Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › The Zambezi CPU Performance Estimate...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Zambezi CPU Performance Estimate... - Page 5

post #41 of 354
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
Don't forget, this is 500Mhz reportedly across 16 cores on the server variant.
Which probably means we will see even bigger boosts on the desktop version with all cores; I'm estimating around 700-900Mhz, which means we may be seeing 4.2-4.4Ghz stock speeds. But remember, smaller cores offer much more turbo boost. Remember, 2 cores = 1 module on Bulldozer. For the same of simplicity cores here will be referring to the integer cores, not entire modules. So, going by this math, assuming BD has excellent scaling:
16 cores = 500Mhz turbo (server variant)
8 cores = 700Mhz turbo (desktop variant from here on in)
6 cores = 850Mhz turbo
4 cores = 1000Mhz turbo
2 cores = 1500Mhz turbo (much less TDP with only 1 module, so better scaling)
Though the values could be necessarily less, the overclockability of Bulldozer can be very easily predictable. If Turbo Boost is high enough, sometimes we may be able to see 5Ghz+ rated speeds!

My personal prediction (without any math involved) is 5.5Ghz+ all cores on air, 8Ghz+ on LN2... of course that's me, but still
Now if that doesn't make your Memory Stick tingle I don't know what will!

+Rep...

The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #42 of 354
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReciever View Post
Correct, finding factual numbers will be impossible. But if you use Moore's Law to project some estimates then you can begin to have an idea whats come.
I'd have to say his point is valid....

You have to open your mind to what IS Possible, even if you don't know, regardless of other facts in order to see something, though you can't see it, and this can only start when you put aside the negative facts... Or does anyone not remember the story of the person who everyone laughed & called him stupid till he pulled out the working invention...

I see something that looks VERY tantalizing...

I am dying so hard for a good rough estimate I'm burning up with desire here!

So from the 2 rumors we have of a +50% performance gain over the i7-950 & a reported 3.5 GHz at stock speed, plus the above report of Turbo Core gains of 700 MHz across 8 cores, for a combined total of 4.2 GHz AT STOCK SPEED....

Could we very well be talking about a CPU chip with a HUGE amount of potential here?

ASSUMING ALL RUMORS ARE CLOSE TO BEING ACCURATE.

How much would 700 MHz across 8 cores roughly be in a % of Performance Gain, anyone? (Rough Guesstimate)
Edited by _GTech - 2/8/11 at 10:49pm
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #43 of 354
Turbo core across all processor cores completely defeats the purpose of turbo core.
Why not simply release the processor at those speeds?
Waiting on X399
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II B57 @ X4 3.9 Gigabyte 790FXTA-UD5 Sapphire Radeon 290 8 GB G.Skill 2133 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
250 GB 840 EVO Noctua NH-D14 Windows 10 Logitech K350 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic x750 Corsair 600T Logitech G100s Razer Goliathus Speed 
Audio
Plantronics Gamecom 788 
  hide details  
Reply
Waiting on X399
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II B57 @ X4 3.9 Gigabyte 790FXTA-UD5 Sapphire Radeon 290 8 GB G.Skill 2133 
Hard DriveCoolingOSKeyboard
250 GB 840 EVO Noctua NH-D14 Windows 10 Logitech K350 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic x750 Corsair 600T Logitech G100s Razer Goliathus Speed 
Audio
Plantronics Gamecom 788 
  hide details  
Reply
post #44 of 354
doesn't need to run at 4GHz when you are in Idle
post #45 of 354
Impossible to figure out. We have no base performance numbers to actually come up with an estimate IPC of Bulldozer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _GTech View Post
While this may be true, and even viable, are you even remotely considering that Bulldozer is a new architect at all?

Your comparing like an i7 vs a Core 2 Quad here, or am I wrong that the Phenom II X4 came out around the time of the Core 2 Quad?

Nevertheless if you compare the Core 2 Quad vs the Phenom II, how does it stack up? See my point?

======================

I'm looking at Zambezi as AMD's answer to Sandy Bridge...

As Phenom II X 6 was AMD's answer to the Core i5/i7 CPUs, which still did not outperform the i7, as we are all very well aware of..
Actually Core 2 Quad Yorkfields with the full 12MB L2 cache are faster clock for clock than PII Denebs.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=80

PII X4s need about 200MHz clock speed advantage to match C2Q Yorkfield performance. Not saying PIIs are slow, both are very fast processors.
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #46 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by _GTech View Post
I'd have to say his point is valid....

You have to open your mind to what IS Possible, even if you don't know, regardless of other facts in order to see something, though you can't see it, and this can only start when you put aside the negative facts... Or does anyone not remember the story of the person who everyone laughed & called him stupid till he pulled out the working invention...

I see something that looks VERY tantalizing...

I am dying so hard for a good rough estimate I'm burning up with desire here!

So from the 2 rumors we have of a +50% performance gain over the i7-950 & a reported 3.5 GHz at stock speed, plus the above report of Turbo Core gains of 700 MHz across 8 cores, for a combined total of 4.2 GHz AT STOCK SPEED....

Could we very well be talking about a CPU chip with a HUGE amount of potential here?

ASSUMING ALL RUMORS ARE CLOSE TO BEING ACCURATE.

How much would 700 MHz across 8 cores roughly be in a % of Performance Gain, anyone? (Rough Guesstimate)
Those slides are almost certainly 100% fake. It for one it doesn't even get the cpu sockets right, it says socket 1156 and i7 950. I'm sorry but ALL we know is cache size, likely clock speeds, how the L2 cache is shared between each core in the module, some other basic information on the instruction sets and the basics of the architecture. There has been ZERO performance information that even seems even half way credible, its all slides with either clear errors in basic information or slides with performance that seems so unlikely and looks like it was done by a 16 year old who just learned how to make graphs in a computer program. I'm sorry, I hope it is amazing as much as the next person but you are getting WAYYYY ahead of yourself with this.
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
3930k
(20 items)
 
  
Reply
post #47 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by scyy View Post
Those slides are almost certainly 100% fake. It for one it doesn't even get the cpu sockets right, it says socket 1156 and i7 950. I'm sorry but ALL we know is cache size, likely clock speeds, how the L2 cache is shared between each core in the module, some other basic information on the instruction sets and the basics of the architecture. There has been ZERO performance information that even seems even half way credible, its all slides with either clear errors in basic information or slides with performance that seems so unlikely and looks like it was done by a 16 year old who just learned how to make graphs in a computer program. I'm sorry, I hope it is amazing as much as the next person but you are getting WAYYYY ahead of yourself with this.
I hope it's amazing too because the last time AMD came swinging out with Barcelona, the "True Quad Core" and AMD fans calling it the next best line of processors in the world... we all know what happened there.
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Surface Pro 3
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 3720QM @ 2.6GHz/3.6GHz Turbo  HM77 Geforce GT650M 1GB GDDR5 @ 900MHz 16GB @ 1600MHz  
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB Samsung PM830 SSD OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion 2880x1800 Retina Display 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5-4300U @1.9GHz/2.5GHz Turbo Intel HD4400 8GB @ 1600MHz 256GB SSD 
OSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 8.1 Pro 2160x1440 ClearType HD  Surface Pro Type Cover 3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 354
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post
Impossible to figure out. We have no base performance numbers to actually come up with an estimate IPC of Bulldozer.

Actually Core 2 Quad Yorkfields with the full 12MB L2 cache are faster clock for clock than PII Denebs.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=80

PII X4s need about 200MHz clock speed advantage to match C2Q Yorkfield performance. Not saying PIIs are slow, both are very fast processors.
I think your missing the context, and I was responding to another person's thread, which because you didn't quote what he said in your quote, the reader will look at what I said and go huh?

It's not about the C2Q vs the Phenom, it's about that it's a more realistic comparison to use vs say a Dual Core vs a Quad Core, for example..

Now do you see my point?

===============

I think it's SAFE to say that Bulldozer is DEFINITELY going to be BETTER THAN a Dual Core & MAY even excel MOST of the Quad Cores on the market, or did the change from Dual Core to Quad Core not teach you anything??!!

Furthermore, It's safe to say that, Bulldozer will MOST LIKELY produce better performance than the Phenom II X6 1100T, not JUST because it has 2 more cores, but more importantly because of the Architect Changes made by Engineers in the design of the CPU...

Both Factual Based Statements which CAN Lead you to some kind of guesstimate surely...

And our guesstimate is???

Try to keep an OPEN MIND when making post, and REFRAIN From BASHING an OP or a Thread unless you have VERY VALID REASONS To, thank, that is all..
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #49 of 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129 View Post
I hope it's amazing too because the last time AMD came swinging out with Barcelona, the "True Quad Core" and AMD fans calling it the next best line of processors in the world... we all know what happened there.
At least they had creativity... I think bulldozer will be fine I know personally I will wait and see. If it is not faster than SB then I will buy a SB end of story. =)
5ghz =)
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k @ 5ghz Gigabyte P67a-UD3-B3 ATI HD 6970 4Gb Patriot ddr3 1333mhz. 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x 60gb Mushkin SSD Raid-0, 1tb spinpoint Lg DvD Burner. windows 7, Ubuntu 9.10, Centos 5. 30'' Samsung 305T 2560x1600 =D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Dell 610watt PcPower&Cooling Ha f932 Razer Mamba 
Mouse Pad
Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
5ghz =)
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k @ 5ghz Gigabyte P67a-UD3-B3 ATI HD 6970 4Gb Patriot ddr3 1333mhz. 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x 60gb Mushkin SSD Raid-0, 1tb spinpoint Lg DvD Burner. windows 7, Ubuntu 9.10, Centos 5. 30'' Samsung 305T 2560x1600 =D 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Dell 610watt PcPower&Cooling Ha f932 Razer Mamba 
Mouse Pad
Razer Vespula 
  hide details  
Reply
post #50 of 354
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilWrir View Post
First off there is not enough information on Zambezi to even begin calculating how efficient it will be on its own, let alone comparing it to an established processor.
Secondly any information out right now is rumor or over analyzed AMD announcements. Announcements that don't have enough concrete information to really draw a conclusion from in the first place.

You are asking for a conclusion drawn from insufficient and/or flawed data.
That is not a conclusion at all. Its just more rumor mongering.
People in MANY different threads rumor monger all the time......

They do it in the news threads, in threads that talk about just about everything, in fact, speculation is indeed something that is pretty heavy on A LOT of different forums across the internet...

If it wasn't for rumor mongering, talking trash, trolling, I'd dare say that most forums would be skeleton crew like & void of much content, even if it's lame or bad content, content IS CONTENT...

So who cares if someone wants to have a pre-launch prep talk / speculative talk about the new Architect / CPU coming out... Is it bad?? Is it hurting someone???

Not really...

At least we aren't flaming people here, and neither should anyone else be, that's just horrible forum etiquette...
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › The Zambezi CPU Performance Estimate...