AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Final8y · 9 Oct 2011 at 21:44

Sin_Chase said:
No, there are not.

12-16 disk RAID is not a home user requirement nor supported widely in home user kit.

12-16 disk RAID is not even enthusiast level, it's probably past Small Business also. Those running that many disks in a RAID array should be using proper kit for it. Hint - that's not 16 disks off a motherboard.

They are using proper kits and my point is that there are some home users using more disks than me, yes its not the norm but it does happen.
If i need to expand then i will need to go proper kit too.

Sin_Chase · 9 Oct 2011 at 21:46

Final8y said:
They are using proper kits and my point is that there are some home users using more disks than me.

The point is not how many they are using and on what.

It's that the majority of people do not need the silly amounts of connectivity you do and supposedly get value for. They buy appropriate kit for their use. Those who need 16 disk RAID arrays buy appropriate kit (IE Real RAID cards and enclosures, not consumer motherboards with 50 SATA ports)

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 9 Oct 2011 at 21:47

What is interesting is how well the FX4000 series will unlock. It would be pretty nice if an FX4100 unlocked to 8 cores!!

Final8y · 9 Oct 2011 at 21:49

Sin_Chase said:
The point is not how many they are using and on what.

It's that the majority of people do not need the silly amounts of connectivity you do and supposedly get value for. They buy appropriate kit for their use. Those who need 16 disk RAID arrays buy appropriate kit (IE Real RAID cards and enclosures, not consumer motherboards with 50 SATA ports)

I didn't say that or even implied any of what you have just said.

A motherboard with more connectivity at the same price is intrinsically/inherently better value in regards to the motherboard itself.
What someone needs is not always based on value, so the better value product well be inappropriate.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:06

modez said:
@Martini1991
So what is the conclusion in this thread with reference to AMD?

?.
They made me sell the best board I ever had with their inability to create a CPU to rival Intel clock for clock.

I agree native USB 3.0 support isn't important at all. SATA III has, however AMD's got that nailed.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Here are some pictures of the retail FX8120 packaging:

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/791495-bulldozer-blog-live-788.html#post15236518

It looks the tins will be standard with the 8000 series FX processors and they will use what looks like the same stock 125W Phenom II X4 and X6 air coolers.

I think they might be limited.

stulid said:
No water cooler? - http://wccftech.com/amds-water-cooling-kit-fxbulldozer-processors-exposed/

That's only for a bundle or something, it's not standard.

Final8y said:
I didn't say that or even implied any of what you have just said.

A motherboard with more connectivity at the same price is intrinsically/inherently better value in regards to the motherboard itself.
What someone needs is not always based on value, so the better value product well be inappropriate.

It's only better valued if the owner uses it, if it doesn't, it's just there, doing nothing, giving nothing back for the money.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:15

At least the CPU section of Trinity has an IPC improvement over Llano. Supposedly under Linux,it looks like a 2.5GHZ Piledriver based CPU is faster than a 2.9GHZ Husky based CPU.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:16

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
At least teh CPU section of Trinity has an IPC improvement over Llano. Supposedly under Linux,it looks like a 2.5GHZ Piledriver based CPU is faster than a 2.9GHZ Husky based CPU.

Linux? You mean LinX?
Linpacks aren't really anyway to gauge performance.
Although, Trinity = Pile driver, so should be faster than Llano in the CPU section anyways.

Although this BD thing is interesting, that new platform due 2012 was touted 10% faster, 10% faster than current results is still slower clock for clock than X58 CPU's.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:18

Martini1991 said:
Linux? You mean LinX?
Linpacks aren't really anyway to gauge performance.

I mean Linux. Here is the link:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=20257072&postcount=5631

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:19

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I mean Linux. Here is the link:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=20257072&postcount=5631

Agh, cheers for that, I was confused

.

zoomee · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:21

someone go bug this guy for some benchies lol:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32390067&postcount=192

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:22

zoomee said:
someone go bug this guy for some benchies lol:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32390067&postcount=192

It's not his CPU.

http://www.overclock.net/15236602-post7879.html

Final8y · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:22

Martini1991 said:
?.
It's only better valued if the owner uses it, if it doesn't, it's just there, doing nothing, giving nothing back for the money.

Ignoring the intrinsically/inherently then yes.

But you don't need to buy anything at all when based on intrinsically/inherently when looking at 2 products and concluding which of the 2 are better value for what they offer even if you don't need or buy any of the 2 products.

My Sapphire 5970 toxics are not better value than the standard 5970s, even with the extra Vram and factory OC, even though i needed the Vram.

Need and value are 2 separate things.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:24

Final8y said:
Ignoring the intrinsically/inherently then yes.

But you don't need to buy anything at all when based on intrinsically/inherently when looking at 2 products and concluding which of the 2 are better value for what they offer even if you don't need or buy any of the 2 products.

My Sapphire 5970 toxics are not better value than the standard 5970s, even with the extra Vram and factory OC, even though i needed the Vram.

To get that VRAM, you'd need to crossfire two 5870 2GB VRAM cards.
So yes, it is good value.

I'll leave the value debate alone, as seriously can't understand how you're justifying a platform with value when it offers a much lower base performance.

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:25

tbh if amd couldn't of improved they performance over phenom II, why didn't they just use 8 phenom II core, it would have been faster and keep it a true 8 core.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:27

gareth170 said:
tbh if amd couldn't of they performance over phenom II, why didn't they just use 8 phenom II core, it would have been faster and keep it a true 8 core.

Because the Bulldozer architecture will be good for the future.
They can "Add cores into modules" and "Add modules onto the die" using less space.

If there's a boom in programs being heavily multi-threaded then BD will be brilliant for it.

Also, die shrink, clocking ability, etc.

DragonQ · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:28

Would be more expensive and probably wouldn't fit in the AM3/AM3+ socket.

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:29

DragonQ said:
Would be more expensive and probably wouldn't fit in the AM3/AM3+ socket.

All the more reason to scrap it.

DragonQ · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:31

I was replying to the "why not use a Phenom II X8 instead of FX" thing by the way.

gareth170 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:33

Martini1991 said:
Because the Bulldozer architecture will be good for the future.
They can "Add cores into modules" and "Add modules onto the die" using less space.

If there's a boom in programs being heavily multi-threaded then BD will be brilliant for it.

Also, die shrink, clocking ability, etc.

but it will need to have at least 10 cores just to get to phenom ii level clock for clock in multi-threaded

Martini1991 · 9 Oct 2011 at 22:33

DragonQ said:
I was replying to the "why not use a Phenom II X8 instead of FX" thing by the way.

Oh, I thought you meant with me on the adding more modules etc.

gareth170 said:
but it will need to have at least 10 cores just to get to phenom ii level clock for clock in multi-threaded

Sorry mate, I don't understand that?