AMD 45nm Deneb Pictures, CPU-Z and Super Pi Results

[[XC] hipno650]

i am still not impressed with AMD here. the power consumption and heat with the vcore's being used is still going to be sky high. and the performance will still be behind Kentsfield clock per clock not to mention yorksfield and what lies beyond. they need an extra 20% boost to get up to competitive levels of performance clock per clock with intel and even if they got that far they still can't over clock. ohhh 500mhz overclock big whoop. my Q6600 can do a 1.5ghz overclock. so my Q6600 for $210 can do 3.9ghz on air and be faster clock per clock and this may not even hit those speeds on LN2 and will be more expensive.

i agree that it is good for them to be making progress but they are still hurting in performance.

[Bandwidth]

3.4GHz ES sample not bad

Kentsfield is on average about 10% faster than Phenom clock-for-clock. Yorkefield adds like 6% more performance to that, so around 16%. The new 45nm Deneb is supposed to be 15% faster than Phenom, so it should be a little faster than Kentsfield and about equal in performance to Yorkfield.

Power consumption will not match that of Intel 45nm CPUs, because Intel uses HighK-MG while AMD doesn't (yet). AMD expects power consumption to be 15% lower on Deneb, which is not that great but still helps.

Phenom is in many cases cache starved, 2MB of shared L3 cache is too small, and Deneb should do much better with 3x more L3 cache. Now I really hope AMD will be able to clock the NB higher than 2GHz with Deneb, as every 200MHz increase should give a 2-3% increase in performance. Doesn't seem like much, but when you have a Deneb running at 3.2GHz for both CPU and NB, the difference will be very noticeable

[Wiggy McShades]

3.4GHz ES sample not bad

Kentsfield is on average about 10% faster than Phenom clock-for-clock. Yorkefield adds like 6% more performance to that, so around 16%. The new 45nm Deneb is supposed to be 15% faster than Phenom, so it should be a little faster than Kentsfield and about equal in performance to Yorkfield.

Power consumption will not match that of Intel 45nm CPUs, because Intel uses HighK-MG while AMD doesn't (yet). AMD expects power consumption to be 15% lower on Deneb, which is not that great but still helps.

Phenom is in many cases cache starved, 2MB of shared L3 cache is too small, and Deneb should do much better with 3x more L3 cache. Now I really hope AMD will be able to clock the NB higher than 2GHz with Deneb, as every 200MHz increase should give a 2-3% increase in performance. Doesn't seem like much, but when you have a Deneb running at 3.2GHz for both CPU and NB, the difference will be very noticeable

I don't think the nb/L3 clocking is really that important I've run them 1:1 on my phenom and its no faster than when its not. The higher the cpu speed gets the nb and l3 speed need to increase also but it seems like as long as you keep no larger than a 400mhz disparity in clock speed between the two then you aren't missing out on performance(doesn't totally work that way in memory benches. I'm speaking in respect to the Crysis benchmark and 3dmark). What we don't know is what if the three times larger L3 cache will have a larger effect from clocking it higher.

[Bandwidth]

I don't think the nb/L3 clocking is really that important I've run them 1:1 on my phenom and its no faster than when its not. The higher the cpu speed gets the nb and l3 speed need to increase also but it seems like as long as you keep no larger than a 400mhz disparity in clock speed between the two then you aren't missing out on performance(doesn't totally work that way in memory benches. I'm speaking in respect to the Crysis benchmark and 3dmark). What we don't know is what if the three times larger L3 cache will have a larger effect from clocking it higher.

If you check the xbitlabs link here They tested with 1.8GHz and 2GHz NB, the gain was 1% on average, only 0.7% for Crysis, but 2.8% for Winrar.

Here we are talking about 2MB L3 cache, and gaining 1% performance per 200MHz increase in NB speed. So maybe as you said for 6MB cache the difference boost will be higher, that's how I assumed 2-3% gain in Deneb's case.

You know something just does not seem right with the Phenom NB, whatever it is, I hope it gets tweaked/fixed in Deneb.

[JumpingJack]

3.4GHz ES sample not bad

Kentsfield is on average about 10% faster than Phenom clock-for-clock. Yorkefield adds like 6% more performance to that, so around 16%. The new 45nm Deneb is supposed to be 15% faster than Phenom, so it should be a little faster than Kentsfield and about equal in performance to Yorkfield.

Not quite convinced this will be true ... I ran this just a bit and posted at Aces' so will put it here, a 2.5 GHz Yorky:



Nonetheless, deneb is looking much better overall ... SP1M is not a good indicator of the relative between the two, and this 'leaked' info is much better than what we saw pre-Barcey/Agena where nothing in the wild got shown.

Overall positive results for AMD...

jack