might be steamroller benchmarks

[skitz9417]

hi people i have found this so please take this we a grain of salt i dont know if this true or not so dont get mad at me :)

 

 

AMD Steamroller FX 9650 - 4.5 Ghz / 4.8 Ghz Turbo Benchmarks!

 

 

AMD Back in the High End
1090FX Entusiast

 

30% more Ops / Cycle = 20% IPC Benefit over Piledriver

 

Assuming 45% increase in performance vs Bulldozer (First Gen) and a 32% increase in performance vs Piledriver (Second Gen). This is taken directly from AMD!

source

IPC will lie somewhere between Nahelem and Sandy Bridge , falling behind Haswell by only 25-30%.

POV Ray 3.7 - Multithreaded Test Score

 

Intel

 

4C/8T - Intel i7 3770k : 1363

 

6C/12T - Intel i7 3970x : 1888

 

AMD

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 8350 : 1505

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 9450 : 1636

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 9650 : 1985

 

(determined with 32% increase in performance over the FX 8350)

 

source

 

Cinebench 11.5 Score - Single Core Test

 

Intel

 

 

4C/8T - Intel i7 3770k : 1.66

 

6C/12T - Intel i7 3970x : 1.62

 

AMD

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 8350 : 1.11

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 9450 : 1.21

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 9650 : 1.47

 

Cinebench 11.5 Score - Multi-core Test

Intel

 

 

4C/8T - Intel i7 3770k : 7.52

 

6C/12T - Intel i7 3970x : 10.84

 

AMD

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 8350 : 6.93

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 9450 : 7.55

 

4M/8T - AMD FX 9650 : 9.15
 

source

---

 

Due to the 20% difference in single core performance when compared to Haswell, the FX 9650 will perform on par with a 2nd gen intel i7 2600k in gaming, still falling behind the 4770k by a hair when paired with two high end graphics card solutions. For games, like Crysis 3, that take advantage of more than 4 cores, the FX 9650 will perform on par with its intel counter parts. The 32 % performance increase comes with a 20% increase in IPC (vs Piledriver) and around a 10% Clock boost.

 

 

The only downside with these chips is the overclockability. AMD generally pushes their stock clocks high enough to not leave any room for overclocking. Although AMD has put alot of effort into making these chips less power hungry, they only succeeded in allowing for higher clocks and typically higher overclock under the given TDP. The total power consumption is only 5-8% less than its FX 8350 counterpart. Unlike with the 4770k, which can handle a hefty +43% overclock from 3.5 Ghz to 5.0 Ghz , while the AMD FX 9650 will only handle a 20% overclock from 4.5 Ghz to 5.4 Ghz.

Note: It should deffinitly be noted that the intel processor overclocked to 5 Ghz will still use a whopping 40% less power than AMD's Steamroller Flagship.

 

The FX 9650 will lie somewhere between the 4770k and the 4960x in performance, and the price will reflect that. To directly compete with the 4770k, AMD will release a cheaper variant clocked at 3.8 Ghz with a 4.2 Ghz Turbo.

 

My Price estimate for AMD's flagship FX chip 4.5 Ghz with 4.8 Ghz Turbo is $449, with the lower model sporting a 3.8 Ghz / 4.2 Ghz Turbo Clock for $249. The FX 9650 will compete directly with the i7 4930k, while the FX 9450 will compete with the i7 4770k.

 

You Choose Who will be King!

Update: *Given AMD's flagship Kaveri APU will sport 3M/6T , (source) it wll be interesting to see if AMD releases a 6M/12T Centurian FX variant flagship in the 900-1000 USD range. (If not 4M/8T) Although this chip will be plagued with terrible overclockability, it will nevertheless give the 4960x a run for its money.

 

http://amdfx.blogspot.ca/2013/05/amd-steamroller-fx-9650-45-ghz-48-ghz.html

 

 

 

[IPCharger]

I really want this to be true... Is there any word on release date?

[Godlygamer23]

Not really all that competitive.

[skitz9417]

I really want this to be true... Is there any word on release date?

no there inst yet

[IPCharger]

no there inst yet

Guess I'll continue with my plans to upgrade to a 4770k then...

[M-ursu]

No way...

AMD can have faster CPU than 3970x

I am not beliving, but hopefully it is true.

[skitz9417]

yea im waiting for steamroller but i hope it going be good

[kuddlesworth9419]

AMD CPU's are getting better at least.

[skitz9417]

AMD CPU's are getting better at least.

yea it is good that amd cpu is getting better

[naca1227]

I have to doubt any of this is true

[kuddlesworth9419]

It probably isn't true judging by the top end Intel CPU's being proved quite a bit higher. But I hope it is true so then Intel has an excuse to release 8 or 16 core CPU's if they have any.

[TechFan@ic]

I've come across this before, it's based on speculation & conjecture, they're not actual benchmarks.

[Guest GRRigger]

Amd shouldnt compete where they are going to loose. They can keep prices down to compete, but at 500 dollar range... just no. 8350 will remain for budget, intel for performance.
The electricity, heat are just not worth it at that scale, so intel is still best buy. AMD can only drop prices.

[MzCatieB]

i would like AMD to start pushing to compete with Intel a little more, rather then pushing more cores and Ghz with each gen they do

[MG2R]

i would like AMD to start pushing to compete with Intel a little more, rather then pushing more cores and Ghz with each gen they do

The problem is die size. AMD needs money to move to a smaller lithography, money they don't have :/

[zeiferlance]

crossing fingers... hopefully this is true. 

this may be an old line but... "competition is always good for consumers"

[YellowDragon]

Not really all that competitive.

so its not really competitive in Itunes (uses a single core) like you really need a faster processor to sync your music. In reality and into the future apps will be coded for more cores, so single core IPC stops being a benefit, if in a multi-core friendly program both intel and AMD are equal go for the cheaper one since very few programs are bound to 1 core (most are at least dual core friendly), i will be happy to take a chip with less performance in single threaded apps if it is on par with intel in gaming, since very few new games and programs (if any) are coded for just a single core.

[MzCatieB]

The problem is die size. AMD needs money to move to a smaller lithography, money they don't have :/

why not just make the chips bigger for desktops then and just have cutdown versions for laptops and notebooks

like Intel's -e series chips

[MG2R]

why not just make the chips bigger for desktops then and just have cutdown versions for laptops and notebooks

like Intel's -e series chips

That's not the problem with die size. The problem is that the bigger you chip is, the lower the percentage of chips that work (yield) is. In every silicon wafer out of which they make the chips, there are bad spots. A chip that is "printed" on such a bad spot is destined to malfunction. The bigger your chips, the less chips you get from wafer. Less chips means that this number of bad chips is a larger percentage, thus the yield goes down.

 

If the yield goes down, you have to make more chips to get a given amount of working chips. This drives the cost up significalty.

 

Smaller lithographic process = smaller chips = higher yield = cheaper chips = more profit = smaller lithography = ...

[Nicktrance]

Yeah I have my doubts but I really wish for someone to give Intel some competition in the midrange and high end PC market. 

[Kuzma]

If this is true? I'm an AMD fan but I'd honestly still get a 4670k, why? Because Intel boards have a lot of features that you just don't see on AMD boards :( AMD need to work on that.

[tabuburn]

Hm...a couple of things that are dodgy.

 

The date on that article is August 31, 2012 10:14 am so it's not really credible anymore as compared to newer ones like this:

 

AMD is incrementing the series number to 9000 while sticking with the existing Piledriver Vishera architecture

- June 13, 2013

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

 

The only benchmark that has been done on these FX-9000 CPU's so far was using a overclocked FX-8350 which should be what we can expect from them since that's what they are based off of.

Source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-9590-CPU-257460/Tests/AMD-FX-9590-Centurion-Test-1073781/