Some of the very first benchmark results of the upcoming and highly anticipated AMD FX-8310P BullDozer CPU have appeared around the web.
The B1 revision engineering sample of the CPU was running at 3.21GHz (200.7 x 16) at 1.404V. It used on a Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 motherboard paired with 4GB of dual-channel Kingston DDR3 memory running at 1866MHz with timings of CL8-8-8-24. A GTX580 was used as the graphics sub-system.
The poorly-threaded benchmarks such as SuperPI and AIDA64 Cache & Memory Benchmark showed very appetising results with a respectable 19.5 second completion of SuperPI 1M. What is very interesting in the AIDA64 Cache & Memory Benchmark screenshot is that the CPU seems to be running at a frequency of 4.20GHz (200 x 21).
Multi-threaded benchmarks such as 3DMark11, PCMark7 and Cinebench R10 showed very pleasing results, so much so that this CPU looks to be a potent contender for the quad-core Sandy Bridge chips such as the 2500K and 2600K from the benchmark results. A very respectable average of 136FPS from the first pass of the x264 benchmark paired with the just over 45FPS from the second pass puts this CPU in the middle of a battle with the mighty 2600K.
Respectable results are shown in 3DMark 11 and PCMark 7 with scores of P6265 and 3045 respectively.
A rendering result of 24434 in Cinebench R10 also looks to put this CPU in the same performance field as Intel’s Core i7 2600K.
As always, these benchmarks can’t be fully trusted, but if they are true, then AMD will definitely have worthy alternative to Intel’s powerful LGA1155 quad-cores in the FX-8310P.
I still think the i7 2600k will be faster by the time bulldozer is released
im not sure after seeing these. i initially thought that AMD wouldnt be able to compete as it sometimes seems as if they are happy to settle for 2nd place. after seeing some of the results tho, namely Cinebench R10, i think intel as well as us lot may be in for a bit of a shock :pand if that 4.2GHz speed was accurate, then a 4.2GHz 8 core cpu = drool :D!
Max TDP 186W??:confused:
probably a dodgy cpu-z reading due to the processor being a pre-release sample