FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

<<

TheDLoader4U

User avatar

Thermal Paste
Thermal Paste

Posts: 407

Joined: April 12th, 2010, 11:42 pm

Post October 14th, 2011, 6:53 pm

Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

One of the questions that we have seen asked over and over during the last few years is how much faster will Bulldozer be clock-per-clock when compared with Phenom II. Given the radically new microarchitecture it was pretty much impossible for anyone to give a credible estimate, but today we are going to attempt to answer that very question.

ImageImage

Here is the duel: FX-8150 "Zambezi" versus Phenom II X4 980 "Deneb". To ensure that both chips were competing on a roughly equal playing field, we set identical frequencies and timings for both processors, and we also disabled the FX-8150's extra cores. However, we allowed the FX-8150 two advantages in the form of its faster 2200MHz northbridge frequency (vs. 2000MHz for Phenom II) and 2600Mhz HyperTransport Link (vs. 2000MHz for Phenom II).

(*EDIT*: Check out the bottom page for updated and more accurate clock-per-clock results) Now you should take these results with a grain of salt. Unlike with Intel's chips, where it is easy to disable cores from within the BIOS, there is no such luxury with Bulldozer at this time. Therefore, we had to limit the FX-8150's number of cores from within the OS. This fact and perhaps some peculiarities when it comes to how Windows 7 assigns workloads to the Bulldozer microachitecture might have caused exaggerated results. We will be better able to gauge C-P-C performance once we get our hands on a true four-core Zambezi chip.

Image

Now looking at the above table will cause just about anyone who's been even casually awaiting Bulldozer to ask; what the hell happened? Nearly across the board we experienced a serious decline in performance. The only exception to this was WinRAR 4.0.1, which is probably making use of one the new instruction sets.

It's impossible for us to tell whether the issue is the inherent performance-killing effect of the additional pipeline stages, whether the integer cores are waiting for access to resources and thus creating extra latency, or whether the much higher cache latencies are the main cause for this situation. Assuming our numbers are indeed correct, something has pretty clearly caused overall clock-per-clock performance to dive off a cliff.

Yes, Zambezi might take the lead in some specialized software that takes advantage of its AES, AVX, FMA4, and XOP instructions, but those are few and far between in the consumer software realm at the moment. As you will see in the coming pages, at full-strength the FX-8150 can deliver some impressive multi-threaded performance, but single and lightly-threaded performance has actually gotten worse despite the huge clock speed advantage that Zambezi brings over Phenom II.

EDIT:

As mentioned above, since we had serious doubts about the validity of our previous clock-per-clock results due to Windows 7's wonky (vis-à-vis Bulldozer anyways) scheduler, we decided to try another approach. Instead of telling the OS to simply ignore the other four cores, we decided to try manually setting processor affinity from within the task bar. Every time we opened a program, we set the processor affinity to cores 0, 2, 4 and 6 (which provide optimal performance according to AMD). This allowed us diminish the negative impact the OS was having on our C-P-C tests. We had to remove WinRAR and DiRT 3 since it we couldn't prevent them from using all eight cores.

Image

As you can see, our new approach made a sizeable difference in some instances. Having said that, many of the comments we made above still ring true with regard to Zambezi's performance shortcomings compared to the venerable Deneb core. Zambezi's performance is inconsistent, never impressive in lightly threaded workloads, but also sometimes lagging badly in highly multi-threaded programs.

Source HC
Clive aka TDL4U


NG-921(1962rpm)P/Pull
CI7-980X-4Ghz(1.34v)HTon)
KHX6GB-(2250mhz)C9)1T)
ASUS-SaberToothX58(B1304)
EVGA-460(1GB/SC/FTW)
Cors-GT120GB/TX850W/H70CPU
Dell-ST2410/Win7(ULT/SP1)x64
CRU(M4)-128GB/HITDS3TBS6
Same old , same old...
<<

jhughes2466

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin

Posts: 3427

Joined: March 29th, 2010, 8:40 am

Post October 14th, 2011, 7:14 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

I won't lie... my initial reaction went like this, "Holy fucking shit batman, Bulldozer is a piece of shit". Then I stared blankly at the screen and decided to write....

Holy fucking shit batman... bulldozer is an extremely huge pile of flaming shit. What are those idiots doing?
My Rig: | CASE: CoolerMaster Storm Sniper | MOBO: ASUS P6X58D Premium | PSU: Thermaltake 750W Modular | Graphics Card: XFX Radeon 5850 | Memory: 6GB G.Skill Ripjaws | CPU: i7 930 | CPU Cooler: Xigmatek Dark Knight | HDD 1: 1TB WD Caviar Black | HDD 2: 750GB WD Caviar Black | Monitor: ASUS 24 | Sound: ASUS Xonar DX | Headset: Sennheiser HD 555 | OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit |

Image
<<

Atranox

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin

Posts: 1332

Joined: March 29th, 2010, 2:24 pm

Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post October 14th, 2011, 8:07 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

Image
ATRANOX

PC: Intel i7 4770k, MSI GTX 780, MSI Z87-G45, 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws, Rosewill Thor V2, 650W XFX Pro, 256GB Samsung 840 Pro, 1TB WD Black,
Win 8.1 x64, Noctua NH-U12, Creative ZxR, Dell U2311H, Max Cherry MX Keyboard, Logitech Performance Mouse, Beyerdynamics DT880


Currently playing: Dota 2, Planetside 2, Crusader Kings 2, Bioshock Infinite | Steam/Origin: Atranox
<<

BOB421C4

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 2262

Joined: April 2nd, 2010, 11:26 pm

Location: Moon, Pennsylvania

Post October 14th, 2011, 10:30 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

If I were a member of AMD's CPU development department, I would be sitting in the corner, surrounded by unsold/un-sellable FX chips, wearing black, and cutting myself right about now.

I always thought that successive generations of processors were, at least, supposed to be slightly faster than previous generations. Obviously AMD thought technology, and speed related to technology, was advancing too fast.
"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

Socrates
<<

VulpesMundi

User avatar

Thermal Paste
Thermal Paste

Posts: 468

Joined: April 12th, 2011, 3:52 pm

Location: Oregon, USA

Post October 15th, 2011, 2:31 am

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

Quick! Hide all this shit before Intel sees it!
"Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."
~Robert Kennedy

CyberFox | Case: CoolerMaster HAF 912 | PSU: CoolerMaster 1000W Modular 80+ Bronze | Motherboard: ASUS P8P67 Pro | CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K | CPU Cooler: Asetek 510LC Push-Pull | Memory: 2x 4GB Kingston Hyper-X Genesis | Data Drives: SanDisk Extreme 120GB SSD | Kingston 30GB SSD | 2x Hitachi Deskstar 7200RPM 1TB HDD | Graphics Card: Palit GeForce GTX 560 Ti | Monitor: ASUS VH238H 23" LED-LCD
<<

TheDLoader4U

User avatar

Thermal Paste
Thermal Paste

Posts: 407

Joined: April 12th, 2010, 11:42 pm

Post October 15th, 2011, 6:07 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

These FX chips aren't ready for Sandy, maybe they fit well next to 45nm Bloomfield. AMD is stuck playing catch up while Intel is off to the next thing. I bet AMD will eventually fix this epic of all fails and surpass Sandy but by that time Ivy Bridge will be 1 yr and counting in systems all over the world. This is the usual pattern for AMD, I follow these things.... :roll:
Clive aka TDL4U


NG-921(1962rpm)P/Pull
CI7-980X-4Ghz(1.34v)HTon)
KHX6GB-(2250mhz)C9)1T)
ASUS-SaberToothX58(B1304)
EVGA-460(1GB/SC/FTW)
Cors-GT120GB/TX850W/H70CPU
Dell-ST2410/Win7(ULT/SP1)x64
CRU(M4)-128GB/HITDS3TBS6
Same old , same old...
<<

jhughes2466

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin

Posts: 3427

Joined: March 29th, 2010, 8:40 am

Post October 15th, 2011, 10:36 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

TheDLoader4U wrote:These FX chips aren't ready for Sandy, maybe they fit well next to 45nm Bloomfield. AMD is stuck playing catch up while Intel is off to the next thing. I bet AMD will eventually fix this epic of all fails and surpass Sandy but by that time Ivy Bridge will be 1 yr and counting in systems all over the world. This is the usual pattern for AMD, I follow these things.... :roll:


It's really a sad thing for all of us though. When the first quad cores were coming into play and AMD was staying at least virtually neck and neck in terms of real world gaming performance it helped us find those deals on the first set of i7's at MicroCenter for $199. If I were Intel, I'd raise every chipset's price by $50-$100 tonight and there would be nothing we'd do about it except keep buying. Even at 100 bucks more, Intel right now is still the better choice.

AMD needs to be at least close behind in order to give budget builders an alternative and provide a platform for Intel to drop prices. This isn't it.
My Rig: | CASE: CoolerMaster Storm Sniper | MOBO: ASUS P6X58D Premium | PSU: Thermaltake 750W Modular | Graphics Card: XFX Radeon 5850 | Memory: 6GB G.Skill Ripjaws | CPU: i7 930 | CPU Cooler: Xigmatek Dark Knight | HDD 1: 1TB WD Caviar Black | HDD 2: 750GB WD Caviar Black | Monitor: ASUS 24 | Sound: ASUS Xonar DX | Headset: Sennheiser HD 555 | OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit |

Image
<<

BOB421C4

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 2262

Joined: April 2nd, 2010, 11:26 pm

Location: Moon, Pennsylvania

Post October 15th, 2011, 10:42 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

jhughes2466 wrote:
TheDLoader4U wrote:These FX chips aren't ready for Sandy, maybe they fit well next to 45nm Bloomfield. AMD is stuck playing catch up while Intel is off to the next thing. I bet AMD will eventually fix this epic of all fails and surpass Sandy but by that time Ivy Bridge will be 1 yr and counting in systems all over the world. This is the usual pattern for AMD, I follow these things.... :roll:


It's really a sad thing for all of us though. When the first quad cores were coming into play and AMD was staying at least virtually neck and neck in terms of real world gaming performance it helped us find those deals on the first set of i7's at MicroCenter for $199. If I were Intel, I'd raise every chipset's price by $50-$100 tonight and there would be nothing we'd do about it except keep buying. Even at 100 bucks more, Intel right now is still the better choice.

AMD needs to be at least close behind in order to give budget builders an alternative and provide a platform for Intel to drop prices. This isn't it.


Sadly enough, this is true. AMD YOU MAKE INTEL CHARGE MORE FOR VASTLY SUPERIOR PROCESSOR! Damn you AMD. (Not ATI though. Run away from AMD, ATI, even though you're not called ATI anymore. We still love you.
"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

Socrates
<<

jhughes2466

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin

Posts: 3427

Joined: March 29th, 2010, 8:40 am

Post October 15th, 2011, 10:52 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

It's odd... how everything flip flops. Nvidia went bonkers and are finally pulling themselves out of it. AMD is now going bonkers. Next we need Intel to follow AMD's lead and start producing single core prescott processors because going backwards is the new "IN" thing to do.
My Rig: | CASE: CoolerMaster Storm Sniper | MOBO: ASUS P6X58D Premium | PSU: Thermaltake 750W Modular | Graphics Card: XFX Radeon 5850 | Memory: 6GB G.Skill Ripjaws | CPU: i7 930 | CPU Cooler: Xigmatek Dark Knight | HDD 1: 1TB WD Caviar Black | HDD 2: 750GB WD Caviar Black | Monitor: ASUS 24 | Sound: ASUS Xonar DX | Headset: Sennheiser HD 555 | OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit |

Image
<<

TheDLoader4U

User avatar

Thermal Paste
Thermal Paste

Posts: 407

Joined: April 12th, 2010, 11:42 pm

Post October 16th, 2011, 4:17 pm

Re: Clock-per-clock: Deneb(x4) vs. Zambezi(FX)

jhughes2466 wrote:It's odd... how everything flip flops. Nvidia went bonkers and are finally pulling themselves out of it. AMD is now going bonkers. Next we need Intel to follow AMD's lead and start producing single core prescott processors because going backwards is the new "IN" thing to do.


Well Intel actually have 1 core Celerons and 2 core Pentiums, both were reintroduced based on the new arch aka G440 to G860. I haven't really looked much into it, it doesn't interest me much. Although I have a feeling these chips can OC well since they don't have HT and that SB changed the threshold limits on heat.
Clive aka TDL4U


NG-921(1962rpm)P/Pull
CI7-980X-4Ghz(1.34v)HTon)
KHX6GB-(2250mhz)C9)1T)
ASUS-SaberToothX58(B1304)
EVGA-460(1GB/SC/FTW)
Cors-GT120GB/TX850W/H70CPU
Dell-ST2410/Win7(ULT/SP1)x64
CRU(M4)-128GB/HITDS3TBS6
Same old , same old...
Next

Return to First Look Hardware / Software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.