AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

[Apokalipse]

Quite interesting.
So when i said that BD is not at 8 core it's an quad 8 threads, many guys just don't stop saying is an 8core with cores that share resources.

You can say a module is two cores. It's two cores that doesn't get the same scaling as two "normal" cores when they're both being used, but taking much less die area.
A module is 12% larger than a single core (not deneb core, but hypothetical single BD core with a full 256-bit FPU and single integer unit), while getting significantly greater than 12% more performance from two threads. Basically the point is to get more throughput per die area. Much like hyperthreading does; it just works in a very different way.

So while you could call it two cores, it is analogous to a hyperthreaded core but with higher scaling (but still not as much as two "normal" cores).

But you say that we shouldn't compare 1core/1thread of Deneb with 1"core"/ 1thread of BD? but with an module?

I'd say:
If you're using two cores in a module, you can't directly compare them to two "normal" cores.
If you're using one core in the module, you can directly compare it to one "normal" core.
It comes down to thread scaling. It's similar to hyperthreading this way.

Than what's FX 4170 a quad or a dual?

I'd call it a quad; You just have to keep in mind that it won't scale as well as a "normal" quad core if using at least 3 threads.

Final performance it how it is, bad.

Final performance is unknown. I don't think the current leaks are true representations of final performance; but what their true performance is like I don't know.

If single threaded performance is fast enough, then even with lower >=3 thread scaling of the FX-4xxx it could still be better than Deneb. The difference would just be lower with >=3 threads than two or one.

Summary of FX4110 @ 4.2Ghz vs Phenom II X4 980 @ 3.7Ghz:
super pi :meh I don't want to bother finding results in this "benchmark"
fritz chess: FX4110 gets 7332pts, X4 980 gets 9067pts. FX is 24% slower at stock(vs stock) and 40% slower per "core" at the same clock. Multithreaded benchmark.
3d mark vantage CPU test : FX4110 gets 10660pts, X4 980 gets 12780pts. FX is 20% slower at stock and 36% slower per "core" at the same clock.Multithreaded benchmark.
wprime 32m: FX4110 gets 17.9s, X4 980 gets 11.45s. FX is 56% slower at stock and 77% slower per "core" at the same clock.Multithreaded benchmark.
c11.5 : FX4110 gets 3.42pts, X4 980 gets 4.34pts. FX is 27% slower at stock and 44% slower per "core" at the same clock.Multithreaded benchmark.

I have skipped over 7zip since I can't find comparable benchmarks . Aida cache and memory shows somewhat better memory read/write and L2/L3 cache BW for reads. The rest of cache performance is on par or slower than Deneb.

Conclusion: overall FX4110 is 32% slower than Deneb X4 @ 3.7Ghz stock vs stock and 49% slower when both are at 4.2GHz. Either all these tests are failure of the platform bugs (or something else) or Bulldozer is much slower than Deneb with the same "thread" count. All above tests utilize the "world's first 256bit FPU" and it fails hard versus "old 128bit" Deneb FPU,even in single thread mode... Imagine the OC you have to reach to just match Deneb,it has to be sky high (think 5.5-6Ghz on air to match 4Ghz Deneb). How is AMD going to charge 140$ for this chip is beyond me.

That's why I think this is not final performance. Because why would AMD release something that's worse than what they had before? They'd have to be bat sheet insane to do that.