Clock speed makes a TON of difference in Cinebench. Also, your CPU has ~40% higher IPC. An Eight-Core FX with only 10% higher IPC than Llano at 4.5GHz would get a lot more than 8 points.
You do understand that a 2500K running cinebench scores 7.24 at least mine does .
ehm, which Cinebench ?? 10 ?? 11.5 ??
I don't care who's Elmer Phud (although he is the Moderator of SI AMD board), just interested in the information he pointed out (in the link).
I won't check now if this ES is in my list at http://citavia.blog.de/ but there you could read about ways to look at these results.Found this >> AMD Eng Sample, ZD302046W4K43_36/30/20_2/8_A (2CU 4C 3GHz, 2GHz IMC, 2x 2MB L2, 8MB L3) (possible FX41xx engineering sample from end of June 2011). On side note, even the A8-3800 Llano scores higher, not to mention Core i3 2100 as well.
I won't check now if this ES is in my list at http://citavia.blog.de/ but there you could read about ways to look at these results.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
Since you are prejudiced against Elmer Phud, you did not bother looking at what information he posts sometimes. He pointed out to another post (on another investor forum) describing a cache bug in Bulldozer (by Linus, the one and only).I've been on SI and IH boards years ago and while I liked to discuss with a rather strongly Intel biased guy like Elmer I at one day thought that it was impossible to have a neutral discussion.
Those are FAKES as already mentioned in my earlier post here showing the original source of those screenshots including other forum members exposing the fraudster (both came from the same person). Guess you missed that...But speaking of A1 samples..
8C A1 BD @2.8GHz running Fritz Chess: 23318 pts
http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/11/11_100430_6.html
Might be fake since if I read "W6K" as part of the OPN correctly, this should only have 6 cores active.
At the beginning of that thread there is a [f|le]aked 4120 result: 18971 pts
http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/11/11_100430.html
Clock speed makes a TON of difference in Cinebench. Also, your CPU has ~40% higher IPC. An Eight-Core FX with only 10% higher IPC than Llano at 4.5GHz would get a lot more than 8 points.
You should read more accurately. This is not a bug, it's a behaviour resulting from some aliasing (caused by the way it's implemented) and a way to prevent it. I'm not sure if I twittered about that. So in CPU-heavy benchmarks performance might drop to ~97%.Since you are prejudiced against Elmer Phud, you did not bother looking at what information he posts sometimes. He pointed out to another post (on another investor forum) describing a cache bug in Bulldozer (by Linus, the one and only).
Of course, I missed that. I was on vacation from 08/15 to 08/29. Anyway thanks for your analysis, I'll have a look at it. With "[f/le]aked" I tried to show that I have no knowledge if these results were faked or leaked and I even found something strange at first sight.Those are FAKES as already mentioned in my earlier post here showing the original source of those screenshots including other forum members exposing the fraudster (both came from the same person). Guess you missed that...
and why are we comparing overclocked cpu's to unreleased stock clocked cpu's?
I thought we werent idiots on this forum..?
You should read more accurately. This is not a bug, it's a behaviour resulting from some aliasing (caused by the way it's implemented) and a way to prevent it. I'm not sure if I twittered about that. So in CPU-heavy benchmarks performance might drop to ~97%.
There was a somewhat similar thing regarding use of AVX 256b vs. 128b instructions. Since max. throughput is the same in both cases and 256b instructions are actually handled by pairs of 128b µops, the narrower instructions just offer a bit more flexibility. On average this means a gain of 3% or so according to the AMD engineers.
Of course, I missed that. I was on vacation from 08/15 to 08/29. Anyway thanks for your analysis, I'll have a look at it. With "[f/le]aked" I tried to show that I have no knowledge if these results were faked or leaked and I even found something strange at first sight.
Thats what I thought also till amd fanbois wanted to go 8 and 6 cores against 4 cores and site cost performance as an enthusiast prerequisite. II am 1 intel fanboy that lol at your rules . By the way you have warning coming your way . Name calling isn't allowed in this section of forum
IDC someone is looking at my system and I have a good idea who . Time check
I believe you. His name is Nemesis 1, he looks at your system every time he posts from it.
Seriously though, in this day and age with firewalled routers and AV/spamblocker software I don't understand how you are possibly leaving yourself exposed to internet-based threat vectors. How the heck are they getting in?
This post is such a trainwreck but I can't look away... I guess a proper rebuttal would be "NOPE Intel did it first! 12T Gulftown vs 8T Bulldozer is soooo not fair!"
password:god