If we take the blender test they did at face value, isn't it safe to say the SMT bug at the very least is fixed? If it wasn't wouldn't that mean that they matched the 6900k with broken SMT (which would mean insane levels of IPC) or SB level IPC (which would make their SMT significantly better than Intel's).
Both scenarios sound fairly unrealistic.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I couldn't correct anyone for an unknown
Both scenarios seem plausible but there are other scenarios too. I am certain some workloads will favor Zen uarch enough to put in near to BDe.
But as for Blender, and even if it proves anything that can be generalized, is highly debatable.
Back in the Phenom days, K10 2.5GHz was around Kentsfield 2.4GHz in this bench:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2754/12
Clarkdale was miles ahead, near 80% per clock over Regor with no L3. Regor 3.0GHz was about equal to K8, and Conroe 2.4GHz.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2775/7
(ATs Deneb Blender benches seem bugged because they have Deneb 2.8GHz = Deneb 3.1GHz, yet 3.0GHz (X4 940) is faster than their 3.4GHz (X4 965) result... So I'll skip those low performing samples, like where Deneb 970BE 3.5GHz is 25% faster than Deneb 965BE 3.4GHz.)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/42
But look at the rest. Llano 2.9GHz is faster than a 2.8GHz Thuban.
Bulldozer and Piledriver gain immensely from K10 in Blender. Where else did BD outperform K10? Apart from the huge L2+L3 cache.
Piledriver 3M/6C 3.5GHz 6MB L2/8MB L3 is equal to Thuban 6C 3.3GHz 2MB L2/6MB L3 which is equal to Deneb 4C 3.6GHz 2MB L2/6MB L3! Can you see the affect Cache per Core is having?
The instr profiling I posted on an AMD and Intel chip confirmed the same, that it is an L1-L3 bound test. Remember Excel 07 and WinRAR? I remain unconvinced that these are anything more than cache prowess benchmarks.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)