AMD Bulldozer News and Discussion

[Skyh3ck]

We should accept the fact that AMD BD is a new thing.... I would say it is ahead of its time... The benchmarks would have been in favr of BD if msot of the software, games are design to use multi thread correctly...

If discuss about the power consumption then I have read in some forum that sandy bridge - E will be vary muich power hungry.....

We should not blame AMD as this is totally a new propcessor and they would have predicted that some problem will arise... Hebce the next Piledriver will come with be good see which will address all the problem currently seen in BD

And at last do not consider BD as totally fail.....

 

[tkin]

Sandy-E uses quad channel rams, and has 6 cores/12 threads, of course it will be power hungry, we are talking about Performance per watt, and I believe Sandy-E will blow all other processors out of the water in that category.

 

[max_snyper]

^^^And you forgot to mention one thing they will be insanely costly!!
Especially in India!!

 

[tkin]

^^^And you forgot to mention one thing they will be insanely costly!!
Especially in India!!

Well yeah, they are replacements for the legendary X58 after all, and if BD didn't fail like that we would have gotten some Sandy E at cheaper price too, but what can we do, 2600k still remains the fastest processor, these processors have PCIE 3.0, quad channel rams, the QPI interconnect, more cache, fully unlocked(6 core ones), they will probably decimate even AMD piledriver when it launches, no wonder Intel is bumping the price, there is no competition at that level

 

[vaibhav23]

Well if Intel's monopoly continues Ivy-Bridge will be overpriced for sure

 

[Skyh3ck]

I will again say that don't curse AMD for BD... Its a new thing and every new thing looks odds at first time....

I am happy that AMD has guts to do new things

What the use of a Intel processor if it sells for Rs 50000 and I can't afford it.... Not every one is Ambani or Tata....

 

[baccilus]

I kind of agree with sumesara. Intel is just too costly to be considered.

 

[tkin]

I kind of agree with sumesara. Intel is just too costly to be considered.

Really? A 11k 2500k is not affordable? I agree intel high ends are costly, but the entire Sandy Bridge line up is nothing but pure performance vs price, a 2600k sometimes matches a 50k 980x in benches, now you want the best of the best, you have to pay more, think of 980x as Rolls Royce of processors. But 2500/2400 are great vfm.

Intel extreme processors are always costly, its just for those who can pay, if AMD had their they would charge the same for extreme processors like that(I forgot but I think there were some amd processors in the past that were really costly, when it beat intel black and blue).

Intel mobos are a bit costly at the low end(sub 10k), but since both platforms use DDR3, ram prices are same as well.

PS: Ivy bridge are sandy replacements, they would either have the same performance vs price ratio or higher, Intel never went backwards with their performance vs price ratio.

 

[Skyh3ck]

I kind of agree with sumesara. Intel is just too costly to be considered.

Thanks baccilus at least someone thinks like me.... .

 

[Cilus]

Well, Bulldozer highest end processor FX8150 is still something which can compete against i5 2500K and may be in some cases with i7 2600K. Now if the pricing is right, FX 8150 retails at say 10K range in India, it is a good buy.

 

[dashing.sujay]

Intel extreme processors are always costly, its just for those who can pay, if AMD had their they would charge the same for extreme processors like that(I forgot but I think there were some amd processors in the past that were really costly, when it beat intel black and blue).

Yes, I remember well, that in days of athlon 3xxx/4xxx series, when AMD launched athlon 5200+, I called AMD india helpline to confirm its pricing. It was 50k in 2006! I just slammed the reciever after hearing the price! Extreme series from any company is always too costly.

PS- If intel are more VFM in mid-range, AMD's are more VFM in low end range!

 

[tkin]

Yes, I remember well, that in days of athlon 3xxx/4xxx series, when AMD launched athlon 5200+, I called AMD india helpline to confirm its pricing. It was 50k in 2006! I just slammed the reciever after hearing the price! Extreme series from any company is always too costly.

PS- If intel are more VFM in mid-range, AMD's are more VFM in low end range!

50k in 2006? Hell, well actually I think they were going after Intel extreme's throat, every intel processor which is at the top of desktop stack had the X suffix and cost 999$.

 

[dashing.sujay]

^^ Yup, 50k. I remember very well, the lady other side said, "50 thousand sir, are you willing to buy" I replied- "I'm out of station but will buy in 2-3 months " lol

But AMD's top offering would never cross Intel's, I think so. May be understanding this, AMD is now no more trying to kick Intel's eXtreme series; rather they focussed on VFM, which is working, at least in low segment though. May be we can expect a lot from piledriver, if not better than Ivy, at least better than current SB's.

 

[MegaMind]

Well, Bulldozer highest end processor FX8150 is still something which can compete against i5 2500K and may be in some cases with i7 2600K. Now if the pricing is right, FX 8150 retails at say 10K range in India, it is a good buy.

But even if its 10K it isn't good enough for a gaming rig..

 

[skeletor]

The only reason we needed Bulldozer to be good is because no one can make a balanced Sandy Bridge rig with i5-2500k in 50k. That's a fact.

Basically i5-2500k + an ATX Z68 motherboard takes up ~half the budget straightaway. H67 doesn't make sense. P67 too. Add 2k more to a P67 motherboard, you get Z68.

 

[topgear]

if anybody missed this -
AMD FX-8150 Black Edition CPU Water Cooler Review - Temperature Testing Results - Legit Reviews

Nice find - thanks for the link

a little quote from the first page

To launch the company's first water cooler they teamed up with no other than Asetek. The folks at Asetek were one of the first companies to offer closed loop water coolers and are also the original manufacturer behind popular water cooling kits like the Corsair H50 and H70 and the Antec Kuhler 620 and 920. The AMD kit resembles the Antec Kuhler 920 the closest. From what we have been told, it's basically the same as the Antec Kuhler 920 but with cosmetic tweaks and Chill Control software tweaks. The unit features a single 120mm double thick radiator, with twin 120mm fans. The pump/cold plate housing is a low profile design and is connected to the radiator with flexible non-corrugated tubing. The flexible tubing helps relieve stress on connections as the tubing doesn’t try and straighten itself. It also helps in the install because it bends easier and you are not fighting the stiffness of the tubing to get parts where you want them. The top of the pump housing is the AMD FX logo. The FX part of the logo is back lit with RGB LED that the color can be changed by the user in the Chill Control interface.

Read on more ..
AMD FX-8150 Black Edition CPU Water Cooler Review - AMD FX Water Cooler - Legit Reviews

 

[mrcool63]

Sandy E has about 10-15% performance upgrade from the present sandys. It will be better but not phenomenally better!!!

Bd is not running upto speed because the front end is getting bomblasted... the reason this is happening is in the architecture.. the BD acts not like a true 8-core but more like a four core with an additional FPU pipeline.. when windows treats it like an 8-core, its causing the front end to be insufficient..

Windows 8 in that matter is better at managing these cores apparently.. The IIPC of BD is actually better than the phenom II's.. it is evident when 1 core is disabled in each module.. it causes the IIPC to increase upto 20 percent above its original benchmarks!!

 

[tkin]

Sandy E has about 10-15% performance upgrade from the present sandys. It will be better but not phenomenally better!!!

Bd is not running upto speed because the front end is getting bomblasted... the reason this is happening is in the architecture.. the BD acts not like a true 8-core but more like a four core with an additional FPU pipeline.. when windows treats it like an 8-core, its causing the front end to be insufficient..

Windows 8 in that matter is better at managing these cores apparently.. The IIPC of BD is actually better than the phenom II's.. it is evident when 1 core is disabled in each module.. it causes the IIPC to increase upto 20 percent above its original benchmarks!!

Really? Two more cores and you get 10-15% performance upgrade instead of say (2/4)*100=50%?
My educated guess is that given the quad channel ram, and QPI, it will no doubt be at least 30-50% faster than 2600k any day(talking about the 6 cores ones, not the 4 core one, which will be, as you said, 10-15% faster than 2600k).

About the new scheduler, the same can be said for 2600k, windows 7 also treats it as 8 core, but since its hyper-threaded, we have just 4 cores, if windows 8 comes with a new scheduler that benefits BD it will no doubt benefit 2600k as well, and will also benefit Sandy-E because all of them are hyper-threaded.

If you read here: *www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24473-core-i7-3960-is-up-to-36-percent-better-than-i7-990x
Its 15% better than 990x, which on the other hand is about 15% faster than 2600k give or take. On multithreaded benchmarks 990x is a lot faster than 2600k.

 

[Cilus]

Really? Two more cores and you get 10-15% performance upgrade instead of say (2/4)*100=50%?
My educated guess is that given the quad channel ram, and QPI, it will no doubt be at least 30-50% faster than 2600k any day(talking about the 6 cores ones, not the 4 core one, which will be, as you said, 10-15% faster than 2600k).

About the new scheduler, the same can be said for 2600k, windows 7 also treats it as 8 core, but since its hyper-threaded, we have just 4 cores, if windows 8 comes with a new scheduler that benefits BD it will no doubt benefit 2600k as well, and will also benefit Sandy-E because all of them are hyper-threaded.

If you read here: *www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/24473-core-i7-3960-is-up-to-36-percent-better-than-i7-990x
Its 15% better than 990x, which on the other hand is about 15% faster than 2600k give or take. On multithreaded benchmarks 990x is a lot faster than 2600k.

Tkin, even Windows XP can differencitate between logical cores and physical cores of a Hyper-threaded processors. So don't expect performance improvement due to optimization in Windows 8 on this area. But Windows 8 also has other optimizations too which will increase the performance of Sandybridge processors too along with Bulldozer.

 

[mrcool63]

^^ my point almost mirrors yours.. windows 7 has a tough time working out the BD architecture which win 8 will probably be optimized to do.. Hyper threading has already been recognized by windows in the 7 edition however BD's architecture being new is not recognized by windows 7.. that is why by windows 8 will have a comparable performance of both 2600k and BD..

also sandy-e will be terribly overpriced.. you will have to pay through your nose just to get one.. also sb-e will involve a new socket... and.. intel have a bad record with new socket releases(since 1156, then 1155)!!! the lowest one will almost match the 2600k apparently and is a locked variety unlike 2600k.