AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

But brand new architectures isn't usually worse or equal to the old, compare K7 to K6

---

Ok big step - no discussion.

Quote:

---

, K8 to K7

---

Basically only an IMC and SSE2 was added.

Quote:

---

Core i7 to Core 2

---

Same as above, just SSE4.2 instead of SSE2 ;-)

Quote:

---

, Core 2 to Core

---

Hmm that was only a Shrink and SSE4.1. Nothing big. Or do you mean Yonah?

Quote:

---

the only example of this is the failed P4 architecture.

---

It was quite good, after intel pured lots into software companies to use SSE2. However, in the end with Prescott, power went out of control. Imo mostly because a bad, leaky manufacturing process.

Quote:

---

And your comparison with Llano is unfair. It has low stock clocks because it has a full 400 shaders eating power, and at the same time it isn't meant to be high performance.

---

Of course I meant with disabled graphics. Well it isnt meant to have high-perf. yes, but you wanted to have a high-perf. K10@32nm. What would be the difference to Llano's CPU part? If you exchange the GPU for four more cores it wont have a much better TDP headroom for high-clocks, either.

Quote:

---

And you can't compare overclocking either, Llanos bad overclocking abilities is due to lack of dividers and frequency locks. An unlocked Llano without graphics part would overclock much much better.

---

Hmm, ok let's see and wait for the first BE or K models. If they also lower vcore considerably (current ones are as high as 1.4V which is too much, imo), then it could be better. I also heard about a Rev. B1 on the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

I don't believe that is true.

---

I just wonder, the launch date is in October 12 or not. And I just know these slides are in August.

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/4bd5...da62539221.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/a53a...1068e8af28.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/0670...6f23783311.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/7576...b8563c4893.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/7c2b...65cd855cc1.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/d8f4...3bd2477145.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/4f17...8852809258.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/149f...2e81618d87.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/9c78...cd82874148.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/83ce...c0682be6a2.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/e3a4...ad7216fa0f.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/0844...348613fec4.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/bd57...8dcd7f5186.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/659f...cc09d313a0.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/47d3...5115469673.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/74db...9c856105ce.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/be00...dfc69a70c4.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/82f1...2b3a98aa5b.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/ccd6...c581dd4bd0.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/2f5d...cdc9194a89.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/73f4...3c5b7eff36.jpg http://tof.canardpc.com/preview/4860...046774b32c.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

But brand new architectures isn't usually worse or equal to the old, compare K7 to K6, K8 to K7, Core i7 to Core 2, Core 2 to Core, the only example of this is the failed P4 architecture. See the pattern? And your comparison with Llano is unfair. It has low stock clocks because it has a full 400 shaders eating power, and at the same time it isn't meant to be high performance. And you can't compare overclocking either, Llanos bad overclocking abilities is due to lack of dividers and frequency locks. An unlocked Llano without graphics part would overclock much much better.

---

Chew has already stated elsewhere that unlocked ES Llano doesn't overclock any better than current retail locked parts. I wouldn't expect miracles from the A8-3870.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liberato87

has anyone taken a look at this?

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...onuclari_1.htm

It seems "official" Amd slides...
some people post ONLY the cinebench slide, because fx seems to perform worse than i7 2600k and similar to i5 2500k, but take a look at the other slides.

Attachment 120446

http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/h...2a_dh_fx57.jpg


Attachment 120447

---

980X - 999.99 - 800 = 199.99

Umm the 8 core is only going to be 200 dollars? ;)

Also i want reviews from members on this site. Not Amd Propaganda slides.

That's not the most encouraging slides I've seen. We'll see how it goes. Comparing game cost/perf ratios to a 980x instead of a 2600k isn't encouraging either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spicypixel

That's not the most encouraging slides I've seen. We'll see how it goes. Comparing game cost/perf ratios to a 980x instead of a 2600k isn't encouraging either.

---

Well, are you suggesting 980X isn't good enough at gaming? It's probably better marketing to compare FX to 980X than 2600K since the gap in price is much bigger... If you compare Civ V which has been poor to say the least for AMD and 980X is best at this according to Anandtech I think it's quite safe to say it will be at least good in gaming, much better than PhII.

Oh I know that is has a bigger price to performance ratio difference so its gold for PR, but it's competing in price with different products to the 980x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

Well, are you suggesting 980X isn't good enough at gaming? It's probably better marketing to compare FX to 980X than 2600K since the gap in price is much bigger... If you compare Civ V which has been poor to say the least for AMD and 980X is best at this according to Anandtech I think it's quite safe to say it will be at least good in gaming, much better than PhII.

---

While i agree comparing it to a 980X in gaming is just juvenile. Intel fans will say that you can't compare it because of the price but on November 15th when the 3930K gets released at 582 dollars Amd fans will be the ones who will be declaring that it's not in the same price bracket.

Amd needs to man up.

8150 - 240 Dollars
2500K - 219 Dollars

Thats what you compare it against to see what has the best price/performance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

All the DH slides

---

I cannot stress enough on how I HATE such kind of marketing/slides.
Oh, 980x costs 4 times as our cpu, lets compare it in price and in gaming
Oh, FX beats a 4 core Intel CPU(2500) in MT, lets use it for those benches
Oh, there is one game which uses some of those 8 cores, lets use it, and also use a competing product which only has 4 cores. Why not use 8 thread 2600K there?

IF those slides are true and not faked and they will be used to present FX line up during the launch I feel sorry for the person(s) who created those as this is a disgrace.
At least have the balls to come out and say, that yeah, our new CPU will be great in certain scenarios and worse in others against competition, but don't treat us like a complete idiots.
I mean am I or anyone else running 2500K, 2600K and 980X in one system and just flipping the switch and using those CPUs scenarios where they do worst?
We know that 980X market is in hundreds and whoever bought them are either folding or doing some workstationy stuff, NOT gaming.
We know that 2600K in most cases is better for gaming and is also 3-4 times less expensive than 980x, thus people buy this for games or some MT stuff. Also we know that 2500 is cheapest of them all and a lot of people buy those NOT for some MT, but mainly for games.
So IF those slides are correct, they are a pathetic way to introduce your product. Otherwise, please continue :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muziqaz

I cannot stress enough on how I HATE such kind of marketing/slides.
Oh, 980x costs 4 times as our cpu, lets compare it in price
Oh, FX beats a 4 core Intel CPU in MT, lets use it for those benches
Oh, there is one game which uses some of those 8 cores, lets use it, and also use a competing product which only has 4 cores. Why not use 8 thread 2600K there?

---

980X has 6 cores plus hyperthreading (12 threads). It is faster in multithreading than a 2600K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apokalipse

980X has 6 cores plus hyperthreading (12 threads). It is faster in multithreading than a 2600K

---

Yes it is faster in MT, do we see AMD comparing it in MT? Nooo, we see them compare it in gaming :)

Double post, laggy server? perhaps you guys need to migrate to FX CPUs instead of current i5 2500 you are running this forum on :D

If those slides are fake..someone have a hell of free time. :rofl:
I think the performance is like in the slides. And it just show to us that it's a 4core/8thread.

Does anyone have gaming benchmarks comparing 980X, Deneb and Thuban at 1920x1080?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AKM

Meh, I was hoping for an advantage in multithread over the 2600K at least, this is mediocre performance.

---

Yep, agreed, if the slides are TRUE, which i still doubt it quite strongly. If they are, then BD is a flop overall, a 315 mm^2 chip without graphic doing so poorly vs a 220 mm^2 chip with graphic, fact that both are the most up to date design you can buy in the next few weeks.

Yeah it's cheaper, because it HAS to be, i think AMD would certainly want it priced higher as a 140% bigger chip on the same process supposed to be, should the performance warrant it in the first place.

AMD Delay launch because they are busy making those Powerpoint slide? haha

some guys are talking about GPU limited gaming at 1920x1080. But look at this

http://media.bestofmicro.com/5/Q/274...010%201920.png

and this:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4310/37380.png
(this one is 1680x1050, but high settings too)

On those games the nehalem smashes the K10s, the difference is huge even on high resolutions and high details. On Civ5 the Core i7 980x is almost two time faster than the 1100T. And those slides says that the FX8150 is able to match 980X on those games. it's clearly a HUGE step forward, and a doubt a Phenom II X8 @ 32nm could do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatRaceTin

AMD Delay launch because they are busy making those Powerpoint slide? haha

---

I don't think you would need much time to do that kinda slides :)
But if we forget about die sizes and look at them as a consumer, they should be really great an exciting chips for us. They won't be dull to clock for sure.
Let's consider the possibility, that those slides are true and someone from AMD done them.
By the looks of it, they were done in a hurry with all the weird stuff used in them, so we might assume that the benches done for those quick slides were done quickly and in a hurry as well.
I think we can all agree that we as the enthusiasts can get more out of those chips than any of the PR people of given company. You know, most of us have basements in our moms' houses were we tweak and test every bit of the system to get out the best perf for our taste. So I again I would believe that we would get more balanced perf number across the benchmarks/apps after our tweaking.

Actually the results in the slides are not bad at all. Take a look at this one:
http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/h...2a_dh_fx57.jpg

You can see that SMT in case of 2600K vs 2500K brings a lot (8 threads vs 4) in terms of performance and not many of those listed applications scale perfectly with more cores/threads. So SMT kind of already extracted a lot of parallelism from the code and I doubt that bringing more cores in the case of intel (say SB-E) would increase the results by 50% . Well maybe in few cases it would,like wprime and Pov ray.In the rest I really doubt it would.

If you look at the 8150 vs 2500K numbers,the average is around 23.5% in favor of FX,give or take a few. That's pretty good advantage on desktop and it's more than what SMT (2600K) gets over non-SMT (2500K). We do need more applications that scale well with many cores to see this more clearly, but the point is that AMD's "cores" will scale better and will also use SMT in SIMD workloads to extract the ILP from applications that are not coded so well for many threads (just like i7 does).

I have a question though. Why is there no model number for FX listed in the slide above?? :confused: All other slides have 8150 listed but they are not compute intensive test but gaming ones. In this case FX6xxx and even 4xxx is just as good as FX8xxx. Anyone seen the "back up" slides that have system info listed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokinhow

some guys are talking about GPU limited gaming at 1920x1080. But look at this

http://media.bestofmicro.com/5/Q/274...010%201920.png

and this:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4310/37380.png
(this one is 1680x1050, but high settings too)

On those games the nehalem smashes the K10s, the difference is huge even on high resolutions and high details. On Civ5 the Core i7 980x is almost two time faster than the 1100T. And those slides says that the FX8150 is able to match 980X on those games. it's clearly a HUGE step forward, and a doubt a Phenom II X8 @ 32nm could do that.

---

I don't know about F1, but I do know about CIV5, that it has something to do with the drivers, and or AMD cpus, as company who created the Civ5(firaxis?) said it can use all the cores you can give them, and game engine does just that with nvidia hardware, but somehow only uses 1 core of AMD cpu when amd gpu is used.
You can see from every AMD Catalyst release that CIV5 is mentioned, and we all know that none of the IT websites come back to retest their systems when new drivers come out, unless something major is announced. I haven't played that game with 11.8 drivers, but even with few previous drivers CIV5 was still somehow limited on AMD hardware. Maybe they have a fix with newest drivers, who knows :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muziqaz

I don't know about F1, but I do know about CIV5, that it has something to do with the drivers, and or AMD cpus, as company who created the Civ5(firaxis?) said it can use all the cores you can give them, and game engine does just that with nvidia hardware, but somehow only uses 1 core of AMD cpu when amd gpu is used.
You can see from every AMD Catalyst release that CIV5 is mentioned, and we all know that none of the IT websites come back to retest their systems when new drivers come out, unless something major is announced. I haven't played that game with 11.8 drivers, but even with few previous drivers CIV5 was still somehow limited on AMD hardware. Maybe they have a fix with newest drivers, who knows :)

---

That's a nice information. But I think it's irrelevant on this case. Because on the test on anadtech all CPUs were tested with a GTX580 GPU. So no drivers problems here. ;)

So it might be some limitations on current AMD cpus, who knows, as using only one thuban core on my system is not cool while engine can use most of the core from the competition.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Anyone seen the "back up" slides that have system info listed?

---

These are slides meant for the press/media briefing. The "back up" is presentation slides which AMD don't have time/won't talk show during the phone brief which is usually 40-50 minutes + Q&A - but will be available in the same PDF :)

It's generally more detailed in terms of the technical stuff and some extra slides and information. It's also there you can read about all disclaimers, exact system information used for each test etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartidiot89

These are slides meant for the press/media briefing. The "back up" is presentation slides which AMD don't have time/won't talk show during the phone brief which is usually 40-50 minutes + Q&A - but will be available in the same PDF :)

It's generally more detailed in terms of the technical stuff and some extra slides and information. It's also there you can read about all disclaimers, exact system information used for each test etc.

---

Thanks. I asked because the most important slide ,the one with application performance comparison, is somehow missing the model number for FX :). It just says "FX",nothing else. WHich FX? 8150,8100? 6100 (I'm joking :D) ?

Until we see the reviews all of this is still not official . But gives us a ballpark though. And by the looks of it it's not THAT awesome or anything special,but it's not that bad either. It's competitive enough with 2600K and it allows great OCing on air and even better on sub zero. For 245$ it is pretty good I have to say.

the 8120 looks like its going to be the more popular option, unless we see a massive difference in OC results.

the stock speed is going to be only 5% slower than the 8150 for lower thread counts, and in multi threaded the difference is still just 15% slower, but the price is a good 20% cheaper