Monday, July 11th 2011
AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface
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.
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.
Source:
DonanimHaber
317 Comments on AMD FX-8130P Processor Benchmarks Surface
IF BD spanks SB then Intel has to respond with better pricing on 2011.
AMD says it is a native 8 core processor
Each core has it's own resourcesZambezi actually supports higher than that but it isn't discussed much
2800MHz is the max...don't try it(You'll only kill your RAM)Not going to both on this one I stated what is factNot until Zambezi releases
Zambezi isn't fully optimized for performance comparisons yet(Engineer Sample, discussion is about what is to what will be is getting old to me)
edit: not the start I wanted to get off to in this forum. I'm really a friendly guy. I just require links to back things up.
I’ll wait and see the direct compares; I’m hoping we’ll some competition. For everyones sake.
While do you need 8 cores for gaming?
And if you are reading this anyhow .. you are going too want too know the end real result of benchmarks like 3Dmark, Unigine, ect.. ( Running same GPU setups ).
Everyone should hold judgement till we get thoses numbers.
If you wasted 7 months of your time reading "Bulldozer" documents I guess you would be to aswell!It's not hearsy or speculation it is that it's not final or "sellable" yet
But, I would say wait till a non-ES benchmark comes up before you make your decision to go to AMD or go to Intel
(I agree with the Non-ES part)Retrofitting
Windows 7 can schedule CPU cores to infinity
The more you have the less load on the CPU and the more stuff you can do
And you're still not responding to Crap Daddy.
(Unreal, Id Tech, CryEngine, Frostbite) <-- already coded to use infinite amount of cores
Just a warning though Games in development follow Amdahl's law
Games that are not being developed currently but will eventually come out follow follow Gustafson's lawI can't answer his question until a final chip lands in someones hands via Anandtech, Techpowerup, Guru3d, HardOCP, Xbit labs, Tom's Hardware, and some other discrete source
Engineer Samples are not Final performance
What I mean by discrete is that they got the chip by official supported means
Non-discrete sources are people who trade engineer samples to defame chips
Look at the Sandy Bridge ES everyone was pissed that it was 2.5GHz and guess what it became 3.4GHz and all performances across the board increased with it
forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2177408
Also, I hope you're not using "discrete" to mean "reputable" because if I knew you considered [H] and Tom's to be reputable, I'd have stopped replying to you long ago. :laugh:
Gustafson's law
What is happening can be explained by these two laws
No matter how many cores you have if the workload is built for dual-cores
The workload is fixed and the time to process is fixed it is the same game
Thus, you can't magically improve performance because the workload didn't increase with the core amount
All the for mentioned engines scale to all cores, but if the workload is the same you are stuck in performance bottleneck of that game
But...there is a good thing about having more cores to do that^ you can increase background workload[H] and Tom's are reputable
I don't know about AIDA64...I know about the rest
IMC and NB has been dramatically improved from PhII to Zambezi(FX) if AIDA64 doesn't show that it's not my problem but the programmers for AIDA
And hey, you know how to link stuff. Why don't you substantiate your earlier claims? Oh, that's right, you can't.[inane giggling]
edit: there are some totally bitchin' features in this forum. Refreshing while I type? Awesome. Inline post editing? Super awesome. Much better than the forums I normally hang out on.
Seronx already answered all your questions (to his best ability) for the most part its true. I don't see what you're trying to achieve but you've got your answers.
Faud of all people said AMD was a winIPC didn't decrease either
and it was reported that it was going to decrease from those resources
but in all cases it has been improving overtime(A1 -> B1 all engineer samples)It's retrofitting games will eventually use 8 Cores
Workloads increase overtimeHexa-core optimized* well the sensible ones (AMD Gaming Evolved titles tend to use six cores)Well because AMD is the most trusted to do heavy workloads
Game + Premium Broadcasting Software + Premium Capture Software require a lot of cores these days
:slap:
I have boards...all the current CPUs...just need Bulldozer, and you'll get an unbiased point of view on it's performance shortly after launch. I don't even want samples from AMD..I'll go buy one of the shelf, so there's no cherry picking, like with the rest of my CPUs.
I'm working up to buy 10 on launch day. I'll keep the very worst one for my review rig. Expect all the rumours and false claims to be either substantiated, or categorically denied, then.
:toast:
Thank you Ser. I needed that belly laugh.