Amd Officially Benches Bulldozer

[Pestilence]

980X vs BD in Gaming
Core I5 Something.. Possibly a 2400 against BD in Encoding.

Can we say selective benchmarks to favor BD? We want 2600K vs 8150.. Plain and Simple

In the infamous hotel room two blocks away from IDF, AMD is our first official benchmark results of the AMD FX "Bulldozer" processor shown. Since both tests are presumably carefully chosen for the new platform to put in a good light, we can based on these numbers no conclusions. Yet we want the results do not remember.

First they showed a comparison between a new unspecified AMD FX processor and an unspecified Intel processor i5 Sandy Bridge, with the help of the program Handbrake a video of 5 minutes is converted to H.264 video in SD resolution. The AMD FX processor with eight cores perform this function with an average of 223 frames per second, the i5 with four cores came in at 188 fps. Both systems will be comparable in price according to AMD, which it wants to show that AMD a better price / performance offering. That may be the case, but who has a more negative view would conclude that AMD is looking to double the number of cores needs to less than 20% better performance available.

In the second demonstration showed up one game in three Dirt 2560x1600 resolution, running on two Radeon HD 6790 cards in Crossfire. In one system, the cards are combined with an Intel Core i7 980X, in the second system with an AMD FX processor. The Intel machine could produce an average of 80.9 fps, the AMD machine averaged 82.8 fps. The much cheaper AMD FX processor is faster than the Core i7 980X - if you want to show - though we should really stick through it: Dirt 3 to this resolution and the chosen card is very GPU thus limited. The extra 2 fps of the AMD-101 system can be explained ways, all of which are not necessarily traceable to CPU performance.

For real benchmarks, we'll have to wait for the AMD FX processors actually available. Fortunately, that probably will not take too long.

However revealed also a working laptop with AMD processor Trinity, the next generation AMD APU based on Bulldozer cores and a next generation GPU. Trinity middle of next year will reach the market.

http://nl.hardware.info/nieuws/24619...d-fx-processor

[gallag]

Don't get the point in comparing CPUs for public information but withholding the id of the CPUs???? What's up with that?

[STaRGaZeR]

Don't get the point in comparing CPUs for public information but withholding the id of the CPUs???? What's up with that?

Guess you'll get it when you see full BD reviews

[Dimitriman]

Matching 980X in gaming is extremely important. All other settings equal, this is where the FX chip will make or break its name, it will not be in file compression or video encoding, sorry for the encoders out there

[Tao~]

Matching 980X in gaming is extremely important. All other settings equal, this is where the FX chip will make or break its name, it will not be in file compression or video encoding, sorry for the encoders out there

It has more integer cores, and presumably higher clocks and adequate cache - it SHOULD be faster in gaming , right ?

[Spectrobozo]

the margin by wich the "8 core" CPU beat the quad i5 (without HT) on the video encoding seems very worrying, as far as I know this tasks scales much better than most,

on Dirt 3... HD6790 or 6970!?
and I bet that if they compared with even their old CPU (PII X4 980) it would be quite close to BD, they are probably more GPU limited anyway...

http://static.techspot.com/articles-...bench/CPU2.png
http://static.techspot.com/articles-...bench/2560.png

(look at the 6990 with i7 920 @ 3.7GHz, basically the same as the 980X and BD with 2x6970?, if this is the same version of the game, settings and benchmark)

[Dimitriman]

It has more integer cores, and presumably higher clocks and adequate cache - it SHOULD be faster in gaming , right ?

More isn't necessarily better, considering the most multithreaded games still use max 4 threads on average, if overall FX beats 980x then its very good imo.

[Movieman]

I watched some "real" benches.. The AMD holds it's own very well against a 980X and when you kick in the price difference between it and a 980X it's a no brainer.
I'll say it this way, IF I was building a gaming machine I would use the FX8150 and not think twice about it, and buy the family's food for the month with the savings!

[qcmadness]

This benchmark tells nothing.

[Brice MJ]

Wondering why they didn't compare FX to the same i5 SB that ran the encoding test.

[Movieman]

Wondering why they didn't compare FX to the same i5 SB that ran the encoding test.

I will soon.. I have a SB2600K here..

[Olivon]

I watched some "real" benches.. The AMD holds it's own very well against a 980X and when you kick in the price difference between it and a 980X it's a no brainer.
I'll say it this way, IF I was building a gaming machine I would use the FX8150 and not think twice about it, and buy the family's food for the month with the savings!

And compared to 2500K and 2600K ?

[Spectrobozo]

I watched some "real" benches.. The AMD holds it's own very well against a 980X and when you kick in the price difference between it and a 980X it's a no brainer.
I'll say it this way, IF I was building a gaming machine I would use the FX8150 and not think twice about it, and buy the family's food for the month with the savings!

yes, but it should be compared to the , 2400,2500k and 2600k,
and how it compares in a more mixed scenario (with lot's of single, dual "thread" softwares, also some 4+), and power usage, overclock potential and price are far more important then comparing it to the older platform overpriced beast, also using GPU limited scenarios is far from ideal to conclude it's amazing for gaming, their result (80fps) seems as good as Phenom II X4!?

[Movieman]

yes, but it should be compared to the , 2400,2500k and 2600k,
and how it compares in a more mixed scenario (with lot's of single, dual "thread" softwares, also some 4+), and power usage, overclock potential and price are far more important then comparing it to the older platform overpriced beast, also using GPU limited scenarios is far from ideal to conclude it's amazing for gaming, their result (80fps) seems as good as Phenom II X4!?

well said and I agree. Actually I think it's unfair to compare it to a 980X, 2500K and 2600K is more reasonable

And compared to 2500K and 2600K ?

Well, if it holds it's own against a 980X that sort of speaks volumes as to how it will do against a 2500k or 2600K yes?

[Lanek]

Depend on what we are speaking ... multithreaded software or games 3D bench ?

And yes, at 260x1600 with all maxxed, the cpu have little to no importance. (not completely true in Dirt3, anyway at 1920x1080 8xAA i have not test at 2560x1600)


Anyway, i think AMD was more doing a presentation of Bulldozer working system, more of show numbers.

the margin by wich the "8 core" CPU beat the quad i5 (without HT) on the video encoding seems very worrying, as far as I know this tasks scales much better than most,

on Dirt 3... HD6790 or 6970!?
and I bet that if they compared with even their old CPU (PII X4 980) it would be quite close to BD, they are probably more GPU limited anyway...

http://static.techspot.com/articles-...bench/CPU2.png
http://static.techspot.com/articles-...bench/2560.png

(look at the 6990 with i7 920 @ 3.7GHz, basically the same as the 980X and BD with 2x6970?, if this is the same version of the game, settings and benchmark)

does really the 920 beat the 2600K in there test ? Huuum, i don't see any reason, specially when it's absolutely not the case in Dirt2 ...( same engine, just some little thing added) ... I can be wrong, but counting the 2600K is a lot faster in any games, i don't see why..

[haylui]

well said and I agree. Actually I think it's unfair to compare it to a 980X, 2500K and 2600K is more reasonable


Well, if it holds it's own against a 980X that sort of speaks volumes as to how it will do against a 2500k or 2600K yes?

do you mean benchmark that really CPU dependent?

[rekleif]

For a lot of us non gamers handbrake encoding is the most important performance indicator. We all got iPods, IPhones or other hand held entertainment devices and encoding and transcoding is very important. If AMD do really well here they will sell like hotcakes. I know I will be looking at those number when deciding my next rig.

[dartaz]

AMD could easily cherry pick some few benches that favor Bulldozer. Let us wait for benches from more reliable source not from a company that want to show how good their products are.

[-=DVS=-]

Lets see
1) Take weakest intel cpu for multithreaded encoding purpose - check
2) Setup bad gaming scenario and claim 2fps victory - check

Way to embarrass your self AMD .

[v0dka]

Oh it's HD6790

[informal]

I doubt that handbrake scales perfectly with cores.I searched for some tests on 2500K vs 2600K and 980x in handbrake .The results are all over the place. Somewhere 2600K is 10% faster,somewhere 20%. Look here : 980x vs i7 975,50% more cores and same clocks. 980x is 23% faster. 2500K vs 2600K,same number of cores but a bit higher clocks and SMT on for 2600K : 23% better performance. Here SMT adds as much as 50% more cores do in 980x vs 975 case.Strange. In case of AMD ,we have 43% better score (1090T vs 955BE) for 50% more cores. Pretty consistent speedup in case of K10.

edit: I have found SB-E vs 2600K results. 50% more cores,more cache,similar clocks and it gets 20% speedup. Different codecs though. It looks like the SMT already extracts maximum ILP from the code so additional cores scale less than linear when SMT is on. It would be great if we had SB-E with SMT off so we can compare it to 2500K. I suppose the scaling would be near 50% in that case.

As for "gaming" benchmark,it is really GPU bound at that point. Probably Thuban and 2600K would score around the same 80fps mark.

[Mats]

2) Setup bad gaming scenario and claim 2fps victory

Where did they claim victory? They just put two machines next to each other.

[Pestilence]

I watched some "real" benches.. The AMD holds it's own very well against a 980X and when you kick in the price difference between it and a 980X it's a no brainer.
I'll say it this way, IF I was building a gaming machine I would use the FX8150 and not think twice about it, and buy the family's food for the month with the savings!

980X should never even be considered for gaming when the 2500K trounces it. The 8150s price is rumored to be 229.99 so all tests should be compared against a 2500K not a 980X. Wonder if intel plans on dropping the 2500Ks price to counter Amds strategy. 189 dollar 2500K would be a hell of a bargin.

[Dumo]

Imo in 3Ds benching 6.5Ghz 980X comparable to 5.8Ghz 2600K...then probly we neeed FX8150 run @ 6.6Ghz to compete

We all know how easy it is to bench 2600K @ 6Ghz+

The key is how easy an FX8150 reach 7Ghz+ 3D bench stable under LN2....which we will see soon

[Chrono Detector]

Would have preferred them to bench it against an i7 2600K would have been a wiser idea, not an i5. So far this benchmark tells me nothing.