AMD "Piledriver" refresh of Zambezi - info, speculations, test, fans

[FlanK3r]

Olivion: right, FM2 , I was long in future with FM3 mistake ...

[Olivon]

http://www.donanimhaber.com/anakart/...hazirliyor.htm

@Flanker : And my nick is Olivon (like my grand'ma told me when I was kid) not Olivion

[haylui]

http://www.donanimhaber.com/anakart/...hazirliyor.htm

@Flanker : And my nick is Olivon (like my grand'ma told me when I was kid) not Olivion

I wonder why not Piledriver and 1090FX chipset supporting quad channel RAM instead. Since AMD is not introducing PCIE 3.0, I don't see this make much sense pushing 1090FX instead of prolong 990FX.

[aRkangeL]

I dont see any advantage in change any 990FX board for one with 1090FX in the next arquitecture, the specs almost the same.

They have to keep the eye on cpu's and produce a cpu capable to get down intel!

[mrcmtl]

If I were AMD, I would have called it X90FX and X70.

[PatRaceTin]

wow 1090FX like i expected

[FlanK3r]

if Crosshair VI will be better than Crosshair V, then maybe will upgrade of the motherboard

[repman]

I wonder why not Piledriver and 1090FX chipset supporting quad channel RAM instead.

Because it's expensive, not necessary for desktops, and you would need a new socket for that.

[imamage]

Since they have upgrade the SB1050 to have Native USB 3.0 support
I probably go from Crosshair IV Formula to Crosshair VI Formula (If ASUS going to make one ...lol )

But until Piledriver have improve over BD , I don't see upgrading my 1090T to 8150 as necessary

[FlanK3r]

I think, these are iGPUs for Bobcat refresh and for Trinity

[Smartidiot89]

I think, these are iGPUs for Bobcat refresh and for Trinity

Correct!

[TESKATLIPOKA]

Here is something but without Cinebench
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...acite-cmt.html
and here is another performance chart
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...s-3-2-ghz.html

If the info about ~3.5b in Cinebench using Trinity 3.8Ghz is true then its not bad.
FX4100(4.62Ghz) has 3.78b
FX4100(3.6Ghz) has 2.97b
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/9/
1Ghz added 0.8b so you can say Trinity at 3.8Ghz is as powerful as BD at ~4.2-4.3Ghz with 8MB L3 cache.
I would like to know how much is L3 affecting the scores.

[informal]

Here is something but without Cinebench
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...acite-cmt.html
and here is another performance chart
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...s-3-2-ghz.html

If the info about ~3.5b in Cinebench using Trinity 3.8Ghz is true then its not bad. Cinebench is really one of those client SIMD workloads that doesn't run that well on new FlexFP and if PD(with no L3) improves the score by ~10% vs BD with L3 on same clock then good job AMD. L3 in Vishera may bring few more percent. But before we get excited over some IPC improvements we should wait for real data. For now we have a vague statement from one Chinese guy,that's all.
FX4100(4.62Ghz) has 3.78b
FX4100(3.6Ghz) has 2.97b
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/9/
1Ghz added 0.8b so you can say Trinity at 3.8Ghz is as powerful as BD at ~4.2-4.3Ghz with 8MB L3 cache.
I would like to know how much is L3 affecting the scores.

If we are to judge by the previous cores from both AMD and intel,L3 adds another 3-5% worth of performance (approximately of course;somewhere it may add more,somewhere nothing).
If Piledriver without L3 is ~10% faster than BD with L3,then good job AMD. But before we get excited about IPC improvement(however small it is),we should wait for real data. For now all we have is a vague statement from one Chinese guy.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

informal As you said, It can be false so lets wait for more leaks.

Trinity cpu In desktop may not be faster than Llano but in notebooks it should be if it can clock much higher and stay in the same TDP.
desktop(lets say they have the same performance)
Llano 2.9Ghz
Trinity 3.7Ghz +27.5% frequency
notebook
Llano 1.6Ghz
Trinity 2.4Ghz +50% frequency
mobile Trinity will end up considerably faster just because mobile Llano has low clocks.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

Opteron 3260 EE 2module 2.7GHz and TDP is just 45W. I think at least in notebooks Llano won't stand a chance against Trinity.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

double post

[undone]

Here is something but without Cinebench
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...acite-cmt.html
and here is another performance chart
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...s-3-2-ghz.html

If the info about ~3.5b in Cinebench using Trinity 3.8Ghz is true then its not bad.
FX4100(4.62Ghz) has 3.78b
FX4100(3.6Ghz) has 2.97b
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/9/
1Ghz added 0.8b so you can say Trinity at 3.8Ghz is as powerful as BD at ~4.2-4.3Ghz with 8MB L3 cache.
I would like to know how much is L3 affecting the scores.

Today I have time to calculate something about trinity.
According to the list of hardware.fr, bulldozer CMT brings average about 50% increase.
a stands for single core of Llano, b stands for trinity(an integer core):

a * 4 cores = b * (100+50)% * 2 modules

result:
b = 1.33a

Trinity equals to 4Ghz Llano per core(not module, don't mix up).

and remember that trinity is ES, something may be fixed before launch just like B0(3.6Ghz) and B2(4.2Ghz) Zambezi. I won't calculate anymore just take B0 and B2 result for reference. It's long time ago I couldn't remember clearly the differences between the retail chip and ES ones.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

undone What you wrote is utterly wrong if you thought about it a bit you would realize its a nonsense for Trinity or BD to be 33% faster than Deneb(Llano) core to core. It would be true only if the frequency and performance was the same for both of them not to mention you added an incorrect CMT increase which resulted in additional IPC improvement.

average performance from http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...s-3-2-ghz.html
Deneb(3.2Ghz) 4C 100
BD(3.2Ghz) 4M/4C 86.7
BD(3.2Ghz) 2M/4C 75.5

How much slower is BD 2M/4C vs BD 4M/4C
75.5/86.7=0.871
Penalty decreases performance by 12.9%
0.871*200=174.2
As you can see 2M/4C is not 2*150 but 2*174.2

If you want to know how much faster is Deneb 4C vs BD 2M/4C or BD 4M/4C at the same speed
100/75.5=32.5%
100/86.7=15.3%
As you can see, clock to clock and core to core Deneb is faster by 15.3%.
Deneb 2.9Ghz equals BD 3.35Ghz in single threaded applications and in multi-thread BD must work at 3.85Ghz to be equal thanks to the sharing penalty.

Llano more or less equals Deneb and from the Chinese leak it looks as if Trinity has ~10% IPC increase over BD.
With 10% IPC increase it should look something like this
1 thread Deneb 2.9Ghz vs Trinity 3.05Ghz
multi-thread Deneb 2.9Ghz vs Trinity 3.55Ghz.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

Trinity default 3.8Ghz will be faster on average than Llano, the only question is how much faster, the unknown factors are the IPC improvement vs BD and the frequency they will launch at, the minimum looks like 3.8Ghz.

I don't really care about the desktop, but am really interested in notebooks. The best would be if 2M/4C worked at >=2.4Ghz default, but based on the fact Opteron 3260 with TDP 45W works at 2.7Ghz I don't think its out of the question.

P.S. I wouldn't mind if AMD released Trinity with TDP 55W and higher clocks.

[informal]

To me it looks like PD was close to what AMD originally expected out of BDver1 but never managed to pull it off. Around 5-10% better IPC on average and 5-8% higher clock within similar TDP.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

informal I wouldn't say that, It's an improvement over BD but still under Deneb IPC and we all know originally It should have been better than K10.

[undone]

I wouldn't say that, It's an improvement over BD but still under Deneb IPC and we all know originally It should have been better than K10.

I never argue about ipc even before Zambezi being announced.
When you go over the history you'll find something similar to nowaday situation. K6 have 10% higher IPC than K7, netburst is terrible, and now bulldozer is the same. Reanson why they developed a lower IPC model is because the frequency is bottlenecked by architecture. These design always not only need tweak but more important is the process node, lately CPU bottlenecked below 4Ghz and now bulldozer makes a breakthrough.
Bulldozer = K7, and it would be another K8 when everything is OK, since then don't be surprise to see a CPU that stock at 6Ghz+.

[informal]

informal I wouldn't say that, It's an improvement over BD but still under Deneb IPC and we all know originally It should have been better than K10.

No,I meant 5-10% better IPC over what we have with this Bulldozer.Not what we have with Deneb.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

undone and what does it have in common with my comment, I never said BD can't be tweaked .
I don't know why you think they planned for BD to have worse IPC than K10
If that was true then why was JF always saying the IPC will increase over K10 and he meant BDv1(bulldozer) not BDv2(piledriver) or BDv3(steamroller) because that was what he heard from the engineers but sadly It wasn't true, simply put BD didn't turn out like they planned.

[TESKATLIPOKA]

informal

No,I meant 5-10% better IPC over what we have with this Bulldozer.Not what we have with Deneb.

I know you meant IPC increase over BD, but I was referring to JF's old comments how BD's IPC will be better than K10's.