And what do we need FPUs for then? Steamroller – Family 15h 3rd-gen. Power consumption is higher for AMD affects both electricity costs and density , especially at higher clock frequencies. The first APU based on Piledriver, codenamed Trinity, debuted last spring; the desktop variant hit shelves at the beginning of this month. The big take away from our testing here is that the Piledriver core is without question faster than the Bulldozer core. I measured about 0.
|Date Added:||15 May 2016|
|File Size:||29.83 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Retrieved 21 September As a consequence, piledriverr results here will be lower than in a standard review, particularly for single-thread performance. Fetch, decode, ALUs, cache, attached over a memory bus of some sort, executing a single thread.
Poorly threaded web based tests like the SunSpider and Chalkboard benchmarks showed much larger gains than well threaded tests like our wPrime and Truecrypt benchmarks.
List of AMD FX microprocessors
Furthermore I replaced bc with wcalc on my script. The fastest model, the AK, featured two Piledriver modules operating at 4.
Looking at our Counter-Strike: Six percent is the average advantage that Piledriver offers over Bulldozer when both are in an eight core configuration, and clocked at 4Ghz. Starting with Cinebench we can see that Piledriver offers an eight percent advantage in the single threaded ipledriver and a smaller six percent advantage in the multi-threaded test.
What we got is not shockingly different from what you got.
The changes over Bulldozer are incremental. I bulldozre you should try asking your users what tasks they care about. I believe you may have inadvertently included turbo-scaling losses in with your calculations for CMT scaling losses.
The following two graphs compare the throughput of 8 vs. The summary is here: The big take away from our testing here is that the Piledriver core is without question faster than the Bulldozer core.
AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver Modules and Hyper-Threading « Blog
Some Opteron 32 nm processors. There is linear scaling until a clear bend in the curve at 4 threads, which indicates that using two threads in a module does not perform as well as two full cores. I doubt anyone cares about how quickly you can compute pow for non-data-dependent operands in a loop. This plot shows how throughput scales as more instances of a workload are run concurrently on an AMD FX, normalized to four threads.
Retrieved 10 February Retrieved from ” https: Username or Email Address.
Speedup from four cores with shared last-level cache. Since it launched, Sunnyvale has laid off thousands, is preparing to lay off thousands morecancelled its first set of 28nm chips based on the Bobcat architecture, and has lost ground overall in the PC market.
Speedup from two-way multithreading, comparing 8 threads to 4. It targets desktop, mobile and server markets. Even in my results, the range is quite big 1. If I gave the system two independent threads rather than one, how much performance will it give me in return for my effort? In 7-zip we have an eight percent gain, and in the SunSpider benchmark we have the largest advantage shown in our testing, a whopping 12 percent. Yep, performance scaling with SMT is dependent on the workload.
I think your timing script also has some timing precision issues. Moving to the benchmarks we tested these chips in a modified version of the Piedriver test suite we used for the Trinity and Ammd reviews.