-
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.
Official Bulldozer Reviews
- Thread starter ATIorNvidia
- Start date
The FX name used in this sense is a half truth, FX is for overclock ability, cherry picked from the rest, they do overclock well but they are all called FX and not cherry picked so that part is false.
FX is not about better architecture, its about better OC from the rest of the range.
I can't see much difference in gaming compared to the Phenom IIs 
. I was expecting Bulldozer to wipe the 2600K in multithreaded apps as well, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hopefully, they'll be priced low enough for low budget builds that require loads of cores, otherwise AMD will be in trouble here.
But of course to the usual comsumer, "more cores = more performance"
. It will do well in the average consumer market. I can see it do a lot better in server work as well.
EDIT: Also, I only just realised Windows 7 parked some of my cores!
God I'm slow...
. I was expecting Bulldozer to wipe the 2600K in multithreaded apps as well, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Hopefully, they'll be priced low enough for low budget builds that require loads of cores, otherwise AMD will be in trouble here.But of course to the usual comsumer, "more cores = more performance"
. It will do well in the average consumer market. I can see it do a lot better in server work as well.EDIT: Also, I only just realised Windows 7 parked some of my cores!
God I'm slow...
Try and pick yourself up.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 727
What I can't work out is WHY Windows 7 scheduler isn't working correctly for AMD's module design, thus wasting performance. For example, currently two threads share resources on one module, instead of using one module each.
The WHY comes from the fact that surely in 5 YEARS of design, AMD would have made sure a patch was ready for the current Windows version to communicate correctly with their new CPU on release. It appears AMD still haven't learnt that working with software developers is just as important as churning out new hardware.
Having said that, using two modules for two threads would probably use even more power under load! I would just be interested to see if it helped push it up 10% or so.
The biggest laugh however is Bulldozer was conceived at a time when P4/Pentium-D was made to look like a bad design - low IPC resulting in high GHz and high power usage to be competitive. Intel switched to high IPC and lower power usage, the same thing AMD targeted for years.
So why the **** did AMD decide to go for low IPC and high GHz pushing the watts to insane levels just to get some decent performance out of the thing? Not only that, but it costs them more to produce as the die size is much bigger than the better performing Sandybridge, WHICH HAS INTEGRATED GRAPHICS! Honestly, it beggars belief. Don't forget these engineers are clever guys, but it seems they COULDN'T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.
I hope for AMD this architecture does indeed come into its own in the future as they tweak it, because I would love to eat my words and say they did indeed see the forest. For now though, it's Intel for desktop use.
The WHY comes from the fact that surely in 5 YEARS of design, AMD would have made sure a patch was ready for the current Windows version to communicate correctly with their new CPU on release. It appears AMD still haven't learnt that working with software developers is just as important as churning out new hardware.
Having said that, using two modules for two threads would probably use even more power under load! I would just be interested to see if it helped push it up 10% or so.
The biggest laugh however is Bulldozer was conceived at a time when P4/Pentium-D was made to look like a bad design - low IPC resulting in high GHz and high power usage to be competitive. Intel switched to high IPC and lower power usage, the same thing AMD targeted for years.
So why the **** did AMD decide to go for low IPC and high GHz pushing the watts to insane levels just to get some decent performance out of the thing? Not only that, but it costs them more to produce as the die size is much bigger than the better performing Sandybridge, WHICH HAS INTEGRATED GRAPHICS! Honestly, it beggars belief. Don't forget these engineers are clever guys, but it seems they COULDN'T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.
I hope for AMD this architecture does indeed come into its own in the future as they tweak it, because I would love to eat my words and say they did indeed see the forest. For now though, it's Intel for desktop use.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
While we are on the subject of power consumption, I'd make it easy for people to have an easy comparison between the Intel and AMD platform using hardocp's results:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/9
...so basically if people go for Bulldozer instead of SandyBridge and overclocking, not only they need a beefier CPU cooler, but a beefier PSU as well! That all add to the cost, and that's not even including the extra 200W of power consumption on the energy bill!
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Power consumptions are crazy. Pleased now I went with 2500K.
I sooo wanted Bulldozer to work... I'd hate Intel to have the complete market monopoly.
So what for AMD now? I think they are in trouble. At least their big CPU division. Heads will roll (haven't they already?).
I sooo wanted Bulldozer to work...
I'd hate Intel to have the complete market monopoly. So what for AMD now? I think they are in trouble. At least their big CPU division. Heads will roll (haven't they already?).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
I'd say so
But then you'd be crazy to go for a 1100T when you have the 2500K!Was worried about selling my old 1055T, but not any more
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
I usually disregard their reviews on graphic card since they for some reason always use 2560 res instead of 1920 res for bench, however in terms of power consumption they are usually spot on, and their results on power consumption of the Bulldozer pretty much match with other reviewers, if you BOTHERED to look instead of trying to make other people look bad.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
People that ALREADY have the 2500K of course wouldn't downgrade to a 1100TI'd say so
I was just talking about even for the AMD loyalist they would be better to go for a 1100T instead of the Bulldozer, as it wouldn't involved the possibilities of needing CPU cooler, PSU upgrade.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 627
- Location
- Manchester
Sad times
Still have no reason go AMD, I've always had intel.
Still have no reason go AMD, I've always had intel.
Sad times
Still have no reason go AMD, I've always had intel.
sums it up for me. its a shame.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,708
AMD are going to rely heavily on the "look I got 8 cores baby" e-peen brigade.
I mean look at the power consumption under load compared to a 2600K
I mean look at the power consumption under load compared to a 2600K
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 727
Sad times
Still have no reason go AMD, I've always had intel.
There once was a time, back in the Athlon days, but now Intel will be THE desktop CPU of choice I think.
I switched to Intel when the core2 was released.
Had AMD's up until that point, first one beng a 586-P75!!! Price/Performance ratio was always the factor back then. Can't see me jumping over to AMD anytime soon.
Speaking of power consumption - http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-...-review-a-bulldozer-for-gamers-/13694-12.html
