AMD ''Interlagos'' Bulldozer Benchmarks Leaked

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
If these benchmarks are true then it sounds like Bulldozer is a lot what I'd expect it to be, great multi-threaded performance for server and content creation applications, but somewhat weak IPC, which doesn't bode well for the type of gaming performance we could see.
 
"32 cores" 1.8ghz ...... to be about 70% faster than 3ghz+ i5 4core or i7 6core..... in a threaded test
FAIL!?
i always had amd... might be time to change....!
 
Not sure why they compared it to an i5 and i7...and not a proper Xeon, which is what this CPU here would be facing off against in the same tasks.

If you dig through the pages a bit, they show that they did some testing on the 4x Xeon 6 Core CPUs, which does perform better (13.47sec vs 25.97sec)

This will still be interesting to see how it turns out though. Bulldozer might not be the end all CPU against Intel right now, but it might give a good run for the money I wager.
 
That is kind of sad. AMD has the mindset of "throwing more cores" to try and out perform Intel's engineers it seems. While it is kind of awkward to see a handful of 6 core chips from Intel and far more dual and quads, they perform extremely well with the lower numbers as they maximize each core to its extent every time they release a new generation. The reason Intel doesn't seem to be pushing 6+ cores in both desktop and server environments seems to be they are quite happy with the dual and quad core setups they already have, and having used a Xeon Quad and an AMD 12-core setup I can say Intel performed better, at least for me.
 
@Bison88, you seem to be a little confused with the term cores. AMD's cores does not equate Intel's cores. Desktop version of BD is similar to i7, instead of giving it the term "cores", they call it "modules". They are both engineered differently, how can you compare core to core? What about i7? It has HyperThreading. How are you ever going to have a fair comparison? The only legit way to compare is how they price their product and the performance they give.
 
[citation][nom]doctorpink[/nom]"32 cores" 1.8ghz ...... to be about 70% faster than 3ghz+ i5 4core or i7 6core..... in a threaded testFAIL!?i always had amd... might be time to change....![/citation]
Probably the test doesn't scale all that well, if the cores are as powerful as Sandy Brige's then that means
the 4 3.7GHz Sandy Bridge cores = 8 Bulldozer cores at 1.8Ghz, throw in immature hardware, 12 cores.
Don't forget the Bulldozer's time of 21 seconds is only 34% of the SB.
 
Yep, lets all jump to conclusions, because hey, 1.8Ghz is the fastest AMD will go - it's not like it has chips twice as fast (Hz) on the market already...

We won't know until closer to release, this is just random data that may or may not be indicative.
 
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]@Bison88, you seem to be a little confused with the term cores. AMD's cores does not equate Intel's cores. Desktop version of BD is similar to i7, instead of giving it the term "cores", they call it "modules".[/citation]
Are you sure you aren't the one who's confused?... the 16 "core" interlagos is made up of 8 "modules", just as the desktop variants of Bulldozer referred to as 8 core processors have 4 modules. AMD has never equated the definition of a "core" with what it refers to as a "module". AMD refers to the single module version of Bulldozer as their dual core part. This is quite a bit different from any other x86 based design, and works in a very different way than Intel's hyperthreading.

And in any case, bison88 wasn't referring to bulldozer when he compared a 12-core AMD processor to a 4 core Intel. In comparison to Bulldozer, AMD's current definition of a core, is very similar to Intel's. Intel simply implements threading within it's cores, enabling each core to run two threads in parallel. So correct me if I misunderstood you, but at least from what I've read bison88 seems to have a better understanding of the term "core" then you do.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Are you sure you aren't the one who's confused?... the 16 "core" interlagos is made up of 8 "modules", just as the desktop variants of Bulldozer referred to as 8 core processors have 4 modules. AMD has never equated the definition of a "core" with what it refers to as a "module". AMD refers to the single module version of Bulldozer as their dual core part. This is quite a bit different from any other x86 based design, and works in a very different way than Intel's hyperthreading.[/citation]

I think you are holding a few misconceptions as well, as it seems you're trying to compare one of Intel's core's to one of AMD's modules, and while the idea of enabling parallelism by having multiples is the same, the actual hardware and design of the new AMD modules is VERY different from what we've come to see as a core in Intel and previous AMD microprocessors in that the module is divided into "cores" that have different dedicated functions. Making these cores pairs in modules is an organizational necessity for the design of processor datapaths and parallelism. Intel's QuickSync module is a core in the same way with its dedicated function.

TL;DR The only point is that the definition of a core is getting convoluted and mixed up because of the advancements of the various processor designs of the competing companies.
 
[citation][nom]sabot00[/nom]Probably the test doesn't scale all that well, if the cores are as powerful as Sandy Brige's then that means the 4 3.7GHz Sandy Bridge cores = 8 Bulldozer cores at 1.8Ghz, throw in immature hardware, 12 cores.Don't forget the Bulldozer's time of 21 seconds is only 34% of the SB.[/citation]

I think you misread or miscount. dual SOCKET = 2 cpu
EACH amd cpu have 16 cores
=32 cores


70% "FASTER"(very approximate) is YOUR 34% of SB

 
We just need decent overclocking boards and unlocked multipliers to make it fry eggs and leave SB far behind. I'm expecting it to go past 3.6GHz on air.
 
[citation][nom]greenrider02[/nom]I think you are holding a few misconceptions as well, as it seems you're trying to compare one of Intel's core's to one of AMD's modules, and while the idea of enabling parallelism by having multiples is the same, the actual hardware and design of the new AMD modules is VERY different from what we've come to see as a core in Intel and previous AMD microprocessors in that the module is divided into "cores" that have different dedicated functions.[/citation]
umm... I'm a bit at a loss for words. I'm sorry if i didn't state it clearly, but this is exactly what I was trying to get at.

"I think you are holding a few misconceptions as well, as it seems you're trying to compare one of Intel's core's to one of AMD's modules"
No... I don't believe I was trying to do this anywhere... In the second paragraph I was contrasting AMD's Bulldozer definition of a core with Intel/AMD's current definition.

"the actual hardware and design of the new AMD modules is VERY different from what we've come to see as a core in Intel and previous AMD microprocessors"
... I did say, "This is quite a bit different from any other x86 based design, and works in a very different way than Intel's hyperthreading"...lol

All I'm trying to explain is that AMD's definition of a "core" in Bulldozer is different from current uses of the term, which isn't the same as its definition of a module. I think this was pretty much exactly the point you were trying to make, was it not?
 
[citation][nom]K2N hater[/nom]We just need decent overclocking boards and unlocked multipliers to make it fry eggs and leave SB far behind. I'm expecting it to go past 3.6GHz on air.[/citation]
SB can overclock, and very well (5 GHz on air, for example), remember. Also, don't forget SB-E is coming out Q3-Q4.

As said by others too, 1.8 is no indication of final speeds, either.
 
actually if i recall bulldozer may not be ideal for heavy FPU intensive applications (as employed by grid computing) each module (2 cores) use a shared FPU which can schedule 2 x 128bit operation per cycle (plenty big for desktop and gaming needs) but only one 256bit operation, any kind of solver will employ full 256bit FPU operations to obtain maximum accuracy, therefore in reality reducing 16 cores to 8

bulldozer architecture actually suits desktop application better then server with this regards whereby a single core can happily schedule two FPU operations in one cycle (especially if the apps can not utilize both cores of a module), moving away from interlargos to desktop bulldozer will yield faster speeds which would really compound the advantage of this setup, IMHO bulldozer was not a server architecture
 
This is an engineering sample. It's also clocked at the lowest of most processors these days. With final production it should be able to get over 3.0ghz and then we can compare oranges to oranges.
 
[citation][nom]mikem_90[/nom]Not sure why they compared it to an i5 and i7...and not a proper Xeon, which is what this CPU here would be facing off against in the same tasks.If you dig through the pages a bit, they show that they did some testing on the 4x Xeon 6 Core CPUs, which does perform better (13.47sec vs 25.97sec)This will still be interesting to see how it turns out though. Bulldozer might not be the end all CPU against Intel right now, but it might give a good run for the money I wager.[/citation]

Thats my question. Why are they comparing, and I quote:

AMD's Interlagos Bulldozer-based server processor in a dual-CPU setup
Click to expand...

A dual CPU setup to a single CPU setup?

And most of all its comparing 4 cores 8 threads (we all know SMT is nice but only gives around 20% performance boost) or 6 cores 12 threads to 32 real cores.

Talk about lop-sided.

As for clock speed, its no indication but AMD has always had lower clocked server parts for some reason. A ES sample tends to be the best of the pre final chips so it should be able to overclock better than final ones.

Still, comparing server chips to desktop CPUs. Thats just stupid.
 
I guess a core is really what 1 thread will be processed by. If a multithreaded program only uses 4 threads and a 4 module BD=4 core SB than the BD will lose, because their 4 modules uses 8 cores.
 
[citation][nom]DesktopBulldozer[/nom]actually if i recall bulldozer may not be ideal for heavy FPU intensive applications (as employed by grid computing) each module (2 cores) use a shared FPU which can schedule 2 x 128bit operation per cycle (plenty big for desktop and gaming needs) but only one 256bit operation, any kind of solver will employ full 256bit FPU operations to obtain maximum accuracy, therefore in reality reducing 16 cores to 8
bulldozer architecture actually suits desktop application better then server with this regards whereby a single core can happily schedule two FPU operations in one cycle (especially if the apps can not utilize both cores of a module), moving away from interlargos to desktop bulldozer will yield faster speeds which would really compound the advantage of this setup, IMHO bulldozer was not a server architecture[/citation]
Wrong. Server is where it will do best, as it is purely an integer workload, so that has no influence at all. The type of situation you are actually thinking about would be workstations.

[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Thats my question. Why are they comparing, and I quote:A dual CPU setup to a single CPU setup?And most of all its comparing 4 cores 8 threads (we all know SMT is nice but only gives around 20% performance boost) or 6 cores 12 threads to 32 real cores.Talk about lop-sided.As for clock speed, its no indication but AMD has always had lower clocked server parts for some reason. A ES sample tends to be the best of the pre final chips so it should be able to overclock better than final ones.Still, comparing server chips to desktop CPUs. Thats just stupid.[/citation]
No it's not. The processing capabilities are the same. It is the same as saying it is stupid to compare an ES to any other processor, or comparing any bulldozer to SB. The reason it is being done: They've got server Bulldozer benchmarks, and what do you suggest they compare it to so that people understand?
 
I have no idea how anyone can compare this server CPU to a desktop CPU. The IPC may scale up at higher clock speeds and im pretty sure the desktop version will be at least twice the clock speed of this 1.8Ghz CPU. Lets all just chill out and wait until we get real benchmarks of desktop CPU versions. Until we get the real scoop it is just total speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom