It's important to remember that AMD's latest Orochi dies feature Piledriver cores rather than Excavator. This dramatic performance difference comes from the significant architectural performance per clock improvements in addition to Zen's simultaneous multithreading capability. This means that a single Zen core is in effect equivalent to two Piledriver cores in performance, which is incredibly impressive. Thankfully, we do finally have direct real-world performance figures for Zen.Ĭompared to AMD's "Orochi" quad module, eight core die powering the FX 8350, the Zen based desktop Summit Ridge eight core CPU delivers double the performance in Cinebench R15. And while comparing the architectural capabilities of zen to Excavator may have been informative, it doesn't offer a direct real-world product to product comparison. The 40% IPC uplift figure represents the architectural performance per clock improvement of Zen vs AMD's last CPU architecture, code named Excavator. AMD's Zen Eight Core CPU Delivers Double The Performance Of The FX 8350, A Real Challenger To Intel's i7 5960X Extreme EditionĪMD has finally published additional performance figures for Zen beyond the 40% IPC improvement over excavator that the company talked about last year. Which will deliver double the performance core for core of AMD's current desktop FX 83 series lineup. These next generation FX CPUs will include eight, six and quad core configurations. Not only that but a die shot of "Summit" what will be the basis of AMD's long awaited next generation high performance FX Zen CPUs has finally been revealed.ĪMD's Zen 8 core enthusiast class Summit Ridge CPUs are reportedly slated for an October launch on the company's brand new AM4 socket based desktop platform. The higher base clock likely helped, but the top maximum speed was still the same, so the benchmarks probably weren't swayed by them much either way.AMD has revealed that Zen will have double the performance of the FX 8350 and will trade blows with Intel's eight core i7 5960X Extreme Edition. Since both are constructed on the 32nm manufacturing process, the advantage of the latter is, thus, owed solely to the Piledriver architecture. The system that the processors were tested on used an AM3+ Crosshair V Formula-Z from ASUS, plus a Noctua heatsink, Kingston 2,333 MHz DDR3 RAM (random access memory), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti graphics card and an Antec PSU.Īnd now, for the specs: the Bulldozer FX-8150 features a clock speed of 3.6 GHz and a Turbo Core frequency of 4.2 GHz, while the FX-8350 Vishera is a 4.0 GHz part with 4.2 GHz Turbo Core. Thus, the Piledriver architecture (which Vishera is based on) does come with some improvements, but they aren't all that legendary.įortunately, we can find hope in the fact that the Vishera herein tested, being an engineering sample, may be further improved before it reaches retail, even if it already is in the OR-C0 revision, which is bound to ship in its current form. The results vary, but the overall conclusion is that the AMD Vishera has a 10% better multi-threaded performance and 4-5% better single-thread performance. The folks at OBR-Hardware are the ones that managed to pit the two 8-core units against one another, and they were quite thorough in their tests.ĬineBench R20 圆4, Cinebench R11.5 圆4, Fritz Chess, SuperPi 1M, x264 Benchmark – 720p and wPrime 32 are the names of the benchmarking suites. Now we are bringing you the results of a benchmark test conducted on the chip, in comparison to its predecessor, the FX-8150 Bulldozer. Late last month (August 2012), we reported that the specifications of the AMD FX-8350 Vishera processor had been discovered.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |