Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 636 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote:
areless received from the meters in the country sent a mysterious little box ~

CPU-Z-ah ....... Han bowl of cream, I do not know!
According to the sender that the first batch of ~ This is A pile-driver pile driving machine Piledriver engineering samples has been handed the mill hands ~

This had to sell the old stems!! Palindrome did the younger brother of Pobai ~ plate and pipe to help move to the new district.
Why??? ... Because there will be no test data

Cpu deity photos ... tomorrow to make up ~ work today, came close to being the boss chasing play, so hurry. Less COPY photo ~ "~~

388039_17278158284702obsbt.jpg


185938_499298813418108jsr5.jpg

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/185938_499298813418103_1139833792_n.jpg

536766_1727915561793652s89.jpg


Cinebench 11.5
329375_49942158007249ltshe.jpg

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/329375_499421580072493_1898386655_o.jpg
Source

Source (Translated)

AMD Engineering Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8

3.3GHz base clock/3.9GHz turbo, which would peg this as the lowest of the three FX-8 Vishera CPUs.

An FX-8300 @ 2.2GHz NB, with DDR3 1333MHz. The Aida64 bench shows what appears to be DDR3 2400 memory clocked to 2520 CL9 1.65V "easily."

The user stresses this is an early batch ES. However, this will almost certainly be the retail stepping and fab process will not have changed much, if at all, once retail parts are on sale.

mod e: keeping the custom thread title since the translated one makes absolutely no sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
IPC is never static across the range of workloads, so those who used the Trinity results as a sign that 15% is a representation of average increases, should realize that was never going to be realistic. If the Cinebench R11.5 bench is correct, you're looking at an IPC increase shy of 10% (mid-high 9s) in CB.

Using an extremely crude estimate, based on the CB results, would see the FX-8 series look somewhat like this in CB Multithread.

FX 8300 score @ 3.3GHz = 5.73 -replaces- FX 8100 score @ 2.8GHz = 4.62

FX 8320 score @ 3.5GHz = 6.08 -replaces- FX 8120 score @ 3.1GHz = 5.04

FX 8350 score @ 4.0GHz = 6.95 -replaces- FX 8150 score @ 3.6GHz = 6.01

Those numbers are not in any way exact (including the Zambezi scores) and should only be seen as very rough estimates. Other similarly crude Vishera estimates, see the FX-8350 somewhere in the range of 7.22 or so in CB Multithread.

While different configurations and testing methods can not be directly compared, here are some CB results from different sites.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/9/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53054-intel-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-cpu-review-11.html

44769lgs7e.png


cinebench-x33sl5.jpg


ivybridge_3770k_696tswg.jpg

-edit-

AMD Eng Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8

Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 M5A97 EVO R2.0 User's Manual - Page 91 - http://www.manualowl.com/m/Asus/M5A97-EVO-R2.0/Manual/295316?page=91

fx8300-piledriver-visrls3b.png


Quote:
3.5.1 The items in this menu show the CPU-related information that the BIOS automatically detects. The items shown in this screen may be different due to the CPU you installed. UEFI BIOS Utility - Advanced Mode CPU Configuration Exit Main Back Ai Tweaker Advanced\ CPU Configuration > Advanced Monitor Boot Tool CPU Configuration

Socket 942: AMD Eng Sample, ZD338251W8K54_39/33/22_2/8 8 Cores Running @3300 MHz 1375 mV Max Speed: 3300 MHz Intended Speed: 3300 MHz Not loaded Cache per Core L1 Instruction Cache: 64 KB/2-way L1 Data Cache: 16 KB/4-way   L2 Cache: 2048 KB/16-way Total L3 Cache per Socket: 8 MB/64-way
Memory Performance Gains On The Crosshair V Formula-Z & Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 - http://rog.asus.com/141502012/crosshair-v-motherboards/memory-performance-gains-on-the-crosshair-v-formula-z-sabertooth-990fx-r2-0/

Quote:
Below we have listed the typical performance using a 4-DIMM G.Skill kit of 16GB 2,400MHz DDR3 (with an initial QVL listed below). We'll follow up with more Crosshair V Formula-Z and Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 news in the coming days, so keep an eye on ROG front page, AMD fans!

Crosshair V Formula-Z: 2,540MHz CL9
2540CL9.png

Sabertooth 990FX R2.0: 2,528MHz CL10
SABERTOOTH-990FX-R2.0-DDR3-2528.jpg

Initial 2,400MHz DDR3 QVL list
sabertooth-qvl.jpg

AMD Engineering Sample, ZD358246W6K54_41/35/20_2/8 (ES)

553394_17375994941585hqsq5.jpg

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/553394_173759949415854_670476713_n.jpg

Piledriver
- FX-6300 3.5GHz base/4.1GHz turbo, 95W
Bulldozer
- FX-6100 3.3GHz base/3.9GHz turbo, 95W
- FX-6200 3.8GHz base/4.1GHz turbo, 125W
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,883 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric View Post

IPC is never static across the range of workloads, so those who used the Trinity results as a sign that 15% is a representation of average increases, should realize that was never going to be realistic. If the Cinebench R11.5 bench is correct, you're looking at an IPC increase shy of 10% (mid-high 9s) in CB.
Using an extremely crude estimate, based on the CB results, would see the FX-8 series look somewhat like this in CB Multithread.
FX 8300 score @ 3.3GHz = 5.73 -replaces- FX 8100 score @ 2.8GHz = 4.62
FX 8320 score @ 3.5GHz = 6.08 -replaces- FX 8120 score @ 3.1GHz = 5.04
FX 8350 score @ 4.0GHz = 6.95 -replaces- FX 8150 score @ 3.6GHz = 6.01
Those numbers are not in any way exact (including the Zambezi scores) and should only be seen as very rough estimates. Other similarly crude Vishera estimates, see the FX-8350 somewhere in the range of 7.22 or so in CB Multithread.
While different configurations and testing methods can not be directly compared, here are some CB results from different sites.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/9/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53054-intel-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-cpu-review-11.html
44769lgs7e.png

cinebench-x33sl5.jpg

ivybridge_3770k_696tswg.jpg
If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,904 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,758 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by G3RG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric View Post

IPC is never static across the range of workloads, so those who used the Trinity results as a sign that 15% is a representation of average increases, should realize that was never going to be realistic. If the Cinebench R11.5 bench is correct, you're looking at an IPC increase shy of 10% (mid-high 9s) in CB.
Using an extremely crude estimate, based on the CB results, would see the FX-8 series look somewhat like this in CB Multithread.
FX 8300 score @ 3.3GHz = 5.73 -replaces- FX 8100 score @ 2.8GHz = 4.62
FX 8320 score @ 3.5GHz = 6.08 -replaces- FX 8120 score @ 3.1GHz = 5.04
FX 8350 score @ 4.0GHz = 6.95 -replaces- FX 8150 score @ 3.6GHz = 6.01
Those numbers are not in any way exact (including the Zambezi scores) and should only be seen as very rough estimates. Other similarly crude Vishera estimates, see the FX-8350 somewhere in the range of 7.22 or so in CB Multithread.
While different configurations and testing methods can not be directly compared, here are some CB results from different sites.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/6
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1914/9/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/53054-intel-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-cpu-review-11.html
44769lgs7e.png

cinebench-x33sl5.jpg

ivybridge_3770k_696tswg.jpg
If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.
In this benchmark only right? BD will need more than a 10% gain overall to catch up with SB I would think, it's worse than the Bloomfield i7s in many cases.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,591 Posts
This looks like a decent performance gain over BD! Cannot wait to play with one of these!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,130 Posts
Welcome back AMD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,157 Posts
It begins
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,884 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by G3RG View Post

If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.
How is this on par with SB? It's still behind a PhenomII.

Just look at that the CB scores, and where the 2700K is.

Also, it's kinda funny that CB recognizes it as a 4C/8T CPU.



Is this better than Bulldozer? Absolutely, it was nearly impossible to get any worse.
 

·
New to OCN? Yeah, nah
Joined
·
4,231 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by G3RG View Post

If your math is accurate... This puts PD about on par with SB. Nice job AMD.
How so? The Cinebench screenshot says otherwise. Look at the PD result of 5.73 compared to the 2700K result of 8.81. Doesn't seem to be on par to me, considering there's only a 180 Mhz difference between them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,591 Posts
Not up to Sandy but a nice performance boost for AMD!
 

·
Old and Crochity
Joined
·
5,288 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig View Post

How is this on par with SB? It's still behind a PhenomII.
Just look at that the CB scores, and where the 2700K is.
Also, it's kinda funny that CB recognizes it as a 4C/8T CPU.
I was wondering the same thing at stock my 2600k does much better in cinebench. GRANTED these are ES but we're less than 2 months from go time. My guess is that within 30 days production will start. There isn't a lot of time for major overhauls. I wont be staying up on release night to look at the benchmarks. I know what they're going to be.. Better than BD worse than SB.

Welcome back AMD?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,883 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig View Post

How is this on par with SB? It's still behind a PhenomII.
Just look at that the CB scores, and where the 2700K is.
Also, it's kinda funny that CB recognizes it as a 4C/8T CPU.

Is this better than Bulldozer? Absolutely, it was nearly impossible to get any worse.
That 2700k is no doubt overclocked, look at stock scores in the 2nd post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroc91 View Post

How so? The Cinebench screenshot says otherwise. Look at the PD result of 5.73 compared to the 2700K result of 8.81. Doesn't seem to be on par to me, considering there's only a 180 Mhz difference between them.
That 2700k is no doubt overclocked, look at stock scores in the 2nd post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electroneng View Post

Not up to Sandy but a nice performance boost for AMD!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkpriest667 View Post

I was wondering the same thing at stock my 2600k does much better in cinebench. GRANTED these are ES but we're less than 2 months from go time. My guess is that within 30 days production will start. There isn't a lot of time for major overhauls. I wont be staying up on release night to look at the benchmarks. I know what they're going to be.. Better than BD worse than SB.
Welcome back AMD?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazloisdavrock View Post

Not up to Sandy just yet
This is the lowest end 8 core cpu, look at the 2nd post in this thread.
 
1 - 20 of 636 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top