That's the record with 6 active core and HT enabled.
Type: Posts; User: xsecret; Keyword(s):
That's the record with 6 active core and HT enabled.
Where does that come from ? Core i7-2600K : 6.83, not 6.23. I7 990X : 9.22 and FX-8150 is much lower than that... or I missed something.
WCC is a joke in the current BD implementation and is not able to catch up with the massive loss that comes from the L1D. The entire caching-system is lowering the performance of the ľarch. The L3 is...
Was a P4 slower than a P3 ? Sometimes no, sometimes yes, depending on the software. The absolute performance is not something so important for AMD. The most important thing is money. And just money....
High raw throughput for an FP unit is nice. But in order to use this power in real-world application, you need a frontend able to feed it correctly. That means massive code optimization and a good...
PS : I corrected the logo non displayed on the validation page.
About this OC, keep in mind this is with only one active core. There is still no news about how much it can reach with 4 cores enabled ... and the power needed.
Seems the new Netburst beat the old...
Enjoy the big secret... :)
are you amazed ?
When you're not able to increase the IPC on your current ľarch, you must use faster clocks to increase the performance. In order to use faster clocks, you need an high throughput engine and remove...
If Sandra uses AVX in the MM Benchmark, that's not strange. Thuban doesn't have AVX and all benchmarks using it are 10 times slower.
You should be aware that Zambezi Turbo mode is not that simple. There is 2 "main" levels of Turbo. For example, a 3.6 GHz base CPU can reach 3.9 GHz with all cores used as long as TDP remain under a...
X6 3.3 GHz : 5.8
And I can confirm I have the same score with a final platform.
Why not :
4) 6282SE/6220 results are real and close to shipping performances.
?
AMD will try to keep the discussion away from performances as long as possible. You'll see next week what I'm talking about :D
You guys want to know more about Bulldozer "final" Performance & Pricing ? I just found an (old) interesting screenshot from AMD.
Easy as hell : everything you want to know is written down here....
Depend on what is "bad performance". If it's "not able to compete with Intel product for the same price", then all previous stepping than B2 are bad due to that bug. If it's "awesome roxxing...
It could be better, it could be worst, depending on which benchmark you use.
Bulldozer will be able to compete with Intel mainstream product in the 150-250$ range. That's a lot better than the actual product line. But I know many guys are expecting more for a "brand new"...
The real world strange performances of BD seems to come from major changes in instructions throughput. Some of them are much (much) faster than Thuban, some other are much (much) slower. So depending...
I disagree with this statement. No matter how much raw power a CPU can deliver, the power is nothing if software can't use it in real world application (and without too much work for devs). Threading...
You just can't compare the hypothetic maximum bandwidth of a compute unit with a real complete core. The term "core" used by AMD is a non-sense. What's a core ? A core includes dispatch, prefetch,...
AMD is trapped with its own bullshat. If you compare a FX-6100 (6-core @ 3.3 GHz according to AMD marketing terminology) with a 1100T (6-core @ 3.3 GHz), the 1100T will, or course, be faster. Why ?...
One core is not able to do 2x128-bit FP operation...
Well, all those "performance are not final ! not shipping performance ! don't trust leaks !" seem now bullshat and a way for AMD to prevent leaks. I have the same performances with the B2 chip since...
The issue with previous stepping seems related to power and only power, not internal ľarch.
Anyway, I just put my hand on a final, retail CPU with retail box. The box art is similar than the ones...
