AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface

[btarunr]

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

[W1zzard]

based on the first graph, the 8 core FX will be 23% faster than the phenom II 6 core, despite 25% more core count .. yawn much ?

[TheLostSwede]

Hmmm... so you need 8 AMD cores to beat 4 Intel cores (although with a helping of hyperthreading).
Not good news for AMD, but it could be worse. Let's hope the FX is priced competitively, but I have a feeling the 2600K will be cheaper...

[caleb]

That chart is really wierd.
i3 170%
i7 250%

[R_1]

Well, the newegg price of Core i7-2600K is $314.99. So, 8-core FX-series have to be $315 and up in price. It is possible. Then I will buy Core i5-2600K straightaway.

[Kytael]

remember that PC mark is also influenced by the hard drive and memory, etc. 25% more compute power doesn't mean a 25% higher score.

[treehouse]

[Fourstaff]

Based on the usual AMD inflation of the graph, the 8 core is going to be less powerful than the 2600K. Folks, don't wait for AMD, just go for Sandy Bridge.

[Melvis]

One graph thats it???? Pfft im not buying it, ill wait until i see REAL benchmark results from Wizard himself or guru3D.

And for those who cant read it says projections, so thats not even 100%, its more of a "possible" or "guesstimate" So take this graph with a grain of salt.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

based on the first graph, the 8 core FX will be 23% faster than the phenom II 6 core, despite 25% more core count .. yawn much ?

That's how it's looking for the time being, but hey, as long as they continue to offer great value for money they'll sell lots of chips.

makes me want to go sandy or ivy bridge in Q4 all the more.

[treehouse]

i was waiting for bulldozer so i could finally have a chip which could make my crossfire cards work at full speed. looks like i might have to go intel for the first time in my life...

[CDdude55]

That's actually pretty disappointing if accurate. It's not mot much faster then the current Phenom II's and i doubt they'll beat Sandy Bridge in most tests/applications.

I'll wait for more reviews though. But really there isn't much of a reason for me to upgrade anyways, so i'll probably be content with my 1055T for a while longer.

[b82rez]

Well, this sucks.

[Imsochobo]

Originally Posted by b82rez

Well, this sucks.

Hold your breath two weeks more as details surface.
8 core doesnt mean more performance in 3dmark vantage, if they launch less cores with higher clocks, 8core
am3+ should not have graphics cores built in. meaning it should sport higher clocks.
this is prolly amd FX krisna projections, which then looks impressive.

Speculations so far, A series look good for laptops though, but if trend continues it'll be a sandy.
I need some serious performance improvement for the cpu part!

[ivicagmc]

Is someone paying AMD engineers to make bad CPUs. Because that is my feeling. Wake up, Intel is way ahead and keeps going in architecture and technology. APUs are not everything, and where is that creativity and innovation from before????

[jalex3]

so long as the top of the line beats the 2600 and is a good overclocker im happy. oh yeah and good price

[Nesters]

Originally Posted by ivicagmc

Is someone paying AMD engineers to make bad CPUs. Because that is my feeling. Wake up, Intel is way ahead and keeps going in architecture and technology. APUs are not everything, and where is that creativity and innovation from before????

Have you ever compared R&D budgets for both sides?
Actually with APU AMD is pushing in the right direction(balanced CPU and GPU performance for casual users - browsing, HD video playback, light gaming).
These high performance CPUs aren't mainstream market.

[MrMilli]

Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.

[Imsochobo]

Originally Posted by MrMilli

Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.

your describing intel's quad with HT, amd's "8core" is almost a 8 core, it's lacking just a few things to become a true 8 core.
I think It wont affect performance much, and I think AMD know what they're doing, but looks like the 8 core got a gpu built in too, in the performance projections... meaning those 8 core clock speeds cant be high, AM3+ doesnt support gpu so they should be able to run way faster....
I hope...

[DaC]

This doesn't seems like an official AMD presentation at all...
Taking in account C-50 / E-350 performance, this chart is just b.....s.
But if it's not, I guess power consumption / price really must be AMD target now, which would be a right move in my oppinion, future proof, but a little too early... Truth be told, 90% of computers sold to people (not for research), probably will never requested the full processing power even of the i5-2500k for a loooooooooong time..... IMHO

As for gammers, well...... it won't take long until real high performance parts costs an arm and leg.....

[heky]

Originally Posted by MrMilli

Let's not forget that AMD's '8-core' cpu consists of 4 modules with shared resources. It's nothing more than a very advanced quad core cpu (with double the ALU's). So don't start saying that it has twice the core count of SB and not twice the performance.
Both are a quad core cpu's with a different approach to multithreading.

Sources? I dont think anyone knows for sure what the new buldozer architecture is made of.

[MrMilli]

Originally Posted by Imsochobo

amd's "8core" is almost a 8 core

Each sub-core has dedicated Integer scheduler and execution units, and L1 D-cache. The Fetch/Decode, floating-point, L1 I-cache and L2 cache are shared by the complete core.

So i think you need to reconsider that statement.

This picture shows how much actually is shared:


This die shot gives a clear view on the 'modules':

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

It seems AMD is now in charge of the fail train, and given a company inflates it's own numbers if this is truly official and a not a troll that doesn't bode well for AMD, for these to be competitive the 8 core would need to be in the $250 range to make the performance difference less of an issue when it's 50-70 dollars cheaper, than the 2600K.

[mixa]

Wait and see the actual performance, you`ll be surprised.

[ivicagmc]

Originally Posted by Nesters

Have you ever compared R&D budgets for both sides?
Actually with APU AMD is pushing in the right direction(balanced CPU and GPU performance for casual users - browsing, HD video playback, light gaming).
These high performance CPUs aren't mainstream market.

With even lower budget they manage to beat Intel before. Remember??? After that there was the first Phenom which we all so quickly forgotten with the good reason. What I wish to see is some great innovation, and they still lag behind Intel in architecture(I don't know how many years old K-architecture) and technology. Those APUs are a good thing but they are late, so like everything else that is late in technology they are not something spectacular. Bulldozer might be a good thing but it is late. Intel is preparing 22nm to come out and AMD is just starting with 32nm (mostly not by their own fault, but still). The best thing that AMD did is buying ATI and making some really good GPUs...