Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
-
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
+1 it is true buying in bulk reduces cost significantly, but 5,000 at a time? who does he work for? dell?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
+1 it is true buying in bulk reduces cost significantly, but 5,000 at a time? who does he work for? dell?
He's also said that his work as a working Crosshair V, yet didn't know the difference of extreme/formula.
And to Beh, even if it was a 8130p, your "Clock for clock" doesn't work, because ;
1.) The 8130p turbos to 4.1 or 4.2 IIRC.
2.) 8 cores.....
EDIT : The most interesting CPU square up, in quite some time will be the BD 4 core and the 2500k.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,340
- Location
- Planet Earth
A 4 module Bulldozer has 4 pairs of cores with shared resources and less performance per thread than 8 separate cores when all cores are used.
Even with the increased efficiency over HT you are still looking at closer to the equivalent of around 7 separate cores at best AFAIK.
Also,as I have stated earlier the multi-threaded scores are not a good indication of single threaded performance since resources are shared in this case.
You only need to look at the Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600k in Cinebench for example. In lightly threaded applications the Core i7 does not have slower cores even though per thread it appears slower than a Core i5 in Cinebench.
Even with the increased efficiency over HT you are still looking at closer to the equivalent of around 7 separate cores at best AFAIK.
Also,as I have stated earlier the multi-threaded scores are not a good indication of single threaded performance since resources are shared in this case.
You only need to look at the Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600k in Cinebench for example. In lightly threaded applications the Core i7 does not have slower cores even though per thread it appears slower than a Core i5 in Cinebench.
Last edited:
if it does then i will upgrade to bulldozer when some decent AM3+ motherboards come out.
here is a decent bulldozer motherboard (UD7)
,lets hope the cpu overclocks really well. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18277177
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
Why? Sandy will be faster. The only question is relating to how much faster, and the die size differences.
1 hyper threaded sandy core will be competing with 1 module of bulldozer (a dual core). If AMD has managed to improve IPC considerably then bulldozer should be a really good choice.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,010
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Erm 8 cores.
What is this obsession with the number of cores anyway? 'OMG they need X number of cores to beat Intel's x number of cores!'. I say do bloody what? Bulldozer can have 30 cores for all I care so long as it's price and performance is competitive I couldn't give a monkeys about the number of cores it has.
that is true, and i agree on a product basis, but on a technology basis, they are saying that intel technology is better then IF intel built an 8 core to match amd's, it would be twice as good - for example
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,010
- Location
- Billericay, UK
that is true, and i agree on a product basis, but on a technology basis, they are saying that intel technology is better then IF intel built an 8 core to match amd's, it would be twice as good - for example
It's so short sighted though to say Intel's is better because it does more with less cores as you only have to look at video cards and the technology behind them to see why. Nvidia's top card has 512 cores and AMD's has 1536 cores if you use the same argument as the CPU's cores then Nvidia is 3 times more efficient but we all know the cores on GPU's are built differently and the same applies here to the Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
So was there actually anything in the rumors about Bulldozer being able to create a single thread across multiple cores?
No.
Even more info, c/o WCCF. Apparently Asus are now leaking details ahead of their flagship 990FX chipset board. http://wccftech.com/2011/05/22/asus-leaks-specifications-upcoming-bulldozer-zambezifx-processors/, looks like the very top end Bulldozers will be packing 4.2Ghz turbo cores. WCCF seem to be well on aggregating the rumours on a daily basis
If the chips live up to the hype, Intel will be hammered until Ivy Bridge.
If the chips live up to the hype, Intel will be hammered until Ivy Bridge.
Last edited:
So if bulldozer is 3.8 ghz, ignoring all 'leaked benchmarks' and overclocking (no real info here) etc.. Sandybridge will have to be 10% more efficient clock for clock to match in on single threaded applications.
That seems entirely possible to be honest, I can see intel being faster for single/lightly threaded applications, but AMD beating them when you can use all of its cores.
Apart from us show offs, who actually buys a top end cpu that and doesn't use it for multi-threaded applications (We know for gaming the CPU isn't really a bottleneck these days).
AMD should be onto a winner here
That seems entirely possible to be honest, I can see intel being faster for single/lightly threaded applications, but AMD beating them when you can use all of its cores.
Apart from us show offs, who actually buys a top end cpu that and doesn't use it for multi-threaded applications (We know for gaming the CPU isn't really a bottleneck these days).
AMD should be onto a winner here
Intel have been top dog for nearly 5 years, AMD will take that away for a couple months, even then, i think the classic Intel summer price drops will really hit AMD hard.
I think games will start coming into it more now though, games are becoming more and more multi threaded and a blockbuster game such as Battlefield 3 would help drive at least the gamer market to buy a 6/8 core processor if it clearly helps with the game/games, so if Bulldozer does have a clear advantage with Battlefield 3 and other games out this holiday season/early next year, then a lot of people would buy Bulldozer to ensure they have the best experience with those games
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
So you'd be fine with an 8 core Phenom II part?
It'll get spanked by a 2500k unless it's in app's that can use 8 cores.
You can't compare GPU's, as the games can use the shader cores.
EDIT : I prefer AMD CPU's. But I went for an intel fling using the 2500k, I had it prime stable at 4.8GHZ... My GD65 however broke, and I ran back to AMD using a 95W 1055T.
However, with the intel set up, in dawn of war 2, I've lost 40 FPS on average, my benchmark score was 100 on the Intel for average, 63ish on my AMD...
Faster cores is the answer at the moment, until games use more cores.
Last edited: