AMD Bulldozer vs Intel Core: There's only one way to find out... fight!

Roalith · 13 Aug 2012 at 13:13

DISCLAIMER: NO NEW INFORMATION HERE, JUST A COLLECTION OF OLD STUFF SOME PEOPLE MAY FIND USEFUL.

So, been reading up about the Bulldozer vs Core argument.

General concensus seems to be that for heavily multi-threaded applications, or applications that are more bound by GPU than CPU, the Bulldozer wins on price-performance.

Taking Battlefield 3 as a yardstick, we can see here that processor speed, and number of cores seems to be pretty much irrelevent (based on an i7 965 overclocked, underclocked, and with cores disabled). Similarly, here Tomshardware say essentially the same thing on the i7-2600k. The GPU intensity is much more relevent in these cases than the processor. Most tellingly, from their conclusion:

"Processor-wise, it doesn’t really matter. I could pick an AMD FX, an Intel Core i3, or a Core i7 and get the same performance."

For single-threaded applications, and stuff that is essentially going to crank the beejesus out of your processor (IE: 500 players in Stormwind, a gazillion units running around in Total War), the Core chips win hands down. This shows the relevant benches for WoW.

In this section of their Bulldozer review, Tomshardware give a good brief overview on per-core performance of the i7 2600k v FX8150. However, one point to note that (with rebate) the FX 8150 isn't too shy of half the price of the i7 2700k which Overclockers sell.

So, in summary: If you're happy with 'good enough' for a cheaper price, have a decent GPU backing you up, are playing mainly graphically-intensive games, then Bulldozer is 'ok'. However, for better performance in every day use? Go with an Intel Core.

Martini1991 · 13 Aug 2012 at 13:31

Can, worms, everywhere.

EDIT : Also, as a point of reference, at the time the FX8150 came out its price was the price of the i7 2600k, it had an instant price drop to 200, and has fallen even lower down (To a point the FX8120 in some very limited scenarios is the best bang per buck by a country mile)

d_brennen · 13 Aug 2012 at 13:40

OP where have you been since BDs release? Death. Done. To

Unless you have a very specific need to Bulldozers' number of integer units or obscure virtualisation features then Intel SB/IB is the way to go.

/thread

Martini1991 · 13 Aug 2012 at 13:42

d_brennen said:
OP where have you been since BDs release? Death. Done. To

Unless you have a very specific need to Bulldozers' number of integer units or obscure virtualisation features then Intel SB/IB is the way to go.

/thread

Because everyone always needs to make the "final" thread, for the "showdown"

I want to see a review of the FX8150 today, latest batch, you know since all the magic BIOS updates, and the magic software optimisation etc.

Roalith · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:02

Hell, just thought I'd post up a thread with some useful information for people coming back to machine building after a time away. Jeez, this place...

mmj_uk · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:05

I've not seen anyone with more than 500 posts start a thread defending/praising Bulldozer yet, they all seem to be fairly new or very inactive members strangely...

As for Bulldozer being half the price of 2700K, well anyone looking to save a few few bob should be going with 2500K.

Martini1991 · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:06

mmj_uk said:
I've not seen anyone with more than 500 posts start a thread defending/praising Bulldozer yet, they all seem to be fairly new members strangely...

Which the OP isn't, 2003.

Roalith said:
Hell, just thought I'd post up a thread with some useful information for people coming back to machine building after a time away. Jeez, this place...

But there's hundreds of threads/webpages/posts with helpful information.
This will only incite flame baiting for the people stupid enough to buy a Bulldozer CPU for gaming, and then the Intel fanboys who can't see any merit of Bulldozer at all, then the AMD fanboys will play ignorance to sockets, and then it ends up with a flame filled thread.

Roalith · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:19

But there's hundreds of threads/webpages/posts with helpful information.

So I shouldn't add my own take and perspective to the pile?

Martini1991 · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:23

Roalith said:
So I shouldn't add my own take and perspective to the pile?

But you've made an entirely new thread, referencing old articles (Which, to play devils advocate may not be entirely accurate with the scheduler patch and "magic" BIOS updates)

EDIT : Not only that, you've picked the outlier game ; BF3.
I wish people would stop using that as proof their FX8 doesn't blow chunks against Intel in gaming.
Play something like Rome Total War with mods and watch the FX8 chug along on a game older than its unveiling half a decade ago.

Roalith · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:28

mmj_uk said:
As for Bulldozer being half the price of 2700K, well anyone looking to save a few few bob should be going with 2500K.

... which are still a third more expensive. Admittedly it's 'only' £30 or so, but if you normalise the benchmark results for prices as they stand today

But you've made an entirely new thread, referencing old articles (Which, to play devils advocate may not be entirely accurate with the scheduler patch and "magic" BIOS updates)

See, useful bits of information rise to the surface when people make new posts. I hadn't heard of the scheduler patch or 'magic' bios updates.

Martini1991 · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:31

Roalith said:
See, useful bits of information rise to the surface when people make new posts. I hadn't heard of the scheduler patch or 'magic' bios updates.

I was being sarcastic about the BIOS updates, it was the fanboys "saving grace" for BD.
That said, there have been BIOS updates, I've seen the AMD fans months ago saying "BD is getting better day by day" obviously I think it's a load of straw grasping, but I'd like to see it.

Scheduler patch also didn't really do much at all, just want them to have no excuses.

Bulldozer simply shouldn't have been released in its current form, an 8 core Phenom II would perform better than the FX8 and the FX6 and FX4 are slower than their Phenom II predecessors (Which you can still get Phenom II's cheaper), all AMD accomplished was lowering their own CPU performance and forced people to upgrade to Intel except the most hardcore fanboys.

Roalith · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:40

Martini1991 said:
EDIT : Not only that, you've picked the outlier game ; BF3.
I wish people would stop using that as proof their FX8 doesn't blow chunks against Intel in gaming.
Play something like Rome Total War with mods and watch the FX8 chug along on a game older than its unveiling half a decade ago.

I play BF3. I don't play Total War (although I admittedly picked it up in the Steam sales a while back). I did note in my original post the caveats behind buying a Bulldozer.

Martini1991 · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:41

BF3 is the only game you play?
You could have bought an i3 2120, not notice any difference in BF3, but have better consistent performance in every other game that wasn't as GPU intensive as BF3, or even bought a better and cheaper Phenom II X4, hell you can get an X6 BE for the same price as an FX4, I simply will never understand anyone getting an FX4 for gaming when better options from either vendor are available, you can even pick up i7 920's for 90 on the MM at times and a cheap board for 40 quid (Those foxconn blade ones)

Dirtyganker · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:43

Roalith said:
So I shouldn't add my own take and perspective to the pile?

Erm .... no.

This thread is a total waste of bandwidth. I clicked on this thinking someone was posting up something new or even vaguely interesting, or maybe had managed to pollish AMD's turd sufficiently to make it actually worthy of consideration for anything other than wedging under a wonky table leg.

Oh well, gz on the flame bait, I'm sure plenty of AMD fans will want to contribute some blinkered and uninformed opinion. I guess it provides more fodder for the Intel fans .... not a fair fight really.

Roalith · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:47

Dirtyganker said:
Erm .... no.

This thread is a total waste of bandwidth. I clicked on this thinking someone was posting up something new or even vaguely interesting, or maybe had managed to pollish AMD's turd sufficiently to make it actually worthy of consideration for anything other than wedging under a wonky table leg.

Oh well, gz on the flame bait, I'm sure plenty of AMD fans will want to contribute some blinkered and uninformed opinion. I guess it provides more fodder for the Intel fans .... not a fair fight really.

Wow. Just... wow. First post edited appropriately.

Martini: Point taken about the X4 and X6s - again, if I had known about it, I probably wouldn't be making this post now. So once again, thank you for posting some useful titbits.

Dirtyganker · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:52

Roalith said:
... which are still a third more expensive. Admittedly it's 'only' £30 or so, but if you normalise the benchmark results for prices as they stand today

Well there's a very good reason why AMD's CPUs are so cheap ... they can't sell them .... and why? .... do we really have to point it out to you?

Guaging value by referencing benchmarks and prices is irrelevent because the price is always being tweaked to try and make the piece of crap sell, which skews the whole thing. You could give them away and I still wouldn't buy one, and before you say 'yeah right, if I gave you an AMD CPU you'd gladly take it' you're wrong - I would still have to spend 100's of pounds in additional kit to support that piece of junk, over and above what I already own. So if you gave an FX cpu I'd just as likely smash it with a hammer, as it would never get a single mV put through it whilst in my poession.

See, useful bits of information rise to the surface when people make new posts. I hadn't heard of the scheduler patch or 'magic' bios updates.

Well maybe you should have done a bit more of your own homework rather than assuming everyone else has had their head stuck up the same place as where you'd have yours.

Kaapstad · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:54

I play BF3. I don't play Total War (although I admittedly picked it up in the Steam sales a while back). I did note in my original post the caveats behind buying a Bulldozer.

If Julius Caesar had a bulldozer CPU he would probably toss it and reach for his abacus

Martini1991 · 13 Aug 2012 at 14:54

I'd bet AMD's 8 core does sell quite well (Maybe not to those in the know)
But people don't know 1MHZ isn't an equal measure comparing two architectures.
So, for sub 150 you can get a 3.6GHZ 8 core CPU or for 170 you can get a 3.3GHZ quad core.

That FX8 on paper looks like an absolute knock out, people will buy them.

EDIT : Sorry if I'm coming across as a rampant AMD basher/Intel fanboy, which I'm neither.

kierenharrold · 13 Aug 2012 at 15:03

I've been using AMD cpus for years now, but ive just upgraded from a 1055T and there was nothing that AMD had to offer.

The best bang for buck CPU is the i3-2120, its cheaper by a fair bit and better in games than the FX 8150.

If you're building a gaming rig, and you buy an FX8150, then you have simple not done enough research, there is no reason to buy one and there's no excuse to have one. :-p

This is coming for an AMD fan boy.

Roalith · 13 Aug 2012 at 15:05

Dirtyganker said:
Well there's a very good reason why AMD's CPUs are so cheap ... they can't sell them .... and why? .... do we really have to point it out to you?

Well, you don't need to any more, that's for certain. Benefit of hindsight and all that, I can quite happily say if I'd have known better I'd probably have gone for an i5 2500k or thereabouts.

Guaging value by referencing benchmarks and prices is irrelevent because the price is always being tweaked to try and make the piece of crap sell, which skews the whole thing. You could give them away and I still wouldn't buy one, and before you say 'yeah right, if I gave you an AMD CPU you'd gladly take it' you're wrong - I would still have to spend 100's of pounds in additional kit to support that piece of junk, over and above what I already own. So if you gave an FX cpu I'd just as likely smash it with a hammer, as it would never get a single mV put through it whilst in my poession.

That's entirely your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Personally, I feel that while yeah their performance might not be worth writing home about, they're still not bad enough to deserve the vitriolic drivel you are spouting.

I can almost see the flecks of spittle on your monitor.

It's disgusting.

Please wipe it off.

Well maybe you should have done a bit more of your own homework rather than assuming everyone else has had their head stuck up the same place as where you'd have yours.

This is a forum, a place designed for discussion of issues related to public interest. If everyone just did their own homework, asked no questions or provided no opinions, the world would be a much less interesting place.