AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Gashman · 5 Sep 2011 at 12:41

arghh! for the love of Jesus! Phenom II IS!!! competitive based on a price/performance level for the average user, who isn't going to be overclocking the hell out of their system, don't understand how so many people are stupid enough to not realise that! :confused:

you absolutely cannot be idiotic enough to come out with a comment like 'Phenom II sucks...' just because when overclocked the Intel processors are faster, you just cannot do that in the real world, maybe this fantasy world of enthusiasts but since we make up well...non of the market really its irrelevant. the fact of the matter is, a £85 Phenom II competes with an £85 Intel processor, no ifs, no buts it just does! nobody in the real world gives a rats ass if the AMD is clocked higher (hell that will work to their advantage in some places that still claim that higher MHZ = more performance), why can nobody use that squidgy stuff inside their skulls and realise that Phenom II doesn't compete in the high-end market, it never has and was never intended to, it competes mainstream, and competes well for the most part.

also if you are one of those people who cannot accept that then fine, get an Intel and stop moaning about it! :rolleyes:

DragonQ · 5 Sep 2011 at 13:11

This is true, Phenom IIs are certainly competitive cost-wise for the average user but they obviously cannot compete at the higher-end because they're old technology. They also use more power.

wannabedamned · 5 Sep 2011 at 13:12

Ohnoes someone is being critical of a processor, quick. Insult them, they're obviously fanboys!

Get a grip, People are only pointing out Phenom IIs lack of capability due to the fact they want BD to have what it lacks!! Hense its getting said in the Bulldozer thread!

We want something that competes with Intel! Something that moves them forward, rather than drops them in the budget area again.

If we removed the 2 companies from the equation, and lumped AMD and Intel together. Called them AMDTel. Would you still be buying the Phenom IIs when there's technology above and beyond it? The i3's compete with the Phenom II multicores. I3 Wins out in with regards to IPC, Yet Phenom II's pull ahead in Multithreaded apps, Marginally! Thats vs a dual core!

The fact the 2 companies are divided shouldnt matter, buy the best processor for the money you can afford. Problem is...I3, I5 and I7 cover all bases!

BUT! I HOPE BULLDOZER KICKS ALL THEIR ASSES!!! Which is kinda the point!! And its why its getting said in here

Martini1991 · 5 Sep 2011 at 13:15

Even AMD's latest offering is still lacking as a CPU (Llano).

Elevon · 5 Sep 2011 at 14:03

DragonQ said:
This is true, Phenom IIs are certainly competitive cost-wise for the average user but they obviously cannot compete at the higher-end because they're old technology. They also use more power.

That's where Bulldozer comes into play,one thing you can bet on is BD will be faster then Phenom II.

buchtis · 5 Sep 2011 at 14:23

Elevon said:
...one thing you can bet on is BD will be faster then Phenom II.

I bloody hope so with the amount of waiting we've done!

mmj_uk · 5 Sep 2011 at 14:37

Elevon said:
That's where Bulldozer comes into play,one thing you can bet on is BD will be faster then Phenom II.

Not hard though is it? Phenom II is still only really at Intel Core 2 level. AMD's only answer to i5/i7 architecture so far has been to throw 2 extra cores on their chips so that they can match Intel in heavily multithreaded applications.

As much as I'd love it to be the case I'm skeptical that Bulldozer will be any different, as always AMD's main selling point is likely to be a low price compared to Intel.

Elevon · 5 Sep 2011 at 14:53

mmj_uk said:
Not hard though is it? Phenom II is still only really at Intel Core 2 level. AMD's only answer to i5/i7 architecture so far has been to throw 2 extra cores on their chips so that they can match Intel in heavily multithreaded applications.

As much as I'd love it to be the case I'm skeptical that Bulldozer will be any different, as always AMD's main selling point is likely to be a low price compared to Intel.

You have to consider size of Intel to AMD,sometimes a lot of people overlook that,also note BD is complete new design unlike their older generation rehash...AMD have delivered superior products on Intel many years ago, however BD only has to be competitive which I'm pretty sure it will be...I don't think anybody is expecting huge performance gains over Intel's current CPUs.

DragonQ · 5 Sep 2011 at 16:03

Martini1991 said:
Even AMD's latest offering is still lacking as a CPU (Llano).

True but I guess they thought it wasn't worth investing in a new CPU architecture for Llano for a few reasons:

1) There's not really much need at the moment for the users Llano targets.
2) Bulldozer was/is just around the corner but not quite ready so an intermediate design wouldn't have been cost efficient.
3) They wanted it out ASAP to compete with Intel's HD Graphics 3000. The laptop/HTPC/casual user market has a much higher priority for them than the enthusiast market.

Trinity should be extremely interesting though. With any luck it'll be well ahead of Llano (in terms of both the CPU and IGP) and probably well ahead of anything Intel will have in that market segment too. Hopefully they can make it cheaper at the same time.

Martini1991 · 5 Sep 2011 at 16:11

Trinity looks to be fun.
But then again, hasn't that always been the case with AMD for the last while?
This product looks good, it comes out, it's not very good, rinse and repeat.

shootersam · 5 Sep 2011 at 16:43

Can't wait for Bulldozer to come out. AMD is much more in my price range than Intel.

gareth170 · 5 Sep 2011 at 17:39

the way i see it is im not bothered if BD beats intel or not in most things. has long as it performances faster than my 1090t, i'll be happy.

i do a lot of video editing, ect, so 8 cores would help...

seandog · 5 Sep 2011 at 17:48

but would it not be more beneficial to have the 6 core BD, if the 8 and 6 cores have the same L3 cache wouldnt the 6 core with more cache per core perform slightly better for you?

Jayster · 5 Sep 2011 at 17:54

seandog said:
but would it not be more beneficial to have the 6 core BD, if the 8 and 6 cores have the same L3 cache wouldnt the 6 core with more cache per core perform slightly better for you?

More cores will give a far larger increase than more L3 cache in most cases.

seandog · 5 Sep 2011 at 17:57

wasnt sure what way it would work with the video editing going from 6-8 cores with same L3 cache, didnt know if the behaviour would be exactly same as going from a 4-6 core CPU, but i suppose why wouldnt it

gareth170 · 5 Sep 2011 at 18:05

if u go for 8 cores BD you could turn off 2 cores if u really want too

but yeah more cores gives a larger increase ..

also the L3 cache shares it to the cores the are in use.

seandog · 5 Sep 2011 at 18:35

Good idea, if it ever was to work like that, just to turn off 2 cores and have it as a hex

Final8y · 5 Sep 2011 at 18:48

Martini1991 said:
Why do you need SATA 3 for HDD's?
EDIT : The PCI-E 2.0 x 8 thing is a moot point given it has PCI-E 3.0 support with Ivy.
Though I agree, there's no native 16x support, and NF200 has latency which only makes it like an 8x lane.

To agree as an overall point. AMD motherboards, in my opinion offer more for the price.
It's just a shame they don't have the same premier performance as Intel, I'm hoping that'll change.

Sata 3 gives better burst rate to RAIDED drives & it gets better the more drives you have because of the cache on the drives, even though the sustains speeds gives no real difference until your in the 8 drives & up.

I said if i was buying today & Ivy is not out today so it would be a step backwards until then and that is not something that i would want to do.
I would wait until Ivy was out before buying.

I found another Intel mobo that has all the connections i need besides the sata 3 that i would like which would be a side ways move connectivity wise.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-395-AS&tool=5 not cheap.

But the point is AMD mobo gives more for the price.

Sin_Chase · 5 Sep 2011 at 19:13

Value is only value if you need it. 90% of people, if not 99% will never exceed the capacity of a mobo when it comes to ports. You do not need 8 native USB ports on the rear I/O panel. Get a HUB (And don't tell me you are running 8 ports at full bandwidth because if you are you are doing something silly)

If you need good RAID performance why are you using embedded controllers? Buy a real controller card?

Want to use a soundcard but could use optical out on any motherboard and do the processing externally on a far superior piece of kit with far superior sound quality and flexibility.

Bleat on about a £6000 rig but seemingly an el cheapo mobo which lets you do more is better than much higher quality individual parts? There is no way I would run a 6 grand rig which held all it's eggs in a single basket.

You seemingly make this decision every time you upgrade, why not buy the better individuals that you can then migrate instead of having an utterly silly requirement out of a board? I've used the same external DTS/DD amp over many many generations of gear now. I plan to do so for many many more.

Do you know how many people write a mobo off because it does not have 8 rear I/O panel USB ports? 1 in Millions.

Final8y · 5 Sep 2011 at 19:33

Sin_Chase said:
1)Value is only value if you need it. 90% of people, if not 99% will never exceed the capacity of a mobo when it comes to ports. You do not need 8 native USB ports on the rear I/O panel. Get a HUB (And don't tell me you are running 8 ports at full bandwidth because if you are you are doing something silly)

2)If you need good RAID performance why are you using embedded controllers? Buy a real controller card? Bleat on about a £6000 rig but seemingly an el cheapo mobo which lets you do more is better than much higher quality individual parts?

3)You seemingly make this decision every time you upgrade, why not buy the better individuals that you can then migrate instead of having an utterly silly requirement out of a board?
8 rear USB ports, seriously?

4)Do you know how many people write a mobo off because it does not have 8 rear I/O panel USB ports? 1 in Millions.

1) I used to use hubs but i don't any more as they can have issues. i have never had issues with the natives.

2)I don't want to buy a real controller card because some things i like for free even if it aint as good.

3) Because i would be buying those motherboards anyway even so i may as well use what's on them because its cheaper that way and its hard enough migrating my gfx cards, sound card, TV card as it is now, i don't need more to worry about.

4) i would not right a mobo off being it didn't have 8 rear I/O panel USB ports either its just that you pulled just that from the list out of context.

And also its not about what you think i need its about what i want.

Its called choice and its my choice and if there is a product that meets my choice then thats the product that i buy & AMD do it cheaper.