hosamnasr
20-07-2013, 18:19
AMD Steamroller FX 9650 - 4.5 Ghz / 4.8 Ghz Turbo Benchmarks!
AMD Back in the High End
1090FX Entusiast
https://www.xbitlabs.com/images/hot-topics/amd-steamroller/banner-roll.jpg (https://www.xbitlabs.com/images/hot-topics/amd-steamroller/banner-roll.jpg)
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 (https://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-pushes-steamroller-and-excavator-forward-bullish-about-performance-increases/17088.html)
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 (https://hothardware.com/%28S%28fcw03xq431kv2155icizwyju%29%29/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73970X-Sandy-BridgeE-CPU-Review/?page=3)
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 (https://hothardware.com/%28S%28fcw03xq431kv2155icizwyju%29%29/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73970X-Sandy-BridgeE-CPU-Review/?page=3)
---
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 (https://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2013/3/6/analysis-amd-kaveri-apu-and-steamroller-core-architectural-enhancements-unveiled.aspx)) 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.
AMD Back in the High End
1090FX Entusiast
https://www.xbitlabs.com/images/hot-topics/amd-steamroller/banner-roll.jpg (https://www.xbitlabs.com/images/hot-topics/amd-steamroller/banner-roll.jpg)
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 (https://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-pushes-steamroller-and-excavator-forward-bullish-about-performance-increases/17088.html)
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 (https://hothardware.com/%28S%28fcw03xq431kv2155icizwyju%29%29/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73970X-Sandy-BridgeE-CPU-Review/?page=3)
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 (https://hothardware.com/%28S%28fcw03xq431kv2155icizwyju%29%29/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73970X-Sandy-BridgeE-CPU-Review/?page=3)
---
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 (https://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2013/3/6/analysis-amd-kaveri-apu-and-steamroller-core-architectural-enhancements-unveiled.aspx)) 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.