Bulldozer benchmarks, Turbo details leak out

More Bulldozer benchmarks have leaked out. Turkish site Donanim Haber got its hands on an engineering sample of AMD’s upcoming Zambezi processor, and the site has run a number of tests on the CPU. The chip in question is identified as an FX-8130P with a 3.2GHz base clock speed, a 3.6GHz Turbo peak when all eight cores are active, and a 4.2GHz maximum speed when only half of those cores are in use.

Like most early pre-release benchmark numbers, the results should be taken with a grain of salt. If you’re curious, this image gallery associated with the article has screenshots of scores from 3DMark 11, PCMark 7, Cinebench, Super PI, x264 video encoding, AIDA64, and the Fritz chess benchmark.

Zambezi processors are expected to arrive in August or September, which would put them in the mix right around when Intel’s X79 platform appears set to launch. I’m sure AMD would rather compete with quad-core, dual-channel Sandy Bridge CPUs than the six-core, quad-channel "E" variants that are set to accompany the X79. Intel will surely charge a premium for its new workstation platform, though. Thanks to TechEye for the tip.

Update — Donanim Haber has since pulled the story, perhaps because a Czech blogger is claiming to have faked the benchmark results posted on the site. Hopefully, we’ll have a clearer and more official sense of Bulldozer performance soon.

Comments closed
    • RtFusion
    • 9 years ago

    benches were ‘shopped:

    [url<]http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/07/you-were-punkd.html[/url<] From the crappy translation in chrome and from some forum posts, OBR sent them to Donanimhaber. Recent post from Donanimhaber about the fakes: [url<]http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/haberleri/AMDnin-8-cekirdekli-Bulldozer-FX-islemcisi-ve-test-sonuclari.htm[/url<]

    • sluggo
    • 9 years ago

    It’s performance on superpi is 10% faster than my 3.26GHz Penom II quad core which, last I looked, can be had for about a hundred bucks. If the tested chip comes out priced at $90 I suspect it will still be viewed as an utter failure.

    Someone please tell me that the superpi results are not in any way indicative of the expected real-world performance of this chip.

    • dashbarron
    • 9 years ago

    Waiting for Bulldozer is like waiting for the second coming of Jesus, everyone says its coming and it will be glorious in how it will defeat evil (“Intel”) but it never comes.

    Where’s your messiah now?

    🙂

      • Game_boy
      • 9 years ago

      Delayed to October. QQ

      • dashbarron
      • 9 years ago

      Why so serious….

      • ronch
      • 9 years ago

      Someday, it’ll come, and it’ll be the end of all evil!

      Just kidding.

    • boomshine
    • 9 years ago

    so it’s like 4 intel cores versus 4 amd modules? 🙂

    • ronch
    • 9 years ago

    Without anything to compare it with in the slides, it’s hard to make much sense of the numbers. The absence of system specs makes it even harder.

    • Buzzard44
    • 9 years ago

    Time to load up the AMD stock? Relatively cheap right now, could post a return in a couple years.

      • NeelyCam
      • 9 years ago

      It could. Or possibly not.

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        The Force is strong in this one….

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        You sound like a fortune teller.

        • Palek
        • 9 years ago

        Wow, you must be an expert industry analyst or something. Please take all my money and invest it in risky start-up businesses! 😛

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Careful – calling someone an analyst could get you stabbed.

        • VILLAIN_xx
        • 9 years ago

        Are you a wizard?

    • Deanjo
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]FX-8130P with a 3.2GHz base clock speed, a 3.6GHz Turbo peak when all eight cores are active, and a 4.2GHz maximum speed when only half of those cores are in use[/quote<] So basically the "base clock" isn't really the "base clock" but another speed step. All previous processors "base clock" was their maximum speed with all cores in use and that was where their TDP was calculated at. So if we stuck by what was considered the old way of what k was the base clock would be 3.6 Ghz on this sample.

      • Game_boy
      • 9 years ago

      No. The base clock is the guaranteed minimum clock under full load. This is very important. AMD is saying that under ANY workload the chip can run at 3.2GHz and not exceed the stated TDP.

      From there, if the program is not quite as loading, AMD will allow the clock to rise to a maximum of 3.6GHz for 8 threads.

      So when loaded the clock will be between 3.2 and 3.6GHz depending on the heaviness of the program, NOT between zero and 3.6GHz like if it was just a speedstep (CnQ) state.

      It’s like those Intel low power 65W CPUs. The difference between them and the 95W versions is only a paper guarantee the former won’t exceed 65W. The 95W versions could and often do run below 65W under load anyway, but Intel doesn’t guarantee that they do.

      • mnecaise
      • 9 years ago

      Not quite. stated TDP is usually for a class of processors, and usually when Intel or AMD stated a TDP they were giving you the maximum for the processor class running a “typical” workload under “typical” conditions. ymmv. If you look at either the Intel or the AMD lineup, you’ll see multiple processors listed with TDP at 45W, 65W, 90W, and so on.

      In this case, the processor monitors it’s average power consumption and thermals; and, when demand is high will overclock itself, up to the stated peak speed. It might not be possible to maintain the turbo speed, depending on the system configuration. One could argue Intel’s implementation is better than AMD’s implementation; but, since I have tendencies to prefer AMD wherever possible, I won’t.

    • basket687
    • 9 years ago

    If those results are true then this will be the mid-high end chip to get for the rest of the year, as it combines significantly higher multithreaded performance than the i7 2600 and comparable (maybe just slightly lower) single threaded performance, coupled with a competitive price tag.

    I am almost sure that Sandybridge-E will outperform Bulldozer but obviously it will be much more expensive.

    I think that Intel will still have the superior architecture even after the Bulldozer release, and that technology lead will be extended even further with those 22 nm tri-gate transistors, but as a consumer product, Bulldozer may be more attractive.

    But first, let’s hope that those results are true…

    • Goty
    • 9 years ago

    [quote<]Zambezi processors are expected to arrive in August or September, which would put them in the mix right around when Intel's X79 platform appears set to launch.[/quote<] Uhhh... [url<]https://techreport.com/discussions.x/21284[/url<] ... so yeah, how exactly does that statement coincide with the article you posted less than an hour before?

      • dpaus
      • 9 years ago

      Right there in the third paragraph, which clearly says

      [quote<]DigiTimes mentions that Intel will be ready to ship X79 chipsets in August[/quote<] and [quote<]motherboard makers we spoke to at Computex mentioned an August/September timeframe for X79 boards[/quote<] One of us is really missing something here, is it me?

        • VILLAIN_xx
        • 9 years ago

        It confused me at first too. Heh. 🙂

      • JumpingJack
      • 9 years ago

      Read carefully the article you linked. The x79 boards, which pair with SB-E, are expected to be launching around August/September. Which is what you quoted and what Gasior commented upon.

        • Goty
        • 9 years ago

        Ah, I see the sticking point, now. 7-series != only X79. Gotcha.

          • JumpingJack
          • 9 years ago

          Yeah — I have a hard time following intel’s logic on release order, product branding, and feature segmentation. This is just anothe example of uber confusion the marketing retards can cause.

            • dpaus
            • 9 years ago

            Surely you know that Uber is never confused. And don’t call him ‘Shirley’!

            • JumpingJack
            • 9 years ago

            That was funny, you induced a chuckle.

            • UberGerbil
            • 9 years ago

            The confusion family does have someone named uber, but I belong to the gerbils.

            • dpaus
            • 9 years ago

            So, it’s on your mother’s side of the family?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 9 years ago

            Is everyone with the same first name related? Shirley you jest!

      • Arag0n
      • 9 years ago

      I wonder why you got downed just by asking how can be that they claim X79 coming in august if they said the chips were going to come at April 2012.

      IMHO, platform means the combo between motherboards and CPU’s. I can’t care less if AMD released Bulldozer motherboards but not the CPU yet. Bulldozer platform hasn’t arrived yet as won’t arrive the X79 platform neither. X79 motherboards will do but not the platform. I understand your confusion, this sentence is miss leading.

      Guys, to doubt about something it’s human! Down a comment for that it’s not fair!

    • Game_boy
    • 9 years ago

    Ivy Bridge will only go up to 6 cores on the desktop and IPC improvements are sub-5%. Unless you’re expecting base clocks of over 4GHz it will not be a miracle. The initial rollout will only be up to 4 cores anyway; 6 core variants will come 2H ’12 which will be aganst the 10-core BD not this.

    If BD can beat the 2600K that is enough to put it in better shape than AMD has been since 2006.

    (reply fail, but standalone point anyway)

      • sschaem
      • 9 years ago

      Yes, AMD will have a competitive product but will have much lower margin than Intel. Doesn’t matter to ‘us’ I guess.

      But you under estimate ivy bridge. Intel seem to have tweaked the math side pretty well, IPC for rendering task shoot up by ~30%.
      A 6 core ivy bridge will be a massive upgrade compared to a 2600K.
      AMD will need more than a refresh in 6 month to keep up. Most likely will need an AM4 socket…

        • khands
        • 9 years ago

        I guess we’ll see what Trinity pulls then.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        They most likely won’t care because [i<]it doesn't matter[/i<]. Intel isn't exactly going to be putting 6 core, 4 GHz CPUs in laptops with 10+ hours of battery life. AMD already has two mobile platforms that OEMs seem to have taken a liking to. They have a lot of life left there, and it's where the money is. The "lower margins" talk is complete BS. The desktop Bulldozer is the same chip they're mass producing for servers, which carry much higher price tags. When your Pentium equivalent of a server chip fetches $200-300 in another market, instead of going into the bargain bin, you don't exactly have a financial crisis on your hands. What remains to be seen is not how AMD will do with PCs, but what will become of them after betting the farm on Bulldozer for servers.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 9 years ago

      If stock-clocked Zambezi can beat stock-clocked Sandy Bridge, (edit) and if Zambezi OC’s well, I think I found my next CPU upgrade, the first in over 2 years.

        • flip-mode
        • 9 years ago

        Depends a lot on pricing. I know there has been rumored pricing but it still depends on final pricing. I’m not paying over $200 for a CPU. I can get an I5-2500K for $180 and it’ll overclock to the moon. BD will have to meet or beat that.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 9 years ago

          Oh, I agree – but if their plan is to make a fast shift to 32nm and dump 45nm (which has been reported before) then anyting > $130-140 needs to be on AM3+, which means (probably) a 6-core Zambezi. And for sure, that needs to be faster than an i5 2500K, no disagreement there.

      • mganai
      • 9 years ago

      Where does it say that IB will go up to 6 cores? That will only be the case if there are any enthusiast LGA 2011 counterparts.

      We still have yet to hear about any mainstream/performance 6 cores from Intel.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 9 years ago

    Like with Llano, I’m looking forward to the Bulldozer release because it will be an interesting preview of things to come in Trinity, which I see as the part both Llano and Bulldozer are beta’s of.

    • swaaye
    • 9 years ago

    That high 4.2 GHz top clock is probably there to help get the per core performance competitive with SB. I wonder if Ivy Bridge will get some tweaks to the Turbo multis to counteract this. It’s not like SB lacks headroom to go higher. There just hasn’t been a reason for Intel to push the limits.

    But anyway my Q6600 has had a nice 3 year run and is looking to be replaced. 😉 Here’s to BD giving Intel a good run for the money.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      “There just hasn’t been a reason for Intel to push the limits.”

      95w TDP. They don’t exceed it in their mainstream parts. While Sandy Bridge E doesn’t have that constraint, the monstrous L3 cache that is synced to the same clock speed puts it in the same boat.

    • dpaus
    • 9 years ago

    While I await a full set of benchmark tests – preferably from TR – Bulldozer is looking like it will be a solid winner for AMD.

      • Waco
      • 9 years ago

      Agreed. If it’s as fast as the “results” imply then it may very well be exactly what AMD needs.

      • Arclight
      • 9 years ago

      [quote<]Bulldozer is looking like it will be a solid winner for AMD.[/quote<] Just like Phenom II before Nehalem was launched. Just like before i'm suspecting that all Bulldozer SKUs will be targeted at the low end and mid end segment, with no competitor to the high end Ivy Bridge CPUs. It's not bad, as they did this before, i just hoped for more. Performance seems to be improved compared to their previouse generation and that's atleast a good thing, i'm sure they'll keep improving on BD arhitecture as they continue to push "Fusion".

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]with no competitor to the high end Ivy Bridge CPUs[/quote<] We have no idea about that just yet; at this point, it's clear that there are Bulldozer SKUs that are completely competitive with an i7-2600K, at least on performance, and, it seems, in power consumption as well. The very initial reports on Ivy Bridge suggest a 20 - 30% improvement on Sandy Bridge, which, while unlikely, is not out of the question for a process shink for BD. AMD just showed they can do a fairly quick die re-work on BD, so I wouldn't rule out further process improvements by the time IB gets here. At any rate, it's certainly a levelling of the playing field for AMD, and if they do a good job of integrating the graphics in BD, they could have a mass-market winner on theor hands. Financially, that's far more important than claiming top-dog bragging rights based on a CPU that constitutes less than 1% of sales volume.

          • Duck
          • 9 years ago

          Yeah it’s like nvidia is the fastest with a 580GTX but then you go and buy a 6870 instead.

          • bwcbiz
          • 9 years ago

          Exactly. It’s been a while since AMD has been within even a year of Intel’s technology, let alone (almost) even. Here’s hoping the performance numbers hold up in real life, although the CPU-Z screen shot shows 186W TDP which is just ridiculous. I suspect the final performance numbers and voltages will be tuned down by quite a bit to achieve a reasonable TDP.

            • xeridea
            • 9 years ago

            The TDP being 186w is ONLY because it is an engineering sample, rest assured, the consumer chips will be the regular variety of TDP.

            • khands
            • 9 years ago

            Pretty sure CPU-Z reports it wrong as well anyways.

      • VILLAIN_xx
      • 9 years ago

      Yeah same here.. Ive been poking around TR more often lately awaiting some results or hints that they have one… sigh. 🙁 Im putting off an overdue build based on the tr review.

        • dpaus
        • 9 years ago

        [quote<]Im putting off an overdue build based on the tr review[/quote<] And we're putting off a 'standard systems specs' update waiting for it. I think there's a lot of that going on. AMD might also benefit from some 'pent-up demand' dynamics.

          • NeelyCam
          • 9 years ago

          Maybe that’s why analysts believe the PC market is shrinking.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This