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

[Piledriver]

Overall faster than Thuban? Someone forgot to give me that memo?

Don't know about the memo, but how about every review available?

[Zeus]

Don't know about the memo, but how about every review available?

Look at the post above. Don't see it being any faster than Thuban, do you?

[BeepBeep2]

Look at the post above. Don't see it being any faster than Thuban, do you?

*pulls out WinRAR charts, CS5 chart and some random AES encryption chart comparing only Thuban and Zambezi as well as x264 chart, comparing only Thuban and Zambezi and 2500K, excluding the power consumption chart*
(Because we all use these daily, all the time...I know I have to make archives everyday...)

Sure it is!

Too bad my games would all be slower :'(
(*pulls out BF3 chart*)
Nevermind!

...and my web browser...and my other single threaded programs, look at GIMP in the bit-tech review, just look at the iTunes and Lame chart above, I don't care if you can do that at 5 Ghz with BD it will still turn out slower than Thuban at 4.2. Look at Cinebench scores in single thread (oh wait, that is a bad representation of BD's performance...)

I'm waiting for wez and Tomasis to chime back in again about how I'm so full of it, how immature I am, how insensible I am, they will go handpick benchmarks just like I did about BD's performance gains, however they are usually by a small margin (~10% like I said in my 'full of it' post) and do indeed take advantage of all 8 of BD's clusters because IPC is so bad.

[Piledriver]

Look at the post above. Don't see it being any faster than Thuban, do you?

You are kidding right? Why don't you instead of looking at cherry picked benchmarks by someone with an agenda, consisting of only single thread benchmarks, and great sites like neoseeker , you looked at the complete reviews of the best tech sites out there?

I saw 5\6 reviews, my impression was zambezi won the large majority of the tests vs thuban, but when reading the comments on this thread i doubted myself, so i had to double check, and review the reviews I've seen. I stopped at the third, it was pointless to go on, Techreport 20-5, X-bit labs 21-6, TomsHardware 31-10, bringing the total of 72-21 benchmarks in favor of FX-8150, it's not even close. How does that translate to the FX-8150 being 40% slower? or 1100T being quite faster? or a a worse launch than Barcelona for that matter, Phenom 9600 lost the majority of the benchmarks to the X2 6400.

Dispute this. i will be quietly lmao as you try. Its 72 wins for 8150 against 21 to thuban. Good luck.

A recent review made by the best tech site out there:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21987

8150 wins 25, 1100t wins 7, even the 8120 beats the 1100t often, How do you reconcile this as thuban being faster?

Oh bu-bu-bu-but thuban have better IPC... and? Bulldozer have better turbo, can handle 8 threads and hopefully will get a lot higher frequencies. Why do intel fanboys keep bringing itunes? First cherry picked benchmark, go figure itunes... are they trying to say bulldozer can't handle itunes? Why don't they show a single thread benchmark of windows calculator? It would be as useful.

And if you do manually what the OS should do the difference between 8150 and 1100t is even bigger:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865/2

Fact, broken phenom was clearly beaten by K8, a broken bulldozer clearly beats Phenom.


http://www.electroiq.com/articles/ss...nitiative.html
Intel will have finfets on the market next year, with 22nm, everyone else will have it with 14nm, god knows when. A consortium including everyone else but Intel, can't keep up with Intel, and people want AMD alone to compete and win against Intel...

[Zeus]

You are kidding right?

I guess i was when i bought an FX8120. Coming from a Thuban i can tell performance sucks.

But with a name like Piledriver i don't think you're gonna take that from someone with first hand experience.