Man... what a math class :P thumbs up fur the clarification and enrichment of math culture in the forum ( i mean it! ) :)
Printable View
Man... what a math class :P thumbs up fur the clarification and enrichment of math culture in the forum ( i mean it! ) :)
http://www.chiphell.com/thread-190177-1-1.html
Crap :eek: >30%(ignoring useless Super pi) slower at same clocks with double the cores. I hope these aren't true otherwise I see no reason why anyone in his right mind would buy one.
how come those benchmarks look very similar to results from a PII 920?
from anand bench:
PII 920 gets 3244 pts single
11440 pts multithreaded
an 8 core chip with perf less than something from 2 years ago. lol
Ridiculous scores.
I already posted about it on another forum.
If you look at the chiphell topic ,the OP is confused.He lists the ES which is clearly 6 core by the code,but then posts a screenshot of an 8 core ES from different week and with different revision marker.
Then comes the C10 result of 2340pts for single core,which is on the level of ~2.58Ghz Phenom II.You can see 32bit C10 results here:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...d=2511&page=10. Scaling of 4.85x is close to 6 core scaling number but CPUz now shows alleged 8 core Zambezi ES.
Similar goes for Super pi in which alleged Zambezi has 12% less performance than 2.8Ghz Phenom II:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=2511&page=8
Lastly ,we have a lowly CPU score from 3dmark06,4900pts,which is a tad lower than what 6 core 1055T gets as can be seen here.Also note that 945 QuadCore Phenom II at 3 Ghz has 14% lower score than this supposed 8 core 2.8Ghz Zambezi. Just ridiculous.
So we have a 10%-30% decrease,according to this "info",when going to Bulldozer.Mind you ,this is almost all fp intensive workload we see and somehow Bulldozer is sucking in it :rolleyes:. We've already seen AMD slide which lists 8 core XX Ghz Zambezi as having around 1.88x the score of 1100T Thuban in C11.5. So we can easily dismiss this whole "test" as either fake one or done on some barely running hardware.
Those results don't look suspicious at all. :rofl:
Informal don't be surprised terrace posted a lot and looking at your signature he kinda succeeded.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Thanks God he was stopped at -30% performance. :rolleyes:
You are proving my point right? :confused: Please tell me you meant to agree with me, otherwise you are saying that fanboy extremism is good and don't understand the benchmarks you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
should be fake ;)
From SA forum,new image:
http://i309.photobucket.com/albums/k...labobby/53.jpg
3dmark06 ~3034pts,lower than Phenom I 9850
C11.5 ~2.86pts, 2.5x lower than 1100T Thuban :p:
Super Pi.... ah who cares anymore lol :D
The chip this Chinese guy has is evidently a seriously borked ES 6 core Zambezi @ 2.6ghz.
PS now the scores are going further down with each new picture,we are in K7 range now^^.This is clearly terrace testing that ES :D
haha:-D Right, this is not possible...2.86 R11.5 with hexacore-rofl...Score as some 2.8 GHz Athlon X3
When you look at overclocked results, Thuban is far.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Don't forget power consumption and efficiency too.
The two (2) 128-bit FMACs per Module will only be paired to one 256-bit FMAC when we will have AVX.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
If we only have one FP instruction per Module, then one 128-bit FMAC can have all the resources (FP Sheduller etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
100 is 25% more than 80.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
80 is 20% less than 100.
Much of the confusion here comes in from what the english language leaves implicit. "x%" implies a lot more than it says. In the above statement, "25%" really means "25% of the next number". So "25% more than 80" really means "25% of 80 more than 80". So blame unclear english for the confusion.
More details:
In the english language, the "is" means equals, and the "x more than y" means an operation, or equation. ("5 more than 10 is 15" means "5+10=15")
In the case of "x%", the "%" is like a unit, meaning "divided by 100 (and then multiplied against another number)". (a percentage is also known as "a fraction of 100".) So you divide that "x%" number by 100 to get what the fraction really means in decimal notation. (Decimal notation, not fractions, is the number format in which the rest of this math is done.)
But the "x%" has a secret. It is implicitly tied to the second number in this equation. "25% more than 80" doesn't just mean "0.25 more than 80", it means "25% of 80 more than 80". So once you have the decimal value of the percentage ("decimal value fraction" if you will), you apply it to the second number (using multiplication) to find that percentage of that number. So 25% of 80 is 20, because 0.25*80=20.
Then, the "x% (of y) more than y" means you add ("more") both the original "y" to the value of "x% (of y)" to get the answer to that equation.
"x less than y" also means "subtract x from y", which also means "y minus x", or "y-x", or 80-(25% of 80).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
You are wrong.
Look here:
http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/10/25/the-new-flex-fp/
If we have single threaded fp legacy code,one integer core can schedule instructions on both FMACs.
This means one core can have the whole shared FP resources on its disposal if Core 2 has no fp instructions scheduled in FP scheduler.Quote:
Core 1
2x128b AVX or 2x128b un-recompiled SSE
Oh Jeez... something must be wrong with those scores. =/
Seriously gimbed down Bulldozer ES, AMD doesnt want people know real numbers yet, Intel would panic.
NDA but, you can expect more from bulldozer :up:
Well, duh, if you take cpu on a mature 32nm process its going to clock better than a 45nm one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Your statement about "rape" is still invalid tho.TDP`s are kept inline only at stock settings.Fact of the matter is phenom X6 aint bad at highly threaded work.
Getting back to core of discussion, BD is going to be build on 32nm with power gating just like sandy.So NOT expecting it to clock better than X6 is not wise.
As for the results, they can pretty much be dismissed.
And no, not because im an AMD fanboy.but if it was that horrible, there would be no point in replacing phenom II with this.
well the only way you can get that low of a score is if you ran all of those at say start up all at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
lol
it looks like he tried all of them at once somehow. lol
That isn't my intention and I either wasn't clear or you misread me. Most apps aren't well threaded. But those that do scale with cores often benefit more from extra cores than extra clocks/IPC.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
My point is simply that what matters to the average user doesn't matter so much to us. The high-throughput multicore case is just as extreme as the high clocks/IPC case. There are plenty of valid desktop uses that utilize many cores - encoding, rendering, heavy multitasking, etc. To determine if BD or SB is right for you will likely come down to using your brain to determine how benchmark scores actually apply to the apps you use and how you use them. There will probably be some cases where SB is the right choice and other cases where BD is the right one.
for me too :DQuote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
no, those scores are real. but theres a bug, the cpu always runns @idle, dont mind what cpuz says...
Now that is an interesting piece of information :DQuote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
If we assume idle is 800Mhz,as it has always been,and apply 4x (3.2Ghz X8) to C11.5 score of 2.86 ,we arrive to 11.xx score,dangerously close to the score from leaked Donanimhaber slide :D. I dare not to apply 4x to the poor 3dmark06 score or anything else in that picture since it would go through the benchmarking roof :).
And what does running at idle do to it?
that kinda explains the .960v we see
^its stuck at lowest multiplier available, 200x4 = 800mhz
Well the scores are done at 800Mhz or whatever clock idle is in Zambezi's case. 4x800Mhz or 4x2.86pts fits perfectly with almost 11pts for top end X8 leaked by Donanimhaber 2 months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
it did not work for me, when i tried the same thing. 3dmarks started giving me errors without scores ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
That's because application (3dmark)lost focus :). You cannot run anything else (graphical)with 3dmark in parallel.
yep, that's the one :) I doubt if we could run any other 3d apps at once. unless we have two gpus or something, though never tries it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
But anyways, I will take that ~11points anyday :D I only score 6.87 with phenom x6@3.9ghz
Where do you get 2.86pts from? I'm staring at the pic here.. dunno much about Cinebench, TBH.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
lower left corner in a picture taken by camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
It's here. Lower left corner(CB11.5 CPU score).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
i wouldnt say its running idle.But i can say that uncorrectly working turbocore plus cnq can lower scores A LOT, from my own testing, the score was somewhere inbetween idle and what it should be.
This makes me however happy, because if the guy is going to set his cpu manually.We should at last get some decent leaks :-)
Ooh, thanks. I was looking at the wrong pic..:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
Core 1Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
2x128b AVX or 2x128b un-recompiled SSE
or
128-bit FP command
Only one legacy 128-bit FP FMAC per Thread
Again, from the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
Quote:
With each cycle, either core can operate on 256 bits of parallel data via two 128-bit instructions or one 256-bit instruction, OR each of the integer cores can execute 128-bit commands simultaneously
LOL I haven't heard that name for a long time!! :D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
BD Terrace ES Edition? "IPC the more he posted about it the more it decreased"
LMFAO
That Cinebench score can't be true. 2.86 is pretty awful. Like slower than a 4 core propos clock for clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
--Matt
Repost police alert: Already posted on the last page and discussed :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Guys, think just for a moment:
Does anyone seriously believe that AMD's new flagship CPU they are working on would seriously perform WORSE than their current chip lineup? Do you think they would do that? :wth:
Of course, not :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
Exactly, if the BD design was THAT bad then they could just shrink the X6 instead,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
which would be a piece of cake and a lot less expensive compared to developing the BD.
I stand firm on my decision. weeks ago sold 2600k sys to get BDQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
990FX :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
LOL Wut? Are they benching outside?
i just did the math for cb10 scores
if its at 800mhz and scored 2340pts, thats really insane and translates to 11992 pts single threaded at 4.1ghz, lol
i somehow doubt we can expect that though.
It's not 800Mhz, it's not 2800Mhz
Is that a stock intel heatsink I see on there?
Edit:
That looks like intel stuff everywhere except the single picture of the 990FX silk screen
the right side of the second picture shows the same stuff in the top picture
theres afermarket cooling on the amd system
this statement makes little sense, please elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
so its neither one, so what is it?
http://i309.photobucket.com/albums/k...labobby/53.jpg
Hmm... I find this a leak
i call it a fail. Super pi will never be that slow again...
theres also a cpu score for vantage
There is a stock intel heatsink in that pic... on an intel rig. The AMD is to the right, almost off the picture.
They didn't want to get caught breaking the NDA so they went to a park to run benchmarks, lol
my moms windows 98 computer can do that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Morais
haha. awesome observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by richierich
The cinebench score is too low. Cant say that to the other too since i dont run them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
somehwere between 800 and 2800Mhz?
It's clearly not 800Mhz.. Performance would never be that good.
Yet it's clearly not at 2800Mhz either, otherwise they might as well not even release BD at all with the leaked Clockspeeds it's launching at (3200Mhz - 4100Mhz turbo)
Several people in the thread that seem to be under NDA and have samples have stated, turbo mode, CNQ is not operating properly, and frequencies are obviously moving around somewhere below what the multi is set at.
These leaked benches are essentially useless, but good to create a laugh on the forums!
So, your saying the ES parts are not working properly! Great, do I take that to mean the parts are broken. Great. Why would AMD let parts out that don't work, whether the issue is software or hardware? Oh well
RussC
Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
it indicates this chip is an early ESQuote:
Originally Posted by RussC
with bulldozer coming in july (rumoured), all the parameters and bios should have been set in stones.
how about because it's an ES it's probably on an AM3 890Fx board that can't do that power gating right.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
I have just have to look on the 3Dmark vantage cpu score for understand something is highly wrong in the result, even with a dual core i get faster result .. ( and an old one ) ... :ROTF:
For the CB result ... even a dual core is faster .... my 2600K with 1 core ( 5ghz ) give 2.04 pnts .. so just imagine something is just not possible with the run they have made .
like i said my moms windows 98 can do that lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
Ahhh, I see it now. Thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
set in stones? or set by stoners?Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
I believe those results are real just because they are so lame. Anyway one shouldnt draw too negative conclusions about first ES benchs.
Think, it is not possible about 800 MHz, maybe highewr, some about 1600 MHz or so...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Score is as Athlon X3 :-)...
Or perhaps something is intentionally obscured. Remember early Athlon ES leaks with the cache disabled? Obviously performance will not be worse than last gen though.
That's really odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morais
I think it's windows not kicking in the extra power states.
I would recommend trying win2k3 or xp instead of vista/win7 just incase it was a buggy cpu driver and power management config.
Scores looks like an itx with gpu on the cpu, or an old amd socket a cpu.
MY dad using amd x2 3800+ and new xp driver fix crashes and exc.Quote:
Originally Posted by NEOAethyr
New driver is in windows 7 when it got updated(or maybe comes with first install). Idunno about new cpus how they are. Lots of new x2 6000 series got replaced with new computers simply coz of unstable cpus-without drivers.
Thats sad news for old forgotten cpus.
It's not called benchmarking for nothing... look at all the benches in the background! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by richierich
Can windows 7 even be installed on a Pentium?Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
I saw it working on some K6 and PII, so probably...Quote:
Originally Posted by Falkentyne
also the "Pentium" name is used in some LGA 775, 1156 CPUs.
but that score (9300?) looks equivalent to something like a 2.8ghz Athlon II X4.
People say it has a aftermarket cooler ... as far as i remember, 980x comes with a pretty nifty cooler ... so ... maybe that cooler is the new "reference" for the 8 core? :D
and what is your point ? he speak about the result .... see a bit of sarcarsm ( the system of his mom who is still under win 98 will match this score ) ... , i have point in other post my 2600K with 1 single core test made 2.04pnts under Cinebench ... why a 6 cores Bulldozer will do 2.86 pnts when a Phenom 1095T do 5.73 pnts ....... you don't think the scores mess somewhere ? AMD have release a completely new architecture who are 2 times slower of the old ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Falkentyne
if the R11.5 scores are under 800mhz, with only 6 score, that's just amazing.
Else it could be fake ... or an alpha bugged cpu ... who knows.
Solus Corvus already corrected you(after I did even before that). You need to read that blog post again.The whole point of co-processor model is that one core can have the whole FPU(2xFMAC) in case of second core having no fp instructions scheduled.Yes ,even in legacy code and that's the beauty of AMD's approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
As for the benchmarks from chiphell,this is what Charlie said at SA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie
where do u got that info from?Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
cause a butterfly told me otherwise.
In fact, Bulldozer's module max floating point instruction throughput on current software (without AVX and FMA) is equal to thus of one Phenom's core - two 128-bit fp ops per cycle. Bulldozer module is more flexible - it can start any combination of ops per cycle (such as MUL+MUL or ADD+ADD) while Phenom core is tied to MUL+ADD. On the other hand Bulldozer has higher latencies for fp ops and various FP-pack/blend/copy ops are executed on one of two fp-pipes while Phenom has special unit (fp-misc) for such type of instructions. So it is possible that 6-core bulldozer will have equal performance to 3-core Phenom on the same freq in apps with many fpu code.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
My prediction is that one FMAC will have around 20-30% higher performance than one Thuban core ,in non recompiled MT software.Single thread fp performance should be a lot higher than that(2xFMAC in this case).In FMA optimized code, there should be substantial jump,maybe up to 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
You can see from leaked donanimhaber slide that 8 core (probably <3.5Ghz) model has approx. 1.88x the performance of 1100T in Cinebench 11.5.That's non recompiled legacy fp workload in which you have 8 128bit FMACs working versus 6 Thuban cores(each of which is Mul+Add). This roughly corresponds to 1.3x the fp power of Tuban core,roughly at the same clock.
edit: Someone asked about stepping or revision of BD ES in question. It has W8K44 at the end so it is a B0 for sure. Since Charlie wrote pre-B1 was useless for benchmarking you can now see why the scores are the way they are.
But has that Donanimhaber slide any credibility? I see no reason why it should be considered real.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
@informal: yes, afaik pre-B1 has a multiplier issue.
I personally think it's real.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
The lowest frequency P-State can be be programmed to be as low as 500 MHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
Especially I did not want to connect my post to any leaked data or benchmarks. The question was whether it is possible that 6-core Buldozer is slower then 6-core phenom in some cases. Based on data published by AMD - yes, it's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Well I can't say I have any proof for the opposite. But I think we should be careful when using the numbers from that slide.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I do believe though that the decoupled FPU will boost FPU performance quite good at 1-4 threads. I think the extra FPU power in Kuma compared to Brisbane and Windsor is the main reason it performed 20-30% better in games and Cinebench. I don't know if it will be as big difference this time but it will help alot.
That combined with turbo is the main reason I think BD won't suffer much from games being poorly threaded.
EDIT: Link to my claims about Kuma performance if anyone doubt my word for it. ;)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...n-cpu-review/5
Well, I'll answer with a question. do you really think that's 800Mhz?Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
I'm not objecting to the notion of sampels getting stuck in CnQ, but the numbers show it's a bit more complicated than that.
Maybe the windows thread-throwing act is playing havoc with these B0 (apparently) samples with CnQ :shrug:
As a result of whatever's going on I feel projecting actual performance nothing short of Impossible.. You certainly can't just assume it's a solid 800Mhz and start multiplying scores ;)
Better FP performance won't lead to faster games, since they are usually INT heavy, but other improvments as better/faster cache/branch predictors do wonders in games.
Games are mostly using integer SIMD,which in BD's case is also improved and resides in fp co-processor. But other parts of the core are beefed up too,so they will also help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Has it been a shift from FPU to INT in games recently? The bad FPU was the reason K6 sucked in games, K6 had very good INT. 3Dnow fixed this in games that supported it. It's also said that it was the superior FPU that made K7 perform better in games. Nowdays I guess SSE and so on has been taking over, but that is still calculated by the FPU right? I'm a bit unsure on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
@mAJORD: i dont know if its 800mhz, more or less. my x6 here has 800/1500/2200/2800 as possible (w/o turbo). im just saying its not running at max speed cause pre-B1 are supposed to have a issue with the multi. of cause im not there to proof it and i can be wrong.
i think games use both, but i can't be categoric, on the one most used. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
But there is a loooooot of branch in games, that sure. And Phenom II sucks in it :D
And from what I've heard that might be one of the most improved parts with BD. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
Can anyone verify this?
Two thoughts.
Anyone told this guy to disable all power saving features in both bios and windows + trying others OSES ? Or Another mainboard,there are currently avaialble both AM3 and Am3+ boards with support out there.
Or maybe in the earlier ES`s AMD intentionnaly broke multi management to be sure that no one leakes it, and even if they do, no one will believe them.They did similar things on GPU front.
There's clearly a problem in this leak:
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/1e7...50f5eb2508.jpg
Like wombat said,looks like multiplier issue(and who knows what else).
edit: ok,don't ask how i got to this but C11.5 score is roughly 2.66x lower than what it should be at that clock :). I believe the multiplier issue is such that only one core out of 8 is boosted to its clock of 2.8ghz,rest are siting at idle clock(some may figure out how i got to 2.66x now :) ). This brings us back to what would 3.5Ghz X8 get in C11.5. Answer :~10.6,dangerously close to DH slide :D. As for 3dmark cpu score ,i'm not sure how it scales with more cores or clock speed. According to same DH slide,X8 should have 50% higher score than 1100T ,so around 8600pts.
now qestion, what P-state is it...? The lowest 800 MHz or some diferent (1200/1400/1500/1600 MHz)?
A bit brainstorming here:
If only one core runs at full speed, and CPU-Z reports a 8P system, maybe Windows interprets the CPU the same way?
Maybe Server 2008 Enterprise (8P support) would help? Or 2003..
IDK what happens if you run W7 on a 8P system, does even load Windows, or does it lock down the unsupported cores to min P-state?
Default pwr states are:
4x
8x
12x
user defined
turbo
But we know those can all be changed.
Default ref clock would be 200mhz of course unless something is messed up, and it's possible it could mean 100 or 150mhz.
2600mhz supposed stock setting.
That would be a 13x default ratio (user define pwr state thing above).
Given the sore it got on pi though I would guess it's more like 2000mhz comparing to a thuban.
I rather doubt I needs 600mhz more to equ to a thuban.
That would make it almost worthless for an upgrade, then again you got a new fpu the setup and 8x cores.
But still...
I suppose it is possible that it's running 2600mhz, but the bios is absolutely bare bones then, that would be the only thing I could think of.
Perhaps it's that along with the mem controller timings not wokring 100% in the bios, say tcr of 2t and some extremely slack timings at some low ram speed.
We are all used to halfway responsibly tweaked machines, which those shots may be showing us something alot more slack.
At any rate, those shots are not valid enough to give us a good idea of how it compares.
It's a beta bios with a beta cpu I guess you could say.
And I bet the bios'es stay that way until a week before launch of close to it.
Edit:
Windows non server only supports 2 sockets I think it was, but supports many cores per socket.
But if the bios was buggy, and the dmi pooling was screwed maybe it might think it's a multi socket system I don't know.
Then again I don't know if dmi even makes a real difference, on a single cpu and single core setup you didn't need a dmi pool at all.