http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_linux&num=1
^ dual socket old motherboard + 2x 16 "core" engineering sample bulldozers.
Check out the Raytraceing Benchmarks for C-Ray v1.1
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/...IV-AMDWORKST94,1102261-IV-1102243IV79&compare
to put it into perspective:
Anyways...
lets say that 32-core 1.8ghz at 25secounds, was like ~50 secounds with "just" 16 "core"s... which would be 1 cpu (@1.8ghz). It would still be faster than the Core i5 2500k (that runs at 3.7ghz with turbo) in this benchmark.
also its a engineering sample, its bound to get better performance when its released, and undoubtably see much faster speeds (than just 1.8ghz).
^ dual socket old motherboard + 2x 16 "core" engineering sample bulldozers.
Check out the Raytraceing Benchmarks for C-Ray v1.1
http://openbenchmarking.org/result/...IV-AMDWORKST94,1102261-IV-1102243IV79&compare
to put it into perspective:
I just wish they would have shown some 4ghz bulldozers instead of 1.8ghz cores.While there are other software/hardware differences in play too, the 32-core 1.80GHz Bulldozer system's 25 seconds compared to the Intel Core i5 2500K (quad-core + Hyper Threading; 3.3GHz + 3.7GHz Intel Turbo Boost) at 61 seconds or the dual quad-core AMD Opteron 2384 system of ours taking 127 seconds to complete. The Intel Core i7 970 (six cores + Hyper Threading; 3.2GHz Base Frequency + 3.46GHz Turbo Boost) comes in at about 61 seconds too.
Anyways...
lets say that 32-core 1.8ghz at 25secounds, was like ~50 secounds with "just" 16 "core"s... which would be 1 cpu (@1.8ghz). It would still be faster than the Core i5 2500k (that runs at 3.7ghz with turbo) in this benchmark.
also its a engineering sample, its bound to get better performance when its released, and undoubtably see much faster speeds (than just 1.8ghz).
Last edited: