First AMD Bulldozer FX-8120 Benchmarks Unveiled, Zambezi Processors also available for Pre-Orders

Hardware Posted 2 years ago by Hassan Mujtaba

The Author

Diehard PC Gamer and Hardware Enthusiast. I mainly cover the Hardware and Gaming Section on WCCFtech.

All new Benchmarks of AMD’s Upcoming Bulldozer Processors have been revealed over at Vr-Zone Forums. The Upcoming Zambezi FX Processors would be support on the AM3+ Socket Motherboards (Backward Compatible with AM3 CPU’s) featuring the 990FX and SB950 Chipset.

The CPU Tested here include the Upcoming Eight Core 32nm Based FX-8120 which would feature a 3.1Ghz Stock Speed with Turbo Core Frequency of 4.0Ghz, 8Mb L3 Cache and 125W TDP. FX-8120 (221.73$) along with two other Bulldozer Processors are already available for Pre-Orders which you can see here.

The CPU-z Reported an idle frequency of 1.4Ghz which means the CPU was in C6 idle state and also a buggy TDP of 174W. This would be fixed with the updated version of CPU-z after the Processors are released. Also the CPU-z reports the CPU to be Stepping 2 which means that this is indeed the final B2 stepping retail chip. Benchmarks below:

CineBench R11.5:

AMD FX-8120: 5.24

Core i7 860: 5.06

3D Mark 06:

AMD FX-8120 CPU SCORE: 4967

3D Mark Vantage:

AMD FX-8120 CPU SCORE: 16743

Ads by Google

Super Pi 32M:

AMD FX-8120: 23m.45.131s

Compared to the Quad Core Intel’s i7 860, Bulldozer still ain’t ahead much. The Per Core Performance is still relatively lower, Let’s hope for better performance in the final chip. Another Screenshot from the forums show a FX-6110 chip overclocked to 4.7Ghz @ 1.416V. Screen below:

AMD has also postponed its Bulldozer launch to Q4 2011 according to few sources however September 19th Launch is still alot likely.

New AMD Slides detail Bulldozer (Zambezi-FX) Clock Speeds and Specs, Additional FX-Series CPU’s Unveiled

Gigabyte Leaks AMD Bulldozer (FX-Zambezi) Processors Details

AMD Bulldozer Enhanced (FX-Komodo) Processors Will work on AM3+ Platform, FM2 Socket Support for Trinity APU’s Confirmed

AMD Bulldozer Launch in September Now Official, Two New 8 Core FX Processors to arrive in Q1 2012

Ads by Google

Source 15 Comments

Follow @wccftechdotcom

This post has 15 Responses

Panos P

When it comes to these kind of benchmarks there are many factors that may be crippling bulldozer in its ES form. The last four months AMD has been working hard to try to make bulldozers launch credible at all. As it stands leaked ES benchmarks show it performing worse than an 1100t. I saw some benchmarks showing an 8120 performing FASTER with two cores turned off.. This just comes to show its micro code or bios related. The last leak were the prices, and knowing AMD prices will be competitive as they have been over their span in the cpu business. If the 8120 costs around 222 dollars, this is more than a 2500k still.

The 8150 may not beat 2600k in gaming, which would make sense given games utilize a maximum of 4 cores at this time, and from what it seems gaming is one of bulldozers largest emphasis on AMD’s website. This would justify a 30 dollar difference with the 2600k. Given when 2700k launches, the 2600k will probably lower to around 260 also.

I have a feeling they wont dissapoint us with the final product.. And from what i have heared theyre are also postponing the launch because they want to make enough chips to supply the demand on launch.. as was the case with bobcat and llano.
http://profiles.google.com/parkerm35 michael parker

There should of been a whole new platform for this chip. AMD has messed up by trying to keep people happy with compatibility.
- Anonymous
  
  “There should of been a whole new platform for this chip. AMD has messed up by trying to keep people happy with compatibility. ”
  
  I have suspected this has been holding AMD back for quite awhile now. Most people seem to think that Intel just change their sockets just to be mean and greedy. I have always believed that it is mostly because they are able to gain extra performance from the new architectures. But I’m sure they also like getting to sell more motherboards. The difference I noticed between the two company’s processors is, The last few years AMD processors gain performance with their new offerings by increasing clock speeds. While Intel’s processors gain more performance per clock while also increasing clock speed too. If I’m building a budget system I use AMD. For my own personal system I would rather pay some extra money and get the best. I also like to use my system for more than just gaming. Intel also saves me money because I don’t have to upgrade nearly as often. I’m still using C2Q Q9550 @ 3.6 GHz. After all these years My performance is still close to a much newer Phenom 2. I won’t have to upgrade until Ivy Bridge has been out long enough to be affordable. Maybe even wait for haswell.
Pingback: AMD Achieves New CPU Frequency Record, Eight Core Bullodzer (Zambezi-FX) Breaks 8Ghz Barrier before Release
drfedja

That screenshots are probably fake! Processor name should be AMD FX, not AMD FX-6110 or FX-8130. They are differ from screenshots from BD OC. session.
- Hms1193
  
  The 8150 used in the O.C Session was an Engineering Sample that’s why CPU-z reported that as AMD-FX. The FX-6110 used here is the retail chip..
- drfedja
  
  I’m wrong and you also! CPUz reports AMD FX when all modules except one are disabled. Look at that video and see how CPUz behaves when all modules working and how when only one module is active.
  BTW, FX-6110 used here is also ES chip. Look at screenshot better. Probably VR-Zone screenshots are genuine, but something is wrong with performance, BIOS optimisations, power managemant. Also gains from C6 is very tiny with single thread. Look at difference in CB10, how it performs with single thread with and without turbo. There should be huge difference between C6 disable and enable. 4GHz vs 3.1 GHz is almost 30% difference in frequency and difference in performance is only 5% between C6 on and off.
- Hms1193
  
  The 8150 used in the O.C Session was an Engineering Sample that’s why CPU-z reported that as AMD-FX. The FX-6110 used here is the retail chip..
- Desp
  
  The leaker on the VR Forums said this was a 3.1/3.4 ghz 95w chip. That does not jive with any launch line up information released. The turbo core should be 4.0ghz from everything I have seen. I requested on that the mobo, bios version, ram used, and screenshots of the the cpu loading for each benchmark be provided. I’m taking this leak with a grain of salt like all other ones.
Panos P

“A Dirt 3 gaming benchmark with an unidentified AMD FX CPU and an Intel i7 980X was also performed, using a 2560×1600 resolution and dual Radeon HD 6970s in CrossFire mode. The AMD FX CPU had a slight lead over the Intel chip, with 82.8 fps and 80.8 fps, respectively. As it stands, AMD’s demonstrated test indicates that it may yet keep its title as a price/performance favorite. Perhaps as the Bulldozer FX nears its release date, we’ll be seeing a more comprehensive benchmark. ”

This shows that bulldozer is increasingly better than 980x in gaming at lower resolutions. How is this possible if their IPC is so low as all the fake benchmarks show.
Pingback: AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 Gets Pitted Against Phenom II X6 1100T in a Clock-to-Clock Benchmark Comparison
Pingback: AMD Bulldozer FX-8150 Gets Pitted Against Phenom II X6 1100T in a Clock-to …
Pingback: AMD Bulldozer FX-8120 (B2 Revision) Gets Benchmarked at 4GHz Turbo Core Frequency
Pingback: AMD Bulldozer Processors Launching in October 2011, New Pricing Details Unveiled
ShrekJr

Coolaler’s own FX-8120 results for Cinebench is 5.27 and is quite close to this VR-Zone result.

First AMD Bulldozer FX-8120 Benchmarks Unveiled, Zambezi Processors also available for Pre-Orders

Share: