• 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!

Liquid said:
That was the only part of his statement that seemed factually correct to me, and if that's the biggest argument people can make for the 6-core cpu, then that's sad really, because in most circumstances, even with the 6-cores, it is slower.
Click to expand...
If someone is running applications that work better on a certain CPU than the one you have why is it sad?

Some people may only need a very fast dual core for certain applications so if they choose a dual core, are they sad too just because they did not make the same choice as you??
 
Last edited:
silversurfer said:
Side side note, they used to make records from black beatle hides



6 cores for BF3 would be ridiculous. 4 cores will be it for a long time I think, 4+1 will be nice to handle windows in the background maybe but actually giving a benefit to the small elite who have 6 I think is unlikely in most games.

I believe its actually quite hard to get multiple separate but complimentary threads going that would split 6 ways equally.
In theory all programs should scale great but apparently its more like juggling

A progression from 2+1 cores average to 4+1 would be quite noticeable enough I guess

I was playing with throttlestop which adjusts the cpu multipler every second to the workload.
It has superpi test that will vary threads from 1 to 16 and my lil duo core does much better already with 16 threads rather then 2 so maybe everyone will benefit


I anticipate bf3 engine demands being similar to crysis 2
Click to expand...

BFBC2 maxed out my 4Ghz quad & already puts 80% load on my 4Ghz 6 core.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
If someone is running applications that work better on a certain CPU than the one you have why is it sad?

Some people may only need a very fast dual core for certain applications so if they choose a dual core, are they sad too just because they did not make the same choice as you??
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? it's not about what I run at all, I was giving an example relating to me below. Did you read where I said there is no use for the 6-core amd, no because I never said that. The only real plus with the amd 6-core though is cost, and it is a bargain I agree for what you are getting(pre sandybridge), does it make me sad, it does because I want amd to be better than that. I remember the Athlon64 with amazement and still have the machine as a server today, and you know what, everytime I use it it's great and more than still useful performance wise which is more than I can say for the intel equivalent of it's time lol.

I'm no hater of amd mate either, I build around 200 to 300 machines a year for customers and over 85% of them are amd's, they are very affordable after all. I am genuinely looking forward to seeing what they have with Bulldozer and just hope that it can really deliver as the technology seems innovative and extremely promising. With the thermal limit of single core speed virtually reached(with current technology) we need technical innovation so that big advances are still made, not bolt on more existing cores as both intel and amd do.

The holy grail is of course hardware thread splitting to improve performance, and it's what they have in bulldozer.

I agreed with zoomee regarding certain circumstances where the 6 core is useful.

Besides 6+ vm's on any 1 machine regardless of cpu is going to start affecting disk i/o and become less practical as a result wouldn't you agree?

running an amd by chance ? lol
 
Last edited:
VinceB1 said:
Dude you picked apart the rest of this guys argument but skipped over anything about virtualization which is possibly the strongest argument for buying a Phenom x6 right now. Virtulization... where more cores for less money = thumbs up :)
Click to expand...

Liquid said:
That was the only part of his statement that seemed factually correct to me, and if that's the biggest argument people can make for the 6-core cpu, then that's sad really, because in most circumstances, even with the 6-cores, it is slower.

I looked at getting an amd 6-core for my recent upgrade and tbh I found it extremely underwhelming and the sandybridge 4-cores take it apart. I occasionally use vm's but for my use the intel's were still quicker, given they tend to be 1 at a time for me.

4-core cpu's will be mainstream for years yet, and single core performance is still very important too and if that weren't the case, then why is bulldozer designed to split single threads between cores/modules
Click to expand...

Liquid said:
what are you talking about? it's not about what I run at all, I was giving an example relating to myself. Did you read where I said there is no use for the 6-core amd, no because I never said that.
Click to expand...

Liquid said:
I agreed with zoomee regarding certain circumstances where the 6 core is useful.
Click to expand...



No you weren't you were saying it was sad that people could only give a VM example as where an AMD six core was actually faster than an Intel quad core. If their work involves running a lot of VMs why is it sad?? It is the best CPU for their job not yours. It is like somewhat suggesting a six core Phenom II X6 processor for a gaming rig when a quad core or a dual core with HT is probably more than enough.

BTW,there are some other applications which do run a bit better a six core AMD processor than the equivalent 4 core Intel one.

For instance I helped specify the parts a rig recently for someone who was going to run 3DS Max 2010(no overclocking as it was work related). I thought a Core i5 2500 non-k was best until I actually looked at some reviews and the equivalent Phenom II X6 was ahead of it. 3DS Max 2009 fared better for the Intel CPUs BTW. The budget was not enough for a Core i7 2600 which was ahead by around 10%.

There was yet another rig for another person who was using Maya and had a bigger budget. The Core i7 2600k was the obvious choice in this respect.

Liquid said:
Besides 6+ vm's on any 1 machine regardless of cpu is going to start affecting disk i/o and become less practical as a result wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

So given all things are equal your saying that someone should not get a six core processor even if it is the best processor for their purposes??


Liquid said:
running an amd by chance ? lol
Click to expand...

No I run a Q6600 ATM,a few other Intel computers and probably a Core i3 2100 mini ITX based rig soon. For you it is an argument of AMD vs Intel as opposed to what is the best CPU for the job.

Unfortunately,it seems just because you find your processor is best for your purposes you seem to want to think everyone else should too.
 
Last edited:
Snykch said:
BF3 is optimised up to 8 cores, so I've heard.
Click to expand...

Maybe its engine is capable of providing reasonable load for up to 8 cores, but _optimised_ for 8 cores - seems a bit unlikely? Maybe it is optimised for 4 cores, but will scale nicely to 8 cores with noticeable performance gains. Will be very interesting to see (BF2 was a great game! :-))
 
Maybe bad terminology there from me. I meant that if you've got an 8 core system it will make good use of it. I'd think so too considering they're going to town with all the game physics compared to BC2, which is heavy on the CPU already.

I'm chomping to build a new rig at the moment, but it's probably worth waiting to see what these new chips are capable of.
 
We will soon know if BD gets the carrot in the end!:D

TBH,it would have been nice if the AM3+ motherboards were out by now.

Also,is Llano meant to use a different socket ATM??

If so I wonder if the second generation BD will be using that socket instead of AM3+ as it will have an IGP??
 
look CAT,

I am entitled to my own opinion and it related to zoomee's post, I picked up on zoomee's post because his singular point out of the five was vm usage. The other points were unjustified and showed a trace of fanboisim to be fair.

I know there are uses for all 6 cores in amd cpus.

and my last comment was said in jest hence the lol.
 
Liquid said:
look CAT,

I am entitled to my own opinion and it related to zoomee's post, I picked up on zoomee's post because his singular point out of the five was vm usage. The other points were unjustified and showed a trace of fanboisim to be fair.

I know there are uses for all 6 cores in amd cpus.

and my last comment was said in jest hence the lol.
Click to expand...

LOL chill guys!

VM useage is just one scenario that can find a use for 6 cores (PS - I have two SSD's one for OS and one dedicated to VM's - don't have any problems running a citrix farm there dude ;) ). 3D rendering (check out cinebench benchies for evidence), and SOME games - i.e. BFBC2, photoshop - etc.

As mentioned above by other users - Even if a game/program was optimised for 4 cores - having 6 cores would leave extra room for your OS and background tasks - so you would have an overall smoother experience no? Prime example - BFBC2 - 100% useage on all four cores or 80% useage on 6 cores (with room left for your AV software and other background tasks to do they're thing).

17 games mentioned here that benefit (even though its only slightly for some) from having 6 cores over 4:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/

I don't regret going X6 at all at the time - its been almost bang on a year, have a look at this:


Granted I OC'd my CPU (very easily) to 4Ghz v's a stock 980x (3.6?)- but after seeing the figures on the right dialogue box, even with a faster IPC - can anyone say that the extra £800 cost was worth getting the intel 6 core? ;)

doesn't matter whether we like it or not, nor if the software developers have caught up yet (they never tend to do with new hardware!) - The core race is just beginning (Mhz race is slowly coming to its end as has been forecast years ago) - And from a roadmap perspective - AMD are better positioned to win the core race than intel (Intel's newer, more cores CPU's tend to be priced out of the range of the average consumer).

What one has to take into account is whether the extra 5-10% performance (only in certain scenarios) is worth the extra cost? - AMD overall platforms are VERY competitive even if they don't have the fastest CPU.

Coming back to topic - where's my 8 core bulldozer already!!! :P
 
Last edited:
hux said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...Compatible-with-AM3-Motherboards-187009.shtml
Click to expand...

thanks for the link mate, nothing newer than what we already know but what is definately interesting is that they say its going to be debut at cebit?? wasnt that beginning of this month...hmm

oh right - numptie here just clocked on - old article thats been updated - they could have at least changed the bit about it launching at cebit

That link is dated March 1st 2011, and the update is just a reiteration of what we already know - SOME Asus boards will be compatible - nothing new.
 
Last edited:
well would you look at that, it is compatible after all. :rolleyes: good to see they are coming in quad and hex core varieties as well, since I doubt everyone will really want or need one of the eight cores. wonder how much they will retail for and whether they will be available in decent quantities on release day. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom