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
what cooling system ??
Very very nice with budget cpu !I compare AM3+ with 1155 :) !
Nvidia does not make any AM3+ mobo & chip ...
Hah!
As for those who think the Bulldozer module is closer to hyperthreading than to two cores, think about what task the Interlagos processor (from which Zambezi is designed from) was designed for. In the server space, Integer performance is more valuable than floating point performance, and while the module may only have one fetch/decode unit, it has two integer execution units. Further, each has their own L1 Data cache, and the L2 cache is able to be dynamically divided amongst the cores in a module (even unfairly). As such, for integer processing, it performs about as well as two cores without any components shared.
As for floating point, there may be only one FPU, but with each cycle, either core can operate on 256 bits of parallel data via two 128-bit instructions or one 256-bit instruction, OR each of the integer cores can execute 128-bit commands simultaneously. This is actually an advantage over Sandy Bridge, as while Sandy Bridge may also support 256bit AVX instructions, should a program not be programmed to take advantage of those, it is limited to a single 128bit FPU. Further, bear in mind that a 256bit FPU takes up a huge amount of die space, and so sharing it is an important way of saving chip real estate (put it towards the massive L3 cache these chips will have).
AMD "averages" their module design performance by saying that if both cores in a module are active, you'll get around 80% the throughput performance of having two separate cores without any shared resources, but at a significantly lower amount of power consumption. On the other hand, looking at Intel's Hyperthreading, you're lucky to get more than 15% throughput increases on an out-of-order execution processor, but still with a noticeable increase in power consumption. Hyperthreading is much more beneficial on in-order execution processors like the Atom or the Xbox 360s PowerPC CPU, as the pipeline is stalled significantly more often.
For Zambezi at the desktop, one also has to take into consideration how the power saving settings are in the OS (likely configurable by an Administrator). Say a Bulldozer's cores are set up like this (grouped in twos):
12|34|56|78
One can choose from a maximum power saving profile, or a maximum performance profile. Let's say we are executing a program that takes advantage of a quad core, and no additional cores (like many games). If we're interested in maximum power saving, we'd see these cores activated:
12|34
On the other hand, if we're more interested in performance, we'd see this:
1|3|5|7
In the latter case, no resources would be shared (other than L3), and we'd have each individual core running with a full 2MB L2 cache and complete access to the FPU. As most games don't take advantage of more than 4 cores, and because we are enthusiasts here, we'll probably select that option. But others (especially mobile users) will likely opt for the first.
Plan A (12l34)
Plan B (1l3l5l7)
The reality is this I personally believe the chart is a well done troll rather than a leaked internal presentation slide, I personally want AMD to succeed so we can get a price war going, but it's hard to believe that AMD has to power to change their tune and go from the red headed step child to the favorite son (see what I did there). On the other hand I kinda want to see AMD fail so all the fanboy trolls can cry and be butt hurt, but cheaper chips trumps the pleasure of fanboy tears.
Just for you;)
I also have little idea how the module determines how much L2 to allocate per core. If I had to guess, I'd say something like how a mutable array (like an ArrayList) manages it's back bone array data structure, where if it gets full past a certain threshold, then it requests more. Alternatively, if it is empty past a threshold, it reorganizes, and frees space. Just a guess.
:D
like everybody said, i'll wait for the *real* benchs..
But I have no clue if that's how it is or not, if its a non apu bulldozer with dedicated graphics then its bye bye amd...
But I sincerely hope not.
The 6670 GPU is part of AMD's Vision/Fusion APU where the CPU and GPU are integrated like with Intel's HD graphics.
AMD's graphics are obviously going to be stronger than Intel's HD graphics so therefore AMD's the P score is higher.
As far as value goes, AMD wins if the 8 core pricing is right because the CPU is on par with the 2600k but the graphics is MUCH better - so a better value over Intel's offering....especially if the 6670 GPU is better than what GPU the customer currently has in his/her machine.
As far as CPU power, AMD inappropriately chose "bulldozer" as their codename...I believe it's clear who has the bulldozer. lol
BL
AMD is going for the future here, home system don't need 8 cores or 6 because it's not so far supported like professional software is, sure some exceptions are there but still, that's workload for massive streams of data it's not about the same as high GHz does it, so this CPU will be just ok if proper prised but still if it's FX than i don't know for what it will be than.
Winrar supports max 4 cores "developer info", the rest is just HT bumping the data so AMD will go fast in Winrar that's for sure.
Anyway,the Core i7 990X is SLOWER than a Core i7 2600K in PCMark Vantage.
Looks at this article:
www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i7-990x-extreme-edition-gulftown,review-32126-4.html
A 3.46GHZ six core Core i7 990X is around 20% faster than a 3.2GHZ Core i7 960 in PCMark Vantage. The Core i7 990X is 8% higher clocked than the Core i7 960 meaning that the additional two cores are adding 12% to the score and on top of this the Core i7 2600K is still faster.
PCMark Vantage does not scale well beyond 4 cores.