AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

[GenTarkin]

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.

I think you have to take into account HT. Cuz those intel numbers are with HT on I would assume, thus giving nonrealistic single thread / core performance.
So, in order to compensate you should take into account up to 30% benefit from HT and take that much off intels core count.
So, for the i7 980x it would be 8 cores and 2600k would be like 5.25 cores

[ChanceCoats123]

Why is the 1100T in single channel? We all know intel is much faster, but you're really comparing apples to oranges more so than already. Put both rigs in single channel, and I'm willing to bet the intel efficiency will drop. More than likely, not a whole lot, but the faster ram subsystem on the 1366 platform is a huge part of why those chips score so much better.

[DedEmbryonicCe1]

i hope no one hates me for wanting a 2module/4core BD. with overclocking it should still beat my thuban in multithreaded, but demolish it for gaming. i just dont have any reason to use more than 4 cores right now and lower power consumption means i can go cheaper on the board and save a little cash on the electric bill, and alot of cash on the chip. i just feel like i should throw myself off a bridge for upgrading to less cores, lol.

I'm with you on that. If the 970 had been available back then I would have never bought my 1090T. The only thing I use more than 4 cores for is converting lossless audio to Ogg vorbis to put on my Rockbox'ed Sansa Fuze. That process is limited more by my HDD speed than anything else at this point so I doubt I'd lose much with 4 cores. That said I may still end up with a 8 core Bulldozer some day if there is a sufficient difference in overclocks versus the cheaper parts because I can never get enough single-threaded performance.

[RaV666]

I'm with you on that. If the 970 had been available back then I would have never bought my 1090T. The only thing I use more than 4 cores for is converting lossless audio to Ogg vorbis to put on my Rockbox'ed Sansa Fuze. That process is limited more by my HDD speed than anything else at this point so I doubt I'd lose much with 4 cores. That said I may still end up with a 8 core Bulldozer some day if there is a sufficient difference in overclocks versus the cheaper parts because I can never get enough single-threaded performance.

Thing is, thubans overclock generally better than deneb, so i dont see a point getting 970 for single core performance .
Anyhow, im sure 2 module bulldozer will show up eventually to be replacement for Phenom X2 and Athlons.
Besides, with more potent turbo i dont think there is going to be a problem with single cpu performance.

[BeepBeep2]

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.

Intel has turbo too

[Manicdan]

I'm with you on that. If the 970 had been available back then I would have never bought my 1090T. The only thing I use more than 4 cores for is converting lossless audio to Ogg vorbis to put on my Rockbox'ed Sansa Fuze. That process is limited more by my HDD speed than anything else at this point so I doubt I'd lose much with 4 cores. That said I may still end up with a 8 core Bulldozer some day if there is a sufficient difference in overclocks versus the cheaper parts because I can never get enough single-threaded performance.

what rav said is right
with my 1055T (that i got for 126$) i was at 3.7ghz on all six cores, but 4.25ghz on the 3 turbod cores, which is a really nice OC and really tough to get on all 6 stable because of the really high power draw (it uses 1.52v in turbo)

[Lightman]

Intel has turbo too

and HT to make enough difference so that results between AMD and Intel are not comparable

Just turn off Turbo in AOD and test for yourself, see how Core Speedup changes in Cinebench

[FlanK3r]

Ok, here is it Beep: CPU at 4400 MHz without turbo, one with 6/12 and second with 6/6:


5.51x


4.93x HT off


PS:tomorow Il try the same with Thuban (OC+without turbo)

[FlanK3r]

Ok, I have here Thuban Cinebench R10 from my friend (he made it earlier than me )


And as u can see, Thuban efectivity is 5.05x and better than Intel Gulftown without HTT.

[delasneo]

BRAVO FlanK3r. Very Clearly . The Core usage of AMD better than Intel.

I think Beepbeep dont want to talk anymore

[BeepBeep2]

BRAVO FlanK3r. Very Clearly . The Core usage of AMD better than Intel.

I think Beepbeep dont want to talk anymore

Looks like someones holding a grudge
Flanker and I are forum "friends" I suppose you could say

delasneo, I look like an intel fanboy to you?

[demonkevy666]

Hyper threading isn't effective as a real core for Mutli-thread. up to about 85% maybe in some, but not all.

[JF-AMD]

85%?? Are you kidding? that is almost 3X the intel marketing claims (30%) and almost 6X the SPEC INT RATE benchmark delta (14%).

[FlanK3r]

maybe he thought 15% (100-85) for ht

in Cinebech was it overall +4000p for next 6 threads (HT on), so on core isnt much-666p= 10.6%

[FlanK3r]

great news about Bulldozer Turbo from JF

[FlanK3r]

from COmputerbase....

[Glow9]

When are they coming out with zambezi quads or 6 cores is there an actual date yet?

[Mats]

I haven't seen any dates yet, we probably won't see any before Cebit at least, which is in 1 - 5 March.
The actual launch could be at Computex in 1 - 5 June.

[Johnny87au]

cebit 6 core not sure about the other zambezi chips, havent really herd anything about them..

[Glow9]

Throwing this out there too but anyone know what the default mem speed it will be using be? Just thinking about ram purchases for this rig.
I really hope this is good and doesn't make me buy a sandy.

[BeepBeep2]

Throwing this out there too but anyone know what the default mem speed it will be using be? Just thinking about ram purchases for this rig.
I really hope this is good and doesn't make me buy a sandy.

I'd guess 1600 compatible with a possible 1866 divider?

Either way I believe it will be better than thuban, maybe 2200 would be something most people could get stable.

[ChanceCoats123]

Score. I just hope the new board support a higher tRC clock. My 790FX only goes to 42 which puts 2000 just out of reach with my current PSC chips. I'll have to see how much better the IMC is cold though. So far, these sticks have been way better than my D9's so they should go a bit farther.

[BeepBeep2]

Score. I just hope the new board support a higher tRC clock. My 790FX only goes to 42 which puts 2000 just out of reach with my current PSC chips. I'll have to see how much better the IMC is cold though. So far, these sticks have been way better than my D9's so they should go a bit farther.

Are you sure tRC is the limiting factor?

[ChanceCoats123]

To be honest, no. It could be the cpu's IMC. I just posted in your other thread about temps, and I think that's the culprit. Like I said, I may get totally different results when cold.

[Callsign_Vega]

I am highly suspect of these so called performance numbers for Bulldozer. I am all for AMD getting back into the high end as competition is good, but lets not get carried away.

I remember all the fuss about the Radeon 6970 before launch. It's going to destroy nVidia a lot of people said! Then it launches and it's barely faster than an old GTX 480 and slower than the GTX 580. Talk about over-hype deflation.