• 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!

hedgey said:
hopefully amd cut the price of it by 80%. id pay £50 for one. no more.

edit - nope its slower than my e8400 unclocked. lol.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/55?vs=434

Wouldnt pay £1 for it.
Click to expand...

ummm.... no it's MUCH faster than your e8400, from the very benchmarks you linked to. you do realise a lot of them are "lower is better"?

come on people, BD is bad but it's not that bad. there's no reason to exaggerate
 
mmj_uk said:
Didn't a guy get fired a couple of months ago at AMD? related?
Click to expand...

They booted their CEO. They cited reasons like a lack of plan for the mobile market, but it's also possible that AMD knew how good bulldozer was months ago and simply thought this it wasn't good enough.

In reality, I'm not sure if the chip is as bad as everyone claims, but it's also not as well balanced as I'd hoped it would be.
 
It seems that the only real reason to go FX is if you're mainly doing multi-threaded stuff like 3DMax or x264 encoding, in which case you can get an FX-8120, overclock it and get better performance than an i5-2500K for a similar price. To be fair, the FX-8120 is a lot cheaper than the i7-2600K so it still has a target audience.

However, since I'm not paying for my imminent upgrade there's only three factors I'm bothered about:

1) Single-threaded performance (i7-2600K wins easily)
2) Multi-threaded performance (FX-8120 wins slightly)
3) Power consumption (i7-2600K wins easily)

I would like a guinea pig who buys one of these to test a program on it for me though, just to be sure. Any volunteers, send me a trust message please. :)
 
Last edited:
They really should just die shrink Thuban onto 32nm and see how it goes tbh.

I'm appalled at the die size and transistor count, surely that can't be right?
 
Jokester said:
They really should just die shrink Thuban onto 32nm and see how it goes tbh.

I'm appalled at the die size and transistor count, surely that can't be right?
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the AMD K5, 4x the branch prediction logic vs the intel pentium and it was neck and neck.... What a waste of transistors.
 
Whilst the Sabertooth was on TWO last week, I was genuinly debating getting it ready.

Thank god I didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I was well aware it wouldn't be amazing (was expecting just below an i5) but still I enjoy to tinker with new technology.

Alas, the doom in my mind is the energy usage, no one in the right mind is going to want this chip.

With regards to be saying it's for servers, data centres are really being pushed to be more 'green', I doubt they'll want servers powered by these.
 
ots3go said:
With regards to be saying it's for servers, data centres are really being pushed to be more 'green', I doubt they'll want servers powered by these.
Click to expand...

Power per watt, heat dissipation, air condition design/costing etc etc has been high on the priority lists for high density server installations for quite some time now. This would not fly even years ago, nevermind now! :eek:

Seems there are server orientated chips which have this in focus but if the power hungry desktop variants are lacklustre in performance I'm not sure why would you take this over the already well established server chips.
 
Jokester said:
They really should just die shrink Thuban onto 32nm and see how it goes tbh.

I'm appalled at the die size and transistor count, surely that can't be right?
Click to expand...

They could have done a 32nm Phenom II X8 or even a Phenom X12 with less transistors than BD, either would have outperformed BD across the board and given Intel a real headache.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom