AMD Bulldozer News and Discussion
skeletor
Chosen of the Omnissiah
It clearly was.
But people still bought Intel for higher Gigahertz and companies only used Intel because of their underhand dealings.
Proven fact.
sukesh1090
Adam young
sory this is in reply for that post by sumesara.
Last edited:
max_snyper
Maximum Effort!!!!!!
we can clearly divide the last decade into 2 parts.....pre 2005 and post 2005
Due to mainly scarcity of components in pre 2005 and post 2005 for everything u have "options".
i remember searching for geforce 2 mx-440 (64mb ram) throughout lamington agp card...
those were the days searching for components was real job....LoL
Due to mainly scarcity of components in pre 2005 and post 2005 for everything u have "options".
i remember searching for geforce 2 mx-440 (64mb ram) throughout lamington agp card...
those were the days searching for components was real job....LoL
Couldn't get the point about denial, its mostly a compilation from various sites. BD has done fairly well in heavily threaded apps like 7-zip, POV-ray etc. across various sites. It has not decimate the top SNB at every benchmark, but at its price point it doesn't need to. Suddenly people are trying to say X6 was already very good in threaded apps and BD hasn't improve much over it. But then I remember, people (read reviewers) had similar feelings when Barts & Cayman came out.
Don't get me wrong, I am also hugely disappointed with BD's performance in general, particularly for it's inconsistencies, but it's not a complete failure. You may look it from a different angle, why we are still talking about single-core performance when both AMD and Intel has stopped producing single-core CPUs much before.
BD is a forward looking architecture, and looking back a couple of mistakes is becoming apparent:-
1) The server chip should have been released before the desktop chip. But then they are already behind the schedule.
2) Instead of 8-core, AMD better marketed this as a 4 core/8 thread CPU in lines of Intel's hyperthreading. Things would have looked far far better at that time.
vickybat
I am the night...I am...
^^ Its not about single core performance but single threaded performance. Its about how a single thread is processed by a single execution core normally combination of integer and floating point units with a scheduler.
This also determines multithreaded performance because individual threads containing dependent or independent instructions will be processed by the core execution units concurrently or simultaneously.
If one fast single core can process a thread in 4 secs, then 4 similar cores will do it in 1 sec.
On contrary, a slower core or execution unit processes a thread in 15 secs, 4 cores will take 3.75 secs. Its just a general analogy.
So single threaded performance determines multithreaded performance and this is one of the reasons why intel is ahead this generation. If amd would have concentrated on this aspect, then today we would have been seeing 8150 beating a 2600k handsdown across all benchmarks.
The reason most probably lies in amd's execution units themselves. Maybe they are not good enough i.e the integer and floatiing point units present inside a bulldozer module though architecturally looks good but not good enough in performing integer or float operations. Similar operations in sandybridge core that takes lets say 4 secs for an operation, might take 10 secs in a bulldozer core.
This also determines multithreaded performance because individual threads containing dependent or independent instructions will be processed by the core execution units concurrently or simultaneously.
If one fast single core can process a thread in 4 secs, then 4 similar cores will do it in 1 sec.
On contrary, a slower core or execution unit processes a thread in 15 secs, 4 cores will take 3.75 secs. Its just a general analogy.
So single threaded performance determines multithreaded performance and this is one of the reasons why intel is ahead this generation. If amd would have concentrated on this aspect, then today we would have been seeing 8150 beating a 2600k handsdown across all benchmarks.
The reason most probably lies in amd's execution units themselves. Maybe they are not good enough i.e the integer and floatiing point units present inside a bulldozer module though architecturally looks good but not good enough in performing integer or float operations. Similar operations in sandybridge core that takes lets say 4 secs for an operation, might take 10 secs in a bulldozer core.
Right,for that reason I don't even consider Intel,when buying new PC Agree processor is a important part of PC but if i can't feel the difference what is the use of pouring money there instead go for better graphics card and lots of memory.It will provide you same performance even better.
Last edited:
max_snyper
Maximum Effort!!!!!!
^^ But we should all agree at some point.......investing money in the intel platform for now,is better choice if not the best...though it may be little costly than AMD.
You can choose AMD BD platform if you really want to (fanboy or whatever),,if you want to go for piledriver series in future.
You can choose AMD BD platform if you really want to (fanboy or whatever),,if you want to go for piledriver series in future.
I agree on that. Choosing Intel seems a no brainer right now, unless you like to gamble. Lets see at which price point it debuts in India.
OP
Cilus
laborare est orare
You know that I'm very much loyal to AMD because they are loyal to end users too. When Athlon 64 bit was released, they even launched a SOCEKT A version of it to be fited in Athlon XP motherboards. However, I'm not a fanboy and in my opinion, right now anybody investing 40K or above should consider Intel Sandybridge quad cores (read i5 2400) because Bulldozer (read FX 8150) is ahead of Sandybridge in only some specific applications and almost none of them comes under day to day application list.
AMD's new architecture looks promising but they mmay gain some performance advantage with the coming multi-threaded apps and with Windows 8 but they need some hardware revisions too to improve the thermal levels, power consumptions and per core performance, at least marginally.
AMD's new architecture looks promising but they mmay gain some performance advantage with the coming multi-threaded apps and with Windows 8 but they need some hardware revisions too to improve the thermal levels, power consumptions and per core performance, at least marginally.
vickybat
I am the night...I am...
Guys seriously, i had high hopes on fx 4100 and 6100. But their performance is the most disappointing in the entire bulldozer lineup. I mean these $114 and $165 respective cpu's had a high chance of cutting into the mainstream market if they would have had a little bit of firepower in them.
In gaming too they are in the last place. Some of my friends are buying their systems after a long wait for bulldozer. Now they are asking questions why i told them to wait for bulldozer in the first place and why i'm denying them now.
In gaming too they are in the last place. Some of my friends are buying their systems after a long wait for bulldozer. Now they are asking questions why i told them to wait for bulldozer in the first place and why i'm denying them now.
max_snyper
Maximum Effort!!!!!!
IM just waiting to get the news regarding the hd7xxx series cards from the amd camp...their cpus have dissapointed me....i thought to be 2600k killer but later prior to the release some price cuts & their product placements generated quite a suspecion around the world about their performance.....If they would have built a cpu for current applications with high single threaded performance it would have been better....!
tkin
Back to school!!
HD7xxx will be good, no doubt about that, nVidia is no way near intel, beating them won't be a problem, never was, I am expecting around 30% performance improvement for successor models and 20-30% performance improvement for the same price bracket.
In which terms? Money-making?
tkin
Back to school!!
I'm saying, say 7870 will be 20-30% faster than 6870(just a guess from previews and speculations).