Wednesday, May 4th 2011

AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface

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
Add your own comment

133 Comments on AMD FX Series and A Series First Performance Projections Surface

#76
legends84
I dont take the chart seriously until the bulldozer official release.. for now, sandy bridge is the king :)
Posted on Reply
#77
rem82
legends84ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...

MSI NF980-G65 AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI HDMI ATX ...
Ok you have right ! Τhese mobos are not deliver in my country ..:confused:

I don`t have any review with sli 2x16 and thuban or deneb, but bulldozer is defferent. bulldozer not a thuban or deneb ......therefore ι cant see any meaning for this comparison!

I am sure that native crossfire 2x16 and native sli 2x16 are better than crossfire 2x8 in 1155 platform and sli with nf200...because are natively (no latency) with full bandwidth ! If bulldozer has the same performance as 2600k i think AM3+ will be much better for multi gpus
Posted on Reply
#78
Fourstaff
TheMailMan78Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?
If its AMD's then its inflated like always. If its some joker guesstimating, then this chart is completely useless. In other words, its useless either way.
Posted on Reply
#80
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
TheMailMan78Who's charts are theses? Are they AMD's or some joker guesstimating?
AMD's charts.
Posted on Reply
#81
Googoo24
btarunrAMD's charts.
So these "slides" are confirmed to be authentic?
Posted on Reply
#82
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunrAMD's charts.
Are you sure man? They don't look like AMD charts to be honest. They usually use a black background and such. If they are real they are full of fail graphically and informatively.
Posted on Reply
#83
Jonap_1st
TheMailMan78Are you sure man? They don't look like AMD charts to be honest. They usually use a black background and such. If they are real they are full of fail graphically and informatively.
i dont know, maybe this will help



just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd.. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#84
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Jonap_1sti dont know, maybe this will help

www.techpowerup.com/img/11-01-24/177a.jpg

just look at X6 1100T, compare it to graph on the first post then you'll notice something different. or maybe absurd.. :rolleyes:
Yeah that looks more like an AMD chart to me. The other one looked bogus.
Posted on Reply
#85
Jonap_1st
TheMailMan78Yeah that looks more like an AMD chart to me. The other one looked bogus.
maybe because its only show comparison on pcmark and 3dmark only, not on all real life application..

but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..
Posted on Reply
#86
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
LOL .

I think I will wait and see some real world performance , This is just how they pimped the last 4 years of CPU's to us ! When they hit the market and people got them in there hands they found them less than what was being reported to them from AMD I just laughed and laughed !
Posted on Reply
#87
rem82


up to 3,1Ghz default frequency + 1Ghz with cpu boost frequency !! Very good news for over-clockers !! And that with the first stepping , first 32nm chip from AMD, first chip with H-K metal gate from AMD !! Very good job !
Posted on Reply
#89
Googoo24
Jonap_1stbut comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..
Not forming an opinion until official benches hit.
Posted on Reply
#90
alucasa
Hmmm...
I hope Amd makes it this time..., but my doubts are becoming bigger...
Posted on Reply
#91
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Jonap_1stmaybe because its only show comparison on pcmark and 3dmark only, not on all real life application..

but comparing between 10% and from the latest 50% improvement over 1100T, its must be a "real" downward..
I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the graph itself. Marketing teams are very picky about company appearance. The first charts are ether fake or AMD's marketing team is slacking as they are not consistent with any previous graph "feel".
tricksonLOL .

I think I will wait and see some real world performance , This is just how they pimped the last 4 years of CPU's to us ! When they hit the market and people got them in there hands they found them less than what was being reported to them from AMD I just laughed and laughed !
Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?
Posted on Reply
#92
Jonap_1st
Googoo24Not forming an opinion until official benches hit.
maybe those "scorpious sheet" its not official, so it's okay. but a few people here had something to say as long as its not insulting.. :)
TheMailMan78I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm talking about the graph itself. Marketing teams are very picky about company appearance. The first charts are ether fake or AMD's marketing team is slacking as they are not consistent with any previous graph "feel".

Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?
:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#93
legends84
hope the bulldozer can overclock well also like sandy bridge
Posted on Reply
#94
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
TheMailMan78Yeah because no company ever exaggerates its numbers. I mean Intel has a flawless record right?
Not what I meant at all , But yes they all inflate there preliminary marks , This is a fact all of them do but some are more on point than others , AMD is ok but has been a tad off as of late , Still a good solid Chip-maker , I just do not trust the #'s not till people get them and run there own tests and benchmarks is all .
Posted on Reply
#95
Unregistered
WTF, what the hell all this core count nonsense, CORE COUNT IS NOT IMPORTANT, I don't care if amd use 1000 core to compete with intel 4 core, take a look at gpu do you think amd is a sucker because its 1553 core radeon hd 6970 compete with a 512 core g force gtx 580, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS PERFORMANCE/TDP/PRICE, different architecture use difference way, if bulldozer can compete in that 3 area then its a success for amd
#96
devguy
I'm curious why so many of you think the i7 2600k is a slow CPU? It is one fast chip that I really respect, and to see AMD's Zambezi chip doing slightly better in PCMark, is to me a really good sign. To be honest, my performance estimates put the Zambezi chips between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

A good question I'd like to see here, however, is where a quad/hex Zambezi chip would land on that chart. As PCMark isn't the world's greatest program at taking advantage of additional cores, my guess is they wouldn't be far from where the 8core Zambezi is. On the other hand, I envision an 8 core Zambezi destroying a 4 core Zambezi in things like video encoding.
Posted on Reply
#98
nINJAkECIL
AMD wants us to think their platform (CPU+GPU, chipset) better than Intel. That's what I believe the pics on the 1st post do. That's why it's 3Dmark vantage and pcmark vantage being shown.On the other hand, the CPU alone, I dont think it will do better than 2600K, especially in single threaded apps.
Posted on Reply
#100
claylomax
legends84ASUS M4N98TD EVO AM3 NVIDIA nForce 980a SLI ATX AM...
rem82Not with 2x16 & ddr3, i think

In AM3+ platform 990 chipset will provide full 16X+16X or 3X16 solution with no extra chips needed. No LATENCY with intermedially chips (NF200) . Native crossfire & native sli !
Some members here at TPU have this mobo, including myself; it does 2x16 lanes and support DDR3. I get similar results to X58 SLI systems on 3DMARK Vantage and 11 on extreme settings, obviously not on the performance setting which is cpu demanding. www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120367
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 25th, 2024 06:59 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts