AMD Bulldozer CPU....

[LightWarrior]

Ohh how dissapointing....:

You must be registered to see links

Discuss.....

 

[Rishwin]

We already knew it wasn't a performance/gaming CPU, it was predominantly for workstations or small servers. I'm not so sure why everyone is so surprised.

 

[LightWarrior]

im just gonna get a phenom II x6 1100T, until they get this poop straight.

 

[cycoextreme]

You must be registered to see links

not as good as intel, but still cheaper, and they broke the record for overclocking with it, and i will still get one so i can run my school programs a lil better, they are great for coding and heavy processing programs

and the x6 line is cheap but still good, if your an AMD fan, the i5 is $20-40 more for power but id say you can get the 1100, if you get a compatable mobo for upgrading later

 

[Rishwin]

Like i said in another thread, there is no place for Intel/AMD fanboys in today's CPU market. It just depends on what your needs are and where your priorities lie.

AMD is for multitasking and high-load apps, as well as servers.

Intel is for high performance with single tasks.

And clock speeds aren't everything, i mean the P4 was overclockable to over 5GHz but that by no means implies that it is even slightly comparable to a 4GHz i5.

 

[LightWarrior]

Well i have

You must be registered to see links

. bought it so I can use the FX series, but now....will I see a major difference between the 8150 and 1100T?? all I do is gaming and some video editing.

 

[Rishwin]

Well i have

You must be registered to see links

. bought it so I can use the FX series, but now....will I see a major difference between the 8150 and 1100T?? all I do is gaming and some video editing.

No, i can't see there being a noticeable difference between the two at all, not for that kind of usage anyway.

Just like how the i5 2500 gave no noticeable difference from the i5 760 at all. If you're upgrading from a much earlier CPU then sure, but just upgrading to the latest every time it comes out, you won't notice alot of difference.

 

[cycoextreme]

You must be registered to see links

judge for yourself, and see which one you would use more of

and its only a small increase, but i do hear that when they release windows 8 the bulldozer will be able to perform better

 

[LightWarrior]

No, i can't see there being a noticeable difference between the two at all, not for that kind of usage anyway.

Just like how the i5 2500 gave no noticeable difference from the i5 760 at all. If you're upgrading from a much earlier CPU then sure, but just upgrading to the latest every time it comes out, you won't notice alot of difference.

Well I have an Athlon X4 640 (bought it while waiting for Bulldozer) so which one should I upgrade to? the new FX 8150 or get the cheaper 1100T and overclock it to 3.9ghz??

 

[cycoextreme]

id say go cheaper until they get windows 8 optimization figured out and windows 8 released lol

 

[.Yoss.]

We already knew it wasn't a performance/gaming CPU, it was predominantly for workstations or small servers. I'm not so sure why everyone is so surprised.

It's because they pulled out the FX brand again so people probably thought AMD had done an ace up their sleeve this time. I don't think anyone expected bulldozer to beat sandy bridge but maybe close the gap with less performance but with more cores and/or at least offer a clear performance increase over its phenom II's.

The FX-4XXX look interesting though.

 

[Rishwin]

Well I have an Athlon X4 640 (bought it while waiting for Bulldozer) so which one should I upgrade to? the new FX 8150 or get the cheaper 1100T and overclock it to 3.9ghz??

1100T fer sher

 

[LightWarrior]

you telling me I have to buy Windows 8 to enjoy the new bulldozer? LOL

 

[cycoextreme]

i never said buy it, *wink wink*, i have win7 64 bit, i "purchased" it and upgraded from vista 64bit

but yes

You must be registered to see links

 

[.Yoss.]

enthusiast findings

OK FOLKS SOME GOOD NEWS (for some people!)

BTW: This is not my work, I just compiled info and ported it here from the thread posted on Xtremesys a couple pages back

Disabling one core per module to avoid resource sharing improves single-threaded IPC ALOT - ACROSS THE BOARD! And surely fixes some of the stranger results we've seen!
Credit to DGLee @ XS who tested this, and to chew who stepped in to confirm having similar results when he was playing around with the chip, so here go the benches improvement when comparing 2M/4C vs 4M/4C:

Fritz Chess: 39,1% improvement
wPrime 32M: 31% improvement
Winrar: 9,5% improvement
3DMark06 CPU: 5.8% improvement
3DMark Vantage CPU: 22.1% improvement
3DMark11 Physics: 14.1% improvement
Cinebench R10: 21.4% improvement
Cinebench R11.5: 19.1% improvement
Blender: 21.7% improvement
TechARP x264 enc: 20% improvement
Daum PotEncoding H264 transcoding: 11,7% improvement

-------------- EDIT TO ELLABORATE ----------------

Now there isn't a direct comparison benchmark but word going around is that these gains across the board seem to leave Bulldozer with a bit more IPC than phenom II!

This means, for people willing to turn off 4 of their threads, that bulldozer will NOT SUCK AS HARD as originally intended in gaming and lightly threaded apps (although we are still waiting on gaming benches to confirm!).. In particular, gains by this are particulary big in some of the weirder results we had seen in original reviews.

IMO this makes BD at least a bit more viable as with 4 cores disabled, you will likely be seeing close to or actual 5Ghz on air and more on water with slightly higher IPC than Phenom! And all the while lowering power draw and heat output!

Ergo, not a 2500k killer by any stretch BUT AT LEAST a viable upgrade for those who already have a 990FX board..

ATTENTION, Currently it is not known if all boards support disabling individual cores, testing was done on a CHV, can't comment on others!

SOURCE:

You must be registered to see links

.

 

[MentaL]

For 8 cores I was shocked at the poor results.

 

[Dell Honne]

I saw a tech review on it and yeah it wasn't exactly what people were expecting...

 

[Hejula]

Even still for the average user in a home PC it would be very good. I barely find myself needing 3 / 4 cores in my PC. I assume this is the same for pretty much everyone unless you play alot of games...

 

[MentaL]

Even still for the average user in a home PC it would be very good. I barely find myself needing 3 / 4 cores in my PC. I assume this is the same for pretty much everyone unless you play alot of games...

well if its "good" for the average home user then a standard quad is more than enough. The 2500k outperforms it.

 

[Hejula]

well if its "good" for the average home user then a standard quad is more than enough. The 2500k outperforms it.

Not the point, the average user knows nothing about what a core is, nothing about clock speed etc... the sales person at the shop will say 8 cores is better than 4, aswell as it is the only desktop processor with 8 cores and it will be sold. This processor will do well