*STABLE* Black Hole Benchmark

[StrangleHold]

Iv been disappointed with AMD since 2006. Its sad because i would love to have a new AMD build but they seem to be stuck in the ice age.

It because they have lost all of the Nexgen people. Plus went to all automated design tools that cause around 20% loss in performance and 20% more transistors then needed. Its cheaper and faster. They use to do transistors by hand that were critical parts. Makes no sense to save money building a CPU, then lose money/market share selling them because of low IPC.

You know it took Intel 6 years to beat the Athlons IPC. They did it by using the Pentium III and Mobile, came up with the Core 2. Which still today the Haswell is nothing but a upgraded Core 2. But with Sanders putting Ruiz in charge, he just destroyed the CPU team and put them 4 billion in debt buying ATI. How can you design a new CPU die when you lost all the good people and 4 billion in dept. You cant, you end up with the first Phenom which was a disaster and they still haven't recovered.

 

[Darren]

If you're in the "lower tier" of gaming machines, AMD does just fine I think. They may not be the most efficient clock for clock and what not but they still make cheap processors that can play games well, which is what many people are after. For that, they're great. For high end computing, not so much. I'm too young to appreciate what they used to be so maybe I'm a bit naive to that part of it. But from the stuff I've seen of late, I'm not disappointed with where they are, it's just different from maybe where they were in the past.

 

[voyagerfan99]

Here's the latest result for my CPU

 

[G80FTW]

If you're in the "lower tier" of gaming machines, AMD does just fine I think. They may not be the most efficient clock for clock and what not but they still make cheap processors that can play games well, which is what many people are after. For that, they're great. For high end computing, not so much. I'm too young to appreciate what they used to be so maybe I'm a bit naive to that part of it. But from the stuff I've seen of late, I'm not disappointed with where they are, it's just different from maybe where they were in the past.

My first build was an AMD Athlon. Was 1.6GHz. Back then, in 2001, AMD was top dog. They were far superior to their Intel rivals. And as StrangleHold stated, that run lasted them a long while. AMD milked the K8 architecture for wayyy too long. While the K8 architecture was amazingly advanced for its time, its time that AMD let it go. When they introduced the "K10" architecture with the Phenom it was nothing but a mildly updated version of the K8. Very few changes if I recall. Which is why you did not see any significant increase in performance versus the X2 Athlons. As far as I know, even the brand new processors AMD is releasing are still strongly based on the K8. Which is why AMD hasnt had any socket changes in the past years, even the jump from 939 to 940 wasnt significant. I think all AM2 and AM3 boards are all 940 sockets just with different chipsets. Makes no sense at all if you ask me.

Back in the day, there was really no comparison to AMD and Intel. AMD was so much faster clock for clock and even the top end Intel Pentium 4s at 3GHz were still not as fast as their 2GHz AMD rivals. Almost exactly flipped today. The only difference is, back then the AMD and Intel processors were pretty matched in price meaning that Intel relied on selling their clock speeds to people who did not know any better. Seemed to work fine. The whole NetBurst architecture Intel had at that time was garbage if you ask me. It was a cheap way to get higher clock speeds at the expense of having ultra long pipelines making the IPC terrible at best and in the case of the Prescott which had even longer pipelines than the Northwoods, made them run MUCH hotter.

 

[Intel_man]

Back in the Athlon days, the AMD was faster in gaming, but since the P4 was hyperthreaded, it was more usable for day to day applications.


AMD really needs to step up their game... My i7 920 is still keeping up with current gen stuff without a huge difference in performance.

 

[G80FTW]

Back in the Athlon days, the AMD was faster in gaming, but since the P4 was hyperthreaded, it was more usable for day to day applications.


AMD really needs to step up their game... My i7 920 is still keeping up with current gen stuff without a huge difference in performance.

Yes hyperthreading was not introduced until 2003, and even then it was only select applications where the P4 saw an advantage.

 

[StrangleHold]

AMD with dreams of Bulldozer just ran the Athlon architecture to long, really the Phenom II was the last of it. Just kept updating it and putting all their resources on Bulldozer. Then right in the middle of it Ruiz buys ATI and takes in all kind of debt. Bulldozer at first was going to be released on 65nm. instead of Phenom I. The first Phenom I was nothing but 4 Brisbane cores with L3 cache and unfinished. In other words, a rushed job because they had to fill in because Bulldozer was no where near ready. Then came the Phenom I 50 series with fixes. Phenom II comes. The Phenom II was a good filler. They should have just waited and kept using Athlon 64 till the Phenom II was ready. Would have never had the grief they went through with the Phenom I. The amount of resources spent to release the Phenom I could have been spent on research and the Phenom II could have come out earlier and better.

AMD at first had a good idea. They saw what Intel was trying to do with the P4 but couldn't because of heat and wattage. Took a wild guess that bulldozer could pull it off with high clock speed and the module was better then Hyperthreading. But if you have a CEO and board that decides to spend 5 billion when they just have 1.5 kinda puts a monkey wrench in it. You end up selling your Fabs to keep from going bankrupt and come up with the idea of a APU. Because the GPU company you bought is the only thing left intact and because of the above you destroyed your CPU dept.

 

[Virssagòn]

Back in the Athlon days, the AMD was faster in gaming, but since the P4 was hyperthreaded, it was more usable for day to day applications.


AMD really needs to step up their game... My i7 920 is still keeping up with current gen stuff without a huge difference in performance.

And how much has the intel architecture been changed after your i7 920? Clock for clock, your i7 won't be very far behind the newer gens.

 

[G80FTW]

And how much has the intel architecture been changed after your i7 920? Clock for clock, your i7 won't be very far behind the newer gens.

Clock for clock the first gen i7s arent even close to the new gens from what iv seen.

 

[Jiniix]

We've seen a general ~10% increase in IPC per generation since the first gen i7 chips.
This is pretty theoretical, but should be true enough.
4th gen 4.125GHz = 3rd gen 4.540GHz = 2nd gen 4.992GHz = 1st 5.490GHz
To simplify: To keep up with a Haswell clocked at 4.125GHz, you would have to OC your chip to 5.5GHz to get the same single-threaded performance.
This isn't exact to the MHz, but it's the right model.

 

[PCunicorn]

Clock for clock the first gen i7s arent even close to the new gens from what iv seen.

Maybe you should just get a custom loop and oc the hell out of that 970

 

[Virssagòn]

We've seen a general ~10% increase in IPC per generation since the first gen i7 chips.
This is pretty theoretical, but should be true enough.
4th gen 4.125GHz = 3rd gen 4.540GHz = 2nd gen 4.992GHz = 1st 5.490GHz
To simplify: To keep up with a Haswell clocked at 4.125GHz, you would have to OC your chip to 5.5GHz to get the same single-threaded performance.
This isn't exact to the MHz, but it's the right model.

After the second gen it increased only by 5% or less... You're basing yourself on promises that Intel made in the past. AMD may be wrong with their statement before launch, but Intel was at least as disappointing the last 2 years.

 

[spirit]

Yeah, really the 4670K is not a massive leap from the 3570K and I was a little underwhelmed when I replaced my i5 760 with a 2500K in 2012. Don't get me wrong, I do love my 2500K, but I think I could have hung onto my 760 for a little longer.

 

[Intel_man]

Especially with the fact that games are more leaning towards more calculations on the GPU, the CPU bottleneck in a game isn't even a huge thing anymore.

 

[Virssagòn]

Especially with the fact that games are more leaning towards more calculations on the GPU, the CPU bottleneck in a game isn't even a huge thing anymore.

Jup, and when you use higher settings, the gap is even smaller Pretty funny though.

 

[Virssagòn]

Kaveri at 4.5Ghz:

Comparing to an A10 6790K at 5GHz - 'A10 6790K(OC)'

 

[Jiniix]

So at 4.5GHz it's about the same a 6790/6800K @ 5GHz? Neat.
Have you tried for higher clocks?

 

[StrangleHold]

For the price I think they suck. I use to recommend the 6000 series for people that use onboard. These are over priced. Got a old FX 8120, even running at 4.2 beats the 6970 at 5.0 and the 7850K at 4.5. Got a total of 12076. The 8120 beats the crap out of it running at between 4.5 and 5.0. Can get a 8320 cheaper. Not impressed.

 

[Virssagòn]

So at 4.5GHz it's about the same a 6790/6800K @ 5GHz? Neat.
Have you tried for higher clocks?

This is the score from someone else. I'm getting the APU later for review, that will be in a week though...
And I'll probably won't get far with only a CM Hyper 212 EVO. The 6790K was under watercooling, but that watersetup is damaged, so I got a cheap aircooler.

 

[Intel_man]

My 3? year old i7 920 @ 3.6GHz is on par with that Kaveri.