|
Devian666 posted:Between reading tomshardware and anandtech I'm satisfied that AMD have almost caught up to their main competitor the Phenom II X6 1100T. Brutally true. Jeeesus. 
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
AMD has CPU's with proper SSE4 support now. That's something, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
I almost feel like getting a FX-8150 solely to give AMD some pity cash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I almost feel like getting a FX-8150 solely to give AMD some pity cash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 08:52
|
|
|
So... Intel is dropping the price on i5's when bulldozer hits the market, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 08:59
|
|
|
Maxwell Adams posted:So... Intel is dropping the price on i5's when bulldozer hits the market, right? There will be price drops, but it won't be Intel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 09:02
|
|
|
movax posted:I wouldn't have an issue tossing a chip like this into a system for a non-gaming, non-techie family member if the price for the mobo and CPU was right. I would, because it will suck down power and be hotter and noisier than just giving them an i3 or i5. Llano, on the other hand is a potentially good chip to recommend for a home PC, if half decent graphics are required. However, I couldn't in all conscience recommend Bulldozer to anybody. I guess you can tell who's really loyal to AMD after this, if they end up with one of their high end chips and want to overclock it. That's just a punishing amount of power use and heat to get rid of, just to play catch up. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 09:02
|
|
|
Maxwell Adams posted:So... Intel is dropping the price on i5's when bulldozer hits the market, right? Bonus Edit: VR-Zone has done a quick test of memory bandwidth scaling on Bulldozer, it seems that basic DDR3-1600 is required for optimal performance, but going beyond that or using lower latency modules provides minimal benefit. It would be interesting to see how data compression is affected, since that's very memory bandwidth sensitive. Alereon fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 09:10
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The i5 2500K is positioned against the FX-8120, which is 500Mhz slower than the FX-8150. In that matchup the 2500K is the clear winner, so Intel doesn't have much reason to lower prices. On the other hand, dropping the i7 2600K down to ~$250 or so (or even just replacing it with the i7 2700K) might happen. In the Tech Report review, they gave Bulldozer 1866 memory while everything else got 1333. I guess that helped?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 11:07
|
|
|
At first I saw this and was like "Oh cool!" Then I saw this:  I hope everyone at AMD that worked on this project gets fired today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
Looks like we'll be abandoning AMD for our compute clusters here if these numbers carry over to the kind of work we do, which it looks like it will. This processor is a Shakespearean tragedy in every sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
 What the gently caress AMD 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
Here's a wild card: Hardware Heaven's review http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...revolution.html Seems completely off to me, can anyone spot the problems with it? I'm more inclined to believe AnandTech, but it's interesting.. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Here's a wild card: Hardware Heaven's review Uggh that style sheet/site is hard to read, but gently caress even that little site has some awesome hardware to test with! Only thing that really jumps out to me is that they used DDR3-1866, but they did use that on both platforms. No idea if they played with BIOS settings on the Intel board to increase memory frequency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Even given a tie with the 2600k (mainly in gaming) in that review, which is by far the most positive review I've seen; it is still not amazing, given the power consumption. AMD also shouldn't have tried marketing it as "8-core". I knew when I first read about Bulldozer modules that they might try that poo poo - and it wouldn't work. Well, they tried and it didn't. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
haha, apparently some poster on anandtech actually asked the AMD guy all the way back in January about potential OS issues with handling modules vs. coresquote:The OS doesn't know about modules, it only sees cores. But all cores are physical cores, so it won't matter. quote:So, here's the deal - we are obviously working with the OS and app vendors. My comment was pointed at the people who are obsessing about "how do I over-ride what you are doing because I think I am smarter and I know how to do it better." "Trust us we got this poo poo figured out" ...10 months... "Here is an emergency kernel patch please use this"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Yea, ouch. The Anandtech review just doesn't paint a pretty picture, unless you're encoding lots of video or running N-Queens benchmarks 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
Possible anandtech didnt have the krenel patch?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Here's a wild card: Hardware Heaven's review Edit: As I look further this really does just seem like a marketing vehicle, given that they're reviewing the combination of the CPU, motherboard, and videocard. Alereon fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:29
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It looks like a problem with their test selection. If I was in a charitable mood I'd say they didn't use a adequate variety of tests, if I wasn't I'd say they only published tests where Bulldozer did reasonably well. It's almost like the cherry-picked the games so it wouldn't look so bad. With the gratuitous amount of AMD logos on the page... They still show it far behind the i7 on the other tasks like encoding/playback. They used the faster RAM but it's only a few % improvement according to some other sites. Plus they don't show the 2500k in the ratings which wouldn't help. Any chance that it Bulldozer works a little better with AMD GPU's instead of NVIDIA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Any chance that it Bulldozer works a little better with AMD GPU's instead of NVIDIA? Anand used a 5870.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Anand used a 5870. Hrm. Tom's used a Nvidia GeForce GTX 580 1.5 GB Interestingly enough, Windows 8 shows measurable improvements over 7 in performance and power consumption http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html The F1 2011 numbers are hugely in Intels favor on Tom's site but on Hardware Heaven they have AMD edging Intel out 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:It's almost like the cherry-picked the games so it wouldn't look so bad. With the gratuitous amount of AMD logos on the page...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Alereon posted:gave it a 9/10 I'd honestly give it 5/10 if it weren't for beating Intel on the highly-threaded stuff that the X6 wasn't too bad at in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Yeah I read further and the conclusion and 9/10 rating offended me enough to call them out on their own forums for lack of editorial integrity and writing reviews to please their sponsors. My favorite part was when the reviewer said Bulldozer needed a lower price, and still gave it a 9/10 for value. My second-favorite part was where they didn't mention the higher power usage in the conclusion at all, or even on the page with the power usage numbers. Nice post, but sadly that HW site is just part of the "noise" that fosters up a really insular, groupthinking community and spreads FUD I hope someone answers that post politely!e: hah, you already got called out within two posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
I think the whole thing is pretty ridiculous but what kills it completely is the power draw, what the gently caress is up with such an absolutely massive difference in power draw under load compared to Intel? If hardware sites wouldn't remind everyone about the Phenom II X6 these numbers would still look bad, there's no way to fix that, but with that on there as well (which is just due diligence, frankly), it really is a case of completely loving the dog.  Who thought up the modules=cores idea? Why? If it was an engineer I don't understand it, if it was a marketing guy fire the fucker now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
Seems like for every bench where BD performs adequately there's 2 or 3 where it's barely competing with a Phenom.  Even if it was roughly on par with Sandy Bridge I'd have a hard time picking BD due to that monster power consumption, as it stands right now it'd be no contest. That's not an easy thing to say either, as I'm a long time AMD fanboy. Haven't built an intel system since the Pentium II days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:29
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Who thought up the modules=cores idea? Why? If it was an engineer I don't understand it, if it was a marketing guy fire the fucker now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:34
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Who thought up the modules=cores idea? Why? If it was an engineer I don't understand it, if it was a marketing guy fire the fucker now. I think the concept has merit, I just hope that AMD gets the chance to further explore it. They burned a lot of transistors in their branch predictor for this one, hopefully a process shrink or further development (likely already been in progress, seeing as BD probably taped out six months ago). Hopefully the Radeon 7000s own face (heh, we're already back at the 7000 numbering there) and can help keep AMD solvent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
The -idea- isn't stupid, it's actually pretty cool. 2 128bit or 1 256bit FP, that's neat. But advertising it is awful. At their best these will perform like modern 4-core processors. A module is not a core in the sense that people expect something WOWEE from an 8-core processor. Though it sure uses power like an 8-core...movax posted:Hopefully the Radeon 7000s own face (heh, we're already back at the 7000 numbering there) and can help keep AMD solvent. They won every console in the next generation, so unless the processors literally kill them, the graphics cards should do well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:43
|
|
|
movax posted:Hopefully the Radeon 7000s own face (heh, we're already back at the 7000 numbering there) and can help keep AMD solvent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
Agreed posted:The -idea- isn't stupid, it's actually pretty cool. 2 128bit or 1 256bit FP, that's neat. But advertising it is awful. At their best these will perform like modern 4-core processors. A module is not a core in the sense that people expect something WOWEE from an 8-core processor. Though it sure uses power like an 8-core... Star War Sex Parrot posted:I'm expecting big things from Southern Islands. Alereon fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
Alereon posted:While that's true for floating point workloads, most people really care about integer performance. If Bulldozer actually performed like an 8-core for integer stuff but a quad-core for floating point, pretty much everyone would consider that a good deal. Except somehow they managed to get it to perform like a slower hex-core at best. I believe the mass-market launch has slipped to Q1 2012, but we should still get a paper launch by the end of the year, I think. They should have a good few months to optimize and get ready to combat Kepler as well. I'm holding out for whatever single card Kepler will get me close to 60FPS @ 2560x1600, personally. e: You knew this was coming, Hitler sees the Bulldozer benchmarks. Downfall is a great movie, and made even more amazing by this scene being so subtitle-ready.  "Everyone who bought a Sandy Bridge needs to get the gently caress out now! What the gently caress has AMD even been doing these past few years?" Jacking off to hentai and My Little Pony? "I could poo poo a better CPU! 2 billion transistors and this is what we get?"
movax fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
movax posted:e: You knew this was coming, Hitler sees the Bulldozer benchmarks. Downfall is a great movie, and made even more amazing by this scene being so subtitle-ready. Edit: Though I wish it hadn't switched to lame Jew jokes during the last half, and that cheap "Don't cry AMDfag" comment ruined a perfect opportunity for "It's okay, Piledriver will be out next year." Alereon fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Oct 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
And it's an overclocking monster too! http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/18 quote:Our starting point was the stock operation of the chip. Our FX-8150 runs at 3.6GHz and 1.2625V by default. When Turbo Core kicks in, the CPU ranges up to 1.4V and 4.2GHz. We figured we'd begin at just 200MHz beyond that top Turbo speed, 4.4GHz, at 1.4V. Seems like an easy first step, right? When we fired off Overdrive's CPU stability test, however, it quickly came back with an error. We had to raise the voltage to 1.425V in order to get the chip to pass just three minutes in that stability test.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
Any reviews of the lower-end models?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Any reviews of the lower-end models?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I think the whole thing is pretty ridiculous but what kills it completely is the power draw, what the gently caress is up with such an absolutely massive difference in power draw under load compared to Intel? More transistors, more voltage (power draw increases with the square of voltage). And probably something else going on, because I wrote this whole effortpost based on P=CV2f assuming C (capacitance) was constant given changes in V and f, and while the Intel CPUs in [H]'s overclocked power consumption results jived to a first approximation, the FX used a ton more power overclocked than using that formula would suggest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:More transistors, more voltage (power draw increases with the square of voltage). And probably something else going on, because I wrote this whole effortpost based on P=CV2f assuming C (capacitance) was constant given changes in V and f, and while the Intel CPUs in [H]'s overclocked power consumption results jived to a first approximation, the FX used a ton more power overclocked than using that formula would suggest. I think C would be broadly proportional to transistor count, which makes sense given the power numbers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Jesus, this is a blunder on the level of Netburst for AMD, and I don't believe they can afford to make a mistake like that. Hopefully the graphics division can keep the company afloat long enough for AMD to either work the kinks out of the process or pull their heads out of their rear end and deliver a product that doesn't have the IPC efficiency of 8 year old parts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2011 19:42
|
|
