• 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 4.2 vs Intel i7 4.2

Essentially it is of course the goal to get the best performance per £, and also take into considerations overclocking potential (either for the future, or immediately)

Your friend clearly just has not educated himself in what the different performances of different cpu architectures are, and has bought into the more GHz = better rubbish.

It does not really matter if he isn't going to overclock it, as it won't overclock very far or make much difference as it is so high clocked to begin with due to it's poor performance.

I'd say step 1 with him would just be to show him this thread, and the links people have attached, and just get across to him that it's annoying to brag about something he is uneducated about, and is in-fact wrong about also. Then step 2, he may be kinda upset once he learns how it actually works, so you may have to then just be nice to him, as I don't think there is anything better you can get for £100 really, especially since you can't overclock any intel processor without a 'k' now.

Of course you could tell him that it was pretty much the best thing he could get for £100.
 
trickynickyuk said:
i have just ordered recieved my fx-8150 i know everyone is saying performance is s*** with them but looking at the reviews it is only by a few FPS so i am not to bothered and i have heard that when overclocked they are fantastic cpus if he likes AMD let him keep the CPU but if he wants a further couple of FPS then tell him to go SB/IB
Click to expand...

While I do appreciate the folks who love AMD keeping a competitior going so intel's prices stay somewhat reasonable I think buying a turd and trying to make it sound "almost as good" ("couple of FPS") is some sort of crazy denial.

Fingers crossed AMD actuallly get a decent processor out of the door soon.

Here's a nice side by side of the FX-8150 and the i5. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
While I do appreciate the folks who love AMD keeping a competitior going so intel's prices stay somewhat reasonable I think buying a turd and trying to make it sound "almost as good" ("couple of FPS") is some sort of crazy denial.
Click to expand...
The example of a "couple of fps" different is probably benchs of something like GPU bounded/demanding games with GTX460/GTX560 or 6850/6870 card running 1920 res with 4xAA. What they don't realise if more powerful graphic card get paired up with the CPUs, the different won't be just "couple of fps" anymore...the gap will hugely widen as the GPU limt break further away from what the slower CPU could deliver.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
The example of a "couple of fps" different is probably benchs of something like GPU bounded/demanding games with GTX460/GTX560 or 6850/6870 card running 1920 res with 4xAA. What they don't realise if more powerful graphic card get paired up with the CPUs, the different won't be just "couple of fps" anymore...the gap will hugely widen as the GPU limt break further away from what the slower CPU could deliver.
Click to expand...

Agreed ;)
 
I don't think AMD will ever be top dog again unless Intel ***** up again, gets caught with their pants down, like what happened when Athlon 64 came out.
 
Sylver123 said:
I don't think AMD will ever be top dog again unless Intel ***** up again, gets caught with their pants down, like what happened when Athlon 64 came out.
Click to expand...

Well they've already started cutting corners with the thermal interface paste on ivy bridge...so we can only hope AMD pulls it back so there's more competition for the consumer.
 
badcompany said:
when is amds next big thing due?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they're doing a 'next big thing' for a few years, as they said they are going for yearly improvements of about 15% at the moment. That is impressive if they actually do that though as that's a 32.25% improvement every 2 years, which is what intel's tick/tock cycle is, and I don't think intel have quite been managing that lately.

So basically they're going for core updates/kinda new architecture every year instead of every two in order to get small but consistent upgrades, no 'big' thing for now.
 
badcompany said:
what I meant is bulldozer sucks when is next viable CPU out?B-)
Click to expand...

Piledriver cores are coming in Trinity which is due later this year, I think august, which should replace Llano, we should be able to use Trinity to gauge how the Zambezi replacement will be.

I can see Zambezi's replacement being equivalent to a high clocking Phenom II X8, that's my worst case prediction, which is still a disappointment.
 
Also, Bulldozer FX-4XXX CPUs are more like dual cores with hyperthreading, since sets of two cores are arranged in modules with shared resources. So an FX-4 will be more comparable to an i3-2100 or 2120, and is simply not in the same league as a 2600k, whatever speed he runs it at. Basically, tell him that there are many other factors to consider besides core count and clock speed, these only work when comparing processors of the same architecture in an apples to apples comparison, he however is comparing apples to oranges.
 
Nuclear Fusion said:
Also, Bulldozer FX-4XXX CPUs are more like dual cores with hyperthreading, since sets of two cores are arranged in modules with shared resources. So an FX-4 will be more comparable to an i3-2100 or 2120, and is simply not in the same league as a 2600k, whatever speed he runs it at. Basically, tell him that there are many other factors to consider besides core count and clock speed, these only work when comparing processors of the same architecture in an apples to apples comparison, he however is comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

Partially true. Hyperthreading basically splits one core into 2 and gives each thread a certain amount of resources. So a Dual Core i3 at 3ghz has a total of 6ghz processing power. The FX-4XXX Has 2 Modules but 4 physical cores. If it was clocked at 3ghz it would have a total of 12ghz processing power as it is a true quad core. But you are right as it does deal with tasks as if it is a dual core hyperthreaded CPU, just each thread in theory can run at full speed, rather then balancing the Ghz on a single core like the i3 Dual would.
 
AllBodies said:
Essentially it is of course the goal to get the best performance per £, and also take into considerations overclocking potential (either for the future, or immediately)

Your friend clearly just has not educated himself in what the different performances of different cpu architectures are, and has bought into the more GHz = better rubbish.

It does not really matter if he isn't going to overclock it, as it won't overclock very far or make much difference as it is so high clocked to begin with due to it's poor performance.

I'd say step 1 with him would just be to show him this thread, and the links people have attached, and just get across to him that it's annoying to brag about something he is uneducated about, and is in-fact wrong about also. Then step 2, he may be kinda upset once he learns how it actually works, so you may have to then just be nice to him, as I don't think there is anything better you can get for £100 really, especially since you can't overclock any intel processor without a 'k' now.

Of course you could tell him that it was pretty much the best thing he could get for £100.
Click to expand...

I'd say a Phenom II X4 or an i3 2100/2120 would have been better for around £90.
 
Sure does remind me of someone saying they were running their FX-8150 at 4GHz, so 4 x 8 = 32GHz which is better that a 3930k at 4.5GHz which is only 6 x 4.5 = 27GHz. Therefore since 32/27 is 1.19 (to 2dp), an 8150 is 19% faster than a 3930k. It's similar logic to what young earth creationists use :)
 
AllBodies said:
Well they've already started cutting corners with the thermal interface paste on ivy bridge...so we can only hope AMD pulls it back so there's more competition for the consumer.
Click to expand...

A couple of months before the BD release, a former AMD engineer came out and basically said: 'The team that created the Athlon 64 left ages ago because AMD decided to use crappy automated tools instead of 'hand crafting/tweaking' the CPU'

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...x_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html

Of course. AMD's yields have always been terrible compared to Intel. Also, AMD has never been able to compete in the entire range (from workstation to laptop) meaning that big customers were unwilling to try us and risk ****ing off Intel since they couldn't be sure AMD could pick up the slack.

I don't know. It happened before I left, and there was very little cross-engineering going on. What did happen is that management decided there SHOULD BE such cross-engineering ,which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style. This results in giving up a lot of performance, chip area, and efficiency. The reason DEC Alphas were always much faster than anything else is they designed each transistor by hand. Intel and AMD had always done so at least for the critical parts of the chip. That changed before I left - they started to rely on synthesis tools, automatic place and route tools, etc. I had been in charge of our design flow in the years before I left, and I had tested these tools by asking the companies who sold them to design blocks (adders, multipliers, etc.) using their tools. I let them take as long as they wanted. They always came back to me with designs that were 20% bigger, and 20% slower than our hand-crafted designs, and which suffered from electromigration and other problems.
Click to expand...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9746191&postcount=619
 
OliverDavis said:
Partially true. Hyperthreading basically splits one core into 2 and gives each thread a certain amount of resources. So a Dual Core i3 at 3ghz has a total of 6ghz processing power. The FX-4XXX Has 2 Modules but 4 physical cores. If it was clocked at 3ghz it would have a total of 12ghz processing power as it is a true quad core. But you are right as it does deal with tasks as if it is a dual core hyperthreaded CPU, just each thread in theory can run at full speed, rather then balancing the Ghz on a single core like the i3 Dual would.
Click to expand...

Wat.

It's more like half physical cores/half hyperthreading.

Also: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-3.html

it estimated that a Bulldozer module could average 80% of two complete cores
Click to expand...

So if we go by your logic... it would be more like 9.6ghz processing power ;).

But that's still completely wrong as there's too many other factors...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom