AMD 32core CPUs benchmarked!!

[LeStringMan]

@PCGuy_5960 @ScratchCat, whatever this 2.5 ghz 2 core 4 thread cpu is, is very similar in performance to an i3 6100u

(http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7143528). But it says AuthenticAMD Family 21 (also known as 15h), which is Bulldozer and it's derivatives. Also Geekbench sees CMT as cores/ threads so an 8350 for example appears as 4 cores 8 threads. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Coaxialgamer said:

Also , it's worth pointing out the chip is most likely chocking on memory bandwith

Maybe this is the reason for such a low score...

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, LeStringMan said:

@PCGuy_5960 @ScratchCat, whatever this 2.5 ghz 2 core 4 thread cpu is, is very similar in performance to an i3 6100u

(http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7143528). But it says AuthenticAMD Family 21 (also known as 15h), which is Bulldozer and it's derivatives. Also Geekbench sees CMT as cores/ threads so an 8350 for example appears as 4 cores 8 threads. 

So this is not ZEN?!?!?!

[LeStringMan]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

So this is not ZEN?!?!?!

I dont know for sure but the Cache is definitely not structured like the Zen sample, Family 21 Stepping 1 is Carrizo, which geekbench has some problems with properly reporting clockspeed, also remember Bristol ridge is not Zen it is an improvement on Excavator/Carrizo, so its possible thats what this is. Excavator is not too far behind Sandy Bridge in terms of IPC.

 

Athlon 845 3.5 ghz 3.8 ghz turbo

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7933740

 

I5 2500 3.3 ghz 3.7ghz turbo

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7993375

 

[Coaxialgamer]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

So this is not ZEN?!?!?!

it looks to be a bulldozer chip ( possibly piledriver , steamroller or excavator ). The high stepping also points to a production sample , so likely not zen.

 

This leaked score looks to be a zen chip ( unless it was fabricated ) . Looking at wikipedia ( here ) shows that AMD family 23 refers to Zen , which is exactly the family of this chip 

 

However it seems to be a very early sample , as seen by the stepping number , and isn't necessarily  representative of actual retail performance 

[Jumper118]

slower than my i5 6500@5ghz.....................

[Citadelen]

1 hour ago, Jumper118 said:

slower than my i5 6500@5ghz.....................

*points at stepping number* *points at memory bandwidth* *points at clock speed*

 

[Speedy☆☺]

18 hours ago, MarcoTexture said:

impressive for 1.4 ghz. But but butttttt why did they benchmark it at that frequency? I mean what's the point?

Engineering sample.

[GirlFromYonder]

14 hours ago, Jumper118 said:

slower than my i5 6500@5ghz.....................

well, that bclk working out

[Jumper118]

35 minutes ago, DeezNoNos said:

well, that bclk working out

http://hwbot.org/submission/3302347_jumper118_geekbench4___multi_core_core_i5_6500_15179_points daily speed.  Nearly beats it.  I'll get another 1000-1500 on phase. 

[GirlFromYonder]

33 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

http://hwbot.org/submission/3302347_jumper118_geekbench4___multi_core_core_i5_6500_15179_points daily speed.  Nearly beats it.  I'll get another 1000-1500 on phase. 

and for long term is it good. Will it kill my cpu

[Jumper118]

53 minutes ago, DeezNoNos said:

and for long term is it good. Will it kill my cpu

It's fine.  Mine been run at 1.7v on phase a few times and it hasn't  degraded at all. It's just the same as overclocking any other cpu the only difference is intel and enderman say you can't because they want you to buy the k cpu which costs more. 

[GirlFromYonder]

3 hours ago, Jumper118 said:

It's fine.  Mine been run at 1.7v on phase a few times and it hasn't  degraded at all. It's just the same as overclocking any other cpu the only difference is intel and enderman say you can't because they want you to buy the k cpu which costs more. 

oooh ok, so ill just ait for my z170 then

[Kevin11]

so is this one of the other new generation amd chips along with the zen?

[PCGuy_5960]

5 hours ago, Kevin11 said:

so is this one of the other new generation amd chips along with the zen?

Naples refers to the server grade CPUs that use the Zen architecture

[Ryujin2003]

On 09/06/2016 at 5:08 AM, don_svetlio said:

Also, keep in mind that Geekbench may be registering AMD's version of hyper threads as cores. So those may actually be 16 cores per CPU, not 32.

Since AMD release specs about their Zen processor that included SMT, I would really hope this means legitimately. Not that weird virtualize core they have done before. It is very possible that AMD had learned to count physical cores. Like real counting, none of this made up math.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Since AMD release specs about their Zen processor that included SMT, I would really hope this means legitimately. Not that weird virtualize core they have done before. It is very possible that AMD had learned to count physical cores. Like real counting, none of this made up math.

What virtualized cores? Are you referring to Intel's hyper threading? Cuase their previous Bulldozer design had 2 physical cores sharing an FPU.

[Ryujin2003]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

What virtualized cores? Are you referring to Intel's hyper threading? Cuase their previous Bulldozer design had 2 physical cores sharing an FPU.

I'm referring to AMD Bulldozer where an FX 6xxx or 8xxx aren't really true 6 or 8 cores. With Zen, I expect a 6, 8, or even 32 core CPU to have that many physical cores, each with hyper threading.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, Ryujin2003 said:

I'm referring to AMD Bulldozer where an FX 6xxx or 8xxx aren't really true 6 or 8 cores. With Zen, I expect a 6, 8, or even 32 core CPU to have that many physical cores, each with hyper threading.

You do realize that those did have 6/8 core modules with 3/4 FPU units shared between 2 cores. They did have the cores, the design was simply not identical to Intel's design - it's still a 6/8-core CPU.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, don_svetlio said:

You do realize that those did have 6/8 core modules with 3/4 FPU units shared between 2 cores. They did have the cores, the design was simply not identical to Intel's design - it's still a 6/8-core CPU.

Only under certain circumstances. Once floating point gets involved (games is a big one), Bulldozer and Piledriver fall apart.

[GirlFromYonder]

4 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Only under certain circumstances. Once floating point gets involved (games is a big one), Bulldozer and Piledriver fall apart.

;he was not talking about performance. He was just saying the bulldozer was a true octacore

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, DeezNoNos said:

;he was not talking about performance. He was just saying the bulldozer was a true octacore

Which is false under certain conditions. A CPU core is a fully independent system with all the bells and whistles required to run a program built for the given architecture.

[Ryujin2003]

52 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Which is false under certain conditions. A CPU core is a fully independent system with all the bells and whistles required to run a program built for the given architecture.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Yes it may "have" 6 or 8 physical cores, however they aren't "true" cores. These cores aren't independent. When one core can only operate dependent on an other core for FPU, it's not a true core. FX 8350 should be replaced with "up to 8 cores!" The modules are stand alone. You andndlonelways have 3 or 4 modules depending on CPU. You don't always get andndlonelwaysccess the all 6 or 8 cores because they are not dedicated or independent.