Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD 32 Cores Bulldozer (8 cores x 4) @ 1.8ghz Cinebench results (PCINLIFE forums)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD 32 Cores Bulldozer (8 cores x 4) @ 1.8ghz Cinebench results (PCINLIFE forums) - Page 14

post #131 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Its not the same as HT, its similar.

The point is thread count does not matter in a program such as Cinebench.

You can't compare a 4 core 8 thread i7-2600k to a 8 core bulldozer cpu.

Its moot anyways to most of us. I'm more interested in how the 4 core bulldozer chip fares against the i5-2500k.
IF they cost the same you sure can.
post #132 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDPhenomX4 View Post
But thats 16 threads, not 8. Thats like saying if you have a car with a gas tank that fills to the top (BD) and a gas tank that has a lower capacity but makes up for it by better fuel economy and doubling it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCPUser View Post
You do realize that HT helps in Cinebench right? 16 threads (theoretical 960) to 8 threads (BD) is very fair And the slide about BD clock speed released 2 days ago were engineering samples which always have lower clocks then the final product because they are in testing.
Cinebench 10 Results
Core i7 920 @ 3,8 GHz HT off: 18342
Core i7 920 @ 3,8 GHz HT on: 21495


17% performance boost, big deal.
HT is overrated.

Take 17% off 10,96 and you get 9.1
Bulldozer @ 3,2 GHz = 10.2

10% faster than what Intel achieved 2 years ago; wow still bad.
Honestly; I'm an AMD fan if it comes down to CPU's but it seems like bulldozer wont be anything special again in terms of performance..
Rebel
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-2500k 4,6 GHz @ 1,32 V AsRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 PNY GeForce GTX 660 Ti SLI @ 1228 / 3312 MHz 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Samsung 1TB + 500GB Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Asus VH22H Xilence XQ 850W with a Scythe Kama Flex 
CaseMouse
Aerocool VS-9 Xmas Edition :P Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
Rebel
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-2500k 4,6 GHz @ 1,32 V AsRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 PNY GeForce GTX 660 Ti SLI @ 1228 / 3312 MHz 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Samsung 1TB + 500GB Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Asus VH22H Xilence XQ 850W with a Scythe Kama Flex 
CaseMouse
Aerocool VS-9 Xmas Edition :P Logitech G500 
  hide details  
Reply
post #133 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by konspiracy View Post
IF they cost the same you sure can.
Sure, then we can compare gaming performance where the 8 core bulldozer cpu takes a 50% performance hit or more in 99% of the games it plays where the i7 only takes a 20% hit at most.

I would compare the 8 core bulldozer chip to the 6 core sb chip coming out. Since both chips will be "Best possible performance" for people seeking rendering performance.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #134 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by toX0rz View Post
Cinebench 10 Results
Core i7 920 @ 3,8 GHz HT off: 18342
Core i7 920 @ 3,8 GHz HT on: 21495


17% performance boost, big deal.
HT is overrated.

Take 17% off 10,96 and you get 9.1
Bulldozer @ 3,2 GHz = 10.2

10% faster than what Intel achieved 2 years ago; wow still bad.
Honestly; I'm an AMD fan if it comes down to CPU's but it seems like bulldozer wont be anything special again in terms of performance..
Lol'd. You're saying a 17% performance boost is nothing?

What ya be smoking mon. You can't comment before you see the real product and pricing.
AiryBox
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H Sapphire 7950 Vapor-X Corsair Vengeance 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi Desktar 7200RPM 1TB Samsung 830 128GB Corsair H100i W10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ 24" Qpad Mk-50 Cherry MX Red CM V700 NZXT H440 
  hide details  
Reply
AiryBox
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770k Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H Sapphire 7950 Vapor-X Corsair Vengeance 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi Desktar 7200RPM 1TB Samsung 830 128GB Corsair H100i W10 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ 24" Qpad Mk-50 Cherry MX Red CM V700 NZXT H440 
  hide details  
Reply
post #135 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by toX0rz View Post
Cinebench 10 Results
Core i7 920 @ 3,8 GHz HT off: 18342
Core i7 920 @ 3,8 GHz HT on: 21495


17% performance boost, big deal.
HT is overrated.

Take 17% off 10,96 and you get 9.1
Bulldozer @ 3,2 GHz = 10.2

10% faster than what Intel achieved 2 years ago; wow still bad.
Honestly; I'm an AMD fan if it comes down to CPU's but it seems like bulldozer wont be anything special again in terms of performance..
This doesn't really change your results, but I just want to point out to people that Cinebench is one of the worst things at taking advantage of HTs. I always thought that a thread was about 70% of a real core.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k Gigabyte Z77-UD5H-WB Golden GTX 670 Windforce 3X 2 x 4GB GSkill RipJawsX 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ Vertex 4 64GB- WD Caviar Black 1TB Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Dell U2311H IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
xArmor iOne U9BL MX Blues Seasonic x750 LIAN LI PC-T60B Logitech G500 
Audio
Modded JVC HA-RX900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k Gigabyte Z77-UD5H-WB Golden GTX 670 Windforce 3X 2 x 4GB GSkill RipJawsX 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
OCZ Vertex 4 64GB- WD Caviar Black 1TB Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Dell U2311H IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
xArmor iOne U9BL MX Blues Seasonic x750 LIAN LI PC-T60B Logitech G500 
Audio
Modded JVC HA-RX900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCPUser View Post
What point are you making?

The 2600K and BD have the same of threads and thus cinebench scores can be compared directly. I know a stock 2600K can not score over 10. If you were talking about a 2500K then sure divide by two, but I yet to see a 2500K cinebench score over 5.5 (I haven't seen any scores for that CPU). If you have a bench with a stock 2500K scoring 6 then post it... or better yet leave.
I get 8.21 @ 4.3GHz
I Like Smileys :)
(16 items)
 
Sony Vaio 1512
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-2600K 4.6GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Bios 3207 MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G Ripjaws-X 16GB 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
80GB Intel & 128GB 830  2 x WD640 Caviar Black LG DVD-RW Noctua NH-D14  
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 HP 64bit Acer 5906x1080 3D Logitech G15 Corsair TX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Antec Dark Fleet DF-85 Logitec G700 Razer Goliathus Sharkoon X-Tatic 5.1 Headset 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel® Core™ i5-3210M Laptop  HD 4000 Corsair Vengeance 8GB  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 250GB DVD Multi Windows 8 15.5 inch display (1366 x 768) 
Keyboard
LED Back lit 
  hide details  
Reply
I Like Smileys :)
(16 items)
 
Sony Vaio 1512
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-2600K 4.6GHz Asus P8P67 Pro Bios 3207 MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G Ripjaws-X 16GB 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
80GB Intel & 128GB 830  2 x WD640 Caviar Black LG DVD-RW Noctua NH-D14  
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 HP 64bit Acer 5906x1080 3D Logitech G15 Corsair TX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Antec Dark Fleet DF-85 Logitec G700 Razer Goliathus Sharkoon X-Tatic 5.1 Headset 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel® Core™ i5-3210M Laptop  HD 4000 Corsair Vengeance 8GB  
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 250GB DVD Multi Windows 8 15.5 inch display (1366 x 768) 
Keyboard
LED Back lit 
  hide details  
Reply
post #137 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefy View Post
I suggest taking economy classes then. BD won't be competitive if it isn't priced similar to SB. Depends on performance, but there's no chance on earth that it will be priced even close to 980x/990x. I'd say you're pulling numbers out of your ass with no insight whatsoever. 1/2 at most.
A. I'm minoring in economy, so point down.
B. I never claimed it will be priced at 1k. But definitely not at AMD PII 1100T prices which many AMD fans would expect it to. If I had to guess, if and only IF the performance is as high as I estimated it to be - which it might NOT due to many reasons - it will be priced at ~$500-600.

Also, did I say something that offended you? You seem to be taking this much more personally than you should.
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
iMac 5k Late 2015
(11 items)
 
The Overlord
(25 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 6700K Custom Apple Motherboard AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB 16GB 1867Mhz DDR3 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
3TB Apple Fusion Drive 4TB WD Elements External Drive Mac OS X 5120‑by‑2880, 10-bit IPS 
KeyboardMouseAudio
Apple Magic Keyboard Apple Magic Trackpad 2, Razer Deathadder 2013 Bose Companion 2 Series iii 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 970 @ 4.4 Ghz Asus P6X58D-E EVGA GTX 680 SLI @ 1200Mhz 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 Pro SSD 2 * 1TB WD Black 5 * 2TB Hitachi LaCie 1TB External HDD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG BD Combo Corsair H70 Windows 8 64-bit HP ZR30W (2560*1600) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 920-000914 OCZ ZX 1250W CM 690 II Advanced Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Razer Goliathus Audez'e LCD-2 Schiit Lyr + NuForce HD DAC Blue Yeti Microphone 
AudioAudioOtherOther
Logitech G35 Altec Lansing 2.0 7 Scythe Ultra Kaze fans @ 3000rpm Scythe Kaze Fan controller 
Other
Logitech C900 Webcam 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-6360U 1536MB Iris Graphics 540 8GB RAM 256GB SSD 
OSMonitor
Mac OS X 2560-by-1600 resolution IPS display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Sure, then we can compare gaming performance where the 8 core bulldozer cpu takes a 50% performance hit or more in 99% of the games it plays where the i7 only takes a 20% hit at most.

I would compare the 8 core bulldozer chip to the 6 core sb chip coming out. Since both chips will be "Best possible performance" for people seeking rendering performance.
Take 50% off of the BD score and 20% off (HT) of the 2600K (about 7.5 IIRC) and you get about the same result Maybe the 2600K is a tad faster.

Edit: 2600K score 6.9 at stock from this source.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-10.html

80% of 2600K's 6.9 is about 5.5 -- 50% of the BD's estimate is 5.75 = they should be about the same performance level
Edited by JCPUser - 4/25/11 at 5:13pm
post #139 of 293
WAIT WAIT HOLDzZ UP!!!!!!! READ DIS

"Bull-Dozer will be a big fail with minimal improvement"
By Justin871

I was right!!!!
My PC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790K - 4.8GHz MSI Z97 Gaming 5 ASUS GTX1080 STRIX OC Corsair Dominator DDR3-2400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SanDisk SSD LG Super Blue BD Drive H100i v2 Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 4K IPS 27" Corsair K65 RGB OCZ Game X Stream 600w Corsair Carbide Air 540 
Mouse
Logitech G502 
  hide details  
Reply
My PC
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790K - 4.8GHz MSI Z97 Gaming 5 ASUS GTX1080 STRIX OC Corsair Dominator DDR3-2400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
SanDisk SSD LG Super Blue BD Drive H100i v2 Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG 4K IPS 27" Corsair K65 RGB OCZ Game X Stream 600w Corsair Carbide Air 540 
Mouse
Logitech G502 
  hide details  
Reply
post #140 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Sure, then we can compare gaming performance where the 8 core bulldozer cpu takes a 50% performance hit or more in 99% of the games it plays where the i7 only takes a 20% hit at most.

I would compare the 8 core bulldozer chip to the 6 core sb chip coming out. Since both chips will be "Best possible performance" for people seeking rendering performance.
Doubt it.
If amd performance per core is better than intel then gaming performance will be better than intel.
And when games use more cores BD will become even more favorable.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
  • AMD 32 Cores Bulldozer (8 cores x 4) @ 1.8ghz Cinebench results (PCINLIFE forums)
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD 32 Cores Bulldozer (8 cores x 4) @ 1.8ghz Cinebench results (PCINLIFE forums)