AMD Bulldozer News and Discussion

[vickybat]

Spoiler

I'm hypothetically assuming that a hypothetical Rs. 2000 cheaper AMD offering with more cores compared to a comparable Intel part is utilizing 40w more constantly the whole year. (which won't be true ALL the time, again a hypothetical scenario)

0.04 * 24 * 365 = 350.4 units. Now I'm taking a cluster of 100. 35040 units more than than Intel. Commercial electricity is almost Rs. 1.50 per unit. 35040 * 1.5 = Rs. 52560 spent more with AMD than Intel.

But then the AMD offerings were Rs. 2000 cheaper. Multiply by 100. Rs. 2 lakh saved.

Do your math now.

Electricity isn't a huge deciding factor for data centers.

And datacenters will also not mind buying 100 Intel offerings than AMD offerings too despite the fact they'll have to pay more.

The most important factor for them is...throughput they can get from the limited amount of space available to them. Whether it's Intel or AMD, they don't care.

Heck, runtime cost whether you choose AMD or Intel for 4 years turns out to be same.

If you go with AMD, you pay 2 lakhs less for the server but ~50k more for electricity per year. If you go Intel, you pay 2 lakhs more for the server but ~50k less for electricity per year.

This again vindicates my point of maximum performance from a limited floorspace. That's all what matters for datacenters.

Actually i want to say something on the bold part. You calculated the units correctly but the price slab is incorrect i guess. Not sure but it isn't a constant 1.50. Afaik there are various slab structures according to number of units consumed. Correct me if i am wrong.

Yes, your points thereafter are true. Like you said, datacenters hardly care about power consumption. Its all about the performance index in a limited floorspace. So it has to be the performance amd should eye if its targeting server space.

About the 2lakh vs 50k, i guess they are even stevens. Lets say you spend 2k less per server going with amd and pay 50k more per year. But servers aren't meant to last a year but more. Assuming a minimum of 4 year lifecycle , its 50k x 4 i.e 2lakhs. So it equates out the amount saved when buying a cluster of 100. For intel, it works the same...pay more first and then save later.

 

[skeletor]

Actually i want to say something on the bold part. You calculated the units correctly but the price slab is incorrect i guess. Not sure but it isn't a constant 1.50. Afaik there are various slab structures according to number of units consumed. Correct me if i am wrong.

yup. It's just a hypothetical scenario.

Looking at various BD reviews. Now at least I have no grudges that my motherboard doesn't support AM3+ proccy

Finally one positive.

 

[vaibhav23]

Friends is the FX-4100 worth for gaming because it is performing near the FX-8150 in gaming.
AMD FX 8150 - 8120 - 6100 and 4100 performance review

 

[sukesh1090]

^^if you correctly take a look then you can see that phenom II X4 is ahead of both.thats why i am telling to wait for some time to buy or pass your comment on BD.

 

[Tech_Wiz]

Sukesh instead of buying BD lets buy a CM212+ and kick our phenoms to 4.2 GHz (j/k)

 

[sukesh1090]

but only doubt remain is why amd is not commenting on anything.it is completely silent.and tech wiz,buddy i am not going to buy bd even if they sell it for 3k.i bought my processor hardly one month ago and this is more than enough for me.

 

[vaibhav23]

sukesh what will be the most probable price of FX-4100.It should cost less than p2 X4 980BE

 

[sukesh1090]

it should be around 5k.may be even less than 5k.

 

[rajan1311]

Thanks for clarifying MAx_snyper. No I'm not planning to buy one right now as I'm having 1090T overclocked @ 3.6 GHz. Gaming performance wise I don't think I need an immegiate upgrade.

Having said that, even a BD will be sufficient for gaming na....so if the price is right, it still just might be competitive....hope switching to new fabs might fix their power issues or at least, cheaper price..

 

[vaibhav23]

it should be around 5k.may be even less than 5k.

At that price would not the processor be a steal

 

[sukesh1090]

yes but only if its power consumption issues gets fixed.i hope it will be fixed in next revisions and performance is not a worry.so if you want to but BD wait for some time.
@rajan,
he is already having 6 core phenom II.and in market there is no game which will use 6 core completely right now.so he is not willing to upgrade and it is not needed also.

 

[rajan1311]

yes but only if its power consumption issues gets fixed.i hope it will be fixed in next revisions and performance is not a worry.so if you want to but BD wait for some time.
@rajan,
he is already having 6 core phenom II.and in market there is no game which will use 6 core completely right now.so he is not willing to upgrade and it is not needed also.

that is what I meant... its not the performance that soooo bad, just power consumption is Phenom I type ...

will be buying BD next week for sure though...
Guys, any AM3+ board is fine for BD right?

 

[sukesh1090]

yes any am3+ is good but try to get 9XX FX chipset mobo.

 

[Jaskanwar Singh]

HARDOCP - CPUs and DX11 Gameplay - AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Gameplay Performance Review

MSI 990FXA-GD80 and radeon 6970 used.

 

[tkin]

HARDOCP - CPUs and DX11 Gameplay - AMD Bulldozer / FX-8150 Gameplay Performance Review

MSI 990FXA-GD80 and radeon 6970 used.

The settings at which they are testing, the games already become severely GPU bound(except maybe games like Civ 5 which uses DX11 multithreading), so they perform either same or 2500k pulls a bit ahead.

 

[Jaskanwar Singh]

and thats the settings we play tkin. they should matter to us.

 

[tkin]

and thats the settings we play tkin. they should matter to us.

In that case people can buy a cheaper Quad core Phenom II and save 10k over the FX8150 which will allow them to play games just fine without any loss in performance. Hell, even old intel quad cores(C2Q series) hold fine at those GPU restrained settings.

 

[Jaskanwar Singh]

In that case people can buy a cheaper Quad core Phenom II and save 10k over the FX8150 which will allow them to play games just fine without any loss in performance. Hell, even old intel quad cores(C2Q series) hold fine at those GPU restrained settings.

well if its vfm then why not

they will concentrate on gpu then.

games are meant for enjoying at higher resolution. dont they?

 

[sukesh1090]

jas, thanks for the links.except civ 5 in all the games 8150 is winning over intel ones.so what else do we need in performance ???the multi thread performance is good,game performance is good the only head ache is power consumption thats all,if thats fixed this processor is going to rock.so guys BD is not a fail.

@tkin,
if thats the case then brother we also don't need i5 and i7,a 5k phenom IIX4 is more than enough.why should people spend 10k for i5 and 15k for 17.its totally waste.if a person buy a 15k processor then i am damn sure that he will buy a 15-20k graphics card or atleast a 11-12k card.in that case also we don't see any performance difference with our eyes.and a 5k phenom II can easily handle those cards without being a bottle neck,then why do we need these above 10 k processor???

 

[tkin]

jas, thanks for the links.except civ 5 in all the games 8150 is winning over intel ones.so what else do we need in performance ???the multi thread performance is good,game performance is good the only head ache is power consumption thats all,if thats fixed this processor is going to rock.so guys BD is not a fail.

@tkin,
if thats the case then brother we also don't need i5 and i7,a 5k phenom IIX4 is more than enough.why should people spend 10k for i5 and 15k for 17.its totally waste.

Sure, buying 2600k just for gaming is plain stupid, 2400 is good enough for that, or Phenom II anyday.

10k+ processors are good for Video encoding, running multiple VMs etc.

PS: I found a comic, Operation Scorpius