AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

Lets say these numbers were true:

PC Mark:
x6 1100T 6430b / 6 =1071 per core
i7 980x 7150b / 6 = 1191 per core
i7 2600k 7700b / 4 = 1925 per core
AMD Zambezi 7950b / 8 = 993 per core < --- slowest single thread

Cinebench R11.5
x6 1100T 5.9b / 6 = .98 per core
i7 980x 8.95b / 6 = 1.5 per core
i7 2600k 6.7b / 4 = 1.675 per core
AMD Zambezi 11b / 8 = 1.375 per core <---behind both intel CPU's

3D06 CPU
x6 1100t 5990b / 6 = 1000 per core
i7 980x 7388b / 6 = 1231 per core
i7 2600k 6600b / 4 = 1650 per core
AMD Zambezi 8800b! / 8 = 1100 per core <----behind both intel CPU's


If these were true (and they aren't) it would fail.

So now the thread can be closed.:ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

Lets say these numbers were true:

PC Mark:
x6 1100T 6430b / 6 =1071 per core
i7 980x 7150b / 6 = 1191 per core
i7 2600k 7700b / 4 = 1925 per core
AMD Zambezi 7950b / 8 = 993 per core < --- slowest single thread

If these were true (and they aren't) it would fail.

---

i didnt know much about pcmark so i looked around:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...1&limitstart=5

Quote:

---

The TV and Movies suite concentrates on video playback and transcoding, but only uses two threads at a maximum

---

so just divide them all in half i guess for single threaded perf

beeP.No, its wrong, u can not calculate /8...Efectivity 8 cores is not 8x, but example between 6.7-7.7 example (look at Denebs or Thubans)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

beeP.No, its wrong, u can not calculate /8...Efectivity 8 cores is not 8x, but example between 6.7-7.7 example (look at Denebs or Thubans)

---

4 modules, 8 cores...8 threads. :confused:

:rofl: You make it seem like intel doesn't have HT... :screwy: On the 2600K and the 980, it's more like 8 threads and 12 threads instead of 4 and 6. While undoubtedly, HT is nothing like adding full cores, it's has been shown to add 30-50% performance increases.

Still though, on the topic of single threaded performance not mattering, somebody needs to read up on Amdahl's Law :p. Applications can only be threaded so far until the scaling stops. In which case, the performance on each individual thread is once again the most important aspect. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChanceCoats123

:rofl: You make it seem like intel doesn't have HT... :screwy: On the 2600K and the 980, it's more like 8 threads and 12 threads instead of 4 and 6. While undoubtedly, HT is nothing like adding full cores, it's has been shown to add 30-50% performance increases.

Still though, on the topic of single threaded performance not mattering, somebody needs to read up on Amdahl's Law :p. Applications can only be threaded so far until the scaling stops. In which case, the performance on each individual thread is once again the most important aspect. :yepp:

---

There is a definate reason why I said cores and not threads.

can someone close thread, the slides are fake... ><

this is about Zambezi - speculation, infos etc...the same what had some Intel fanboys about their lovely Sandy bit* :-/. Or, do u have some proof about "this is fake or this is not fake"? Think, slide looks as from AMD presentation and scores is possible. Why not? On the other hand, Im not saying that this is also true. But I cant simply say, its bullshi*, its fake, close this thread etc.

Beep: example with x6 1100T, at Cinebench R11.5 1CPU score is about 1.1points, with 6 cores is it about 5.8points. SO efectivity is 5.8/1.1= 5.2x, in R10 its 4.6x for 6 cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

this is about Zambezi - speculation, infos etc...the same what had some Intel fanboys about their lovely Sandy bit* :-/. Or, do u have some proof about "this is fake or this is not fake"? Think, slide looks as from AMD presentation and scores is possible. Why not? On the other hand, Im not saying that this is also true. But I cant simply say, its bullshi*, its fake, close this thread etc.

Beep: example with x6 1100T, at Cinebench R11.5 1CPU score is about 1.1points, with 6 cores is it about 5.8points. SO efectivity is 5.8/1.1= 5.2x, in R10 its 4.6x for 6 cores.

---

JF-AMD even mentioned this isnt a amd slide.. :down:

I guess this slide is fake cuz there's some mistakes on it. OTOH I suspect there's sth tricky on the diagram......

hm, JF is server guy, not desktop. Maybe he talked only in style "Im thinkink..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

JF-AMD even mentioned this isnt a amd slide.. :down:

---

No, I said I can't verify it. That is completely different.

Headshots all around hahah.

Come on guys take it easy, like Flank3r says, this is the same game like on Sandy bridge threads.

Regards.

Something i came across that i found is on wiki (i know not the most accurate), is that there is something about a dual MCM.

I take its gonna be similar to Core 2 Quad in theory but will it actually happen if the 8 module setup is gonna be reaching the 125watt limit?

If so does anyone know if they are going to go across the HT link or if they are gonna go through a proprietary interconnection like on server processors? If not tehn i think the HT link is gonna become a slight bottleneck in that aspect.

Desktop bulldozer wont use MCM design.Only the server 16 core one.

this is going to be a long couple of months...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangracin3

this is going to be a long couple of months...

---

Ain't that the truth. :(

this is only shows how really eager we all are for the Bull!!!
Let it Loose :D

Beep: look example at this. Cinebench R10

x6 1100T at stock
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/368...r10default.png

efficiency is not 6x, but 4.48x

And here at i7 980x at stock
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3...nebenchr10.png
efficiency is 5.56x (because 12 threads!, not 6 only running)

absolute efficiency doesnt exist, never CPU has efficiency as number of logical cores (threads)

Well, I believe part of the reason AMD's multi-core efficiency is bad is because the cores don't communicate well. What result do you get with the 980X when HyperThreading is off?

In theory it should be similar to when its off if not a little better.

beep, tomorow Il try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

Well, I believe part of the reason AMD's multi-core efficiency is bad is because the cores don't communicate well. What result do you get with the 980X when HyperThreading is off?

---

Because of Turbo ;)
Single thread - 3.6GHz
Multi thread - 3.2GHz
Efficiency will be low for sure.

Turn off Turbo and efficiency will be higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

Whauuuu:) First performance slide!

http://1.2.3.10/bmi/i.imgur.com/udZiT.jpg

Testing in:
- PC MArk Vantage - TV and movies
- Cinebench R11.5
- 3D Mark 06 (CPU část)

Render performance is more than awesome!!!i7 980x will be here beating!

PC Mark:
x6 1100T 6430b
i7 980x 7150b
i7 2600k 7700b
AMD Zambezi 7950b

Cinebench R11.5
x6 1100T 5.9b
i7 980x 8.95b
i7 2600k 6.7b
AMD Zambezi 11b !!!

3D06 CPU
x6 1100t 5990b
i7 980x 7388b
i7 2600k 6600b
AMD Zambezi 8800b!

---

I think those numbers were made up by someone on a different forum as an example of performance increase based off of that graph on the 2nd post in this thread.