Phenom II and Bulldozer, difference ?

[Dicehunter]

So apart from the top end bulldozer having 2 more cores and having a higher stock clock, how much of a performance difference will there actually be between an 1100T and a 8150 ?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So apart from the top end bulldozer having 2 more cores and having a higher stock clock, how much of a performance difference will there actually be between an 1100T and a 8150 ?

The FX8150 is not much of an improvement over a Phenom II X6 1100T ATM. OTH,improved software support may change things over time but by that time, AMD will hopefully have improved CPUs out(or not).

 

[Vimes]

I have seen this posted in another forum...



...albeit quad cores tested.

 

[Final8y]

http://translate.google.com/transla...k/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-prekvapenie-sa-nekona

 

[Orcvader]

1100T vs 8150

Overall both CPUs trade blows against each other, sometimes the 8150 is better, sometimes the 1100T is better.

 

[Martini1991]

1100T vs 8150

Overall both CPUs trade blows against each other, sometimes the 8150 is better, sometimes the 1100T is better.

Which frankly isn't good enough at all

 

[Final8y]

1100T vs 8150

Overall both CPUs trade blows against each other, sometimes the 8150 is better, sometimes the 1100T is better.

Scrap that i just looked at it again.

 

[Martini1991]

Overall in those tests i think the 1100T only beat it 1 or 2 times, but yeah still not good enough.

It's a fair bit more actually.
There's also quite a few close ones.

 

[Final8y]

Ninja.

I didn't look at the gaming near the bottom when i first looked.
And i really don't like synthetic benchmarks.


I like my link because there is more commonly use programs and tasks in it.

 

[Gashman]

anyone did a comparison between the FX quad-cores and Llano based quad, would be interesting to see Bulldozer vs. K10.5+

think getting Bulldozer is a bit pointless at the current level, hell you'd be better off getting an unlocked Llano, same 32NM process (shudder!) with higher IPC too boot.

on another note, Phenom II isn't a bad architecture at all, its just slowed down a slow CPU-NB and slow L3 cache, if AMD buffed up the northbridge speeds and sorted out the cache Phenom wouldn't be that far behind the current Intel offerings. did a run a while ago with my Phenom with tighter memory settings and overclocked CPU-NB (whilst keeping the CPU frequency the same) and there was possibly ~15% improvement compared to stock settings, even though the processor was running at the default frequency, this is the sort of thing that annoys me about AMD at its current state, there are improvements to be had in K10.5 just seems as though they can't be bothered to do it!

Intel got it bang on with Sandy Bridge, it isn't some amazing new architecture, its just a modification of the previous architecture, would love to see how fast an X6 would be with Intel style branch prediction, better cache and improved NB speeds, think it would be as fast as Sandy?

 

[Marine-RX179]

So apart from the top end bulldozer having 2 more cores and having a higher stock clock, how much of a performance difference will there actually be between an 1100T and a 8150 ?

Architecture wise, for gaming the 8150 is SLOWER clock for clock than the 1100T. Look at the following...the 8150 at 4.8GHz only MATCH the performance of the 1100T at 4.2GHz:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/9

...and at the cost of extra 100W as well:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10

 

[SeeKified]

anyone did a comparison between the FX quad-cores and Llano based quad, would be interesting to see Bulldozer vs. K10.5+

That's a very good point actually, I bet Llano's IPC will be rather nice in comparison. I've not looked into Llano's architecture much though, are there any significant layout changes or cache differences compared to Deneb?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

on another note, Phenom II isn't a bad architecture at all, its just slowed down a slow CPU-NB and slow L3 cache, if AMD buffed up the northbridge speeds and sorted out the cache Phenom wouldn't be that far behind the current Intel offerings. did a run a while ago with my Phenom with tighter memory settings and overclocked CPU-NB (whilst keeping the CPU frequency the same) and there was possibly ~15% improvement compared to stock settings, even though the processor was running at the default frequency, this is the sort of thing that annoys me about AMD at its current state, there are improvements to be had in K10.5 just seems as though they can't be bothered to do it!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3877/...investigation-of-thuban-performance-scaling/7

 

[DragonQ]

That's a very good point actually, I bet Llano's IPC will be rather nice in comparison. I've not looked into Llano's architecture much though, are there any significant layout changes or cache differences compared to Deneb?

Not sure about specifics but from what I remember, Llano's IPC is very similar to that of the Phenom II, despite having no L3 cache. So there's definitely an improvement over Athlon II.

 

[Orcvader]

That's a very good point actually, I bet Llano's IPC will be rather nice in comparison. I've not looked into Llano's architecture much though, are there any significant layout changes or cache differences compared to Deneb?

The cores are basically a beefed up Athlon II, if I remember correctly a Phenom II still outperformed it. So Bulldozer still has an edge over Llano.

Trinity would be more interesting though, marrying Piledriver and Fusion together... But it depends on how well Piledriver itself performs.