1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Bulldozer Eng. Sample leaked, benched

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by twilyth, Jun 10, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. twilyth Guest

  2. hellrazor

    hellrazor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,568 (0.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    315
    That board looks like a beast from hell!

    I'm not familiar with any of those benching programs, so I don't have anything else to say.
  3. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,542 (1.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    510
    Location:
    Australia
    Ill believe it when i see it, im calling fake on this sorry.

    I cant see an 8 core CPU getting a worse score then the current X6 of today, doesn't add up.
  4. CrackerJack

    CrackerJack

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,701 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    447
    Location:
    East TN
    same here, something just isn't adding up... but who knows :eek:
  5. twilyth Guest

    I have a few Bulldozer alerts set on Google and this just happened to hit my mailbox this morning. I'm just posting it for what it's worth, if anything. If you think I should change to title to make it less dramatic, suggest something and if I can still do it I will.
  6. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    If it is a real BD, it could just be a glitch with the program. Might be like the old dual cores and need a special driver to work properly in some multi-threaded apps.

    I sure hope that's not the real performance, anyway. If it is, BD is a total and utter failure.
  7. twilyth Guest

    Please be more specific since I don't know much about benchmarks. thanks.
  8. CrackerJack

    CrackerJack

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,701 (1.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    447
    Location:
    East TN
    Simple version: Those results were shit :rolleyes:
  9. twilyth Guest

    That's not helping me or anyone else understand.
  10. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Which part of my comment is unclear/needs explained?
  11. twilyth Guest

    The response you quoted was to CJ.

    Why do you think the results if true mean BD is a failure. I mean I did specifically ask about benchmarks in relationship to your comment.
  12. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    Irrelevant. I just quoted the last post on the general topic. You knew what I meant, and responded accordingly. That's all that matters.

    You could've also been referring to my comment on possible glitches and the drivers some of the older AMD chips needed to perform properly in some programs. In case you missed it, I did make more than one point in my original comment.

    If these benches are true, BD is a failure because it's IPC per core is terrible. Intel's last generation 4 cores with HT overpower it, let alone SandyBridge, or the upcoming skt2011 cpus.
  13. HalfAHertz

    HalfAHertz

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,881 (0.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Location:
    Singapore
    My guess is that it flopped because of the "slow" memory they used. From what I've heard the BD memory controller is really something and to get the full performance you need to use 1866MHz sticks. Otherwise the memory controller quickly gets saturated because of all 8 cores accessing it and the performance drops exponentially.
  14. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,777
    I can see that being a bottleneck, but I don't see it being one to this degree.
  15. twilyth Guest

    I was pointing something out I though you didn't realize. Not sure why that is a problem or "irrelevant", but whatever.

    Where are you seeing IPC figures?
  16. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478 (1.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    846
    I can't take anything from wccftech with any seriousness.

    I'll hold out for some legitimate results.
  17. animal007uk

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,204 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    262
    Location:
    Warwick, Warwickshire, England
    I was reading the other day about how AMD were not happy with the performance of BD on the early sample chips, After reading that link in the OP my guess is that the CPU shown is one of the first (engineering samples) that AMD were not happy with.

    My understanding is AMD are working on new stepping (B2 or something) that should be in the retail CPU's.

    If what i have read is true then im also guessing that them benchmarks are not to be taking seriously as true scores, We just have to wait and see.

    It also mentions the new stepping in the link.
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2011
  18. twilyth Guest

    I read the same thing and I think you got that spot on. That's my understanding for why they pushed the launch from June to July-September. It does make sense.

    Aren't these chips the first to use high-k gates? If so, manufacturing issues were bound to crop up.
  19. Velvet Wafer

    Velvet Wafer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,123 (2.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    990
    Location:
    North of Germany
    So i was indeed right. The damn,worthless AOC is just bugged!:laugh:

    EDIT:
    just saw it, there are vantage leaks out there too (also on this UK page).... these look better surely:
    http://wccftech.com/2011/05/30/amd-bulldozer-fx8110-scores-81917-3dmark-vantage-cpu-test-details/
    281 steps in CPU test 2 in Vantage is murderous in my opinion...i7 does not even 100,severely OCed ;)
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2011
  20. hat

    hat Maximum Overclocker

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    16,865 (6.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,060
    Location:
    Ohio
    I really hope those aren't true results...
    Crunching for Team TPU
  21. Red_Machine

    Red_Machine

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,680 (1.22/day)
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Location:
    Marlow, ENGLAND
    Also, Cool n Quiet was enabled, which lowers performance.
  22. repman244

    repman244

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,099 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    450
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8QRKdyBzKQ

    And everyone should be aware that these chips are B0 ES chips, it seems they all have severe restrictions hence the low scores. I mean come on, AMD would never release a chip that is slower than Thuban and call it FX.
  23. Velvet Wafer

    Velvet Wafer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,123 (2.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    990
    Location:
    North of Germany
    i really liked that quote... seems to throw at least some information regarding the issue, even it can be false;)

  24. Fatal

    Fatal

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    732 (0.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Location:
    Golden, Colorado
    3.2 over clock? :laugh: 1333 memory :wtf: I would have tried to blow that thing up the scores are poor but I will wait for a legit review. I am starting to believe AMD is screwed it will be a miracle for them to touch Intel Sandy Bridge chip's performance.
  25. Nesters New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Messages:
    121 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Scoring less than PII X6 and also costing more would be an epic failure. If BD wasn't quite an improvement, price cuts would have been smaller for existing processors.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page