Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,523
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I like optimists.
-
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!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
I like optimists.
You should be shot for some of your comments.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,523
- Location
- Dormanstown.
So you're satisfied with the sub-par single threaded performance which is worse than AMD's previous generation? (and was already thought to be Phenom II's weakness versus Intel)
I can think of no circumstance where I would consider buying an 8 core CPU for its single-threaded performance.
A metric ton more transistors, 2 extra cores, higher clocks, a ton more power usage, to achieve what an Phenom II can do already, or slightly beat it.
And lets not even compare to the Intels where it gets seven shades knocked out of it.
In some tests it eeks ahead, in others it fails hard, overall with the power draw and poor IPC it's a bad CPU. No question, there is zero reason to buy one over an i5.
And only certain situations where its worth buying over an X6 (if you encode lots of x264 or render all the time).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,523
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Because that single threaded performance is still important.
If it's crap at single threaded performance, it's not going to best a 2500k in the majority of app's in the real world where most things aren't heavily multi-threaded.
In a heavily threaded environment, it's different, but that's not a reality yet.
I'm glad you took it as tongue in cheek.
I think some of the comments in this thread are a bit biased and/or excitable.
Look at it from AMD's perspective, if they can produce a CPU that performs in line with Intel at or just below an 'affordable' price point, they are competing. It's clear they don't have the need to spend big money chasing the very peak of the market, they're playing hte numbers game and as a result their market share has been steadily rising. The gains in the mid-range are worth far more than the very top tier system sales, especially when it comes to OE sales.
Sure us 'enthusiasts' wanted something more exciting, but business is business.
You would have to believe that every application ever invented uses 8 cores to make that argument.
When you run applications like World of Warcraft and get half the frame-rate of a 2500K you'll understand why single threaded performance is important no matter how many cores overall.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,523
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'm glad you took it as tongue in cheek.
I think some of the comments in this thread are a bit biased and/or excitable.
Look at it from AMD's perspective, if they can produce a CPU that performs in line with Intel at or just below an 'affordable' price point, they are competing. It's clear they don't have the need to spend big money chasing the very peak of the market, they're playing hte numbers game and as a result their market share has been steadily rising.
Sure us 'enthusiasts' wanted something more exciting, but business is business and I quite frankly I see no reason for AMD to concern themselves.
Then you're being frankly naive.
Bulldozer has worse IPC than the Q6600 (Oh wait, didn't I say that yesterday
)It's a total u-turn as far as performance in the majority of applications are concerned.
The only question to ask AMD is "How do I get my programs to use 8 cores?"
.It has 2 billion transistors, sandy barely has 1 billion, its the first wholly new architecture from AMD in over a decade, it often has a clockspeed advantage over the older phenom II.... Yet it only beats it sometimes?!
That sucks. Dont care how you dress it up, bulldozer sucks hard!
The architecture might get better in the coming years, but the CPU's we have here today and the architecture in its current form are a massive dissapointment.
I agree with you 100%.
But you also have to understand human nature. You can see by the sheer size of the thread that many AMD fans were hoping for the best CPU ever released. Never have I ever seen a thread with so much anticipation. This anticipation led to increased expectations.
For whatever reason, the hype really got to a lot of people, with regards to this CPU and I myself, have absolutely no idea why expectations/hype/anticipation was so high. As I stated, I've never seen this sort of hysteria before.
I even stated in the middle of this thread that we currently have the best CPU ever released (considering price/performance), why are you waiting for BD, when 2500K is already available and is fully mature and working beautifully?
I think that the only way that everybody in this thread would've been happy, would be if AMD released a CPU which was cheaper than the 2600K, but outperformed it, across the board.
Then you're being frankly naive.
Bulldozer has worse IPC than the Q6600 (Oh wait, didn't I say that yesterday
It's a total u-turn as far as performance in the majority of applications are concerned.
The only question to ask AMD is "How do I get my programs to use 8 cores?"
If you knew me, naive is the last thing you'd call me.
A "total u-turn"? Talk about over dramatisation.
The fact is AMD's market share has been ticking up on Intel, if they can produce enough BD cores to satisfy they're OEM market I doubt we'll any real trend change in the near future, nothing that would be seriously detrimental to AMD that is.
Yes. Because many people who were using Intel Q6600 cpus and AMD Phenoms were hoping to upgrade to BD.
Now given the actual performance of BD, if somebody pays £100+, they will barely be able to tell the difference, in real world usage.
If you spend £100+, you should expect to see/feel a tangible difference.
Spending £100+ on an upgrade without any noticeable performance gain is an absolute failure.
I don't think it was really above expectations that AMD would bring out a CPU that could match the current year old Sandy Bridges (hell even matching the 3 year old Nehalem would have been nice!).
It's not like everyone expected BD to drop and blow i7 out of the water (like Core2 did to AMD64). They just wanted an AMD alternative to Intel's high end domination.
Instead we got a damp squib that barely outperforms their own previous gen.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
- Location
- Suffolk
Why would Intel come up with something? They have nothing to beat, because of this failure from AMD from what I understand we will have a bit of a set back from Intel as they will probs increase prices and stop work on ivy as they have nothing to beat right now. Correct me if I am wrong
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,523
- Location
- Dormanstown.
If it's performing slower than the 1100T in some applications (The majority) at stock, how isn't that a u-turn? The 8150 is the flagship at a higher clock, more cores, more transistors.
It depends on what you are doing with your machine. Everyone has to make their own choices. I will use all 8 cores, so the 8120 is a bargain for me. Yes AMD could have done better, should have done better, but for me still a great CPU for the price. But for other people, probably most people, Sandybridge will be far and away a better choice.