Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[Mr Vain]

It looks as if AMD competition is back?


Outpaces Sandy Bridge in early tests

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.

Bulldozer manages to stay ahead in 3Dmark 11 tests as well. It scores P6250, while the 2600K hovers around the 6000 mark. In Cinebench R10 AMD’s new flagship pulls off a score of 24434 and outpaces the 2600K, but it ends up somewhat slower than the Core i7 990X.

Compared to the Thuban-based Phenom II X6 1100T, Bulldozer ends up about 50 percent faster in most tests, which is equally impressive.

It’s still too early to render a verdict, but at this point Bulldozer looks like a winner, especially if AMD manages to keep the price around the rumoured $320 mark. With Brazos and Llano doing fine, Bulldozer could be the last piece of the puzzle that turns things around for AMD in the high end. For the first time in years, AMD will truly have a competitive line up across its product range.

More here.

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...-Bulldozer-FX-islemcisi-ve-test-sonuclari.htm

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in


Do to popular demand, I am editing the title.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator.


Alright guys, we're rolling this into the Official Review Thread. Please continue there.

 

[bridito]

I've made this point before in another thread, so I apologize in advance if I am essentially stating the same question here. What is the opinion of the forum participants as to the validity of these figures generated by an individual who seems to be at least borderline unreliable?

 

[sm625]

According to Fritz, it seems about 400MHz faster than a 2600k. Which means it better be able to hit 4 GHz before turbo.

 

[Edrick]

Fudzilla........enough said.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Honestly, I won't really believe anything until the final version shows up in an Anandtech review.

 

[Red Dawn]

I've made this point before in another thread, so I apologize in advance if I am essentially stating the same question here. What is the opinion of the forum participants as to the validity of these figures generated by an individual who seems to be at least borderline unreliable?

I hope it is true so Intel drops the price of their K Chips.

 

[sm625]

BD could be 30% faster in every benchmark and intel would still not drop their prices. Their sales would probably go up as the backroom arm twisting increased.

 

[sandorski]

Awesome if true.

 

[Red Dawn]

BD could be 30% faster in every benchmark and intel would still not drop their prices. Their sales would probably go up as the backroom arm twisting increased.

Well one can dream

 

[Skurge]

So its clocked at 3.2ghz stock :hmm:

 

[Nemesis 1]

I hope it is true so Intel drops the price of their K Chips.

That won't happen Intel has alot of wiggle room for clock speeds. If it hadn't been for the Chipset sataII mishap. I suspect we would have seen I higher binned K model with the release of Z68 M/Bs. I think its really amusing myself . Befor the price release of BD . People were making comparsions Between BD as the Extreme highend . Now were comparring to the lower highend as if nothing has changed . How did that happen? People were exspecting BD to Put a whipping to Sandy Bridge but instead we get revised expectations and the IDEA that nothing has changed . Which is pure Midrange hype NOW. NO true high end.

 

[Ares1214]

So its clocked at 3.2ghz stock

No, apparently it was an engineering sample, clocked at 3.2 GHz. All rumours suggest 3.8 GHz still. Heres another pretty good analysis:

http://vr-zone.com/articles/purported-amd-bulldozer-benchmarks-leaked/12914.html

 

[Ares1214]

That won't happen Intel has alot of wiggle room for clock speeds. If it hadn't been for the Chipset sataII mishap. I suspect we would have seen I higher binned K model with the release of Z68 M/Bs. I think its really amusing myself . Befor the price release of BD . People were making comparsions Between BD as the Extreme highend . Now were comparring to the lower highend as if nothing has changed . How did that happen? People were exspecting BD to Put a whipping to Sandy Bridge but instead we get revised expectations and the IDEA that nothing has changed . Which is pure Midrange hype NOW. NO true high end.

What are you talking about? This looks like it will put a smackdown on SB in multithreaded apps, MAYBE even perform similarly or better in single threaded apps. Furthermore, this seems to be as fast or faster than the 990x in these benchmarks, yet cost $700 less. Not to mention its an engineering sample, and therefore supposedly clocked 600 MHz lower. How is that no high end?

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

I'm going to wait until some more respectable places have benchmarks with retail samples.

 

[bridito]

I'm going to wait until some more respectable places have benchmarks with retail samples.

So I take it that you share my lack of 100% certitude of reliability in these figures and/or the individual who obtained them?

 

[Nemesis 1]

What are you talking about? This looks like it will put a smackdown on SB in multithreaded apps, MAYBE even perform similarly or better in single threaded apps. Furthermore, this seems to be as fast or faster than the 990x in these benchmarks, yet cost $700 less. Not to mention its an engineering sample, and therefore supposedly clocked 600 MHz lower. How is that no high end?

What are you talking about . Pure Hype and misdirection. Your comparring 4 moduls 8 real cores to intel 4 real cores. When it goes up against SB-E with 6/8 real cores it will be a run away . Whats with you guys . Cores do not = threads . No matter how hard you try ti change the definition it won't happen . SO AMD can compete with the 1155 chipset . Big deal. THats what I am saying . Before it was AMD BD will beat intels 8 real cores . Now its we can compete against 4 real intel cores . Its laughable and disingenious. There are tons of replies in alot of topics that are in the forum . Were I can show my words to be true and honest. Were as this mid range hype is a new development . Since the rumored cost of high end BD was made know. I can back my words up with earlier post . Frpm other members . That clearly show the bar was lowered considerably.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sounds good, but I want to wait for more benchmarks to appear. As far as everyone knows, is it still on track for an August or September release?

 

[nanaki333]

What are you talking about? This looks like it will put a smackdown on SB in multithreaded apps, MAYBE even perform similarly or better in single threaded apps. Furthermore, this seems to be as fast or faster than the 990x in these benchmarks, yet cost $700 less. Not to mention its an engineering sample, and therefore supposedly clocked 600 MHz lower. How is that no high end?

it's best to just ignore his posts. they often make no sense


i hope this is true! are they staying in the ~125W TDP range with them?

 

[Ares1214]

What are you talking about . Pure Hype and misdirection. Your comparring 4 moduls 8 real cores to intel 4 real cores. When it goes up against SB-E with 6/8 real cores it will be a run away . Whats with you guys . Cores do not = threads . No matter how hard you try ti change the definition it won't happen . SO AMD can compete with the 1155 chipset . Big deal. THats what I am saying . Before it was AMD BD will beat intels 8 real cores . Now its we can compete against 4 real intel cores . Its laughable and disingenious. There are tons of replies in alot of topics that are in the forum . Were I can show my words to be true and honest. Were as this mid range hype is a new development . Since the rumored cost of high end BD was made know. I can back my words up with earlier post . Frpm other members . That clearly show the bar was lowered considerably.

No one cares about cores vs cores, we care about price vs price. You really cant admit thats fantastic performance given the fact its clocked 600 MHz lower than it normally would be and the fact that it costs the same as the 2600K?

 

[Ares1214]

it's best to just ignore his posts. they often make no sense


i hope this is true! are they staying in the ~125W TDP range with them?

Yeh I think so, I mean, all we have ever heard is that the 8130P is 3.8GHz stock, 4.2 GHz turbo, so I mean, if thats right, and these benchmarks are done at 3.2GHz, id assume it was just a lower clocked ES. But given this performance, and given the fact there were reports of it being able to OC to 5.1GHz, I mean, Id say Im pretty pleased with the performance! No idea about the TDP though, 125w is all Ive heard.

 

[formulav8]

it's best to just ignore his posts. they often make no sense


i hope this is true! are they staying in the ~125W TDP range with them?

Nemises posts are outright annoying.

Anyways, you talk to most people they will tell you $300 cpu IS definitely High-End. To me anything higher-than $$250 is high end. 2600K is definitely a high end cpu.

Its a shame that you have to spend $300 to get Intels full-featured quad core. I really can't stand Intel with how they've basically killed the overclocking market. No more $50 cpu's performing at $100-$140 cpus. Blah

 

[grimpr]

Anyways, you talk to most people they will tell you $300 cpu IS definitely High-End. To me anything higher-than $200 is high end. 2600K is definitely a high end cpu.

Its a shame that you have to spend $300 to get Intels full-featured quad core,in 2011.

There, fixed.

 

[Edrick]

To me anything higher-than $$250 is high end. 2600K is definitely a high end cpu.

Well thats your opinion. Does not make it fact.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Nemises posts are outright annoying.

Anyways, you talk to most people they will tell you $300 cpu IS definitely High-End. To me anything higher-than $$250 is high end. 2600K is definitely a high end cpu.

Its a shame that you have to spend $300 to get Intels full-featured quad core. I really can't stand Intel with how they've basically killed the overclocking market. No more $50 cpu's performing at $100-$140 cpus. Blah

No you talk to intel and they will tell you straight out . They as a producer of CPUs as has yet to release its highend SB platiform Enthusiast if you insist . Until we see AMDS best against intels best your making a sensely debate . Apples to apples based on performance not cost . Since it is in FACT the performance that sets the PRICE. I asssure you Z68 SB 1155 is not Intels best. The 2011 socket and chipset are intels best . So many say lets wait for real results and thats what I will do wait for real results against AMDs best VS Intels best 2011 socket. Or aren't the reviewers going to bench the 2011 platiform. I may be annoying but I sure as hell won't overlook the fact that the bar for AMD was lower to mid high for AMD . Annoying yes, To some but true,

 

[formulav8]

Well thats your opinion. Does not make it fact.

I'm basing my opinion on the fact that most of my customers are cheapo's. They see $150 for just the cpu and say no way. I'm sure if you asked real customers if a $300 cpu is high-end they would mostly say yes. Probably even many enthusiests here would likewise see it as a high end cpu. I know if they are poor like me they would.