With the utmost respect and reverence for your thoughtful calculations, I beg to differ... and trust that the benchys will prove my point (if I live long enough to see them). However, I would be very pleased if FX-8150 out of the box would provide the level of performance as I'd likely buy it on the spot on Day One of release.
Benchys talk, and... er... well... benchys talk! That's it.
You beg to differ to beg to differ. What I'm showing is how performance would be given Nehalem IPC. We don't have clue of what the actual IPC would be, but it's safe to say that it should at least be improved somewhat over K10.5. What I said isn't set in stone; it's assuming Nehalem IPC, which we don't know if it has.
Claims were made that HD6970 would be "R300-like" vs. GTX580. I then provided benchmarks referencing the fact that 9700Pro/9800Pro were 40-50% faster than GeForce 5800/5900 series in DX9 applications (the latest API at the time). As such the likelihood of HD6970 to be R300 like was nil as far as logic dictated.
In other words, to claim R300 like performance implied that HD6970's DX11 performance would eclipse GTX580 in DX11 by a similar delta of 40-50%. Despite the massive amount of hype and fake HD6970 specs (1920 SPs), the HD6970 is really a competitor to the GTX570, and not the GTX580......Yet until the last week before HD6970 was launched, a lot of claims were made that it would blow the doors off the GTX580.
What kind of a 2600k does your wife have? From Haswell generation?
"We don't have clue of what the actual IPC would be"
Correct.
"but it's safe to say that it should at least be improved somewhat over K10.5."
Incorrect.
There is no valid substantiating data to uphold your second statement. For all anyone outside of AMD knows, BD might not be outperforming Atom right now, or it could be outperforming IBM Watson with 7 modules blocked off. Although your deduction process is essentially valid given the extremely limited data it is based on... benchys talk and they are often full of surprises. Oh... Did I mention benchys talk?
I suggest we stick to the facts; this is a technical discussion.
Also, on some multi-threaded applications the Phenom II X6 1100T is the same speed as the Core i5 2500K, if not a tiny bit faster:
AMD is not gonna make a Performance market CPU the same speed as as an entry-level CPU and Llano, which already stepped in to completely replace (in the near future, that is) the Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X4 in the mainstream market, is MUCH faster than an Atom. It goes against the Core i3 quite nicely, especially in multi-threaded programs, so it's impossible for them to make a slower CPU than that with a higher price.
To me it seems like you're just playing devil's advocate for the sake of it while using your personal opinion as arguments. I suggest we stick to the facts; this is a technical discussion.
You beg to differ to beg to differ. What I'm showing is how performance would be given Nehalem IPC. We don't have clue of what the actual IPC would be, but it's safe to say that it should at least be improved somewhat over K10.5. What I said isn't set in stone; it's assuming Nehalem IPC, which we don't know if it has.
Thank you for showing those 3 benchmarks from TechReport where 2500k 3.3ghz and X6 1100T 3.3ghz were a hair from each other. In other words, it took 1.5x as many cores from AMD to equal Intel's 4 core CPU. Translated: Intel's performance per core is nearly 50% faster (or if you would like 2 of 6 AMD CPU cores are sitting idle since most programs don't benefit from more than 4 threads). So add another review which shows that AMD is using 6 cores to compete with a 4 core processor, and that's before considering their overclocked performance where 2500k will pull away even farther while consuming 87% less power.
So basically, if AMD simply took a Phenom II X6 processor and added 2 more cores, it still wouldn't beat the 2500k @ 4.7ghz outside of workstation applications. But what happens when Intel launches a 6-core 12 threaded SB-E?
The REAL question here is the IPC increase.
Well said. Therefore, IMHO my statements stand as there are no facts to base any reasonably accurate performance divinations for BD. You have no idea whether when the Vulcan T'Mir went to Pittsburgh in the 1950s and gave the manager of Big Creek Manufacturing & Sales the Velcro from the 22nd century she also didn't give him an isolinear chip which he later sold to Jerry Sanders and which has been in storage all this time but will now finally debut as the 1.4 Heptaflop BD.
Gotta love them talkin' benchys.
"For all anyone outside of AMD knows, BD might not be outperforming Atom right now, or it could be outperforming IBM Watson with 7 modules blocked off."
Please re-read carefully and note the use of extravagant extremes specifically to prove the point. Thank you. Case has been rested. Buenas noches y buen mofongo! Bridito has left the building.
So basically a 2500k @ 4.8 = my q9550 @ 7.2? Thats about 50% faster right? Give or take a few %.
And since I think the IPC of a q9550 is a bit better than a Phenom II x4, the Phenom x4 would have to be clocked over 7.2 to= a 2500k @ 4.8? WOW!
I didn't think a 2500k was that quick.
I believe Penryn Q9550 was 5-10% faster than Q6600. So a 2500k is about 35-45% faster per clock over the Q9550.
2500k @ 4.6ghz is 2x faster than Q6600 @ 3.4ghz. And some people are pairing HD6970/GTX570 with a stock Q6600 2.4ghz. Wow, that really puts things in perspective. :biggrin:
2500k @ 4.7ghz is 74% faster in SC2 than an X6 1100T @ 4.0ghz.
i.e.,
4.7 ghz * (1+X) = 4.0 ghz * (1.74)
X = 48% faster per clock at 4.0ghz over Phenom II
At this point I'll be very surprised if this doesn't turn out to be Phenom launch v2.0. Not looking good at all. Intel will soon have a gun to our collective heads, if they don't already.
Then you make a comparison between the 1100T and the 2500K, and with the worst type of benchmark to compare: a game.
The Phenom II X6 was never meant to be used primarily as a gaming CPU.
If you wanted it for that, you'd get almost the same performance in every game from a Phenom II X4 for a much lower price.
Why must you take a jab at AMD every time you get
Why are you even trying to argue that Bulldozer could be the same speed as an Atom? It just makes zero sense, especially when Llano already competes with Core i3. Perhaps you shouldn't make such wild claims.
you cant take benches like that and compare them to be 100% spot on.I can bench my sandy with tight timings and bench it at 2200+ on the ram with 7-8-7 1t timings and get 3-4000 mb faster memory bandwith that would give me a massive boost in encoding and other highly memory intence bencmarks
Now if BD comes out and is only 1866 for the memory and 1155 ivy is 2133 you cant really compare enless you overclock the BD system.
Intel is officially going to run 2133 with the launch of ivy bridge early next year
You realize that 2500k will be positioned against 6 and 8 core BD offerings too? A processor should be well rounded. If it has 6 cores and still can't beat a 4 core processor in a real world scenario, then the engineering team didn't prioritize effectively based on the current state of software. Alternatively, the marketing team forced the engineers to shove extra 2 cores because a 6 core CPU sounds so much better than a 4 core one in retail.
By definition neither was the X4 since they share identical architecture and both lack proper performance per core.
My point exactly. You wouldn't pay extra for more slow cores. i.e., You wouldn't get the II X4 for games since i3-2120 outperforms it, just like you wouldn't get a BD over a 2500k if BD has inferior overclocking and IPC. Let's hope BD has far superior IPC vs. Phenom II and overclocks better than SB.
I'll gladly purchase a fast AMD system if they improve their clock speeds and IPC (Instructions Per Clock) or have better Performance per watt vs. SB. As it stands right now, I'd rather have 4 fast SB cores vs. 8 Phenom II IPC-style cores. I am hoping BD is way faster at the same frequency than Phenom II is. If BD has IPC of Core i7 920 and 8 cores, then it's going to be amazing
He is right. It is not a matter of making sense. It could be underperforming Atom, and as long as there is no benches, you can't disprove this statement.