I can better understand AMD Zambezi...

Turning off two of FX-8150's Bulldozer modules gives us the opportunity to run a threaded workload like 3ds Max without slanting the result toward Bulldozer. And once again, the Piledriver-based APU wins by roughly 15%.

Ivy Bridge was only about 4% faster at a given clock rate than Sandy Bridge. So, while we’re fairly certain that a Piledriver-based FX wouldn’t overtake the newest Core i7s, it should be more competitive than today’s Bulldozer-based CPUs. Where does the speed-up come from? Doesn't appear to be cache latency; Sandra shows the same results for Bulldozer and Piledriver.

Click to expand...

A lower latency L2 cache, possibly combined with a larger L1 data cache, would likely result in a significant speed increase, while cutting down on the total amount of L2 would save die space and reduce cost.

Click to expand...

Overall, the current generation of Bulldozer parts aren’t going to do much for AMD’s desktop position. They’re slightly smaller and a bit faster in some workloads. Enthusiasts who love AMD and overclocking will benefit the most while everyone else waits to see what the first mobile Bulldozer parts are like. AMD’s next-generation mobile CPU, codenamed Trinity, is effectively a second-generation Bulldozer product and incorporates the advances that’ll eventually debut on the desktop as the Piledriver core. AMD frankly has its work cut out for it — Trinity will need to deliver at least a 10-15% performance improvement over Bulldozer if its to serve as an effective replacement for Llano.

Click to expand...