Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 94

Thread: New Llano leaks

  1. #1
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173

    New Llano leaks

    Can you say limited on purpose? Note how the score in lame superpi is 27 seconds @ 4.7Ghz,which is 2x slower than deneb . Note also the poor 3dmar99 score of 189.This is single core benchmark and Agena at 2.5Ghz scores roughly 330pts,74% higher. On chiphell forum someone mentioned the Turbo core bug,which "seems" to plague BD ES also (early superpi scores of B1/B0 were around 27s for 3.2Ghz Zambezi,very low score).
    http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=266652

    Edit: looking at C10 score and speedup,in order to get to 6.68x speedup the clock speed in single thread benchmark(and probably in all other single threaded benchmarks) has to be locked at around 1400MHz,despite CPUz showing 2.4Ghz.
    Last edited by informal; 06-08-2011 at 05:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    260
    5.4GHz ??



    I no understand if this is on LN2 or Air

  3. #3
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    The guy who ran the tests said the software cannot read the real clocks so he is not sure if 5.4Ghz is real or bug. He also said that there is some bug in the ES/bios so that scores don't scale with clock increase.Sometimes the test finishes up in line with clock increase,sometimes it's 2x slower.So the ES is definitely "broken" in some way. This is clearly evident by looking at the superpi and cpumark99 scores which are 1.7x-2x lower than Deneb at same clock.

    Quote Originally Posted by soothpain
    Should be right ... Because able individual Super-
    In fact, the software used to display information is not updated, see do not know is true or false ...


    4.7GHz runs a bit confused
    5.4GHz result in reasonable points

    Little brother has tried, even running times PI or CPUmark99 score and some will fall by half
    May is the relationship between ES ... Not final
    Last edited by informal; 06-08-2011 at 06:08 AM.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,061
    Anyone know when these hit retail? I am looking to buy one but don't see boards or Chips. I keep seeing the 990FX Sabertooth show up here in there on new egg, but no FM1

  5. #5
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lansing, MI / London / Stinkaypore
    Posts
    1,788
    btw guys, take note of lack of the "Hypertransport" term, with 4x PCIe2 connecting to the southbridge.

    Either this makes overclocking easier by not involving the interface... or 32nm is pretty sweet.
    Quote Originally Posted by radaja View Post
    so are they launching BD soon or a comic book?

  6. #6
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    260
    But the stock clock is 2.4GHz...right?

  7. #7
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lansing, MI / London / Stinkaypore
    Posts
    1,788
    It's a 3800- an SKU that in terms of clocks won't exist.

    38X0s (desktops) should have higher clockspeeds, no?
    Quote Originally Posted by radaja View Post
    so are they launching BD soon or a comic book?

  8. #8
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Looking at supposed 5.4Ghz AIDA64 cache/memory results,it's safe to say that 5.4Ghz is not real. Actual clock can be easily extarpolated via the cache BW numbers and cache latency numbers (vs Deneb):

    Compare with Deneb at 3.4Ghz and its results:


    Actual clock speed when he selected the multiplier 54 is around 3-3.1Ghz according to AIDA64 numbers.So real/effective multiplier is either 15x or 15.5x and something in BIOS is responsible for the bug (or "feature") .
    This clock speed(5.4Ghz <=> ~3.05Ghz) lines up perfectly with what I said in first post.Actual clock is around 1.7-1.77x lower than what CPUz reports,especially in single thread workloads where Turbo bug is most pronounced.

    edit:
    Look here. 5.4Ghz supposedly has 4300pts in CPU part of 3dmark06.This lines up perfectly with actual clock speed of 3-3.1Ghz . Another confirmation it's NOT 5.4GHz.And those Chinese guys have no idea ,they still think it's really 5.4GHz.. They just had to compare AIDA64 scores and this simple 3dmark06 cpu test with Deneb at 3Ghz,that's all...
    Last edited by informal; 06-08-2011 at 06:48 AM.

  9. #9
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Macadamia View Post
    It's a 3800- an SKU that in terms of clocks won't exist.

    38X0s (desktops) should have higher clockspeeds, no?
    valid ES sample, SKU will exist
    Quote Originally Posted by Movieman View Post
    Fanboyitis..
    Comes in two variations and both deadly.
    There's the green strain and the blue strain on CPU.. There's the red strain and the green strain on GPU..

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by cesariuth View Post
    5.4GHz ??



    I no understand if this is on LN2 or Air
    The CPUMark score doesn't seem bad as my 4Ghz Thuban scores 553.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Quote Originally Posted by mrcmtl View Post
    The CPUMark score doesn't seem bad as my 4Ghz Thuban scores 553.
    The score is not correct for the clock speed since the real clock is not 5.4Ghz...

  12. #12
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,723
    very nice! Seems a bit better in Cinebenchs than Athlon x4 clock to clock. Impressive is 4.7 GHz with stock voltage?!
    Commercial version of listening to a locked multiplier of Dong Lin a pity ... you ...
    Because ... Llano is a super strong friends overclocking
    Only adjust the multiplier to 47 (BIOS to the most strained to 47 only), the rest did not move, did not increase the voltage directly on the 4700MHz ...

    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i7-6950X, i7-5960X, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  13. #13
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    225
    Informal has it nailed.

    It's probably true that AMD has been deliberately gimping clocks on this and BD for the past x months.

    Do we know the ES number of this one Coolaler got? Hexus got one as well and it would be nice to know if the samples are the same.
    Last edited by jimbo75; 06-08-2011 at 07:19 AM.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Read above FLanker,those are wrong readings in CPUz.Real clock is ~2x lower.

  15. #15
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,723
    I tried wrote him at coolalerforum about hwinfo...we will see, if he use it.
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i7-6950X, i7-5960X, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  16. #16
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    New results posted @ 2.7Ghz?(shows as 5.4Ghz in his CPUz):
    http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=77
    Since one of our fellow users notified me that the real clock is actually 2x lower than what CPUz reports,I will do rough calculation based on this.

    Also,I see the OP posted the hwinfo screen showing 3.6Ghz as max T clock and actual clock of 3.1Ghz while multi is set to 47x (maybe showing as 4.7Ghz in CPUz). I think this is wrong since if the scores are done at 3.6Ghz then llano is actually up to 20% slower than Deneb at the same clock,which is not realistic IMO.

    Latest scores recap,I still use 2.7Ghz as a real clock of Llano(5.4Ghz showing in CPUz)- note that clock may be higher than 2.7Ghz so below may be not correct :
    3dmark11 physics score - Llano is 11% faster at the same clock vs Deneb (X4 Deneb @ 3.5 scores 14fps,LLano @ 2.7Ghz scores 12fps).

    C10 64bit- Llano is 14.5% faster at the same clock vs Deneb (X4 Deneb @ 3.2Ghz scores 13419,LLano @ 2.7Ghz scores 12793).

    CINEBENCH R11.5 - Llano is around 16% faster at the same clock vs Deneb (X4 Deneb @ 3.5Ghz scores 4.11,LLano @ 2.7Ghz scores 3.68).

    edit:
    now he posts hwinfo while running Cinebench MT test . CPU "throttles back" down to 2.4Ghz real?? clock while test runs ! Priceless info. Looking at the latest info,the original MT scores may have been correct.So Llano is around 2-5% faster than Deneb with L3 and above calculation is not correct since I don't think the sample ran at 2.7Ghz(5.4Ghz shown).It probably ran at around 3Ghz so 10% has to be taken off .
    Last edited by informal; 06-08-2011 at 08:01 AM.

  17. #17
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,747
    your deneb compare, is that with or without L3? since i though llano will only have L1/L2 cache
    2500k @ 4900mhz - Asus Maxiums IV Gene Z - Swiftech Apogee LP
    GTX 680 @ +170 (1267mhz) / +300 (3305mhz) - EK 680 FC EN/Acteal
    Swiftech MCR320 Drive @ 1300rpms - 3x GT 1850s @ 1150rpms
    XS Build Log for: My Latest Custom Case

  18. #18
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    225
    20% slower than deneb at the same clock is what that german site tweaktown.net got while testing that msi notebook with superpi. That doesn't look so good.

  19. #19
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,723
    good to know, hwinfo is great software...

    Again, I wrote him about possibility problem. Think, this 3600 MHz is CPU turbo ratio (manualy changed from default turobboost) and 2400 Mhz stock clocks
    Last edited by FlanK3r; 06-08-2011 at 08:07 AM.
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i7-6950X, i7-5960X, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  20. #20
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Manicdan View Post
    your deneb compare, is that with or without L3? since i though llano will only have L1/L2 cache
    I said Deneb and Deneb has L3. Propus has no L3,but I didn't use its numbers since it also has 2x less L2.

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo75 View Post
    20% slower than deneb at the same clock is what that german site tweaktown.net got while testing that msi notebook with superpi. That doesn't look so good.
    Yep I saw that.But as you can read in my last post,scores are not 20% lower than Deneb,they are actually a bit better at the same clock.Pretty good in my book .

  21. #21
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    I said Deneb and Deneb has L3. Propus has no L3,but I didn't use its numbers since it also has 2x less L2.



    Yep I saw that.But as you can read in my last post,scores are not 20% lower than Deneb,they are actually a bit better at the same clock.Pretty good in my book .
    Yep I just saw that as well.

    Hmm so 10-15% faster clock for clock than Deneb? If Llano comes out the blocks near 4 GHz that surely must be a real threat to the 2500K.

    Edit ok so 5%, still not bad.

  22. #22
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,747
    the IPC increase of llano over deneb is kinda unexpected, if its really pushing 10-20% better without L3, then our IPC guesses at BD might be a little off, or these number are way off. i cannot expect much more than 5% plus or minus deneb
    2500k @ 4900mhz - Asus Maxiums IV Gene Z - Swiftech Apogee LP
    GTX 680 @ +170 (1267mhz) / +300 (3305mhz) - EK 680 FC EN/Acteal
    Swiftech MCR320 Drive @ 1300rpms - 3x GT 1850s @ 1150rpms
    XS Build Log for: My Latest Custom Case

  23. #23
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Manicdan View Post
    i cannot expect much more than 5% plus or minus deneb
    That should be correct.

    edit:
    btw I posted at the original Chinese forum and explained how the results are borked.I hope they understood,or at least the OP understood.He seems to be using hwinfo32 now,it supports family 15h and seems to correctly detect the clocks.
    Last edited by informal; 06-08-2011 at 08:54 AM.

  24. #24
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    225
    Yep I'd take even with Deneb in a heartbeat. Now it's just down to GF providing the clocks.

  25. #25
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Posts
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by Manicdan View Post
    the IPC increase of llano over deneb is kinda unexpected, if its really pushing 10-20% better without L3, then our IPC guesses at BD might be a little off, or these number are way off. i cannot expect much more than 5% plus or minus deneb
    Llano also has twice the cache L2 (4MB vs 2MB)

    What I want know is a quality mobo (Gigabyte FXA-UD3/UD5 cousin). All the boards are "cheapo", specially in the number of sata ports.
    Last edited by Nintendork; 06-08-2011 at 02:31 PM.
    Athlon II X4 620 2.6Ghz @1.1125v | Foxconn A7DA-S (790GX) | 2x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 1066
    | Gigabyte HD4770 | Seagate 7200.12 3x1TB | Samsung F4 HD204UI 2x2TB | LG H10N | OCZ StealthXStream 500w| Coolermaster Hyper 212+ | Compaq MV740 17"

    Stock HSF: 18°C idle / 37°C load (15°C ambient)
    Hyper 212+: 16°C idle / 29°C load (15°C ambient)

    Why AMD Radeon rumors/leaks "are not always accurate"
    Reality check

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •