BRB ... Diablo 3

More Trinity Benchmarks! IPC on-par with Phenom II, ~43% better single core performance than Llano! (K 10.5)

Leaked Benchmarks! More to Come!

A10-4600m vs A8-3500m

+38% higher single core CPU performance. 

+23% higher multi core CPU performance. 

Remember 4 physical cores gives a scaling benefit over 2 modules.

+29% higher multi core CPU performance

+ 43% higher multi core CPU/GPU performance

+41% higher CPU/GPU performance

+220% higher CPU/GPU performance

Looks like Trinity is ready to hit Intel where it hurts! IPC looks great! This is great news for Vishera (FX 8350). Remember old bulldozer arch has significantly worse IPC than Llano. 

NOTE: Compare the single threaded performance to the Phenom II X4 940 in cinebench 10 found here. 

We see at 3 Ghz (even before turbo), the Phenom II X4 940 (scores 2626) actually falls behind the performance of a single core from the A10 mobile part (2792) also at 3 Ghz (with turbo). IPC is looking ahead of K10.5! (by over +6% in this case)

The only benefit older arch has is better scaling. Per core performance, however, is looking ahead of phenom II. This loss in scaling is more than made up for with higher clocks. Comparing a 6C/6T Phenom II X6 @ 4.2 Ghz to a 3M/6T Piledriver CPU @ 4.9 Ghz will be an even match when all cores are used, but for a single core, the Piledriver CPU will edge ahead of the Phenom II by a significant amount (~20%). 

(Gaming benchmarks will be looking much better for Piledriver) 

With current bulldozer arch (in the case of the FX 8150), both scaling and single core performance are lacking when compared to older phenom II processors, with only a max clock advantage. At least AMD has made up for one of these pitfalls. We will see just how much scaling increases with the newer architecture when official benchmark reviews are out tomorrow! I am guessing only ~5% or so. Overclockability will also increase roughly 5% when compared to the FX 8150. 

Phenom II X4 4C/4T - 3.96 x Scaling , 1.00 single core performance @ 3Ghz, hits 4.3 Ghz

FX Bulldozer 2M/4T - 3.28 x Scaling, 0.75 single core performance @ 3 Ghz, hits 4.9 Ghz

FX Piledriver 2M/4T  - 3.44 x Scaling, 0.97 single core performance @ 3 Ghz, hits 5.1 Ghz

Intel i5 3570k- 4C/4T - 3.56 x Scaling, 1.25 single core performance @ 3 Ghz, hits 4.9 Ghz

This of course this is a rough estimate, but you get the idea! 

For the 4M/8T FX 8350, I estimate @ 5.1 Ghz it will match Ivy Bridge i5 3570k single core performance @ 4.3 Ghz. But will scale roughly 85% higher when all threads are used. 

My cost estimate for the FX 8350 will be ~300 USD. 

EDIT: Given officially released clock-speeds (3.2 Ghz not 3.0 Ghz) IPC is looking on par or slightly below K10.5. 

Source

AMD Trinity ultra-thin CPU : A10-4655m 25w Benchmarks

AMD Trinity for ultra-thins :

 A10-4655m

2M/4T 

25 W 

2.0 Ghz / 2.3 Ghz Turbo

Notice how the IPC of the 2M/4T A10-4655m @ 2.3 ghz at least ties if not beats the IPC of K 10.5 Llano 4C/4T A6 which is also at 2.3 ghz turbo.  This is good news for Trinity! If IPC matches Llano, Vishera - FX 8350 - at significantly higher clocks will scream ahead of ivy bridge when all threads can be used. Keep in mind IPC for current FX offerings fall far behind K10.5. (~25%). 

Remember scaling on 2 module chip is roughly 20 percent less than a 4 core llano cpu, so the fact that performance is equal or better when all threads are used further shows the strength of piledriver. 

EDIT: Many of these clock speeds are guesses, but we will know the real performance in 2 days stay tuned! 

Source

AMD 7970m Overclocked vs 7950 Overclocked : a Tie!!

AMD 7970m 3DMark 11 Overclocked Performance Score

This continues to leave me in disbelief...

First Corner :

intel i7 @ 4.4 Ghz i7 2600k

XFX 7950 Black Edition OCd @ 900/1375 Mhz

Score : 7630

Source

Second Corner :

i7 2920xm @ 4.5 Ghz

AMD 7970m @ 1010/1500 Mhz

Score : 7658

Source

WINNER : 7970m!

Overclocked AMD FX 8150 Review : Part I, Enter Gigabyte

PART I of V : Return of AMD FX, Enter Gigabyte

My System:

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.90 Ghz
Promilatech Genesis Cooler - 3 x 135mm Scythe Kama Flex 100CFM fans
Maingear T1000 TIM

8 Gb DDR3 Team Xtreem 2400 cl9 @  @ 1987 Mhz / CL9

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7

XFX HD 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo Cooler @ 990/1500 Mhz
RevoDrive 3 x2 - 240 Gb 

Comparison Systems : 

AMD FX 8150 @ 4.81 Ghz
Promilatech Genesis Cooler - 3 x 135mm Scythe Kama Flex 100CFM fans
Indigo Xtreme TIM

G. Skill 2200 cl7 @ x 2190 Mhz / CL10

ASUS Crosshair V

XFX HD 6990 + Accelero Twin Turbo Cooler @ 990/1500 Mhz

Intel i7 3770k @ 4.7-4.9Ghz

Various 4-16 Gb DDR3

Various Z77 Motherboards

Various GPUs

Results:

Sources:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26


Discussion:



We see that for the benchmarks used in Part I of my review, FX only falls signficantly behind when only a single thread is used. When only one core is being used we see a 25-40% benefit per Ghz for the 3770k over the FX 8150.

When all threads can be used, Bulldozer does a good job of making up for the lost single threaded performance. Scaling for FX outshines the i7 3770k by a significant margin.  Most notably with techarp's x264 HD, where my FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz beats a 5.0 Ghz 2600k, and narrowly loses to a 4.9 Ghz 3770k. (Check source 19)

In TrueCrypt 7.1a we see a 4.9 Ghz FX 8150 performing slightly better than its 22nm 3770k intel counterpart at 4.7 Ghz.

In 7-Zip we see the FX 8150 jumping 2.7 % percent ahead of its 3770k counterpart at the same 4.9 Ghz clock for Compression, but falling behind 2.7% with decompression.

The temperature of a 3770k is also seen to sky-rocket up to 78C during a SuperPi 32m test, while my FX 8150 doest hit above 59C.

Next week well see how my GPU  handles graphically intensive workloads on my new Gigabyte board.

Stay Tuned!