AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[-Fran-]

Off topic but i installed W8.1 on my Amd A8 3520M Llano and i got 15% lower scores in CPU Multicore benchmark on Cincebench but i have a 5% boost in the Single core test. In Wprime i got the same scores maybe 1-2% slower on 8.1 compared to 7. But in Fritz chess benchmark i got 13% boost using the test with only 1 thread compared to 7 and i got about a 1% boost using all the cores.

I noticed W8.1 seems to use turbo a more efficiently even on the older Llano laptop but i can't explain the lower scores in Cinebench and the slightly lower scores in Wprime(tested 3 times)

Going to try gaming next see how that feels on this thing.

Check on the drivers. They changed a lot of stuff around, so your answer might lie there.

PCMark 8 measures APU performance. It is measuring CPU+GPU of Kaveri against the CPU+GPU of i5-4670k. PCMark 8 uses code from ordinary applications that are accelerated by the iGPU: Handbrake, Photoshop, VLC player...

Ok, sounds better then. Does GCN include a 10bit/H265 decoder? 😛

Cheers!

 

[noob2222]

The pc mark slide isn't kaveri.

It does show that pcm8 is heavily influenced by the igp.

@juan

You should take your own advice and quit trying to belittle people in every post.

 

[etayorius]

So Kaveri is being built on TSMC or GlobalScrewndies? i had the impression that AMD decided to go with TSMC for Kaveri.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

[gamerk316]

Hi guys.
Take that:
http://cdn3.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AMD+Desktop+Q1+2014+_VTB_Page_20.jpg
And that:
http://www.benchmark.pl/uploads/backend_img/a/fotki_newsy/201306/PM/amd-apu-trinity-richland-intel-core-haswell-pcmark-porownanie-1.jpg

About ~10% better than Richland. Quite nice.

...

Intel Improves 10%, improves GPU = Intel Sucks
AMD Improves 10%, improves GPU = Quite Nice

 

[logainofhades]

Well Intel's 10% improvement doesn't mean much as their IGP still sucks compared to Trinity and Richland. 10% faster on a pretty decent IGP from AMD is quite nice.

 

[etayorius]

Hi guys.
Take that:
http://cdn3.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AMD+Desktop+Q1+2014+_VTB_Page_20.jpg
And that:
http://www.benchmark.pl/uploads/backend_img/a/fotki_newsy/201306/PM/amd-apu-trinity-richland-intel-core-haswell-pcmark-porownanie-1.jpg

About ~10% better than Richland. Quite nice.

Intel Improves 10%, improves GPU = Intel Sucks
AMD Improves 10%, improves GPU = Quite Nice

I Thought AMD was aiming at at least 30% GPU performance and 20% CPU... 10% in GPU over Richland seems rather slow and it´s probably fake.

Kaveri GPU is a 512 GCN, Richland is 384 WVLI4 and GCN is faster even with the same numbers of Cores, performance of Kaveri should range between HD7850-HD7870 and should be much much faster with faster Ram.

 

[de5_Roy]

AMD gaining ground in laptops
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/33372-amd-gaining-ground-in-laptops

 

[Cazalan]

20nm bulk is a pipe dream...it will be FD-SOI for CPUs past 28nm. 20nm bulk is only ULP for ARM cores, etc. that operate below 2 GHz.

We'll just have to see what they can do with 20nm. Xilinx is shipping some 20nm parts from TSMC now. It is supposedly a mix of LP/HP as there is only 1 process being used.

They're touting 2x speed increase over their 28nm parts. 400G applications. That's some serious bandwidth.

 

[gamerk316]

Well Intel's 10% improvement doesn't mean much as their IGP still sucks compared to Trinity and Richland. 10% faster on a pretty decent IGP from AMD is quite nice.

Intel increased GPU performance on Haswell by about 30-40%, depending on the benchmark. CPU performance went up 10%. And note the never ending amount of "Hasfail" references.

Hence my point: If AMD does worse then that, that means Intel is closing the performance gap on the GPU side, while increasing the gap CPU side.

 

[gamerk316]

The next slide has been recently leaked:

For the GPU, I assumed a minimum gain of 33%. But then I was managing higher frequencies for the GPU by using the 1050GFLOP. Kaveri comes with lower GPU frequencies, the lower frequencies are compensated by the better architecture gain and Kaveri GPU is expected to be ~30% faster than Richland.

Finally, it seems my simulations are not very far...

"Up to" is the key point here; take 66% of that, and get about 14% performance CPU side, or basically what I predicted.

GPU side is the same, so figure 20% gains typical, assuming proper bandwidth and non-memory based benchmarks.

 

[szatkus]

Hi guys.
Take that:
http://cdn3.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AMD+Desktop+Q1+2014+_VTB_Page_20.jpg
And that:
http://www.benchmark.pl/uploads/backend_img/a/fotki_newsy/201306/PM/amd-apu-trinity-richland-intel-core-haswell-pcmark-porownanie-1.jpg

About ~10% better than Richland. Quite nice.

...

Intel Improves 10%, improves GPU = Intel Sucks
AMD Improves 10%, improves GPU = Quite Nice

I never said that Intel sucks. Also for Kaveri that's nice achievement, because it's 10% lower clocked than Richland.

And I know that PCMark is not good benchmark, but at least it's something.
Oh, we also have this: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/223722

 

[gamerk316]

^^ Never said you, I was referring to all the "Hasfail" references that occurred after Haswell released. Just pointing out, a lot of the same people who claimed 10% CPU performance was bad for Intel would just as quickly claim it is good for AMD.

Nevermind 10% of a higher number is larger then 10% of a lower number.

 

[jdwii]

Again you guys are reading this wrong that's not kaveri that is the Amd A10 6800K and i'm sure that is with their new driver and windows 8.1. The other site did not post any real performance figures to compare it to the A10 6800K. Saying that i will continue to say 15% more performance on average in CPU Benchmarks and 25-30% Boost in GPU Performance at most.

That is a impressive thing to do with bulk. I will continue to say that Amd fixed the scaling a bit with this design and you should get close to a 6300 in mulithreading performance and around a 15% Boost on single core performance compared to the 8350fx. Which is still around 15% slower per core compared to the I5 haswell

Again Gamer this was with a driver update and windows 8.1! Not their new APU

 

[jdwii]

However passed the certian responces this has been a good page so far compared to the last 30, For 1 we found out that "FX isn't going no where"
We found out that Amd's weakest point is now improving and no its not their IPC performance(what instruction set is being used on the test?) it's their collaboration with software companies. Amd is working with them now when i first bought their products this didn't happen now we are seeing more Gaming evolved logo's and more OpenCL support and a decent amount of the industry are looking into Mantle. Now we need them to use the newer instruction set's on the FX/APU. As well as see more cores being used this will happen.

 

[juanrga]

PCMark 8 measures APU performance. It is measuring CPU+GPU of Kaveri against the CPU+GPU of i5-4670k. PCMark 8 uses code from ordinary applications that are accelerated by the iGPU: Handbrake, Photoshop, VLC player...

Ok, sounds better then. Does GCN include a 10bit/H265 decoder? 😛

Cheers!

It goes in the other way. 😉 H.265 has been designed to benefit from HSA acceleration. There was a discussion of that at APU13

H.265 is so complex that you need a 16-core Sandy Bridge Opteron to get 30fps @ 1080p. It remain to be seen the performance of Kaveri APU.

 

[Ags1]

^^ Never said you, I was referring to all the "Hasfail" references that occurred after Haswell released. Just pointing out, a lot of the same people who claimed 10% CPU performance was bad for Intel would just as quickly claim it is good for AMD.

Nevermind 10% of a higher number is larger then 10% of a lower number.

Yup, if AMD go up 10% and Intel goes up 10%, then AMD has fallen even further behind Intel. When Intel isn't even competing on performance these days. (They're competing on performance-per-watt).

 

[juanrga]

gamerk316,

Haswell CPU was up to 6% better than IB. Haswell increases power consumption and runs about 15º hotter.

Kaveri CPU will be up to ~30% better (some preliminary benchmarks show that) than Richland. But AMD achieves that with lower clocks, lower power consumption, and less thermal dissipation.

My BSN* prediction claims "about 17%" for the average.

 

[jdwii]

^ show before you where screaming 30% all over the place when i continued to say just that 15%(CPU) and 25-30%(GPU) based on averages

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Hey guys.

Sorry for jumping in again, but I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.

Before we find a true victor, lets talk overclocking.

I'll give you an example. Right now I have my i5-3570k @ 4.7 Ghz on 1.750 v-core (which I dont think is too bad).

With this overclock, my scores on the benchies have been exceeding those with AMD's "best processors."

Even at 4.7, this processor seems to have no giving up. With 4 instances of prime 95 running, the highest it has gotten with my h100i on this is 72 ºC, and on the previous 4.5 Ghz and 1.105 v-core, it maxed at 68ºC. With the barrier at (~110ºC I think it is), there is totally room to go since I'm getting a 3770k soon.

So those people that usually max out at 4.8 Ghz, and then the AMD people who say that their 8350 can go to 5.5-6 GHz, think again. Some of those wafers out there are the chosen ones. ^_^

 

[jdwii]

Hey guys.

Sorry for jumping in again, but I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.

Before we find a true victor, lets talk overclocking.

I'll give you an example. Right now I have my i5-3570k @ 4.7 Ghz on 1.750 v-core (which I dont think is too bad).

With this overclock, my scores on the benchies have been exceeding those with AMD's "best processors."

Even at 4.7, this processor seems to have no giving up. With 4 instances of prime 95 running, the highest it has gotten with my h100i on this is 72 ºC, and on the previous 4.5 Ghz and 1.105 v-core, it maxed at 68ºC. With the barrier at (~110ºC I think it is), there is totally room to go since I'm getting a 3770k soon.

So those people that usually max out at 4.8 Ghz, and then the AMD people who say that their 8350 can go to 5.5-6 GHz, think again. Some of those wafers out there are the chosen ones. ^_^

If you can keep the 8350fx cool and give it enough voltage threw the board i'm sure it will go that high. You said 1.750V??? Really that high? Pretty sure a 8350fx can get to 4.8Ghz with just 1.5V.

 

[blackkstar]

Hey guys.

Sorry for jumping in again, but I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.

Before we find a true victor, lets talk overclocking.

I'll give you an example. Right now I have my i5-3570k @ 4.7 Ghz on 1.750 v-core (which I dont think is too bad).

With this overclock, my scores on the benchies have been exceeding those with AMD's "best processors."

Even at 4.7, this processor seems to have no giving up. With 4 instances of prime 95 running, the highest it has gotten with my h100i on this is 72 ºC, and on the previous 4.5 Ghz and 1.105 v-core, it maxed at 68ºC. With the barrier at (~110ºC I think it is), there is totally room to go since I'm getting a 3770k soon.

So those people that usually max out at 4.8 Ghz, and then the AMD people who say that their 8350 can go to 5.5-6 GHz, think again. Some of those wafers out there are the chosen ones. ^_^

Dude are you serious? 1.75vcore? I burned out 90nm Pentium 4 at 1.55v and you're supposed to lose .1v of overvolting headroom per full node shrink.

Temps don't matter on Intel bulk. Intel process (I have two dead Intel chips, 32nm and 90nm) are extremely fragile and will break even if you keep them plenty cool.

 

[de5_Roy]

^^ won't the intel cpu start degrading at that vcore? or may be gom3r mistyped 1.175...?
still, at 4.7ghz it will only be close or slightly ahead of stock 8 core or 4c/8t cpus in really 'wide' tasks. (had to comment on it after seeing a vcore that high in a cpu that has higher thermal density and poorer t.i.m.)

Analyst firm predicts the PS4 will conquer the next-gen market
http://vr-zone.com/articles/analyst-firm-predicts-ps4-will-conquer-next-gen-market/66559.html
i see 4 million jaguar+gcn powered devices... mmmm...

now for something stupid, from wccefghireallydon'tknowwhatistech.com
http://wccftech.com/amds-flagship-a10-kaveri-apu-bundled-battlefield-4/
the bf4 bundle is good news, but the rest of is rather rubbish. wccfghineververifypricesoftech.com parrots shopblt's preorder prices. even then, subtracting bf4 retail price (amd will be paying ea much less through various deals) gets a10 7850k price roughly at $120-130. kaveri will fly off the shelves at launch no matter how high amd prices them. but after the rush ends (and it will end soon after launch), those might not be worth buying at $189 price.

 

[jdwii]

"Analyst firm predicts the PS4 will conquer the next-gen market"
Well Duh i could of said that in fact i did several times its more powerful and cheaper and the PS4 focuses more on the gamer vs the casual user.

Note that i'm a PC gamer and a Nintendo fan and if the PC gaming did not happen i would buy a PS4 over a Xbox one anyday.

 

[gamerk316]

Hey guys.

Sorry for jumping in again, but I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.

Before we find a true victor, lets talk overclocking.

I'll give you an example. Right now I have my i5-3570k @ 4.7 Ghz on 1.750 v-core (which I dont think is too bad).

With this overclock, my scores on the benchies have been exceeding those with AMD's "best processors."

Even at 4.7, this processor seems to have no giving up. With 4 instances of prime 95 running, the highest it has gotten with my h100i on this is 72 ºC, and on the previous 4.5 Ghz and 1.105 v-core, it maxed at 68ºC. With the barrier at (~110ºC I think it is), there is totally room to go since I'm getting a 3770k soon.

So those people that usually max out at 4.8 Ghz, and then the AMD people who say that their 8350 can go to 5.5-6 GHz, think again. Some of those wafers out there are the chosen ones. ^_^

If you can keep the 8350fx cool and give it enough voltage threw the board i'm sure it will go that high. You said 1.750V??? Really that high? Pretty sure a 8350fx can get to 4.8Ghz with just 1.5V.

But here's the thing: Intel has more OC headroom then AMD, and has the higher base IPC, so Intel gains more then AMD overall when OCing to max frequency. If you get into comparing Max OC results, AMD looks even worse then it normally would.

 

[etayorius]

Was not Intel using Bulk on their CPU? that should massively limit the OC capabilities of their CPUs.