Wednesday, May 4th 2011
AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface
Here are the first performance projections of the AMD FX-series processors. FX-series is the market name of the latest line of 8-core, 6-core, and 4-core processors by AMD, based on its new Bulldozer architecture. The performance projections come from AMD's internal presentations to its industry partners, which was leaked to sections of the media.
In the performance projection, a compound bar graph, an AMD platform comprising of an 8-core FX series processor (unknown model, clock speed) with AMD Radeon HD 6670 discrete graphics, was pitted against its main competitor, Intel Core i7-2600K with its integrated Intel HD graphics. Perhaps AMD is suggesting that FX 8-core model used here along with a HD 6690 graphics card costs the same as a Core i7-2600K.
The tests used were synthetic, Futuremark PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage P (performance preset). In PCMark Vantage, the AMD FX processor is shown to have performed the same as the Core i7-2600K. In 3DMark Vantage, the AMD platform with its HD 6670 graphics card outperformed close to 4 times over the Intel platform.
Interestingly, the AMD FX + HD 6670 platform appears to be just about 20% faster than a platform consisting of Phenom II X6 1100T and Radeon HD 6670, in both the tests. The other platforms in the graph include AMD's Llano A-Series APUs. They're slower than Intel's Core i3-2100 in PCMark Vantage, but faster in 3DMark Vantage.
Overall, it appears that with AMD's new processor lineup, AMD will continue to rely on performance per Dollar, rather than pure processing performance, to be competitive with Intel. No doubt the performance and energy efficiency seems to have gone up, but Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture is faster at whatever today's processors are meant for (x86 processing).
Source:
DonanimHaber
In the performance projection, a compound bar graph, an AMD platform comprising of an 8-core FX series processor (unknown model, clock speed) with AMD Radeon HD 6670 discrete graphics, was pitted against its main competitor, Intel Core i7-2600K with its integrated Intel HD graphics. Perhaps AMD is suggesting that FX 8-core model used here along with a HD 6690 graphics card costs the same as a Core i7-2600K.
Interestingly, the AMD FX + HD 6670 platform appears to be just about 20% faster than a platform consisting of Phenom II X6 1100T and Radeon HD 6670, in both the tests. The other platforms in the graph include AMD's Llano A-Series APUs. They're slower than Intel's Core i3-2100 in PCMark Vantage, but faster in 3DMark Vantage.
Overall, it appears that with AMD's new processor lineup, AMD will continue to rely on performance per Dollar, rather than pure processing performance, to be competitive with Intel. No doubt the performance and energy efficiency seems to have gone up, but Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture is faster at whatever today's processors are meant for (x86 processing).
133 Comments on AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface
Real cores for real men my ass then!
2) Because has two integer scheduler !!
This chip will be very good in performance/per watt !!!
With bulldozer architecture 2 X 128 FMAC are linked in 1x256bit fmac in this application !! Double performance with the same number of transistors (double performance per watt) !!!! All this in clock to clock comparison but bulldozer is 32nm architecture with higher clock at the same TDP ! Pc mark cannot show you the difference !!!
When you run multi thread applications FPU can be 4x64bit for better performance !!
That is elastic architecture !!!!!
Bulldozer has not IGP inside and must be more overclock-able than sandy. I think for the same reason this chip will have better default clocks than sandy in the same TPD ......... We learn in a month.
You must wait for applications benches and real benches!!!! That is a projection :)
AM3+ platform will have many lanes for CROSSFIRE & SLI !!!!(both x16 pci-e), true native SATA III for all sata and will be more future proof ! That is the deference between 1155 & AM3+ .
For people how want IGP, there is 980G chip in AM3+ with HD4250 or better IGP with sideport technology.
There is no distinguishable deference between logical and physical cores in this season.
Υου don`t remain in words. AMD speak for 8-cores and Intel for Hyper transport+ 4-cores ... So what ??
The end user is shown core count, not thread count. The core count is 8.It acts like a 4-core chip with 8 threads. There's no way to show that it acts like a 6-core chip, since there is no 6-core Sandy Bridge chip.
:rolleyes:
8 core. No threads, no modules.
one FETCH
one DECODE
one FPU
two Integer scheduler
one L2 Cache for module.
one L1 instruction cache
Same number of transistors with sandy 2600K
If a module has 2-core , it must have
two FETCH
two DECODE
two FPU
two Integer scheduler
two L2 Cache for module.
two L1 instruction cache
AMD speak for 8-core because the logical core inmodule has & hardware structure = integer
8 integer units doesn't mean they're real cores because the resources are shared between two of those.
Marketing trick ? No.
8-cores? No !
Something like 1,3 core per module (two integer)? Yes!