PDA

View Full Version : AMD Bulldozer benchmarks are out!



Ernest
10-12-2011, 12:54 PM
Although it's generally no match not the 2600K, the new 8-core Bulldozer CPU does beat the Core i5s in some of the benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review.html
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/10/
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32110-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150/
http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-processor-review/
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-Processor-Review-Can-Bulldozer-Unearth-AMD-Victory/Experimental-Tests

Lightwolf
10-12-2011, 02:06 PM
Quite a bummer really, I did expect a bit more to be honest.
Maybe there'll at least be a new revision to fix the high power use - and the enhanced cores (piledriver) are expect early 2012 as well (estimated +10% in performance by AMD).
That and there's apparently also thread scheduling issues if the CPU is not running on full load (due to Win7 this time) prohibiting it from increasing the clock as often as possible.

Still, even once that is out of the way... :(

Cheers,
Mike

Shiny_Mike
10-12-2011, 06:54 PM
Bummer indeed, I picked up an am3+ mobo a little while ago with high hopes. The rendering seems "ok" with some software but quite a bit less than I was expecting.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-FX-Processor-Review-Can-Bulldozer-Unearth-AMD-Victory/Render-Tests
What I don't get is - in the LW rendering benchmark, it seems to be barely better than their own 6-core 1100t?
http://benchmarkreviews.com/images/reviews/processor/fx-8150/specapc.png

I'm hoping they'll drop prices on their older gen 6 cores, and I'll just pick another one of those up.

edit: might be interesting to wait, check back here and see how it performs on linux though
http://openbenchmarking.org/s/AMD%20fx-8150

Lightwolf
10-12-2011, 07:00 PM
What I don't get is - in the LW rendering benchmark, it seems to be barely better than their own 6-core 1100t?
It's the same for CineBench as well, so I guess it's fairly accurate.

Oh, the SPEC LW Benchmark is also a fairly decent mix of scenes that try to touch all aspects of LW rendering (such as volumetrics, which are/were traditionally quite strong on AMD CPUs).

"Multitasking" in that benchmark is both (interactive and rendering) running at the same time to emulate the behaviour of working in one instance of Layout while another one renders in the background.

Yes, I helped design it, nice to see it in use... :D

Cheers,
Mike

xxiii
10-12-2011, 09:25 PM
I was really excited when I heard there was an 8-core processor, and then I saw the price, and my "whats the catch?" alarms went off...

Andy Meyer
10-12-2011, 10:41 PM
is the 8150 the top cpu of the amd fx series? i hope its not :-|
i used amd many years ago while the p4 debacle, but i would like to see a faster amd cpu just to push intel to sell even better stuff.

EDIT: holy crap, i just read the TDP is 125W, wow. they should compare it to the i7 990x.
of cours the 990x is about 4 times the price, but performance wise you can not compare a 95W (2600k) with a 125W (8150) cpu... what a disaster for amd. and i thought amd is energy efficient...

xxiii
10-12-2011, 11:10 PM
is the 8150 the top cpu of the amd fx series? i hope its not :-|
i used amd many years ago while the p4 debacle, but i would like to see a faster amd cpu just to push intel to sell even better stuff.

It seems like from the Phenoms onward, AMD has been, well, underwhelming.


and i thought amd is energy efficient...

They certainly used to be, it was the one thing I worried about/regretted going with Intel for the last several years. Then the Phenom came along, less performance at more power consumption, in absolute terms. I imagine heads must have rolled over that.

cresshead
10-15-2011, 07:08 AM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.

in that benchmark using 3dsmax2012 the phenom outclasses the bulldozer as the phenom has 6 REAL cores and not 4 modules with 2 cores in each module....looks like bulldozer has some work to do on getting all 8 cores from those 4 modules working well.

the amd 1100T looks to me like a really good choice for rendering on a budget.

xxiii
10-15-2011, 11:35 AM
in that benchmark using 3dsmax2012 the phenom outclasses the bulldozer as the phenom has 6 REAL cores and not 4 modules with 2 cores in each module....looks like bulldozer has some work to do on getting all 8 cores from those 4 modules working well.


This comment made me go do the research I didn't bother with when I saw the benchmarks.

So, more sophisticated than hyperthreading, but not quite real independent cores either. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I think I'll just stick with my i7-980x, which nearly 1 1/2 years later is still (almost) top dog, which I'm not used to. I'm supposed to be lamenting that double-performance at half-the-cost processor I could of had if I'd waited "just a little longer". (I suspect those blasted speed-of-light and quantum issues are starting to get in the way).

cresshead
10-15-2011, 02:09 PM
if there was an amd phenom 8 core it would be THE fastest CPU out there.

Lightwolf
10-15-2011, 02:43 PM
if there was an amd phenom 8 core it would be THE fastest CPU out there.
Then again, in a few months (end of the year), the SandyBridge E will be.
I expect that to be the first single socket CPU to go beyond 10 points in Cinebench R11.5.

Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
10-15-2011, 02:58 PM
Then again, in a few months (end of the year), the SandyBridge E will be.
I expect that to be the first single socket CPU to go beyond 10 points in Cinebench R11.5.

Cheers,
Mike

and what does that bring to the party?...more mhz or more cores?

wiki

Core i7-3960X 6 3.3 GHz 3.9 GHz 6 256 KB 15 MB N/A N/A MHz 130 W LGA 2011 DMI 2.0 November 14, 2011 $999

COBRASoft
10-15-2011, 05:01 PM
Pff; I'm still waiting for a fabulous price drop of the 990X :). I invested a lot in my motherboard, memory and all the rest, except the CPU.

These new Intel CPU's are fast, but they require new motherboard, memory, ... I'll wait 6 more months to decide what I'll buy :D.

Lightwolf
10-15-2011, 05:06 PM
and what does that bring to the party?...more mhz or more cores?
Basically a current i7-2xxx but with 6 as opposed to 4 cores (and a new socket) for single socket boards as well as an 8 core version for dual socket boards.

Cheers,
Mike

xxiii
10-15-2011, 07:47 PM
Personally, I tend to consider a processor's performance to be a function of a single core.

I then treat the core count as the equivalent of a multi-socket motherboard, with X copies of that core.

If you have applications that are well parallelized (such as lightwave's renderer), or you are doing a lot of multi-tasking, you can pretend they are the same thing. Otherwise, single core performance can be important.

Its sort of like the speed limit of a freeway vs how many lanes it has.

JCG
10-15-2011, 10:45 PM
Personally, I tend to consider a processor's performance to be a function of a single core.

I then treat the core count as the equivalent of a multi-socket motherboard, with X copies of that core.

If you have applications that are well parallelized (such as lightwave's renderer), or you are doing a lot of multi-tasking, you can pretend they are the same thing. Otherwise, single core performance can be important.

Its sort of like the speed limit of a freeway vs how many lanes it has.The problem is that Bulldozer has 8 integer cores and only 4 floating point cores, so it really messes up your core math!

cresshead
10-16-2011, 04:25 AM
is there any roadmap for an 8 core phenom or is it all Bulldozer for here on in from AMD?

JonW
10-16-2011, 04:32 AM
A bit more number crunching here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4486/server-rendering-hpc-benchmark-session/3

Cinebench 11.5: E7 4870 31.04, but one will need deep pockets!

Lightwolf
10-16-2011, 04:46 AM
The problem is that Bulldozer has 8 integer cores and only 4 floating point cores, so it really messes up your core math!
And even the floating point configuration changes depending on the kinds of instructions. Then again, HT messes up the maths on an Intel CPU as well.

Here's a little calculation I did. I took the Cinebench R11.5 rendering scores to find out how fast a Bulldozer module(!) is compared to an Intel core + HT at the same clock.
Core i7-2600: 0.5 points / core / GHz
Bulldozer: 0.42 points / module / GHz
(this includes a bunch of assumptions, i.e. only using the stock clock speed to compute as the actual speed due to turbo boost etc. isn't explicitly mentioned. I also assumed that the software overhead due to threading is identical since we have 8 threads in either case).

So, not only is an Intel core faster when running single threaded benches (as is obvious from the articles), but it's still faster with HT compared to two Bulldozer cores that make up a single module. And that's bad. Not to mention it using less power as well.

Effectively AMD are trying to push a CPU that's designed for the server market (where it absolutely makes sense with a better power envelope and a few more modules) onto desktops.

It could get interesting if they try to release lower cost two-socket CPUs with 10/12 cores or so - but then they'd need to massively undercut Intel's next offering when it comes to pricing.

I should probably do the same maths on the LW SPEC benches... but I assume that the general drift will be the same.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
10-16-2011, 04:55 AM
is there any roadmap for an 8 core phenom or is it all Bulldozer for here on in from AMD?
Piledriver is next (2012) - which is an improved Bulldozer core.
The old core seems to be dead as the new design will eventually move all the way down to the Llano (next gen: Trinity = GPU+ Piledriver) and the C-50/60 and E-350/450 successors.

Cheers,
Mike

Ernest
10-16-2011, 10:57 PM
Basically a current i7-2xxx but with 6 as opposed to 4 cores (and a new socket) for single socket boards as well as an 8 core version for dual socket boards.

Cheers,
MikeThe desktop part also has 8 cores, but two come disabled in order to ship it with higher clock speeds. Makes you wonder if there may be some future BIOS tweak to revive them, like before with AMD's tricores.