• 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!

don't understand why everyone is so surprised, a processor build on a smaller more advanced process designed to be a high clocking architecture, designed to make more efficient use of power and resources. why is everyone surprised when it actually achieves high frequencies, that was the intention from the off.?

also when you really think about it, look at what they said they wanted from Bulldozer, a long time before now:

1) Modular Design? Check!
2) High Frequencies? Check!
3) Energy Saving Features? Check!
4) 80% of the performance of a traditional core, for each 'core'? Check...?

so to summarise, why does everyone suddenly give such a damn if the high frequency, modular processor architecture actually does what it was intended to do and reach high frequencies? especially considering everyone is so 'set in stone' about Instructions Per Clock being the most important factor...? :confused:
 
Gashman said:
so to summarise, why does everyone suddenly give such a damn if the high frequency, modular processor architecture actually does what it was intended to do and reach high frequencies? especially considering everyone is so 'set in stone' about Instructions Per Clock being the most important factor...? :confused:
Click to expand...

Pretty simple really, Most people are buying these processors to put in a rig thats primarily a gaming machine. Obviously I'm talking about people on these forums, rather than people world wide. IPC is still the most important thing in gaming. Obviously the GPU is pretty important too, But we're talking processors :p

Bulldozer depending on the pricing will be snapped up by a lot of people, but the pros and cons need to be looked at. Is there any point getting the 8 core version for a gaming machine if the IPC lags behind the Intel offering. No, 8 core support in games could be a way off, and the pricing isnt exactly great.

The 6 core Bulldozer however may be tempting, because the pricing is lower, arguably the next amount of cores to be supported in games will be 6, considering 4 is getting support now. And if the IPC isn't far away from what Sandy is giving us. It seems a good purchase for a gaming machine.

It's tempting me anyways, My skyrim Rig will either be a Sandy or a 6 core bulldozer. Just need to get it released so I can see some numbers. but I have till November, So I can wait.
 
Gashman said:
don't understand why everyone is so surprised, a processor build on a smaller more advanced process designed to be a high clocking architecture, designed to make more efficient use of power and resources. why is everyone surprised when it actually achieves high frequencies, that was the intention from the off.?

also when you really think about it, look at what they said they wanted from Bulldozer, a long time before now:

1) Modular Design? Check!
2) High Frequencies? Check!
3) Energy Saving Features? Check!
4) 80% of the performance of a traditional core, for each 'core'? Check...?

so to summarise, why does everyone suddenly give such a damn if the high frequency, modular processor architecture actually does what it was intended to do and reach high frequencies? especially considering everyone is so 'set in stone' about Instructions Per Clock being the most important factor...? :confused:
Click to expand...

Its pretty simple, just because you design something to work a certain way doesn't mean it will ;)

Just because they wanted Bulldozer to get noticeably faster in clock speed, doesn't mean the process would play ball, nor the design wouldn't have a fundamental flaw, nor the motherboards wouldn't limit overclock due to an oversight, etc, etc, etc.

Proof it works IS interesting and its the reason we're happy about it.

AS others have said, the hype for Sandy was 5Ghz with ease on air, the reality was a little dissappointing, the hype for Bulldozer was hitting 5Ghz on air due to design, the reality is, some are hitting 5.5Ghz...... hence, good. The process could have been so bad the chips weren't stable over 4Ghz.

Also new processes in general are doing very very little for speed these days, the design of bulldozer has had FAR more to do with the clockspeed increase than the process. This is also easily the biggest chip and first real high performance AMD chip on 32nm, which is having "issues" at the moment.
 
Merlin5 said:
Have I misinformed myself, or did I read something about 16 core bulldozers coming out next year?
Click to expand...

16 core Bulldozers for server coming out pretty much now, its basically 2x 8core bulldozers stuck together, except each has a quad channel mem controller rather than dual channel.

I kinda hoped 16 cores would come to desktop with version 2 of Bulldozer, but its almost certainly not going to happen for a couple more years at 20nm. A 8 core Bulldozer is around 300mm2, so 2 stuck together is literally twice as big, thats WAY to much silicon to be sold at sub £500 prices basically. Server CPU's can cost so much that the size doesn't matter so much, they'll sell them for £2k a pop easily. 20nm shrink and we'll probably see 16 core versions but at the moment, for home use thats going to have extremely limited usefulness.

As octo cores become standard, and 12-20 cores in the server market we should see software follow suit, in a couple years a 16 core could be really interesting, right now it would be almost entirely wasted in most software you'd use at home.
 
Merlin5 said:
Ah thanks. so those 2 x 8 cores are for professional networking purposes and not domestic use.
Click to expand...

Yeah, theres a slim chance AMD could do an Intel as with the 990x and upcoming LGA2011 and basically release a desktop aimed platform of their server products, but you'd be looking at the same pricing. While a 16 core would be awesome for e-peen of many people who pay £1k for a home cpu, it wouldn't be all that useful for most people and really its a lot of time, effort and support for literally a few thousand sales and bragging rights.

Theres nothing like that planned at the moment but its very doable, its basically repricing chips for home use only rather than server, taking a decent server single slot board and cutting out the server parts, then painting it some daft colours and packaging it all a bit differently.

16 cores in mainstream at realistic prices for the masses, ie £0-250, 16 cores is almost certain to not happen before 20nm, which is circa 2014. Intel are seemingly only going octo core with Haswell which seems set for around mid 2013. We could see 8 "fatter" cores with a bit more IPC and power before then though, or the previous roadmap had 10core cpu's due roughly second half of next year.
 
wannabedamned said:
Obviously the GPU is pretty important too, But we're talking processors :p.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on the gamers past experience, but i would say the Graphics card is the most important. In my game testing/playing i found it does not really matter which cpu is used. And most games developed today are designed for the lowest common denominator ie gaming consoles.
 
kedge said:
I suppose it depends on the gamers past experience, but i would say the Graphics card is the most important. In my game testing/playing i found it does not really matter which cpu is used. And most games developed today are designed for the lowest common denominator ie gaming consoles.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only CPU limitation I've seen so far is when a game specifies a certain amount of cores as a minimum. I was running a single core Opteron 146 @ 3ghz, and it served me extremely well. Ran any game I wanted, Up until the release of Mass Effect 2. Which basically told me to run and jump off a cliff. IPC of the opteron was fine, Unfortunately it was only a single core. GPU wise, my system could have run mass effect 2 perfectly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom