-
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.
Happy bulldozer owners?????????
- Thread starter ghost12
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,522
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Wut.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Once again some random guy getting confused and interpreting "Bulldozer suck=AMD suck", despite people are specifically criticise the CPU not the company...
Even without Intel in the picture, Phenom II X6 is still a better gaming and consumer level CPU than the 8 cores Bulldozer...get that through the thick skull of yours.
Also as someone has pointed out...if AMD had released something like a Phenom II X8 on 32nm, it would have been a more attactive product than Bulldozer, as it would mean higher IPC, AND most likely can clocked up to 4.8-5.0GHz rather than 4.0-4.2GHz on the 45nm Phenom II. And also unlike Bulldozer, the Phenom II would have REAL 8 cores...
Last edited:
well most people here know i was a AMD fanboy
as i said above i had both a PII 1090t @ 4ghz and a BD 8150 @ 4.6ghz and tbh if had to choose between them i'd take the 1090t any day.
the difference being you actually quantified the difference and showed evidence, which showed that as far as value for money is concerned bulldozer wasnt, and thats just compared the product it was supposed to replace, let alone the competition.
If people dont care that bulldozer doesnt perform aswell as intel and bought one anyway then its a bit like saying you dont care about value for money, which most people will see as a pretty silly stance to take.
The answer to his question?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,522
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Bulldozer owners herping 'n derping all over the place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Or perhaps just the answer he wants to hear lol
Last edited:
Would like to know where the word AMD came into my post
The fact is an AMD BD will happily plough through hard coded and multi threaded applications. The benchmarks may not prove this but how many people own a benchmark PC?
BD is designed for specific usage which the X6 lacks in. Understand that yourself...
EDIT:
The OP wanted to know if there are any people out there who had a BD and found it good. He didnt ask for a suggestion for a new CPU so I dont understand why you people cant just let the OP and the people who have BD just talk. Since its not going to affect you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
what (very) specific usage might that be and what is your source for this please?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,522
- Location
- Dormanstown.
His imagination.
Ironically AMD's strength is also its own weakness, due to its scaling from the shared resources, so in heavily threaded situations, it's not that much faster than a Phenom II X6, and is amplified by the fact a Phenom II X8 would perform better than the FX8.
Why people buy the FX are beyond me, they'll continue to justify it, while justifying to themselves they're not justifying their purchase.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Not only that...they probably still thinking that Bulldozer FX-8 got 8 REAL cores...
to clear this up the Bulldozer FX-8/6/4, don't have separate resources for each core. example the FX8 yes has 8 cores but theres 2 cores per module and they share the resources. the PII performance a lot better because each core has separate resources.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,522
- Location
- Dormanstown.
And because it doesn't have a longer pipeline like Bulldozer.
AMD had to remove IPC while increasing their clocking, negating the clocking.
Intel with SB increased their IPC and their clocking (That's the type of progression we always need)
IB was hit 'n miss because of Intel using TIM rather than solder.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,526
- Location
- Bristol
IPC can only take one so far - yes i didn't mention it but was hoping someone of your calibre sir would understand
AMD chips are always cooler than Intel (saying that I'm referring to phenom days as I don't know how hot the BD chips can get) - I believe 52 Degrees C is where AMD chips stop - whereas Intel goes all the way upto 80!!
I've always said (even having shunted BD) - That mowar cores is the way to go. Intel are just denying the inevitable for now and milking us for all they can - as they are the ones who's software compilers are used the most - hence why BD will be under-utilised. As soon as AMD get on top of this or apps become more and more truly multi-threaded - AMD will be competitve again in the performance front - me waits patiently for now.
Well when the times comes when software can utilise more cores, then Intel will make CPUs with more cores. At the moment, better IPC with 4 cores is far better than an '8' core with **** IPC. By the time games can use 8 cores, Intel will most likely already have released 8 core CPUs. Intel released a product that was appropriate to use today. There is no point buying something that 'might' be better in 5 years time, because by then you'll have upgraded. Also, remember than the TJ max for BD is only 90C as opposed to 105C on IB. So the temperature alone is not a good comparison. What do you mean 52C is when they stop?! CPU temps don't just stop at a random number like that (except when it hits the thermal limit and throttles).
i think they probably would have had amd released a more competitive product, but why should they when there enthusiast range 6 core chips double the performance of there competitors 8 core chips. Just means they can keep the 8 core chips for the server market and charge a premium.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,522
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Intel could release cheaper 6 cores when they feel they want to.
At the moment they're just charging huge amounts of money for them because simply put, they can.
While I think Intel are taking the mick a little with quad cores, they're still giving us better consistent performance than AMD, so until that time stops, they can milk me dry.
At the moment they're just charging huge amounts of money for them because simply put, they can.
While I think Intel are taking the mick a little with quad cores, they're still giving us better consistent performance than AMD, so until that time stops, they can milk me dry.
Last edited: