next crazy chinese fake?....Now with very impressive score, the say, this is FX 4120
Attachment 119104
http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/11/11_100430.html
Think, it is not possible, 2 modules higher score than 980x....
Printable View
next crazy chinese fake?....Now with very impressive score, the say, this is FX 4120
Attachment 119104
http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/11/11_100430.html
Think, it is not possible, 2 modules higher score than 980x....
I don't think that is a score for QC Zambezi Flanker. It may be a score for 8C one ,it fits almost perfectly (my estimate for 8C was 19220pts :) ).
its the uber quadcore....
Informal: I think the same, logic say me, simillary score is possible only for 4-modules. Maybe Fritz readings modules as number of cores?
But...what is interesting is this:
from RAWZ
That is some Super Exciting news from RawZ.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:Quote:
It'll be interesting to see how BD handles the well known Intel loving Super Pi benchmark. If AMD BD can outperform SB in that benchmark, then fooook me, that'll cause a massive storm.
Yeah Super Pi has the highest priority, not some toy benchmark like Cinebench or whatever..
AMD doesn't care about SuperPI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Sorry for my poor english , but from my understanding it sounds like Bulldozer will be FUN to overclock withQuote:
clock for clock BD is approx the same as Sandy Bridge.
the supposed LN2 AMD event is coming really soon, it would be nice to see if they can break 9ghz
lol, talk about greedy :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
RawZ is just speculating and dreaming the same as you lot btw.
A HTT bug causing performance problems could have been the reason for the delay.
http://donthatethegeek.com/2011/08/1...in-production/
credit goes to yuri.cs from pctuning forum who I got it from
Well that would explain some of the horrible score weve seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
Dirk Diggler I don't know, the scores what I saw were also in multi-threaded applications and didn't seem low, maybe they will be in B2 so much better based how much perf. penalty this bug causes.
Comp_Nou has changed the mobo with M5A97 EVO one. Results are better than the first try with AMD760 :
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/041...17774c817d.jpg
The guy is waiting for better BIOS
http://www.chiphell.com/thread-250461-1-1.html
AMD760? OMG Are they serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
undone yeah, they are serious Chinese amateurs.:shakes: Nothing to be surprised about.
That is a very incorrect statement. PI will stress a single FPU unit on a single core, within a single thread. This is an exceptional way to compare FPU execution speed between AMD, and Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Super pi uses ancient x87 instructions which are depreciated and obsolete since SSE2 launched. Super pi is in no way representative of FPU power of one single core.It just shows how fast can you do x87 math. Not to mention all those BD ES results are borked so move along.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
BTW you quoted a post from January 2011,just FYI...
CrazyNutz no, he is right It doesn't represent single threaded performance
AMD doesn't care about this old instruction set which is no longer used in modern applications.Quote:
Super PI utilizes the x87 instruction set. These instructions date all the way back to the 8087 math coprocessor. While they were important for 80386, 80486, and Pentium they became obsolete when 3DNow! and Streaming SIMD Extensions were released.
You have to be kidding, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
I will correct informal here: Super Pi is not representative of any performance. The only thing that it does is shows how quickly(or better - slow) this app calculates Pi digits. That is all it does.
informal
really, what a CrazyNutz guy:rofl:.Quote:
BTW you quoted a post from January 2011,just FYI...
:D Great way to get yourself into discussion :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
Oops my mistake quoting something as far back as 01/11. I'll own up here.
However one thing you guys must understand is "A Large Percentage of software is NOT optimized with SIMD" and some software cannot make effective use of SIMD. It takes manual optimizations to make real use of SIMD. If you were to disassemble most of the software you use on a daily basis you would know what I talking about. You would see a whole lot of NON SIMD instructions in use i.e. legacy float, and integer instructions.
Some of you seem to think the addition of new instructions make the original x86/87 instructions obsolete, well that is not always the case especially with vector instructions. Fellow programmers will know what I'm saying here.
Edit: added this
They are not obsolete. They are used far more than you realize. That like saying x86 is obsolete.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Don't get defensive, I'm not bashing BD at all :)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Since AMD64 instruction set launched along with 64bit Windows,x87 IS obsolete. In 64 bit OS x87 is not used(like literary ,it's replaced by SSE which duplicates its capabilities). There is no discussion there.
It does NOT fully duplicate it's capabilities, this is a misconception, and x87 has higher precision 80bit vs sse2 64bit. Also compilers try to optimize code to use faster instructions, like mmx/sse etc., however most of the time they fail to produce an executable using these instructions. Where SIMD (sse2/mmx/avx etc.) shines is when you have a string of data that needs to have the same operation performed, it really speeds things up, however again compilers are rarely smart enough to do these optimizations on their own, so these instructions most of the time are hand written and included as inline assembly. I write software this way, and so do my colleagues, however only when it's necessary, otherwise we allow the compiler to spit out x86/87 instructions.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
EDIT: Looking further into this, When compiling for 64bit you are correct that sse replaces x87 instructions by default with most recent compilers (i.e. gcc defaults -mfpmath=sse for 64bit).
However there is still a lot of 32bit games, and programs in use, and when compiled for 32bit most compilers default to x87 instructions for floating point math.