Shortcuts

A Handful of Salt: Analyzing Early Bulldozer Benchmarks

rated by 0 users
This post has 9 Replies | 0 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,190
Points 1,186,155
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Thu, Mar 31 2011 1:44 PM
Enthusiasts and professionals alike have long been curious about Bulldozer's performance. It's been hard to predict how the CPU will perform compared to Intel's Nehalem and Sandy Bridge; Bulldozer's unique shared execution units are a considerable departure from anything else on the market.

Leaked benchmarks courtesy of openbenchmarking.org have shed some light on what we might see when the processor launches. David Kanter of Real World Technologies has compared the Bulldozer results against Magny-Cours performance, but warns that it's unwise to draw conclusions based on engineering samples. There's a dearth of information regarding which compiler options were selected or if AVX was enabled. Finally, there's clockspeed—the Bulldozer ES processors were running at 1.8GHz. AMD has previously indicated that Bulldozer will launch at clockspeeds well above this figure; current Magny-Cours chips top out at 2.3GHz—nearly 30 percent faster. We also don't know how fast the integrated memory controller was running—as Kanter points out, AMD's snoop filter may not have been functioning properly when these benchmarks were run.


AMD's Bulldozer.

Check RWT's article if you want specific numbers, but we'll say this: The results are erratic. Bulldozer soundly beats Magny-Cours in some areas, only to fall well behind in others. This loosely matches our expectations given Bulldozer's shared FPU, but the size of the gap between MC and BD may well be due to other intervening variables.

We don't have enough information to draw any solid conclusions. The comparative data suggests that Bulldozer may have traded significant performance increases in certain areas for significant decreases in others. Without further information on compiler flags and the ES chips themselves, it's impossible to judge whether or not the bet paid off. AMD has always claimed that Bulldozer was designed to meet the core needs of the server market while conserving die space and minimizing production costs. It's not unreasonable to think that Sunnyvale is counting on higher clockspeeds and larger caches to achieve or surpass Magny-Cours in sub-optimal workloads.

If the performance gap we see here reflects real-world measurements, it'll be difficult for Bulldozer to match Sandy Bridge. AMD's attempt to compete with Intel by selling cores at a 2:1 ratio in the server market last year has yielded scant results. The implication is that Bulldozer may actually end up losing to Intel's Sandy Bridge-based Xeons by a wider margin than as present.

At the moment, Bulldozer's performance eerily resembles the P4—and that's not exactly a ringing endorsement. With any luck, proper compiler flags and the new AVX instructions will minimize any performance losses we might see when comparing next-generation processors. For now, we're cautiously optimistic. It's important to keep expectations in line with reality—Bulldozer, even if it's great, isn't likely to bound the gap between AMD and Intel in one amazing product generation.
  • | Post Points: 140
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 436
Points 3,395
Joined: Dec 2010
LLeCompte replied on Thu, Mar 31 2011 3:46 PM

for the market's sake, i hope the performance is enough to challenge intel. All i know is i love my x6 phenom, it handles everything amazingly and i didnt have to pay a bunch of money for it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,652
Points 104,120
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator
realneil replied on Thu, Mar 31 2011 7:58 PM

I hope AMD gets a winner in this release. I'm all for their continued existence because they help to keep Intel's prices in check.

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 45
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: All

"I'm all for their continued existence because they help to keep Intel's prices in check." Agreed! I don't run AMD at this time but I'd love to see more competition for Intel. As it stands right now, I think Intel charges about 20-50% too much for their processors.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,830
Points 45,790
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Thu, Mar 31 2011 10:42 PM

I agree with all of the other comments on this I also do hope this is due to early release processors as well. I was hoping for another killer CPU line from AMD with this one specifically. While we do not know what the release units will be like lets keep hoping these early engineering release chips are just the bottom step in the functional release units.

OS:Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
MB:ASUS Z87C
CPU:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 4770 ***
GPU:Geforce GTX 770 4GB
Mem:***ingston 16384MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 207
Points 1,515
Joined: Feb 2011

I hope the bulldozer doesnt dip to far to Phenom II perfomance levels...I read a few other articles about these benchmarks and people were saying that it could perform similar to the Pentium 4 with HT. Supposedly under certain loads it perfoms surprisingly well but under others it the SMT actually reduces performance significantly....i hope that isnt the case.Im rooting for you AMD! In anycase this is a really interesting step in the X86 market, it will be interesting to see how this changes the market and possible future processors from both sides.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 207
Points 1,515
Joined: Feb 2011

Oh and what i meant by similar to P4HT was that the SMT can impact perfomance negatively, not that it will pefrom similarly.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 40
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Houston TX
DRivera replied on Fri, Apr 1 2011 2:15 AM

The name just sounds cool ... BULLDOZER!!!!

Way better then Sandy Vagina.. i mean bridge.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 467
Points 3,710
Joined: Feb 2011

I'm pulling for AMD as well. They have proven they can beat Intel as they did with the FX line back in the day.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 7
Points 50
Joined: Mar 2011
James86 replied on Mon, Apr 4 2011 10:21 AM

I am hoping to see some real performance numbers coming out soon

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | RSS