alastair*
> 
> Maybe I might skip Piledriver and hope that Steamroller will be backwards compatible with AM3+ like AMD has done in the past, as you all seem to predict that Steamroller will be on a new socket....


I sincerely hope that it is not backwards compatible, it's going to be smaller for a start (28nm) and I really don't want AMD to be held back in performance by being forced to use an old socket.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> Here is to hoping PD surpasses i3!


Bulldozer's FX-4100 and FX-6100 are priced similarly and already match the i3 when you OC them, considering the i3 can barely clock at all. (It's also a type of clocking I would never do, unstable SATA controller due to increased speeds is nearly undetectable until you've already had data corruption)


----------



## Demonkev666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frozne*
> 
> The shared resources with the decoder being the main culprit are the biggest things. The flop change was mostly for power consumption. The decoder change could add between 10-15% by itself. The benchmarks for 4c/4m vs 4c/2m were between 18-30% in favor of 4c/4m, which is no resource sharing. However the decoder isn't the only thing shared, so I wouldn't say it accounts for all of that performance gain, but it is probably one of the major factors.


I know of another bottleneck

TLB over flow, which can cause cache misses and miss predicts

pile diver TLB entries are 64

current FX is only 32 entries


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hmm! I would like to see firmer numbers, preferably from HardOCP or other well known reviewers who could give us a clearer picture of how well the new AMD CPUs will do.

If AMD can return to its niche spot of providing Intel-like bang for the buck at much cheaper prices, I might just be sold! As it is, I'm running on a machine I got from a friend, and that'll be my mainstay until things shake out, which could be a long time yet. I'm waiting for Intel to fix up issues with Ivy, and for AMD to basically come back from the brink and bring out CPUs that can at least match Sandy.


----------



## Metric

FX-8350

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SUPERKAMES*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SUPERKAMES*
> 
> @4.5ghz I saw some thing like this


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SUPERKAMES*
> 
> You can see the [FX 8350] Cinebench R11.5 @4.5ghz ~ 7.7x pts .
> --> at the same speed the I7 2600K ~ 8.82 pts as I know .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in realworld application , with the two famous 3D aplication + renderer : 3dsmax 2011 + Vray 1.5SP5 , the thing you already know seem to be stronger.
> 
> Rendering time (second): Lower is better:
> 
> - FX [email protected] : ~ 679s
> - I7 [email protected] : ~ 621s
> - [FX [email protected]] :~ 580s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...maybe its realworld rendering performance is similar to a quadcore I7 Ivy Bridge ..
> ...It must be very important to anyone who care about computer graphic


[TPU] AMD Shows Off A10-5800K and FX-8350 Near IDF




























For very rough estimates.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aGeoM*
> 
> I just finished this Cinebench runs.
> 
> CINEBENCH R11.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HYBRID CINEBENCH R14/11.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CINEBENCH R11.5 @4890
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HYBRID CINEBENCH R14/11.5 @4890


----------



## Brutuz

Looks great! Guess I'll be upgrading to an FX-8320 assuming they clock just as well as the FX-8350, similar to the 8120 vs 8150.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Looks great! Guess I'll be upgrading to an FX-8320 assuming they clock just as well as the FX-8350, similar to the 8120 vs 8150.


At least the 8120 had a lower TDP, where does he 8320 stand?

Probably just over 95w actually, just high enough they couldn't lower the value. Probably bugs the hell out of em.


----------



## iamwardicus

When it comes to the Piledriver core - does anyone here think that AMD will ever release a 6 or 8 "core" Trinity version of it with an L3 cache of some sort, or is the L3 cache only in the realm of the FX series? I'm heavily considering upgrading my wifes C2D 8400 @ 4ghz with a PD based chip for budget reasons, but I'm not 100% sure yet on AMD's future plans for chips.

Yes - I'm very behind on the "current" news. Still trying to catch up and get information sorted.


----------



## pwnzilla61

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Looks great! Guess I'll be upgrading to an FX-8320 assuming they clock just as well as the FX-8350, similar to the 8120 vs 8150.


The only diff. I found was just the 8120 usually needed a slight increase in voltage, so I will agree that it would probably be the about same.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iamwardicus*
> 
> When it comes to the Piledriver core - does anyone here think that AMD will ever release a 6 or 8 "core" Trinity version of it with an L3 cache of some sort, or is the L3 cache only in the realm of the FX series? I'm heavily considering upgrading my wifes C2D 8400 @ 4ghz with a PD based chip for budget reasons, but I'm not 100% sure yet on AMD's future plans for chips.
> Yes - I'm very behind on the "current" news. Still trying to catch up and get information sorted.


Nope. But in the future, they will release 6 and 8 core (and possibly more) HSA-enabled APUs, probably with L3 (this might happen with Steamroller), with the desktop CPU line completely being dropped.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iamwardicus*
> 
> When it comes to the Piledriver core - does anyone here think that AMD will ever release a 6 or 8 "core" Trinity version of it with an L3 cache of some sort, or is the L3 cache only in the realm of the FX series? I'm heavily considering upgrading my wifes C2D 8400 @ 4ghz with a PD based chip for budget reasons, but I'm not 100% sure yet on AMD's future plans for chips.
> Yes - I'm very behind on the "current" news. Still trying to catch up and get information sorted.


Not with Trinity but future models, and without L3 cache. L3 cache takes far too much die space for little performance boost. More GPU cores / CPU cores will be in its place.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Metric*
> 
> FX-8350
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *SUPERKAMES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *SUPERKAMES*
> 
> @4.5ghz I saw some thing like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *SUPERKAMES*
> 
> You can see the [FX 8350] Cinebench R11.5 @4.5ghz ~ 7.7x pts .
> --> at the same speed the I7 2600K ~ 8.82 pts as I know .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in realworld application , with the two famous 3D aplication + renderer : 3dsmax 2011 + Vray 1.5SP5 , the thing you already know seem to be stronger.
> 
> Rendering time (second): Lower is better:
> 
> - FX [email protected] : ~ 679s
> - I7 [email protected] : ~ 621s
> - [FX [email protected]] :~ 580s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...maybe its realworld rendering performance is similar to a quadcore I7 Ivy Bridge ..
> ...It must be very important to anyone who care about computer graphic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [TPU] AMD Shows Off A10-5800K and FX-8350 Near IDF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For very rough estimates.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *aGeoM*
> 
> I just finished this Cinebench runs.
> 
> CINEBENCH R11.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HYBRID CINEBENCH R14/11.5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CINEBENCH R11.5 @4890
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HYBRID CINEBENCH R14/11.5 @4890
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Looks like a solid 10-15% IPC boost in real world scenarios. Strange how Cinebench isn't showing that much of an improvement. Nice how it edges out the i7 in 3dsmax.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Strange how Cinebench isn't showing that much of an improvement.


That depends... How does an 8150 score in R13? If R13 scores just like 11.5, the 8350 is improving on the 8150 by a good margin. I wish he didn't post so many different Cinebench version results... Kind of confusing people lol.

If R13 = R11.5 then it's a nice increase since 8150 @ 5ghz scores like 8.15 if i remember correctly.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Strange how Cinebench isn't showing that much of an improvement.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends... How does an 8150 score in R13? If R13 scores just like 11.5, the 8350 is improving on the 8150 by a good margin. I wish he didn't post so many different Cinebench version results... Kind of confusing people lol.
> 
> If R13 = R11.5 then it's a nice increase since 8150 @ 5ghz scores like 8.15 if i remember correctly.
Click to expand...

It's kinda confusing and out of order but if you scroll up you can see the 8350 scores 7.77 in R11.5 at 4.5GHz whereas the 8120 scores 7.39 at the same clocks. Not very impressive, unlike the 3dsmax and x264 results.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> It's kinda confusing and out of order but if you scroll up you can see the 8350 scores 7.77 in R11.5 at 4.5GHz whereas the 8120 scores 7.39 at the same clocks. Not very impressive, unlike the 3dsmax and x264 results.


His 8120 scores 7.77. Not the 8350. Unless i'm misreading something. Once again, kind of confusing. Don't know why he posted so many different benches.

The 8350 scores 9.06 @ 4.99ghz and by comparison an 8150 does ~8.15. Not a bad result.

Edit - Nvm, his 8120 scores 7.39 and the 7.77 is his Hybrid CB results. Still not the 8350. The only 8350 results are the one from the article which are good scores in CB.


----------



## Tsumi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> It's kinda confusing and out of order but if you scroll up you can see the 8350 scores 7.77 in R11.5 at 4.5GHz whereas the 8120 scores 7.39 at the same clocks. Not very impressive, unlike the 3dsmax and x264 results.


Well, the Anandtech Trinity review said that the changes made to improve IPC was things like improving branch prediction and reducing branch misprediction penalties, so it will vary a lot depending on the application. As I recall, there were no actual changes to the cores themselves, so the max theoretical throughput of the cores remain the same.


----------



## Usario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> It's kinda confusing and out of order but if you scroll up you can see the 8350 scores 7.77 in R11.5 at 4.5GHz whereas the 8120 scores 7.39 at the same clocks. Not very impressive, unlike the 3dsmax and x264 results.
> 
> 
> 
> His 8120 scores 7.77. Not the 8350. Unless i'm misreading something. Once again, kind of confusing. Don't know why he posted so many different benches.
> 
> The 8350 scores 9.06 @ 4.99ghz and by comparison an 8150 does ~8.15. Not a bad result.
Click to expand...

Scroll up to the top of the post. You'll see the 8350 at 4.5GHz scoring 7.77 in R11.5. Look closely at where the 8120 scores the same and you'll see it's "Hybrid R11.5/R14" (whatever the hell that means). Also you'll notice in the Hybrid 11.5/14 test the 8120 scores 8.46 at 4.9 whereas the 8350 scores 8.83. 4-5% isn't really great.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsumi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> It's kinda confusing and out of order but if you scroll up you can see the 8350 scores 7.77 in R11.5 at 4.5GHz whereas the 8120 scores 7.39 at the same clocks. Not very impressive, unlike the 3dsmax and x264 results.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Anandtech Trinity review said that the changes made to improve IPC was things like improving branch prediction and reducing branch misprediction penalties, so it will vary a lot depending on the application. As I recall, there were no actual changes to the cores themselves, so the max theoretical throughput of the cores remain the same.
Click to expand...

oic. makes sense. thanks


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> Scroll up to the top of the post. You'll see the 8350 at 4.5GHz scoring 7.77 in R11.5. Look closely at where the 8120 scores the same and you'll see it's "Hybrid R11.5/R14" (whatever the hell that means). Also you'll notice in the Hybrid 11.5/14 test the 8120 scores 8.46 at 4.9 whereas the 8350 scores 8.83. 4-5% isn't really great.


Gotcha, thanks. Well CB will always be a weak link for seeing improvements in this uArch, due to the drastic hit it takes from it's resource sharing nature.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Looks great! Guess I'll be upgrading to an FX-8320 assuming they clock just as well as the FX-8350, similar to the 8120 vs 8150.
> 
> 
> 
> At least the 8120 had a lower TDP, where does he 8320 stand?
> 
> Probably just over 95w actually, just high enough they couldn't lower the value. Probably bugs the hell out of em.
Click to expand...

It'd have a lower TDP simply because of the lower clocks, I stopped paying attention to that a long time ago.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iamwardicus*
> 
> When it comes to the Piledriver core - does anyone here think that AMD will ever release a 6 or 8 "core" Trinity version of it with an L3 cache of some sort, or is the L3 cache only in the realm of the FX series? I'm heavily considering upgrading my wifes C2D 8400 @ 4ghz with a PD based chip for budget reasons, but I'm not 100% sure yet on AMD's future plans for chips.
> 
> Yes - I'm very behind on the "current" news. Still trying to catch up and get information sorted.


AMD will almost definitely discontinue the AM3+ line and go to FM*.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwnzilla61*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Looks great! Guess I'll be upgrading to an FX-8320 assuming they clock just as well as the FX-8350, similar to the 8120 vs 8150.
> 
> 
> 
> The only diff. I found was just the 8120 usually needed a slight increase in voltage, so I will agree that it would probably be the about same.
Click to expand...

It depends on the chip, some FX-8150s clock way worse than the average FX-8120 but yeah, the difference is too small to matter for most of us; no-one notices a 100Mhz difference in real world applications.


----------



## PcG_AmD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> AMD will almost definitely discontinue the AM3+ line and go to FM*.


If the useless AM3+ socket will be discontinued then If new AMD cpu's are not good enough then I'll go Intel.

I mean I have to change my motherboard again? just to get a CPU that still can't give me the same or close performance? Then it'd be much better for me to spend the money in a new asus intel mobo and an ivy bridge,more expensive but at least I can match up my fps in BF3,because of my CPU I get 10 fps less than many others in 64 players maps with the same card at almost the same clocks.

They'll be gone when I get another 7950 but still it's really annoying having no choices to get higher fps with my current mobo,I mean the current FX can't do much more than my II x6.

I know my nick name says amd but back then I was a fanatic,I'm not anymore so it would be ironic a guy with an amd nickname using Intel,but that's what I'm forced to do.


----------



## 12Cores

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> If the useless AM3+ socket will be discontinued then If new AMD cpu's are not good enough then I'll go Intel.
> I mean I have to change my motherboard again? just to get a CPU that still can't give me the same or close performance? Then it'd be much better for me to spend the money in a new asus intel mobo and an ivy bridge,more expensive but at least I can match up my fps in BF3,because of my CPU I get 10 fps less than many others in 64 players maps with the same card at almost the same clocks.
> They'll be gone when I get another 7950 but still it's really annoying having no choices to get higher fps with my current mobo,I mean the current FX can't do much more than my II x6.
> I know my nick name says amd but back then I was a fanatic,I'm not anymore so it would be ironic a guy with an amd nickname using Intel,but that's what I'm forced to do.


I respectfully disagree, I went from a 1055t at 4ghz/3ghz nb to the fx-8120 and my game play is much smoother across the board. Looking forward to the fx-8350.


----------



## bao28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> I respectfully disagree, I went from a 1055t at 4ghz/3ghz nb to the fx-8120 and my game play is much smoother across the board. Looking forward to the fx-8350.


me too, I went from a 550 x4 at 4ghz/2.8ghz nb to the fx-8150 and my game play also seemed much smoother.

Now i went from fx-8150 to a 3570k and i can't say the same. If anything, it sure does load faster and run **** faster, but when it comes to game play, I may have preferred the 8150 over 3570k :S

I remember reading something about a test of amd's fx's vs intel i7' setups at a gaming session and many people reported smoother play using the amd fx series

Then I also remember reading another bench using time it takes to return frames or something which would also determine gameplay and FX failed...

what's the deal?


----------



## PcG_AmD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> I respectfully disagree, I went from a 1055t at 4ghz/3ghz nb to the fx-8120 and my game play is much smoother across the board. Looking forward to the fx-8350.


Maybe that's what you experienced but according to reviews like this http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8 it's not better for gaming at all.
And I'm looking for something that can at least match the 2500k and 2600k performance.

I would not buy an FX-8120 right now,it's not worth it if you have a Phenom II x6 @4.0,I'm looking forward to the FX-8350 too though.I just hope the can compete with the 2500k and 2600k.


----------



## PcG_AmD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bao28*
> 
> me too, I went from a 550 x4 at 4ghz/2.8ghz nb to the fx-8150 and my game play also seemed much smoother.
> Now i went from fx-8150 to a 3570k and i can't say the same. If anything, it sure does load faster and run **** faster, but when it comes to game play, I may have preferred the 8150 over 3570k :S
> I remember reading something about a test of amd's fx's vs intel i7' setups at a gaming session and many people reported smoother play using the amd fx series
> Then I also remember reading another bench using time it takes to return frames or something which would also determine gameplay and FX failed...
> what's the deal?


The 550 is definitely worse than any Phenom II x6 @4.0,so yeah your performance definitely improved if you went from a 550.


----------



## 12Cores

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> Maybe that's what you experienced but according to reviews like this http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8 it's not better for gaming at all.
> And I'm looking for something that can at least match the 2500k and 2600k performance.
> I would not buy an FX-8120 right now,it's not worth it if you have a Phenom II x6 @4.0,I'm looking forward to the FX-8350 too though.I just hope the can compete with the 2500k and 2600k.


I stopped reading Anand reviews a few years back, he spends too much time running benches at stock speeds. The fx chips do a lot of damage above 4.6ghz with the front side bus above 250. Most of the these reviewers did not take the time properly overclock these chips which is sad. No one cares about stock performance but Anand.


----------



## kzone75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> *Maybe that's what you experienced but according to reviews* like this http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8 it's not better for gaming at all.
> And I'm looking for something that can at least match the 2500k and 2600k performance.
> 
> I would not buy an FX-8120 right now,it's not worth it if you have a Phenom II x6 @4.0,I'm looking forward to the FX-8350 too though.I just hope the can compete with the 2500k and 2600k.


Personally I prefer experience over reviews..


----------



## PcG_AmD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> I stopped reading Anand reviews a few years back, he spends too much time running benches at stock speeds. The fx chips do a lot of damage above 4.6ghz with the front side bus above 250. Most of the these reviewers did not take the time properly overclock these chips which is sad. No one cares about stock performance but Anand.


That's true you are right about that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kzone75*
> 
> Personally I prefer experience over reviews..


So I could be wrong then,maybe the FX-8130 is actually better than a Phenom II [email protected] ghz but what I meant was that they are not really worth buying if you already have a phenom II x6 IMO and that they can't compete with sandy bridge.
That's why I'm looking forward to FX-8350,because I trust that they will be much better than Phenom II x6 and then I'll upgrade but I just don't wanna change my mobo I want it to last more and be able to get better cpu's for it so I can save money and then go watercooling instead of spending that money in a new motherboard.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> AMD will almost definitely discontinue the AM3+ line and go to FM*.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean the current FX can't do much more than my II x6.
Click to expand...

Only in benchmarks, in the real world..Eh, my FX-4170 was a _little_ smoother and it's not really buyers remorse (I didn't pay at all for this chip).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *12Cores*
> 
> I respectfully disagree, I went from a 1055t at 4ghz/3ghz nb to the fx-8120 and my game play is much smoother across the board. Looking forward to the fx-8350.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that's what you experienced but according to reviews like this http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8 it's not better for gaming at all.
> And I'm looking for something that can at least match the 2500k and 2600k performance.
> 
> I would not buy an FX-8120 right now,it's not worth it if you have a Phenom II x6 @4.0,I'm looking forward to the FX-8350 too though.I just hope the can compete with the 2500k and 2600k.
Click to expand...

FPS doesn't show fluidity that well, you can have 60fps but a laggy game if you have microstutter or the like, there was another review I posted a while back and the only AMD chip to beat the FX-4170 was the 1100T, but that was all at stock..And the FX-4170 had a lot more OCing headroom than the 1100T in it.

The only thing making me consider going Intel for my rig now is AMDs really, really bad AHCI drivers; MS's are good enough but Intels are faster..AMDs are just horrible in my experience, two SB950 boards in a row get a bug which makes SSDs run really slow, on my old 990FXA-UD3 it meant 5 minute boot times (No kidding), on my Extreme4 it got up to 30 minutes before I got impatient.







I like the extra performance of Intel in CPU related stuff, but I can just use my girlfriends i5 3570k behind me..It's just the crappy AMD chipset drivers holding me back.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PcG_AmD*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kzone75*
> 
> Personally I prefer experience over reviews..
> 
> 
> 
> So I could be wrong then,maybe the FX-8130 is actually better than a Phenom II [email protected] ghz but what I meant was that they are not really worth buying if you already have a phenom II x6 IMO and that they can't compete with sandy bridge.
Click to expand...

It depends, if you encode x264 videos and game then an FX-8120 is a great buy, but its not worth buying just for gaming.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Only in benchmarks, in the real world..Eh, my FX-4170 was a _little_ smoother and it's not really buyers remorse (I didn't pay at all for this chip).
> FPS doesn't show fluidity that well, you can have 60fps but a laggy game if you have microstutter or the like, there was another review I posted a while back and the only AMD chip to beat the FX-4170 was the 1100T, but that was all at stock..And the FX-4170 had a lot more OCing headroom than the 1100T in it.
> *The only thing making me consider going Intel for my rig now is AMDs really, really bad AHCI drivers; MS's are good enough but Intels are faster..AMDs are just horrible in my experience, two SB950 boards in a row get a bug which makes SSDs run really slow, on my old 990FXA-UD3* it meant 5 minute boot times (No kidding), on my Extreme4 it got up to 30 minutes before I got impatient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the extra performance of Intel in CPU related stuff, but I can just use my girlfriends i5 3570k behind me..It's just the crappy AMD chipset drivers holding me back.
> It depends, if you encode x264 videos and game then an FX-8120 is a great buy, but its not worth buying just for gaming.


Um...

And yes, that's on a 990FXA-UD3.


----------



## Alastair

Just hoping that any of the FX's will be worth it over my phenom 965 @ 4.3GHz! Maybe some three of four module goodness in there somewhere.....


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Only in benchmarks, in the real world..Eh, my FX-4170 was a _little_ smoother and it's not really buyers remorse (I didn't pay at all for this chip).
> FPS doesn't show fluidity that well, you can have 60fps but a laggy game if you have microstutter or the like, there was another review I posted a while back and the only AMD chip to beat the FX-4170 was the 1100T, but that was all at stock..And the FX-4170 had a lot more OCing headroom than the 1100T in it.
> *The only thing making me consider going Intel for my rig now is AMDs really, really bad AHCI drivers; MS's are good enough but Intels are faster..AMDs are just horrible in my experience, two SB950 boards in a row get a bug which makes SSDs run really slow, on my old 990FXA-UD3* it meant 5 minute boot times (No kidding), on my Extreme4 it got up to 30 minutes before I got impatient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the extra performance of Intel in CPU related stuff, but I can just use my girlfriends i5 3570k behind me..It's just the crappy AMD chipset drivers holding me back.
> It depends, if you encode x264 videos and game then an FX-8120 is a great buy, but its not worth buying just for gaming.
> 
> 
> 
> Um...
> 
> And yes, that's on a 990FXA-UD3.
Click to expand...

Are you using the AMD AHCI drivers or the MS ones? (ie. Did you install the AMD Chipset drivers, and if you did, did it have the AHCI option?)

It's also a bug, some people get it and others don't, I've been "lucky" enough to get it on two separate boards, it went away for a while after I updated the BIOS on the UD3 but eventually came back.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kzone75*
> 
> Personally I prefer experience over reviews..


This. The HD6950 is slightly faster than a HD5870 on benchmarks, but when I swapped my HD5870 for my current 6950, despite framerates being similar I noticed an incredible improvement on smoothness.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Are you using the AMD AHCI drivers or the MS ones? (ie. Did you install the AMD Chipset drivers, and if you did, did it have the AHCI option?)
> It's also a bug, some people get it and others don't, I've been "lucky" enough to get it on two separate boards, it went away for a while after I updated the BIOS on the UD3 but eventually came back.


ACHI installed from Gigabyte's driver disk.

And man that sucks.


----------



## chadrew

I use AMD AHCI drivers and they work just fine for me. My chipset is an older AMD 870.



I hope I'm looking at the right place here:



I do get slightly faster scores when I disable Cool'N'Quiet in BIOS, but I like it so I keep it on.


----------



## Dmac73

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> This. The HD6950 is slightly faster than a HD5870 on benchmarks, but when I swapped my HD5870 for my current 6950, despite framerates being similar I noticed an incredible improvement on smoothness.


Probably due to twice the vRam. 1gb chokes up now a days.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dmac73*
> 
> Probably due to twice the vRam. 1gb chokes up now a days.


On Skyrim it was obvious, but other games didn't come close to full usage, and it didn't increase over 700-800MB when I plugged the HD6950.


----------



## Homeles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> This. The HD6950 is slightly faster than a HD5870 on benchmarks, but when I swapped my HD5870 for my current 6950, despite framerates being similar I noticed an incredible improvement on smoothness.


Take a look at The Tech Report's reviews. They show pretty detailed plots of frame latencies. A good review will make it so you don't have to try out a product to get a feel for how it performs.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Homeles*
> 
> Take a look at The Tech Report's reviews. They show pretty detailed plots of frame latencies. A good review will make it so you don't have to try out a product to get a feel for how it performs.


Yep, they do it in the way I like.

I haven't tested a FX chip, so I cannot give my opinion on the feel.


----------



## AlphaC

Thing is even the FX-8150 does better in x264 2nd pass render even if it does worse in x264 bench, so the FX-8350 surpassing i7 sandy bridge quad cores is not unexpected
(http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28)

Not everyone is doing x264 media or 3dsmax.

For stuff like compiling, i7 and Phenom II X6 > FX-8150...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/334

FX-8150 was close to i7-2600k in POVRay , so the FX-8350 should do better.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/40

FX-8150 gets smoked by i5-2500K (***) in Blender
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/42

Quote:


> 3dsmax 2011 + vray 1.5SP5
> 
> - FX [email protected] : ~ 679s
> - I7 [email protected] : ~ 621s
> - [FX [email protected]] :~ 580s




Therefore the Fx-8350 needs more benchmarks.


----------



## ebduncan

there will be more benchmarks on launch day.

I cannot believe how far topic some of these posts are.

as much fun as it is to argue over leaked benchmarks, they are exactly that leaked, thus lack any creditably. Only official reviews can the numbers be compared to see the strengths and weaknesses a processor.

I don't expect much out of Pile-Driver. They didn't change much at all, so to all the guys expecting huge gains in performance you will be disappointed. Steam Roller is where they are actually addressing some of the most important bottlenecks. Pile driver is just a few tweaks, and most of what they did is in reference to power consumption.


----------



## Xerosnake90

I agree with the guy above me. If I'm upgrading my CPU, I'll wait until Steamroller. It looks like Piledriver is just a slight update while steamroller is a next step. Though I'd take a piledriver if I can get it cheap.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Are you using the AMD AHCI drivers or the MS ones? (ie. Did you install the AMD Chipset drivers, and if you did, did it have the AHCI option?)
> It's also a bug, some people get it and others don't, I've been "lucky" enough to get it on two separate boards, it went away for a while after I updated the BIOS on the UD3 but eventually came back.
> 
> 
> 
> ACHI installed from Gigabyte's driver disk.
> 
> And man that sucks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, gonna have to try and uninstall it, either that or reformat.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chadrew*
> 
> I use AMD AHCI drivers and they work just fine for me. My chipset is an older AMD 870.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I'm looking at the right place here:
> 
> 
> 
> I do get slightly faster scores when I disable Cool'N'Quiet in BIOS, but I like it so I keep it on.


I've never gotten it on SB850 (Although it should be exactly the same as SB950 but on a higher node iirc) but I have heard of others who have.


----------



## bossie2000

I just recently build a 4170 on a 990fx.With all the negative news about bulldozer i did'nt expect much,but boy i really was surprise by it's performance.Bulldozer deffinitly not so bad that people says !


----------



## Timeofdoom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Yeah, gonna have to try and uninstall it, either that or reformat.


I'm running the 990fx-UD7, and I'm getting similiar scores as the others. If you haven't done it this way, I suggest you should:

A) Update BIOS
B) Download newest AHCI-drivers from GB's website
C) reinstall WIndows on custom install
-Ca) Eventually: Format drive
-Cb) Load the AHCI-driver under the installation
D) Install

That's what I do anyways. Everytime I get a new MOBO I do this procedure - or the like - to be sure of getting the full performance from the get-go.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> I just recently build a 4170 on a 990fx.With all the negative news about bulldozer i did'nt expect much,but boy i really was surprise by it's performance.Bulldozer deffinitly not so bad that people says !


It's because most people here look at the pwetty colours on graphs and take it as gospel, without actually looking more heavily into it; sure BD has way lower IPC than Phenom II..It also overclocks much higher, your point?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Timeofdoom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Yeah, gonna have to try and uninstall it, either that or reformat.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm running the 990fx-UD7, and I'm getting similiar scores as the others. If you haven't done it this way, I suggest you should:
> 
> A) Update BIOS
> B) Download newest AHCI-drivers from GB's website
> C) reinstall WIndows on custom install
> -Ca) Eventually: Format drive
> -Cb) Load the AHCI-driver under the installation
> D) Install
> 
> That's what I do anyways. Everytime I get a new MOBO I do this procedure - or the like - to be sure of getting the full performance from the get-go.
Click to expand...

I'm on the ASRock 990FX Extreme4 now and I've already done that, the AMD AHCI drivers just do not want to work for me.

Someone should also test MS AHCI vs AMD AHCI drivers too, I've heard a few people on forums say that MS' were faster..But I'm not sure they're right.


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> I'm on the ASRock 990FX Extreme4 now and I've already done that, the AMD AHCI drivers just do not want to work for me.
> 
> Someone should also test MS AHCI vs AMD AHCI drivers too, I've heard a few people on forums say that MS' were faster..But I'm not sure they're right.


no problems here getting 520mb/s read 490mb/s write sata 3 mushkin chronos deluxe

Amd sata working just fine. The intel sata is a tad faster, like 20-35mb/s on the same drive, but eh not enough to get pissy over.

gigabyte driver


----------



## os2wiz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Usario*
> 
> It's kinda confusing and out of order but if you scroll up you can see the 8350 scores 7.77 in R11.5 at 4.5GHz whereas the 8120 scores 7.39 at the same clocks. Not very impressive, unlike the 3dsmax and x264 results.


Perhaps as many are saying Cinebench is a lousy benchmark that is Intel optimized.


----------



## cre8ive65

You have a reason to complain about performance if you were like me and had dual 7970's with a 8150, however if you have an 8150 and a GTX650/660/660 TI then you have no reason to complain what so ever, game performance with those level cards or AMD Equivalents will be similar to 3570k due to a GPU bottleneck.

Glad to replace my 8150 with an 3570k in my gaming rig, but I think my studio PC/ Ableton will LOVE the 8 cores, 3 tracks with basic effects hits 21% usage on my 3570k, I get to find out in 2 days.


----------



## symmetrical

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> You have a reason to complain about performance if you were like me and had dual 7970's with a 8150, however if you have an 8150 and a GTX650/660/660 TI then you have no reason to complain what so ever, game performance with those level cards or AMD Equivalents will be similar to 3570k due to a GPU bottleneck.
> Glad to replace my 8150 with an 3570k in my gaming rig, but I think my studio PC/ Ableton will LOVE the 8 cores, 3 tracks with basic effects hits 21% usage on my 3570k, I get to find out in 2 days.


Maybe with a GTX 650, but since a GTX 660 and 660ti is basically a GTX 580 and up, you can still run into a CPU bottleneck in certain titles. Specifically for me it was Starcraft 2. And it was even worse since it only really utilized 2 threads, so it made my FX-8120 hold it back from getting 60fps.

Then again I am one of those few who are basically anal about getting at least 60fps in all my games. For the vast majority of users they will probably not be bothered with 30fps and an AMD FX CPU will do just fine.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *symmetrical*
> 
> Maybe with a GTX 650, but since a GTX 660 and 660ti is basically a GTX 580 and up, you can still run into a CPU bottleneck in certain titles. Specifically for me it was Starcraft 2. And it was even worse since it only really utilized 2 threads, so it made my FX-8120 hold it back from getting 60fps.
> Then again I am one of those few who are basically anal about getting at least 60fps in all my games. For the vast majority of users they will probably not be bothered with 30fps and an AMD FX CPU will do just fine.


... You honestly think a FX-8*** can't handle a 660?


----------



## Aesir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> ... You honestly think a FX-8*** can't handle a 660?


It won't on SC2, my 955 at 4.3GHz couldn't handle a 560ti in SC2 not every game can use 9.001x10^9001 cores, and I don't see that changing any time soon since the pipeline is not so easy to split up. I think the games that do support many threads just offload networking and sound etc off to other threads, but the graphics pipeline is still very sequential and the more crap that gets thrown into it the more that CPU's with poor single threaded performance will suffer unless a solution is found to make many cores act as one, or some way to use many cores to complete the frame.

SC2 has lots going on like all the AI's pathing, physics (if on), networking (going to be a lot since every unit has to be updated between clients) and the graphics pipeline, and stick that with sound onto two threads, slower CPU's have a hard time completing all of that and being able to send the GPU commands at the same time, so yeah it will bottleneck.


----------



## JunkoXan

SC2 is more of a CPU extensive game than a GPU extensive game.


----------



## Alatar

SC2 is surprisingly hard to run. Even at 2560x1440 it's CPU bound and just doesn't stop scaling.


(from some tests I did a while back)


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> SC2 is surprisingly hard to run. Even at 2560x1440 it's CPU bound and just doesn't stop scaling.


ding ding we have a winner. StarCrap 2 is not gpu limited, but cpu limited. It doesn't matter what cpu you have, if you have a faster one you will get more fps. In my book Sc2 stands for Supreme Commander 2 (it was out first) just not as popular.

Starcrap 2 is not a game you build around, because it is a game unlike the others which is actually cpu limited vs gpu. Its poorly coded.


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> ding ding we have a winner. StarCrap 2 is not gpu limited, but cpu limited. It doesn't matter what cpu you have, if you have a faster one you will get more fps. In my book Sc2 stands for Supreme Commander 2 (it was out first) just not as popular.
> Starcrap 2 is not a game you build around, because it is a game unlike the others which is actually cpu limited vs gpu. Its poorly coded.


Both MC and FSO are also CPU limited, sometimes to an extreme.

Considering SC2, FSO, and MC are the main games I play, with some EE, EE2, or EaW (also CPU limited at extreme unit counts), and the ocasional Source based game, I'd say it's perfectly fine to build around CPU-bound games. You can always add another GPU after all.


----------



## cre8ive65

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> ... You honestly think a FX-8*** can't handle a 660?


Not what I said at all!!

From my experience, it performs on par stock for stock with a 2500k and a 7970.







is here.

The only reason I would recommend a core i is if you are running dual cards. With 1 7970 I noticed no FPS change between my 8150 and my 3570k, but when I switched to 2 it made a world of difference using the 3570k.

Sure FX is more money than core i, but the boards for AM3+ are WAYYY cheaper with way more features. If my friend was doing a budget build for ~$1K around January, I would totally set them up with a 7970/670 and a 8350.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *symmetrical*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> You have a reason to complain about performance if you were like me and had dual 7970's with a 8150, however if you have an 8150 and a GTX650/660/660 TI then you have no reason to complain what so ever, game performance with those level cards or AMD Equivalents will be similar to 3570k due to a GPU bottleneck.
> Glad to replace my 8150 with an 3570k in my gaming rig, but I think my studio PC/ Ableton will LOVE the 8 cores, 3 tracks with basic effects hits 21% usage on my 3570k, I get to find out in 2 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe with a GTX 650, but since a GTX 660 and 660ti is basically a GTX 580 and up, you can still run into a CPU bottleneck in certain titles. Specifically for me it was Starcraft 2. And it was even worse since it only really utilized 2 threads, so it made my FX-8120 hold it back from getting 60fps.
> 
> Then again I am one of those few who are basically anal about getting at least 60fps in all my games. For the vast majority of users they will probably not be bothered with 30fps and an AMD FX CPU will do just fine.
Click to expand...

That's because Starcraft 2 is a CPU limited game...Even Ivy Bridge bottlenecks on it iirc, as with most RTS', even the i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz behind me can't run Sins of a Solar Empire Rebellion at 60fps for an entire game with the max players, etc but it does better than my FX-4170 still.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aesir*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KyadCK*
> 
> ... You honestly think a FX-8*** can't handle a 660?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't on SC2, my 955 at 4.3GHz couldn't handle a 560ti in SC2 not every game can use 9.001x10^9001 cores, and I don't see that changing any time soon since the pipeline is not so easy to split up. I think the games that do support many threads just offload networking and sound etc off to other threads, but the graphics pipeline is still very sequential and the more crap that gets thrown into it the more that CPU's with poor single threaded performance will suffer unless a solution is found to make many cores act as one, or some way to use many cores to complete the frame.
> 
> SC2 has lots going on like all the AI's pathing, physics (if on), networking (going to be a lot since every unit has to be updated between clients) and the graphics pipeline, and stick that with sound onto two threads, slower CPU's have a hard time completing all of that and being able to send the GPU commands at the same time, so yeah it will bottleneck.
Click to expand...

Most of it is actually keeping each and every unit on screen and existing/doing something, they probably could multi-thread that fairly well (Make it so each is on a separate thread) but there's not usually much need to since RTS players are used to being CPU bottlenecked all the time anyway, hell, Sins of a Solar Empire _still_ bottlenecks any modern CPU and it's from 2008.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ebduncan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> SC2 is surprisingly hard to run. Even at 2560x1440 it's CPU bound and just doesn't stop scaling.
> 
> 
> 
> ding ding we have a winner. StarCrap 2 is not gpu limited, but cpu limited. It doesn't matter what cpu you have, if you have a faster one you will get more fps. In my book Sc2 stands for Supreme Commander 2 (it was out first) just not as popular.
> 
> Starcrap 2 is not a game you build around, because it is a game unlike the others which is actually cpu limited vs gpu. Its poorly coded.
Click to expand...

Actually, a lot of games are CPU bottlenecked these days, Minecraft is for example (My girlfriend literally doubles my FPS despite her HD7850 @ stock not being much faster than an 800Mhz GTX 470, it's due to her CPU), The Sims 3 is mainly HDD bottlenecked but when it's on an SSD it really does use your CPU heavily, practically every RTS is also CPU limited and iirc Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 is poorly coded and really relies on your CPU more than anything, Starcraft 2 probably could be threaded a bit better but is actually coded quite well iirc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cre8ive65*
> 
> Sure FX is more money than core i, but the boards for AM3+ are WAYYY cheaper with way more features.


Not if you're smart, you get the FX-4100 or FX-4170 because they're not much slower clock for clock than the FX-6*** and FX-81** in games and cost about as much as an i3.


----------



## Metric

FX-8350 - http://www.overclock.net/t/1291114/coolaler-amd-piledriver-fx-vishera-engineering-sample-benchmarks/560#post_18212650

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maxforces*
> 
> PII X4 3.9ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r11.5- 5.27
> r13- 4.41
> 
> FX 8150 4.5ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r11.5- 3.15
> r13- 2.49
> 
> 2600K 4.5ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> r11.5 - 2.51
> r13- 2.33
> 
> vishera will be faster than old SB in cinema4d r13 clock to clock, nice after almost 2 years


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SUPERKAMES*
> 
> Ok , I used Maxforces' file to test :
> 
> As first I could say that the rendering times are not always the same with this file/renderer , I tried ~ 5 times at the frequency 4.5ghz .
> 
> Lowest ~ 2'21"
> Highest ~ 2'35"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I decided to test in both 800*600 & 1200*900 resolution so that someone who need/want can compare with higher res :
> 
> *Default:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *@4.5ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I also render the file cpu.c4d in cinebench R11.5 roof folder :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope you like it .Goodbye everyone.


800*600

FX 8150 4.5ghz
r11.5- 3.15
r13- 2.49

2600K 4.5ghz
r11.5 - 2.51
r13- 2.33

FX 8350 4.5ghz r13
*"*Lowest ~ 2'21"
Highest ~ 2'35"*"*

r13
FX-8150 vs FX-8350 = ~6-13% (~9%)


----------



## cez4r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Metric*
> 
> FX 8150 4.5ghz ... r13- *2.49*
> FX 8350 4.5ghz r13
> *"*Lowest ~ *2'21"*
> Highest ~ *2'35"*
> r13
> FX-8150 vs FX-8350 = ~6-13% (~9%)


What I've highlited by using bold text is *time* - e.g 2.49 means 2 min. 49 sec.
So, the last part should go like this:

r13
FX-8150 vs FX-8350 = ~9-20% (~14.5%)

And now it's OK


----------



## Metric

Correct, which is unfortunate as I spent a while running time percentage on another completely unrelated matter, but for some reason, ran straight scores once I made that post.

.09 on slowest run -- 9% increase over FX-8150
.19858156 on fastest run -- 20% increase over FX-8150

.14189189 -- ~14.2% increase over FX-8150

Remaining runs, out of five total, not able to be calculated.


----------



## JunkoXan

thats a respectable increase to me


----------



## Playapplepie

Does this mean I should buy shares in AMD?


----------



## PiOfPie

AMD (stock) is pretty close to a 52-week low. It's a pretty good buy right now; the only question is whether you want to wait for them to release their earnings report on October 18th. If they're bad, the stock will likely dip to new lows and you'll be able to pick up a bunch of shares on the cheap. If it's positive, share price will pick up a bit and it won't be as good of a deal.

Enthusiast desktop parts are a pretty small piece of their revenue pie; most of the money comes from the server market, GPUs and (probably) things like contracts with the console manufacturers for GPU development. You're probably not going to be able to get a gain on it short term, but if Steamroller and Excavator are good and HSA becomes an industry standard, shares could easily triple in value, maybe more. In short, it's a pretty risky play with some potential for gains 3-5 years down the road. Analysts are neutral to negative on it, but meh, analysts. Use your own judgment.

Disclosure: No position in AMD ATM, though I've been keeping an eye on it for some time looking for a place to jump in.


----------



## Playapplepie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PiOfPie*
> 
> AMD (stock) is pretty close to a 52-week low. It's a pretty good buy right now; the only question is whether you want to wait for them to release their earnings report on October 18th. If they're bad, the stock will likely dip to new lows and you'll be able to pick up a bunch of shares on the cheap. If it's positive, share price will pick up a bit and it won't be as good of a deal.
> Enthusiast desktop parts are a pretty small piece of their revenue pie; most of the money comes from the server market, GPUs and (probably) things like contracts with the console manufacturers for GPU development. You're probably not going to be able to get a gain on it short term, but if Steamroller and Excavator are good and HSA becomes an industry standard, shares could easily triple in value, maybe more. In short, it's a pretty risky play with some potential for gains 3-5 years down the road. Analysts are neutral to negative on it, but meh, analysts. Use your own judgment.
> Disclosure: No position in AMD ATM, though I've been keeping an eye on it for some time looking for a place to jump in.


How many would you recommend that I pick up if I chose to buy?


----------



## Capt

So how does the "15%" increase hold up to what AMD said?


----------



## KyadCK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> So how does the "15%" increase hold up to what AMD said?


AMD said 15% increase...


----------



## erunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PiOfPie*
> 
> AMD (stock) is pretty close to a 52-week low. It's a pretty good buy right now; the only question is whether you want to wait for them to release their earnings report on October 18th. If they're bad, the stock will likely dip to new lows and you'll be able to pick up a bunch of shares on the cheap. If it's positive, share price will pick up a bit and it won't be as good of a deal.
> Enthusiast desktop parts are a pretty small piece of their revenue pie; most of the money comes from the server market, GPUs and (probably) things like contracts with the console manufacturers for GPU development. You're probably not going to be able to get a gain on it short term, but if Steamroller and Excavator are good and HSA becomes an industry standard, shares could easily triple in value, maybe more. In short, it's a pretty risky play with some potential for gains 3-5 years down the road. Analysts are neutral to negative on it, but meh, analysts. Use your own judgment.
> Disclosure: No position in AMD ATM, though I've been keeping an eye on it for some time looking for a place to jump in.


Being cheap isn't enough to make it a buy. You buy stocks with a potential to go higher, the current price isn't really important(so long as it is lower than what you expect it will be later).

Some estimates value AMDs stock between $2-4. At the current $3.37, its actually in the higher half of that range. Anyone who bought the stock in july at $5, down from the high of $8 in March, would have already lost 30%.

I agree about the potential for steamroller and excavator. But I see no reason to make that bet yet. In the short term AMD has just as much chance to go down as to go up.


----------



## Cheezman

Any word on chipset compatibility, yet? Hoping they will be compatible with 760g; last thing I read was 9xx only........


----------



## Brutuz

As long as you can run DDR3 RAM and your BIOS is compatible it'll work since they only use HTT, hell, if ASRock wanted to go really freaky they could launch an nForce 4 board and have it work with Bulldozer.


----------



## Cheezman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> As long as you can run DDR3 RAM and your BIOS is compatible it'll work since they only use HTT, hell, if ASRock wanted to go really freaky they could launch an nForce 4 board and have it work with Bulldozer.


Good to know. Thanks.

I was just curious if the rumors that Piledriver was going to be 9xx compatible only were true.


----------



## ebduncan

Quote:


> Good to know. Thanks.
> 
> I was just curious if the rumors that Piledriver was going to be 9xx compatible only were true.


Piledriver will be available for the Am3+ platform, and fm2 but via Trinity and athlon x4 750k, athlon x4 740


----------

