• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Surely these cant be right? If my i5 does this -

benchmarky.png
[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
 
Am I right in recalling that a module is supposedly ~110% the size of a single phenom core? (or was it in comparison to a dual?)
If its the former then it's really not looking so bad. Just not suited to performance enthusiast/users at this current time.
 
Stone22uk said:
Surely these cant be right? If my i5 does this -
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have thought they would be far off. I don't think anybody genuinely thought they where going to beat sb in single threaded performance but it should compete well in multi threaded performance.

Your i5 is also overclocked.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, everything seems to point to this being the case now, and it's only a few days away now. By slower, I mean in single threads. I'm just increasingly thinking they've gone down the route of making small, slower individual cores but with the intent of having lots more of them to make up the difference for multithreaded stuff.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
why would they make a slower cpu than there previous one :p i call bs tbh
Click to expand...

It is quite possible.

Where BD comes into its own is in multi threaded programs.
If you run a program which is suited best to single threaded CPUs, then the BD will more then likely get beaten.

Also, with regards to IPC: Intel also suffered from this problem a while back with their P4. When they released their first P4 (1.4Ghz), clock for clock it was slower than their P3 (I think it was the coppermine core). It was only after they developed the process and released the 2nd generation P4 that the P4 really came into its own.

Hence, it is not inconceivable that the first iteration of AMD's BD CPU, may be slower (clock for clock), than the older Phenom line of CPUs, especially in a single threaded (or 2-threaded) programs. Try using a program which can make sue of 8 threads and then you will see how well that Phenom stands up against the BD.
 
DragonQ said:
Yeah and the Pentium 4s carried on being crap, only competitive due to their clock speeds. So that's good news for FX isn't it? >_>
Click to expand...

Indeed. Clock for clock they were bad, however, Intel countered this by raising clock speed right up.

Perhaps AMD will do the same for BD?
 
Problem is, higher clock speed = higher power consumption (I think). With Intel moving to 22 nm next year, AMD could be well behind in the power-per-watt statistic (which is becoming increasingly important) if they're forced to push high clock speeds for the next few years.
 
sunama said:
Hence, it is not inconceivable that the first iteration of AMD's BD CPU, may be slower (clock for clock), than the older Phenom line of CPUs, especially in a single threaded (or 2-threaded) programs. Try using a program which can make uee of 8 threads and then you will see how well that Phenom stands up against the BD.
Click to expand...

I guess we have to wait a few days to see some benchmarks that we know 100% are genuine, from sites that we trust. Then I'll either buy BD or a 1090T x6 depending on what they show.
 
d_brennen said:
7GHz stock? :p
Click to expand...

Was 3.8Ghz the fastest P4?
I can't even remember it was that long ago.

But it just goes to show that even after all these years, P4's clock frequency remains just as high (if not higher) than many of the CPUs we are seeing today.

Intel's plan (which succeeded), was bamboozle customers into believing that clock frequency was every thing and that their P4s were "all that".

At that time, all the adverts on the telly specified the clock frequency of the CPUs used in laptops/desktops. These days, the adverts for computers/laptops seem to concentrate on the number of cores.

I wonder if we will ever see a cpu with say 32 cores or above, OR in a few years time, will there be some other parameter by which CPUs are marketed.
 
sunama said:
Was 3.8Ghz the fastest P4?
I can't even remember it was that long ago.

But it just goes to show that even after all these years, P4's clock frequency remains just as high (if not higher) than many of the CPUs we are seeing today.

Intel's plan (which succeeded), was bamboozle customers into believing that clock frequency was every thing and that their P4s were "all that".

At that time, all the adverts on the telly specified the clock frequency of the CPUs used in laptops/desktops. These days, the adverts for computers/laptops seem to concentrate on the number of cores.

I wonder if we will ever see a cpu with say 32 cores or above, OR in a few years time, will there be some other parameter by which CPUs are marketed.
Click to expand...

3.8GHz EE chips iirc

With parallel computing really taking off maybe AMDs direction is right, but for the next 2 years I can't see them pulling it off, sadly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom