AMD Bulldozer Performance Exposed?

[Goodman]

AMD Bulldozer (Zambezi-FX) CPU Performance Exposed, Beats i7 2600K in CineBench Benchmark

Read more: http://wccftech.com/2011/05/21/amd-...s-i7-2600k-cinebench-benchmark/#ixzz1Mxe20f5x

 

[Wile E]

This is worthless without knowing more details on the cpu used.

I call fake or OCed.

 

[streetfighter 2]

Rubbish.

A recent post from a Chinese Blog site has exposed the performance of AMD’s Upcoming Bulldozer Based Zambezi-FX Processors. Although the Blog has been deleted but Zol.com.cn which is another Chinese Forum managed to get the screenshots from the blog post.

@Damn_Smooth, you pulled out the "fanboy" gun a bit early. The screen caps come from a Chinese blog that got them from another Chinese forum because the original forum took it down; this is not really the process for releasing credible information on the internet.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

This is worthless without knowing more details on the cpu used.

I call fake or OCed.

Of course you do, any Intel fanboy would.

 

[Wile E]

Of course you do, any Intel fanboy would.

Except I've probably owned more AMD cpus in my life than you have. My comments have no fanboyism in them at all. I buy the fastest cpu I can get for the money I'm willing to pay. I don't care who makes it. If AMD had a faster chip for the $1000 I saved to get this, I would have bought it.

My comment is based on the fact that it came from an unknown website, and has no facts posted with it.

 

[slyfox2151]

Fake and Gay.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

considering reports in the wild are saying bulldozer server chips are -50% aka half the performance of up to 150%+ the performance of a Phenom II, ill take this with a grain of salt, just like the so called press slide which W1zzards noticed if accurate would only show the Bulldozer chip at 25% faster then a Phenom II x6. I suggest people wait for real benchmarks, as most of the asian sites that post this shit just want traffic for ad revenue.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Except I've probably owned more AMD cpus in my life than you have. My comments have no fanboyism in them at all. I buy the fastest cpu I can get for the money I'm willing to pay. I don't care who makes it. If AMD had a faster chip for the $1000 I saved to get this, I would have bought it.

My comment is based on the fact that it came from an unknown website, and has no facts posted with it.

I respect your opinion. And I can guarantee that you've owned more AMD systems than I have, but to think that AMD can't go back to owning Intel, is just plain ignorance.

Remember Athlon, with the last series of FX?

 

[Wile E]

I respect your opinion. And I can guarantee that you've owned more AMD systems than I have, but to think that AMD can't go back to owning Intel, is just plain ignorance.

Remember Athlon, with the last series of FX?

Yeah, I remember just fine, but you need to understand something, AMD woke a sleeping giant. Intel rested on their hands, assuming AMD was a non-threat. After AMD kicked their ass, they no longer do that. Couple that with Intel's much, MUCH larger R&D budget, and AMD pulling off another all-out victory is not nearly as likely to happen. Granted, it's possible, but it still isn't all that likely. Regardless, even if Bulldozer isn't as fast, that doesn't mean it's gonna be a bad chip.

Not to mention, if you look at the charts closely, the Intel 6 core cpu is still ahead of this mystery AMD chip. So, without clock speed and core count info, we still know nothing. This could just be a decently clocked 1090T, or something along those lines.

EDIT: I should clarify something. AMD isn't likely to take the lead until they can increase their R&D budget. With the gfx division starting to pay off, it is a possibility to see it in the future. I just don't think Bulldozer is going to be it.

 

[Melvis]

FAKE!!!! Bulldozer is "meant" to beat the current 12 core opterons, and in that bench it shows that it does not.

Also ive seen benchmarks in this program that show the so called Bulldozer killing all CPU's in this benchmark, so i call BS on these.

 

[xenocide]

FAKE!!!! Bulldozer is "meant" to beat the current 12 core opterons, and in that bench it shows that it does not.

Also ive seen benchmarks in this program that show the so called Bulldozer killing all CPU's in this benchmark, so i call BS on these.

Because there has never been a company that talked up a product and failed to deliver correct? The fact is, there exists the very real possibility that Bulldozer is NOT as good as people want. I hope it does great, but there has to be a reason AMD isn't bragging left and right with Benchmarks for their new flagship product that is around a month away from launch. That being said, I cannot prove or disprove these screens so who knows. We'll have to wait and see when AMD does a big reveal at whatever that trade show is that is coming up.

 

[happita]

Some people might have forgotten that Phenom II's were the answer to the much older Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad cpu's. This means that the upcoming Bulldozer based Zambezi cpu's are in theory supposed to compete with Intel's first generation i3/i5/i7 processors.

If you ask me, if Bulldozer can perform side by side with Sandy Bridge at about the same price point, I see this as a win no question about it.

 

[de.das.dude]

i believe bulldozer is more powerful.

 

[Crap Daddy]

Regardless how Bulldozer will perform it's all down to the price and you will never see a better performing CPU to be cheaper. We really don't need any benchmarks only MSRP to understand BD's performance. If they provide relative same performance for a liitle less money, as they do with the GPUs then AMD can still be in the market.

 

[erocker]

I must have a little bit better RAM or something with my "sample".

 

[Nesters]

Bulldozer has been with servers in mind.
So yes, I believe it won't be what people expect in gaming benchmarks where cores doesn't scale well and all you need is higher clock.

I must have a little bit better RAM or something with my "sample".

Nice try.

 

[erocker]

Nice try.

But its realz tho I swear!

 

[cadaveca]

But its realz tho I swear!

Sure, a real AMD chip. What clocks did that score take?

 

[erocker]

Sure, a real AMD chip. What clocks did that score take?

About 100mhz more than the clocks in the OP's post. REAL COREZ btw.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

lol erocker essentially proved the point that all the info Chinese sites release is pretty much bollocks.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Yeah, I remember just fine, but you need to understand something, AMD woke a sleeping giant. Intel rested on their hands, assuming AMD was a non-threat. After AMD kicked their ass, they no longer do that. Couple that with Intel's much, MUCH larger R&D budget, and AMD pulling off another all-out victory is not nearly as likely to happen. Granted, it's possible, but it still isn't all that likely. Regardless, even if Bulldozer isn't as fast, that doesn't mean it's gonna be a bad chip.

Not to mention, if you look at the charts closely, the Intel 6 core cpu is still ahead of this mystery AMD chip. So, without clock speed and core count info, we still know nothing. This could just be a decently clocked 1090T, or something along those lines.

EDIT: I should clarify something. AMD isn't likely to take the lead until they can increase their R&D budget. With the gfx division starting to pay off, it is a possibility to see it in the future. I just don't think Bulldozer is going to be it.

I completely disagree with your sleeping giant analogy. AMD did a great job of keeping up with Intel, and they completely wiped the floor with them in the price/performance ratio, up until the release of Sandy 3 months ago.

The whole time they were using 45nm technology.

Now that they've jumped to 32nm, I really don't find it hard for them to not only match Intel, but to easily beat them.

 

[damric]

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNd8ddu1Z58&feature=player_detailpage

 

[erocker]

Now that they've jumped to 32nm, I really don't find it hard for them to not only match Intel, but to easily beat them.

I like AMD and all, but I don't see this happening. Core for core they might match SB, but easly beat them, no. There is no facts stating that it would be true or otherwise.

 

[cadaveca]

Man, anything can happen.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I completely disagree with your sleeping giant analogy. AMD did a great job of keeping up with Intel, and they completely wiped the floor with them in the price/performance ratio, up until the release of Sandy 3 months ago.

The whole time they were using 45nm technology.

Now that they've jumped to 32nm, I really don't find it hard for them to not only match Intel, but to easily beat them.

That's a stretch. The only place AMD won was in price/performance is the sub $100 range. AMD chips are a little cheaper because they perform less. At best that would give them the same price/performance ratio, not better. SB really didn't change anything. The best their price/performance has ever been is right now (X6 1100T for $200), except of course it's the least appealing time to buy with BD immanent.