• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Bulldozer performance figures are in

Soldato
Joined
8 Aug 2010
Posts
6,453
Location
Oxfordshire
"The donanimhaber.com crew has run an engineering sample of AMD’s new FX-8130P through its paces and the results are very positive.

Although the chip fails to keep up with Intel cores in the SuperPI test, as we have already seen, it pulls ahead in other tests. For example, in x264 encoding tests, Bulldozer scores 136fps in the first pass and 45fps in the second pass, whereas the Core i7 2600K manages 100fps and 36fps respectively."

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
Nice if it is true (not holding my breath). First-pass x264 isn't very multi-threaded so if Zambezi can outpace Sandy Bridge here, that'd be fantastic. No mention of clock speeds though so, really, these performance figures mean nothing.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
3,215
"In Cinebench R10 AMD’s new flagship pulls off a score of 24434"



Hmmm, i hope thats at stock speeds, because i can get nearly 12,000 with just 3 cores on my unlocked Phenom II 550 @3.8Ghz...otherwise, with 8 cores, i'm not impressed
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
"In Cinebench R10 AMD’s new flagship pulls off a score of 24434"



Hmmm, i hope thats at stock speeds, because i can get nearly 12,000 with just 3 cores on my unlocked Phenom II 550 @3.8Ghz...otherwise, with 8 cores, i'm not impressed

"Stock speeds" for an FX-81xx would be 4-4.2 GHz assuming Turbo Core is enabled.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2004
Posts
3,215
"Stock speeds" for an FX-81xx would be 4-4.2 GHz assuming Turbo Core is enabled.

If thats the case, then thats even worse...:(, as when i meant 'stock speeds', i was thinkng 3.2Ghz...that has been said to be the stock speed.

http://www.techspot.com/news/44627-amds-bulldozer-based-fx-8130p-benchmarked-early.html

"The site managed to get their hands on an engineering sample of AMD's forthcoming FX-8130P and ran it through a range of tests. The 8-core chip features 3.2GHz clock speeds"
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2011
Posts
7,485
Location
Bada Bing
If thats the case, then thats even worse...:(, as when i meant 'stock speeds', i was thinkng 3.2Ghz...that has been said to be the stock speed.

http://www.techspot.com/news/44627-amds-bulldozer-based-fx-8130p-benchmarked-early.html

"The site managed to get their hands on an engineering sample of AMD's forthcoming FX-8130P and ran it through a range of tests. The 8-core chip features 3.2GHz clock speeds"

i think "stock" in this case means the chip has not been fiddled with to get better performance, not as in turbo or not turbo :)
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
If thats the case, then thats even worse...:(, as when i meant 'stock speeds', i was thinkng 3.2Ghz...that has been said to be the stock speed.

http://www.techspot.com/news/44627-amds-bulldozer-based-fx-8130p-benchmarked-early.html

"The site managed to get their hands on an engineering sample of AMD's forthcoming FX-8130P and ran it through a range of tests. The 8-core chip features 3.2GHz clock speeds"
Ah well maybe it was 3.2 GHz then. Engineering samples are often at lower clock speeds than the final result.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Nov 2002
Posts
2,481
Location
Ireland
I'm calling fake.
That Fritz benchmark, halfed would give you the 4 core result, as scaling is pretty 100% in Fritz, would give the 4 core a worse result than a Phenom II 955.

2 BD cores share fetch&decode hardware so depending on the app they will take a hit if both cores on a single module are active.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Jan 2007
Posts
1,150
Although the chip fails to keep up with Intel cores in the SuperPI test, as we have already seen, it pulls ahead in other tests. For example, in x264 encoding tests, Bulldozer scores 136fps in the first pass and 45fps in the second pass, whereas the Core i7 2600K manages 100fps and 36fps respectively."

9 fps more on the second pass, isnt that much really being as it has twice as many cores, would have to be cheap to compete.
 
Don
Joined
7 Aug 2003
Posts
44,275
Location
Aberdeenshire
So it's a 1/3 faster give or take than a 2600K in the multithreaded stuff, now the 2600K runs 8 threads with HT which very roughly equates to a 50% boost over 4 threads only. So it's roughly the same speed thread per (non HT) thread on the 2600K. If the BD is running 4.2GHz and the SB presumably 3.8GHz it's not that far away clock for clock for single threaded performance.
 
Back
Top Bottom