My PIIx4 940BE @ 3.4ghz gets exactly the Cinebench render score that the FX-4110 gets. WTF? How do you make a chip that is different and yet performs the same as your previous gen?
Think my X4 955 does better in Fritz at stock. :/
edit: Get 15.03x (7213 kn/s) at 3.2GHz
My PIIx4 940BE @ 3.4ghz gets exactly the Cinebench render score that the FX-4110 gets. WTF? How do you make a chip that is different and yet performs the same as your previous gen?
My PIIx4 940BE @ 3.4ghz gets exactly the Cinebench render score that the FX-4110 gets. WTF? How do you make a chip that is different and yet performs the same as your previous gen?
Do you believe everything on the internet?
How about that its smaller in die and in reality an optimized dualcore as amd puts it.
Does the Max TDP of 136 seam accurate for a 4 core??
No. I noticed the 4110 clock speed is @ 4.2ghz which is not what it should per what I have seen.
Right, we know they setup the architecture to be more die size efficient. That helps the consumer only in that if you buy by spec alone AMD will be more competitive on price.
That's the funny thing, is the design even more space efficient? We don't have official numbers, but people have estimated Orochi's die size as ~300mm^2 based on die pictures. 2 modules and half the L2 and L3 cache should be roughly half that, so ~150mm^2 for the quad core FX-4110. Deneb is 258mm^2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they simply shrunk Deneb from 45nm to 32nm, area would be reduced by about half, right? So that would put it at about 129mm^2 on 32nm.How about that its smaller in die and in reality an optimized dualcore as amd puts it.
The Cinebench 11.5 ST scores with FX-4110 (China leak) and FX-8150 (PCM NL leak) @ 4.2GHz are exactly the same. It just means AMD pulled a Netburst on us.
No it wont, ever, at the best it will be 10% slower as long as Blizzard,Maxon and others use Intels tools and not Microsofts or gnus.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
That's the funny thing, is the design even more space efficient? We don't have official numbers, but people have estimated Orochi's die size as ~300mm^2 based on die pictures. 2 modules and half the L2 and L3 cache should be roughly half that, so ~150mm^2 for the quad core FX-4110. Deneb is 258mm^2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they simply shrunk Deneb from 45nm to 32nm, area would be reduced by about half, right? So that would put it at about 129mm^2 on 32nm.
FX-4110 leaks from China, gathered from XS.org. Basically reconfirms the other leaks we have so far:
The Cinebench 11.5 ST scores with FX-4110 (China leak) and FX-8150 (PCM NL leak) @ 4.2GHz are exactly the same. It just means AMD pulled a Netburst on us.
So BD performs worse than Phenom II clock for clock per core
No it wont, ever, at the best it will be 10% slower as long as Blizzard,Maxon and others use Intels tools and not Microsofts or gnus.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
Maybe those software developers should use Microsoft compilers instead, which widens the gap even further as can be seen from Anandtech's review using Microsoft Studio and Excel. I'd say at least 29% and more.
Maybe those software developers should use Microsoft compilers instead, which widens the gap even further as can be seen from Anandtech's review using Microsoft Studio and Excel. I'd say at least 29% and more.
Your argument makes no sense since Phenom II X6 convincingly beats 2500k in Cinebench R11.5 in stock or overclocked vs. overclocked states. If Bulldozer has at least equal IPC to Phenom II X6 and another 2 cores, it would be at least 30% faster (8 / 6 = 33% advantage in cores) than the scores posted by a 4.0ghz Phenom II X6 below.
The overclock speeds for each chip in our testing are as follows:
Athlon II X4 635 - 3.7GHz (stock 2.9GHz)
Phenom II X4 970 - 4.0GHz (stock 3.4GHz)
Phenom II X6 1100T - 4.0GHz (stock 3.3GHz)
Core i5 750 - 3.8GHz (stock 2.7GHz)
Core i7 930 - 3.9GHz (stock 2.8GHz)
Core i5 2400 - 3.8GHz (stock 3.1GHz)
Core i5 2500K - 4.4GHz (stock 3.3GHz)
Core i7 2600K - 4.8GHz (stock 3.4GHz)
IPC doesn't matter...give me more cores!
Majority of desktop users are using Windows, not Linux. The other desktop operating system would be Mac OS/X which is based on Linux (for Apple machines), and I do know quite a number of people running "Hackintosh" machines as well.I dont know about Excel, but VS2008 is nothing compared to the multicore support and capabilities of the newest version.
Maybe you should take a look at Linux benchmarks ,to widen your perspective.
http://openbenchmarking.org/
Majority of desktop users are using Windows, not Linux.
Why CB 11.5? CB10 was your favorite version for quite a while posts back, something changed in the meantime?
I used to dabble around with Linux (usually Slackware and Red Hat) and FreeBSD, but those were mostly for server purposes (such as Samba, Cern, Apache, SquirrelMail, etc). I did use them at my previous workplace, though my replacement got stumped (he was a "Windows" guy).Noooooooooooooo. I don't believe it, how shocking this news is to everyone. :hmm:
......