Monday, December 8th 2008

First Series of AMD Kuma Benchmarks Posted

AMD is releasing its dual-core desktop processor based on the 65nm K10 architecture, codenamed Kuma. One of the first SKUs based on the core, the Athlon X2 7750, has been evaluated by Donanim Haber. The Athlon X2 7750 comes with a clock-speed of 2.70 GHz, and a HyperTransport 3.0 system interface. It has 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared L3 cache of 2 MB. Donanim Haber put this chip to test on a Foxconn A7DA-S (AMD 790 GX + SB750) motherboard, with 2 GB of 800 MHz DDR2 memory. It was compared to the Intel Core 2 Duo E8200, Core 2 Duo E8400, Core 2 Duo E6420, AMD Phenom X3 8750 and Athlon X2 5200+ (Brisbane), all running at stock speeds.

The chips were put through 3DMark06 (CPU Score), Cinebench 10 (64-bit), wPrime 1.55 (32M), and Fritz Chess. Additionally, the Cinebench 10 test was run with the chip overclocked to 3.30 GHz. The evaluation shows the Athlon X2 7750 "Kuma" to be seated somewhere between the Athlon X2 5200+ and Core 2 Duo E8200 on a broader scale. The addition of the L3 cache, among other K10-specific optimisations, seems to give the Kuma a definite edge over the Athlon X2 5200+ "Brisbane", which runs at the same clock speed, though it doesn't quite match up to the Core 2 Duo E8200, although it manages to beat it at wPrime.
The reviewers ran the same tests with the chip clocked at 3.10 GHz, along with a Cinebench run at 3.30 GHz. The overclock they managed after an AMD Overdrive session was 3.40 GHz.

Source: Donanim Haber
Add your own comment

25 Comments on First Series of AMD Kuma Benchmarks Posted

#1
suraswami
seems to be a good replacement for current X2s.

bta, do you know the wattage of this cpu and price it might be released at?
Posted on Reply
#2
KBD
cool, i was waiting for the Kuma to come out. I bet they can clock it past 3.4 with good cooling since its a dual-core and should clock easier. I just wish they'd released it earlier as well as more dual-core K10 models, it seems to be competitive against C2d and if priced right could be a winner. Cant wait till the 45nm AM3 variant comes out.
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: suraswami
bta, do you know the wattage of this cpu and price it might be released at?
Word is 95W, they could rate that down to 89W or even 65W later.
Posted on Reply
#4
kid41212003
I think this CPU will support DDR2-1066 just like the X3, and X4 right?
Posted on Reply
#5
suraswami
by: btarunr
Word is 95W, they could rate that down to 89W or even 65W later.
now i am in dilemma, if this will be available as 65w should I get this or get the Tri-core 65w you posted few days ago for my HDPC? I was thinking of replacing my X2 4800 with one of these.
Posted on Reply
#7
PCpraiser100
Why not 45nm? If AMD managed to do that they could've met the E8000 series.
Posted on Reply
#8
devguy
I know this wasn't the point of the article, but I'm amazed to see the x3 8750 at 2.4Ghz keeping pace so well with the e8400 at 3ghz.
Posted on Reply
#9
pr0n Inspector
by: devguy
I know this wasn't the point of the article, but I'm amazed to see the x3 8750 at 2.4Ghz keeping pace so well with the e8400 at 3ghz.
it has an extra core ffs
Posted on Reply
#10
BazookaJoe
Another monumental lack of achievement for AMD, my Athlon XP2500 Barton Is rolling in it's grave.

How could a company with so much past potential have gotten so lost?

Mindless "fandom" for Intel OR AMD put aside for one moment, it really is sad that AMD is not putting up a better fight.

Imagine how much cheaper the i7 I am buying next year would be if they where ... :
Posted on Reply
#11
Haytch
Once again AMD have released something that is pathetic in comparison to what is currently available in the same field. Showing off benchmarks where the AMD has an extra core advantage is not very bright, because the average know whats going on halfwit would throw in a few of his/her own examples and soon come to realize how poor of a comparison was on offer to begin.

Lets go back to the 2.4Ghz and throw in another core for Intel, why not even go back 3 years in technology for Intel and compare the Q6600 with the Athlon C3 codenamed whatever.

Im an AMD fanboy, but fact is, they are way behind. I cant wait for them to catch up, but this aint the year for it.
Posted on Reply
#12
kysg
by: pr0n Inspector
it has an extra core ffs
thats the type of comment that makes me sick.... I mean whining about the fact that it has an extra core is lame...
Posted on Reply
#13
mdm-adph
by: PCpraiser100
Why not 45nm? If AMD managed to do that they could've met the E8000 series.
Aren't these more than likely just quad-core's with two cores disabled? 45nm dual-cores are still a ways off.

by: Haytch
Once again AMD have released something that is pathetic in comparison to what is currently available in the same field. Showing off benchmarks where the AMD has an extra core advantage is not very bright, because the average know whats going on halfwit would throw in a few of his/her own examples and soon come to realize how poor of a comparison was on offer to begin.

Lets go back to the 2.4Ghz and throw in another core for Intel, why not even go back 3 years in technology for Intel and compare the Q6600 with the Athlon C3 codenamed whatever.

Im an AMD fanboy, but fact is, they are way behind. I cant wait for them to catch up, but this aint the year for it.
You're an "AMD fanboy"... with the most overpriced processor that Intel sells, at least if you're not lying according to your specs. You've got a funny way of showing your love for AMD. :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#14
Polarman
the 7750 does make my aging FX-62 look bad by comparison. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#15
suraswami
by: Haytch
Once again AMD have released something that is pathetic in comparison to what is currently available in the same field. Showing off benchmarks where the AMD has an extra core advantage is not very bright, because the average know whats going on halfwit would throw in a few of his/her own examples and soon come to realize how poor of a comparison was on offer to begin.

Lets go back to the 2.4Ghz and throw in another core for Intel, why not even go back 3 years in technology for Intel and compare the Q6600 with the Athlon C3 codenamed whatever.

Im an AMD fanboy, but fact is, they are way behind. I cant wait for them to catch up, but this aint the year for it.
You know AMD doesn't really care about the damn crown, all they need is to find a way to save their body parts who damn cares about crown when you don't have one arm and one leg.

they are doing pretty well at the combo market. Their integrated chipset + Video + X3 proc is the best value in entertainment now. They are real value for customers who usually will not notice that extra 10FPS in games or extra 5 secs that an I can finish in encoding stuff. I recently finished a Quad core Phenom 9750 machine for $325 complete no carry over parts all new. 9750 @2.6Ghz + Crucial Ballistix 4GB ram + WD green 1TB HDD + Samsung DVDRW + 72 in 1 Sony card reader all in Antec Slim case (minuet 350). He is extremely happy with his new machine, saved over $150 (compared to C2D system with same specs). It was his choice and money played an important role.

I am sure AMD will come back into the game when ready.

:toast:


by: mdm-adph
Aren't these more than likely just quad-core's with two cores disabled? 45nm dual-cores are still a ways off.



You're an "AMD fanboy"... with the most overpriced processor that Intel sells, at least if you're not lying according to your specs. You've got a funny way of showing your love for AMD. :wtf:
Thats funny:roll:
Posted on Reply
#16
pentastar111
+1 suraswami for the value! That's why I'm going AMD this time around...bang for the buck...If they(AMD) WERE NOT around, the ONLY pc enthusiast's would be the guys with the six figure salaries, cause then Intel would charge us anything they wanted to....(Now to another subject)As far as the comparison? Who cares that 8750's a 3 core...it's still 2.4 vs a 3 GHZ! Thats just as dumb as the guys who were poo-pooing the 4870X2's occomplishment as being fastest on the planet...Another funny thing when it comes to comparison's...Had the new AMD's NOT beat the E8400, some jag-off would have said.."See it can't even beat my E8400, they suck, blah-blah...blah-blah-blah"...whatever...lol
Posted on Reply
#17
MrMilli
Quiet a bad selection of benchmarks to show off the difference between Brisbane and Kuma. These benchmarks are not too cache sensitive and the main difference between these two cpu's is the cache structure.

This review is much more representative of what the real world performance of Kuma will be:


That doesn't change the fact that the IPC of the core hasn't changed since it's still based on the K8 but still, games and most real life apps will see good gains.
Posted on Reply
#18
kysg
looks like theres some gains but still it is very irritating to see that can't throw down with the 6000+ or 6400+ really irritating. even though it beats my 4400+.
Posted on Reply
#19
a_ump
i h8t how people complain about how many chips it has, i always compare products at a certain price, not by how many cores it has...:shadedshu.

And yea idk wtf happened at amd, i realize they bought ATI but i fail to understand how that caused their employee's to think less constructively...but i hope these phenom II's are at least better than the c2 series. that would be a decent step since the i7's aren't that much better than the c2 series and the fact that ATI's top CPU is only supposed to be $275 i have hope for their market share to increase.
Posted on Reply
#20
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Whats funny is that E8400 at 3.2ghz?? (I think) is losing ground to the lower clocked parts in WPrime. Same thing when they oc the 7750 to 3.3ghz. I dont get that.

Not bad in comparison and I agree about the performance crown, but I was still hoping to see it be more competitive or at least win more bench marks.
Posted on Reply
#21
suraswami
I am just hoping its in the sub $100 category. As long as AMD is there we can all get CPUs and other parts for cheap, that means whole load of toys to play with rather than just buying only one $1000 cpu and safe gaurd it by not using it for anything.
Posted on Reply
#22
Beertintedgoggles
I've got to agree with a few of the sensible posters here.... why worry about how many cores a CPU has these days. One should worry more about performance per dollar. What gets me is that most of these people will tout how well the graphics segment of AMD performs with their hundreds of 'stream processors' against Nvidia but when it's Intel vs. AMD they are always on the bandwagon. I still have my socket 939 system and I'll be damned if there isn't more than a handful of games that my system with 8800GT's SLI'd that I can't play almost maxed out that anyone else can (depending on your resolution of course.... 512MB of GPU mem can only take so much).
Posted on Reply
#23
TestECull
Now if only we can have non-synthetic benchmarks. Synthetics are nowhere near as accurate as seeing how many barrels you can explode at once in Gmod before you get 15FPS. My Manchester can do 53 before it goes below 15, by the way.
Posted on Reply
#24
eidairaman1
this isnt a bad processor at all, its a step in the right direction as of overclocking since AMD Dual Cores couldnt obtain higher than 3.2GHz at the time stable.
Posted on Reply
#25
Hayder_Master
i expect it will come with 45nm , but look cool and it must be cheap to be good chose and seems it is better than some intel core 2 duo cpu's
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment