Bulldozers first screens

[informal]

After looking at the results from "older" CPUs,in both C10 and C11.5,I could see that C11.5 drastically improves scaling with more cores. For example(hardware canucks latest Phenom X4 review) : in C11.5 64bit test 1100T has exactly 50% better result than 3.3Ghz Phenom X4 (normalized for this clockspeed from the result of other X4 Phenom),while in C10 64bit test 1100T has exactly 37% better result than same 3.3Ghz X4 . As can be seen from this,C11.5 does scale much better with cores so the result for Zambezi should go up compared to relative score in C10 Vs 1100T,not down. But we see the opposite ,instead of score going up,the score goes down and scaling is somehow very poor in this test,negating any IPC floating point boost FMAC can give.

Cinebench10 summary(leaked fishy results from that "blogger"):
1100T gets 19164pts, Zambezi X8 @ not 3 Ghz(I assume it's more than 3Ghz then,say 3.2Ghz) gets 28074.This test doesn't scale THAT well with more cores and scaling penalty is 9%(from perfect scaling with more cores- 1100T is 37% faster than 3.3Ghz X4 instead 50% faster). Start from X6 score,apply 33% more cores and 9% scaling penalty and normalize for 3.2Ghz clock : 19164 x 1.33 / 1.09 x 3.2 /3.3=~22675pts. The difference between this score and what he got is IPC improvement+maybe some limited Turbo effect which I won't count since this is heavy FP workload : 28074/22675=1.23x or 23% IPC improvement per core( one 128bit FMAC vs 1 thuban core). Pretty good so far.

Now Cinebench 11.5 results summary:
1100T gets 5.91pts, Zambezi X8@ ~3.2Ghz supposedly gets 7.37pts. Scaling in this test is perfect as can be seen from hardware canucks link.Start from X6 score,apply 33% more cores ,no scaling penalty and normalize for 3.2Ghz clock : 5.91x1.33x3.2/3.3=~7.62pts. This is the hypothetical score of Zambezi X8 that would show ZERO IPC improvement in C11.5 Vs Thuban. Now compare with "blogger's" result of 7.37pts : 7.37/7.62=0.96pts or 4% IPC decrease per core Vs Thuban. Hmm,fishy indeed . If the CPU would show similar performance gains Vs older generation(thuban) as in previous C10 benchmark, result should have been roughly : 7.62x1.23=9.37pts. This is for around 3.2Ghz clock,since he said it is not 3Ghz and I assume the worst case scenario for Zambezi (best case would be lower than 3Ghz). 3.5Ghz X8 then should have had a score at around 10.25 or in line with DH slide which had projected score due to non-finalized specs in late 2010.

But no, "blogger's " sample somehow sucks in C11.5 .