Monday, 11 July 2011 09:22

Bulldozer performance figures are in

Written by Fuad Abazovic


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.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+43 #1 Tranzz 2011-07-11 09:31
8meg cache is a step up
A TDP of 186 watts! Yeouch.
Very impresive performance numbers.
 
 
+66 #2 nele 2011-07-11 09:34
Quoting Tranzz:
8meg cache is a step up
A TDP of 186 watts! Yeouch.
Very impresive performance numbers.


It's an engineering sample, it won't be 186W on production parts, probably 125W... Maybe 140W.
 
 
+26 #3 Exodite 2011-07-11 09:35
At this point I wouldn't trust anything that isn't official numbers presented by reputable websites, too much crap have been floating about already.

Anyway, the problem with these numbers is that BDZ has twice the number of integer cores as the i7 2600K while we're only seeing a 3.5% to 35% superiority in strongly multi-threaded tasks.

Were I to trust these numbers that wouldn't be good news, unless you do nothing but convert movies 24/7.

Luckily I don't trust these numbers, due to aforementioned reasons as well as the hope that Intel won't be allowed to rule the CPU market with an iron fist.
 
 
-43 #4 The blue fox 2011-07-11 10:06
The title is miss leading.
I expected to see BD wining over a i7 990x. Not a 2600K. Still can wait for BD as it will cause intel to lower there prices.
 
 
+58 #5 Jigar 2011-07-11 10:09
Quoting The blue fox:
The title is miss leading.
I expected to see BD wining over a i7 990x. Not a 2600K. Still can wait for BD as it will cause intel to lower there prices.


Read again, title says, Outpace sandy Bridge, 990X is not Sandy Bridge.
 
 
+52 #6 nele 2011-07-11 11:02
Quoting Jigar:
Quoting The blue fox:
The title is miss leading.
I expected to see BD wining over a i7 990x. Not a 2600K. Still can wait for BD as it will cause intel to lower there prices.


Read again, title says, Outpace sandy Bridge, 990X is not Sandy Bridge.




Not only that, but Bulldozer should end up a lot cheaper than 990X and other Gulftown chips...
 
 
-9 #7 maroon1 2011-07-11 11:17
But x264 encoding and Cinebench are heavily multi-threaded applications.

Based on those results one can easily predict that i7 2600 or even i5 2500 is going to be much better in lightly threaded applications.
 
 
+17 #8 Bl0bb3r 2011-07-11 11:34
Quote:
Bulldozer looks like a winner, especially if AMD manages to keep the price around the rumored $320 mark



Well noted Fuad, even if it's an AMD and is faster than Sandy, I won't splash out 500 bucks for it.

Time will tell if AMD thinks at its users or not... I'll hope it does.


Overall, I'm curious to the final revision tests for it... things look really good for AMD, new chips, new Fab.
 
 
+24 #9 Nerdfighter 2011-07-11 11:36
Would of expected it to perform slightly better in heavily multi-threaded benchies. Then again this is an ES and from an uncertain source. I'm also interested to see how the cheaper 6-core version fares against the 2500K, since those will probably be in my price range.
 
 
+26 #10 muppet show 2011-07-11 12:20
Quoting maroon1:
But x264 encoding and Cinebench are heavily multi-threaded applications.

Based on those results one can easily predict that i7 2600 or even i5 2500 is going to be much better in lightly threaded applications.


1) 3DMark is very lightly threaded and it still beats Sandy Bridge.

2) Heavily threaded is the future. Also, Windows itself is heavily threaded ... so I'll take the general increase in speed any day.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments