• 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!

DragonQ said:
Those benchmarks have to be fake. The FX-8150 just barely beating the i7-2600K in a multi-threaded benchmark (7-Zip) when clocked higher? If that was true the rumoured prices would be way off and, quite frankly, Zambezi wouldn't even be considered for release.
Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily mean anything, firstly, it doesn't matter, secondly, why is it barely ahead and why is a slower per core 990x that much faster. Well most of those cores have dual channel memory, one of them has triple channel memory. So if its bandwidth limited, and its ahead, thats a start.

Likewise, if it costs less than the 2600k, or around the same but is generally speaking faster, again whats the issue.

You don't need to get hung up on core's, cores mean nothing without taking into account whats in the cores.

Sandybridge, 4x 4 issue cores, Bulldozer, 8x 2 issue cores, both have a max throughput of 16 issues per clock on their interger cores.... they have the same theoretical max throughput(though each issue will likely have vastly different efficiency), so being faster is, pretty much a great thing here.

EDIT:- for the record, Phenom is a 3 issue architecture, so a quad core phenom has 4x3=12 issue wide chip, and the X6 version is 18 issues wide essentially.

If you were buying a 8 core Bulldozer for £400 and expected twice the performance of a £200 Intel quad core, that would be dissappointing, because the PRICE rather than the number of cores would lead you to believe you were buying something vastly better.

If you buy a £200 bulldozer and its faster than a £200 Intel, wheres the problem, how is that a failure. Can you buy a chip the same price as a 2600k now and have a faster AMD chip? No, will you be able to soon, from those results, yes.... failure?
 
MichaelM said:
According to him/her a Phenom II x4 980 will beat an FX-8150 and quote - "Start to cry AMD fan imbeciles :)"

Seems legit :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

AFAIK,the owner of the blog has been banned from many forums and has not been right about CPU performance figures in the past.

Also,both the dual and triple module Bulldozer processors have more L3 cache per core and higher clockspeeds than the quad module versions too.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
AFAIK,the owner of the blog has been banned from many forums and has not been right about CPU performance figures in the past.

Also,both the dual and triple module Bulldozer processors have more L3 cache per core and higher clockspeeds than the quad module versions too.
Click to expand...

He recently admitted that all the 'benchmarks' he posted were total fabrications and fakes and that he was 'trolling'. So I'm sure these are just the same.

Do everyone a favour and don't click on his blog and give him traffic. The guy's a proven liar and moron.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Likewise, if it costs less than the 2600k, or around the same but is generally speaking faster, again whats the issue.
Click to expand...
The issue is that if an 8-core Zambezi can only just beat a 4-core Sandy Bridge (albeit with HyperThreading) in the same price range in a heavily threaded application, then it's obviously going to be awful at single-threaded applications in comparison to the Intel chip.

But, like I said, those results have to be fake so no worries.
 
Well there is obviously some issues with Bulldozer. Reminds me of Nvidia and the GTX 480.

I am expecting performance below SB with prices around the same if not a tad more expensive. AMD are loosing the battle with Intel unfortunately.

Hoping I'm wrong.
 
amd trinity info released: http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/23670-amd-apu-plans-for-2012-revealed

increase from 400mhz to possibly 800mhz for the graphics, that would be some serious gaming power!

currently it can do around 30fps in lowish res and medium-low graphics settings for the majority of games with Llano, i bet trinity could do 30fps with med-high res and high graphics settings.

The days of needing a 3rd party gpu may be over for casual gamers with trinity :)
 
ah yeah, mis-read, my mistake.

Even so 720 or 800 stream processors would bring about a nice performance increase.
 
even more interesting is the fact it is based on the 7*** series, so who knows what sort of improvements have been made to the shader processors themselves, could be a bigger jump than we think. ;)
 
I was planning to upgrade to Bulldozer but this is taking too long. I think l will wait for Ivy Bridge or the enhanced Bulldozer core coming in 2012. I really hope AMD managed to create a core that will allow it to compete better in the server and enthusiast market.
 
DragonQ said:
The issue is that if an 8-core Zambezi can only just beat a 4-core Sandy Bridge (albeit with HyperThreading) in the same price range in a heavily threaded application, then it's obviously going to be awful at single-threaded applications in comparison to the Intel chip.

But, like I said, those results have to be fake so no worries.
Click to expand...

Thats not how it works though, theres a reason hyperthreading works very well in many situations, because lots of single threaded applications won't use a 4 issue wide core very well and as pointed out, if one benchmark is just completely bandwidth limited, then you wouldn't actually be seeing "8 core" performance, but heavily limited 8 core performance, single core/thread performance is rarely heavily bandwidth limited these days. You can't just divide that performance by 8 and assume single threaded performance and divide the 2600k by 4, and decide it will be close to twice as fast.

More important is, what single threaded applications NEED that much performance, Superpi, fine, what will 99% of people use on a daily basis, windows, games, encoding, decoding, hdd playback, internet, streaming video's, most of these things are easily multithreaded or simply use so little performance you can do it fine on a tablet.

Is single threaded performance important, sure a 2600k MIGHT run some stupid old game at 700fps, rather than 400fps on a Bulldozer...... does it matter, when both can only manage 100fps in say BF3, because essentially no new games come out limited to a single thread/core performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom