• 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!

I am more interested in the review from Anandtech and similar websites. I suspect even if underperforms we might be able to gleam some information on where the architecture is headed and any future fixes. I would suspect AMD is more likely to discuss such details with them IMHO.
 
sunama said:
Who exactly are these home users who are using 16 hard disks?
I have 7 hard disks, in total, for 3 computers and that's a lot.

To have a single array of 16 disks, in a home, is very rare.
Click to expand...

When i was googleing for my setup i came across them and they were talking about 8 disks before you really see the speed gains and 12 being great & talking about even more disks, so i think its for more because they can and not because they need the space as why use more small disks when you can get larger ones.

They had posted read/right speeds and i was shocked.
 
Final8y said:
When i was googleing for my setup i came across them and they were talking about 8 disks before you really see the speed gains and 12 being great & talking about even more disks, so i think its for more because they can and not because they need the space as why use more small disks when you can get larger ones.

They had posted read/right speeds and i was shocked.
Click to expand...

So, you mean RAID 0 with a stupid amount of drives?
 
gareth170 said:
well all the results must be fake because i haven't seen any that shows it beat a 1100t clock for clock
Click to expand...

You're mixing up a few terms.
Every benchmark has shown the 1100T faster clock for clock however.

Even with lesser IPC 8 BD cores > 1100T at the same clock in an 8 threaded app, that includes cinebench. Unless you're looking at the single threaded part?
 
Sequential Read/Write performance in large RAID setup's is like Top Speed statistics for cars.

Very good fun and impressive to look at but in reality mean nothing, especially when you fall off the first corner you try to take :p
 
getting the absolute cheapest thing that does everything you need might be the best value subjectively, but not in the objective sense. i think that is the crux of the debate - people aren't arguing over the same interpretation.
 
Final8y said:
I mean they posted all sorts, raid 0 raid 5 raid 10 ect...
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
But running that isn't exactly the norm.
My RAID 0 with two mediocre SSD's can do like 1.1GB/s read/write, but it's not the norm.

SheepBeast said:
getting the absolute cheapest thing that does everything you need might be the best value subjectively, but not in the objective sense. i think that is the crux of the debate - people aren't arguing over the same interpretation.
Click to expand...

I'll accept that :p.
 
Martini1991 said:
Fair enough.
But running that isn't exactly the norm.
My RAID 0 with two mediocre SSD's can do like 1.1GB/s read/write, but it's not the norm.



I'll accept that :p.
Click to expand...

Yes it was not the norm but interesting all the same.

I didn't think that there would be more scaling past 4 drives.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
You're mixing up a few terms.
Every benchmark has shown the 1100T faster clock for clock however.

Even with lesser IPC 8 BD cores > 1100T at the same clock in an 8 threaded app, that includes cinebench. Unless you're looking at the single threaded part?
Click to expand...
but so far i've not seen any CINEBENCH 8thread result beat the 1100t at the same clock

if u have can u post the link, for me
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom