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

[annihilat0r]

AMD Carnage 10000.

How about DEVASTATOR 3500

I'd buy it regardless of performance of price. It would be great to have a processor with such a brutal name.

[Rammsteiner]

Damn, I go away a few hours and mis these stupid posts.

TBH dead simple, I hardly can spot a negative part in these posts from informal... There's still that difference between 'AMD sucks' or 'my Intel brainfarts this way' posting in AMD threads are just being a little bit disappointed by the results thus far from an overhyped wannabe expensive platform.

I wouldnt mind people saying they're disappointed by Deneb's performance, although it has to be fundamented well enough. But since K10.5 > K8 pretty much, there's hardly anything to complain about unless AMD will charge 1K$ for their top CPU again.

Also the posts before stating that AMD wouldnt even reach a 10% IPC on Deneb while it shows 12%+ already on an ES. Yerrr...

More I hang out, more I spot unproven statements posted in such a way to make the poster look smart and very well informed. Oh well, saw enough of that to know what people not to take seriously at all.

[_Lone_Wolf_]

Also the posts before stating that AMD wouldnt even reach a 10% IPC on Deneb while it shows 12%+ already on an ES. Yerrr...

With all due respect achieving such a speedup in a canned benchmark rarely translates to real world performance, a point I'm sure you appreciate. As terrace215 suggests the increase could purely be due to the larger cache, taking what amounts to pre-lunch hype at face value usually leads to dissapointment. The superpi figures are interesting but without more system level test results, proclaiming AMD IS BACK!!! at this point is premature.

[terrace215]

With all due respect achieving such a speedup in a canned benchmark rarely translates to real world performance, a point I'm sure you appreciate. As terrace215 suggests the increase could purely be due to the larger cache, taking what amounts to pre-lunch hype at face value usually leads to dissapointment. The superpi figures are interesting but without more system level test results, proclaiming AMD IS BACK!!! at this point is premature.

Yes, Dirk himself was asked if there were any major core improvements, and said no. A few tweaks, and a larger L3. So if you choose a benchmark that is quite sensitive to cache size, you're going to see some improvement, but you can't extrapolate this improvement to the "average application". I'd guess the larger L3 & other tweaks might bring 5-7% clock/clock improvement on avg, but we'll have to wait for more benchmarks to see.

[Epsilon84]

With all due respect achieving such a speedup in a canned benchmark rarely translates to real world performance, a point I'm sure you appreciate. As terrace215 suggests the increase could purely be due to the larger cache, taking what amounts to pre-lunch hype at face value usually leads to dissapointment. The superpi figures are interesting but without more system level test results, proclaiming AMD IS BACK!!! at this point is premature.

I'd agree. If it was a 12.5% jump in something other than SuperPi, I would have been really impressed. However, SuperPi is quite sensitive to cache size, and a 12.5% boost in SuperPi generally does not correlate to same increase in most real world applications, unless the application was also very cache dependant. For example, when comparing C2Ds of different cache sizes we get:

( Source )
E6600 (4MB L2) @ 3.5GHz ~14.7 secs
E6400 (2MB L2) @ 3.5GHz ~16 secs

An E6600 is ~9% faster than an E6400 per clock in SuperPi, but the real world difference between the two is actually only ~3.5%.

Now considering we are comparing a Phenom w/2MB L3 with a Deneb w/6MB L3, could it be possible that the majority of the performance increase is down to the much larger cache?

[savantu]

...

Now considering we are comparing a Phenom w/2MB L3 with a Deneb w/6MB L3, could it be possible that the majority of the performance increase is down to the much larger cache?

Well , it's fairly obvious the larger L3 is behind the 12% increase.

However , looks like the L3 is still running at low frequency ( 1.8GHz ) , in fact even lower than the 65nm K10 ( 2GHz ).Is it possible they improved the latency ? I doubt it.Increasing the cache typically adds a few cycles of latency.
So , the end result might a a 3x increase in size and slightly slower.

I'll stick by my prediction , 2-7% clock/clock vs. 65nm K10 , Kentsfield like performance.

As for frequency gains , those are misleading at best. AMD demoed 3Ghz 65nm K10 , too bad it needed 1.58V to operate and in the end you can't go over 1.3V in shipping silicon on 65nm => 2.6Ghz tops.

The 45nm 3.4GHz OC uses same amount of voltage ; I'd say 2.8GHz ( as some rumor sites said ) will be the shipping frequency.

[JohnZS]

Well , it's fairly obvious the larger L3 is behind the 12% increase.

However , looks like the L3 is still running at low frequency ( 1.8GHz ) , in fact even lower than the 65nm K10 ( 2GHz ).Is it possible they improved the latency ? I doubt it.Increasing the cache typically adds a few cycles of latency.
So , the end result might a a 3x increase in size and slightly slower.

I'll stick by my prediction , 2-7% clock/clock vs. 65nm K10 , Kentsfield like performance.

As for frequency gains , those are misleading at best. AMD demoed 3Ghz 65nm K10 , too bad it needed 1.58V to operate and in the end you can't go over 1.3V in shipping silicon on 65nm => 2.6Ghz tops.

The 45nm 3.4GHz OC uses same amount of voltage ; I'd say 2.8GHz ( as some rumor sites said ) will be the shipping frequency.

I think 3.0Ghz would be likely?
but not much over this I don't think...besides why is everyone so excited in this here thread?
It's not an earth shattering SuperPi result... 45nm Core2 Quad is 9 to 10 seconds faster depending on whether you are on XP or Vista

[FlanK3r]

I'd agree. If it was a 12.5% jump in something other than SuperPi, I would have been really impressed. However, SuperPi is quite sensitive to cache size, and a 12.5% boost in SuperPi generally does not correlate to same increase in most real world applications, unless the application was also very cache dependant. For example, when comparing C2Ds of different cache sizes we get:

( Source )
E6600 (4MB L2) @ 3.5GHz ~14.7 secs
E6400 (2MB L2) @ 3.5GHz ~16 secs

An E6600 is ~9% faster than an E6400 per clock in SuperPi, but the real world difference between the two is actually only ~3.5%.

Now considering we are comparing a Phenom w/2MB L3 with a Deneb w/6MB L3, could it be possible that the majority of the performance increase is down to the much larger cache?

But structure Core and K10 are different. And for old benchmark Superpi is not working load L3. Its only for L1 to L2 (better is cinebench and for dual-quad CPUs wprime)

[Donnie27]

Trying to draw parallels to other apps from Super pi is pretty lame to say the least. Especially when even the 12% increase still sucks for this one app.

There is no one SINGLE performance measurement and Yorkfield can out do Phenom from 2 to 40% and is fully app Dependant!

[demonkevy666]

Damn, I go away a few hours and mis these stupid posts.

TBH dead simple, I hardly can spot a negative part in these posts from informal... There's still that difference between 'AMD sucks' or 'my Intel brainfarts this way' posting in AMD threads are just being a little bit disappointed by the results thus far from an overhyped wannabe expensive platform.

I wouldnt mind people saying they're disappointed by Deneb's performance, although it has to be fundamented well enough. But since K10.5 > K8 pretty much, there's hardly anything to complain about unless AMD will charge 1K$ for their top CPU again.

Also the posts before stating that AMD wouldnt even reach a 10% IPC on Deneb while it shows 12%+ already on an ES. Yerrr...

More I hang out, more I spot unproven statements posted in such a way to make the poster look smart and very well informed. Oh well, saw enough of that to know what people not to take seriously at all.

I think thats great about 12.5%, means they could get more possible since it's only C0 stepping.

[LightSpeed]

I think thats great about 12.5%, means they could get more possible since it's only C0 stepping.

12.5% on superPi is outstanding, since amd sucks at it anyways

im sure we'l see greater performance increases in other apps in which amd usually scales better

and abt relative performance compared to yorkies, i assume they will be within 5% the performance of em..

which is great news, but if only amd can clock these up to 3.2 which is seemingly improbable at the start

im sure this was cherry picked however, hve seen lots of the cherry picked 65nm k10s clocking great and raising my hopes and then seeing the retail oc`s makes me disappointed again. i hope not tho