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

AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jul 11, 2011.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,712 (11.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,669
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Here is a tasty scoop of benchmark results purported to be those of the AMD FX-8130P, the next high-end processor from the green team. The FX-8130P was paired with Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 motherboard and 4 GB of dual-channel Kingston HyperX DDR3-2000 MHz memory running at DDR3-1866 MHz. A GeForce GTX 580 handled the graphics department. The chip was clocked at 3.20 GHz (16 x 200 MHz). Testing began with benchmarks that aren't very multi-core intensive, such as Super Pi 1M, where the chip clocked in at 19.5 seconds; AIDA64 Cache and Memory benchmark, where L1 cache seems to be extremely fast, while L2, L3, and memory performance is a slight improvement over the last generation of Phenom II processors.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Moving on to multi-threaded tests, Fritz Chess yielded a speed-up of over 29.5X over the set standard, with 14,197 kilonodes per second. x264 benchmark encoded first pass at roughly 136 fps, with roughly 45 fps in the second pass. The system scored 3045 points in PCMark7, and P6265 in 3DMark11 (performance preset). The results show that this chip will be highly competitive with Intel's LGA1155 Sandy Bridge quad-core chips, but as usual, we ask you to take the data with a pinch of salt.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Source: DonanimHaber
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2011
  2. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,741 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    980
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Benchmarks are pointless if you can't compare the score to anything...
     
  3. entropy13

    entropy13

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,947 (2.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,214
    It's still nothing new that AMD's high-end "will be highly competitive" with Intel's mainstream chips...
     
    [H]@RD5TUFF says thanks.
  4. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,587 (1.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Location:
    Australia
    Old seen it before, and another ES?? FFS
     
  5. reverze

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,368 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    131
    if we talk about performance then they will have no problem competing with "mainstream" CPUs like your i7 2600 at a better price/quality :)
     
  6. entropy13

    entropy13

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,947 (2.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,214
    Except they aren't AMD's "mainstream" CPUs. :rolleyes:
     
  7. arnoo1

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    746 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Lol in Super pi is my q9550 on stock still faster 9sec orso not 19s xd fail
     
  8. reverze

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,368 (0.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    131
    i didnt know mainstream hardware depended on brand now ;) whatever label you throw at it, amd can compete with sandy bridge and bring a more competetive price, like it or not.
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  9. DarkOCean

    DarkOCean

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618 (0.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Location:
    on top of that big mountain on mars(Romania)
    From the price perspective they are.
     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  10. Oblivion-330

    Oblivion-330

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Messages:
    17 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Lol... :rolleyes:


    Anyway, check out that TDP! 186W is that for real or just listed since its an es chip?
     
  11. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,555 (1.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    952
    How can it bring a more competitive price? Unless they decide to make the FX-8130P $250 or less the prices are exactly the same for AM3+ and 1155.
     
  12. jpierce55

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,335 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    91
    I would guess the fact this processor is not officially supported caused an error. I believe AMD already releases a power consumption chart once, or maybe it was a fake listed someplace.

    If it is dead on with SB and an equal price or less it is really all the more people should have expected.
     
  13. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    829 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    I see what you're saying, and it's a good point, but there's no need to back it up with gratuitous exaggeration or plain BS. Q9550s take just over 10 seconds to complete SuperPi 1M at 4.6GHZ, which is a huge overclock.
     
    yogurt_21 says thanks.
  14. seronx

    seronx

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    994 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    219
    Location:
    USA, Arizona
    http://fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in

    3.2GHz Zambezi 8130P ES vs 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge-P1 i7 2600K

    Zambezi wins

    Fudzilla offers us a comparison to the i7 2600K

     
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  15. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    I don't think so. Everything is rumor until now, but based on the wafer shot leaked, BD is around 50% bigger than SB. Considering that, Intel will always win a price war. Internal manufacturing instead of outsourcing (even if it's GF) means slightly better prices too.

    In reality, in order to be competitive BD should be anything from 25% to 50% faster than SB so as to differentiate from SB or Intel can always lower the price. And of course once SB-E and Ivy launch is game over once again. Insert coin.
     
  16. nINJAkECIL

    nINJAkECIL New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    235 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    If the price and performance is on par with 1-7 2600K, then we'll see an interesting battle between Intel and AMD.

    And I'm not talking about who has the fastest cpu. Because I believe that is reserved for LGA2011, and I'm still not sure AMD can catch up with that.
     
  17. DeerSteak New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    59 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Location:
    Illinois
    Well, let's see. I have a Phenom II X4 955 at 4GHz. Let's play with the chess benchmark's numbers for a moment.

    The Bulldozer was 29.58 times as fast as a Pentium III 1GHz.
    My Phenom II is 19.52 times as fast.

    29.58/8 = 3.6975 @ 3.2GHz
    19.52/4 = 4.88 @ 4GHz, or 4.88*3.2/4 = 3.904 (theoretical) if I was running at the same 3.2GHz clock.

    9370 kilonodes per second on my Phenom, BTW.

    So at least on this example, Bulldozer @ 3.2GHz is slower than Phenom II @ 3.2GHz per core.

    Anybody with a Sandy Bridge setup want to run the benchmark? I ran it over LogMeIn from work and it took all of a minute, tops. Phenom II gets clobbered pretty regularly by Sandy Bridge. I have to think an i7 2600K would clobber both of these results on a per-core basis, though my guess is the extra 4 cores for Bulldozer will give it an edge overall.
     
  18. Thefumigator

    Thefumigator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    412 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Does the chess bench uses all 8 cores? Are you sure? Maybe it uses 6 or 4. I would take those possibilities too just in case.
     
  19. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-07-11/43d.jpg

    Logical processors found: 8

    Used: 8
     
  20. DeerSteak New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    59 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Location:
    Illinois
    It's right in the screenshot saying it's using 8. I'm sure it's very easy to do in parallel since each thread shouldn't depend on results from any other thread. Though I suppose without a screenshot of task manager you can't be absolutely sure. All the same, my 4 cores were all maxed out at 100% each.

    edit: I do enough that can use multiple cores that I'll still upgrade to BD and try overclocking right around release. I already replaced my K9A2-CF (DDR2 board) with an M5A97 EVO based entirely on TechPowerUp's review of the board. I'm in this for the long haul. :D
     
  21. Thatguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    666 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    69
    You know that statement is pure fud right ?
     
  22. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    769 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    81
    Quite right,…..

    The leaked AMD pricing seemed to suggest that the AMD Bulldozer FX 8130P (unlocked high-end) was expected to compete with the Core i7 2600k given its price equivalent (not undercut but equivalent).

    Matching performance and price of a competitor is no small feat I’m sure but Bulldozer is somewhat late to the party and not cheaper. Intel managed to mangle Sandy bridge P67 chipset launch, recover from it and even launch a second chipset (Z68) all before AMD could come to market with Bulldozer.

    Also keep in mind that Intel can simply drop prices on the current Sandy Bridge LGA1155 Core i7 2600k and launch a faster Core i7 (2700k !?!) at the same ~$320 price point thus marginalizing Bulldozers planned launch price / performance ratio.

    I’m starting to think Intel delayed Sandy Bridge-E because they don’t want to compete with themselves at that performance level. After all Sandy Bridge-E would have to be significantly faster to justify its existence and Sandy Bridge-E CPU prices would start at ~about $300.
     
  23. Thefumigator

    Thefumigator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    412 (0.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Uhmmm. I still not sure on this one, could be that bulldozer looses in multicore efficiency rather than loosing clock for clock in core vs core comparison against a Phenom 2.
     
  24. Casecutter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,167 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Location:
    So. Cal.
    I’d say that a 990FX mobo’s and FX-8130P together will be a much more competitive price package for the gaming enthusiast particularly once OC'd. Given AMD has had a price to performance lead in gaming against Intel up till now, I see Bulldozer as really becoming the preeminent platform for gaming. Especially considering the long term socket compatibility of AM3+, them coupled with Southern Islands, AMD has positioned it's self nicely.
     
  25. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    769 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    81
    Double post
     

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

Share This Page