- Status
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Rds1220[/nom]Woopy freaking doo. It's slow and hot and get's out peformed by all Sandy Bridges and Ivy Bridges processors in all but a few programs.[/citation]
At 8.8GHz or 9GHx, two FX cores would beat Sandy/Ivy in all but highly threaded programs on i5s and i7s. Besides, it's just an overclocking record and in that sense, it beats Sandy and Ivy by large margins.
At 8.8GHz or 9GHx, two FX cores would beat Sandy/Ivy in all but highly threaded programs on i5s and i7s. Besides, it's just an overclocking record and in that sense, it beats Sandy and Ivy by large margins.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]kohvipaus[/nom]http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2385966[/citation]Wow, Douglas should definitely edit the article. Looks like dropping base clock down helped a lot. He didn't have to go quite as low as Young, and with half a step higher multiplier. I'd like to see pics of his setup, or a video walkthrough of his mad science lab. 
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]holyprof[/nom]That proves once more what most of us already know - Bulldozer is a quick adaptation of server (highly parallel low IPC) processor to desktop.How I miss the old Athlon XP and Athlon-FX days. Now Intel is king and hardcore AMD fans like me buy Intel Core processors. Still remember my first PC - it had a 20MHz AMD 80286 and was much faster than similarly priced Intel machines. At least my last graphics card is AMD (my last 3 cards were nVidia).[/citation]
WTF are you thinking? You do not understand servers nor Bulldozer very well if that's what you think. Bulldozer is excellent in server loads, but that has nothing to do with having low IPC and being very parallel does not mean high performance in servers. A 3.2GHz i7-3930K isn't as parallel as a 1.5GHz 16 core Opteron that happens to also have much lower IPC, but I guarantee that the i7 has more performance.
Bulldozer, above all else, seemed to simply be a beta test of the modular architecture. Everything about it screams that it was rushed into production if you actually research it properly and understand the results. It's reminiscent of the first generation Phenoms in that the first generation was fairly bad, but the next generation was good for the time. We have Piledriver and out and showing large gains by fixing some things that implied Bulldozer being rushed.
For example, optimizing parts that are usually optimized, but weren't optimized in BD seemingly because that would have taken more time than AMD wanted to wait for. Considering the large amount of time that went into creating the architecture, once they had a partially working model after almost a decade in R&D, they probably wanted to get it out so they could make some money while they touched up on the design with Piledriver and Piledriver's future successors.
WTF are you thinking? You do not understand servers nor Bulldozer very well if that's what you think. Bulldozer is excellent in server loads, but that has nothing to do with having low IPC and being very parallel does not mean high performance in servers. A 3.2GHz i7-3930K isn't as parallel as a 1.5GHz 16 core Opteron that happens to also have much lower IPC, but I guarantee that the i7 has more performance.
Bulldozer, above all else, seemed to simply be a beta test of the modular architecture. Everything about it screams that it was rushed into production if you actually research it properly and understand the results. It's reminiscent of the first generation Phenoms in that the first generation was fairly bad, but the next generation was good for the time. We have Piledriver and out and showing large gains by fixing some things that implied Bulldozer being rushed.
For example, optimizing parts that are usually optimized, but weren't optimized in BD seemingly because that would have taken more time than AMD wanted to wait for. Considering the large amount of time that went into creating the architecture, once they had a partially working model after almost a decade in R&D, they probably wanted to get it out so they could make some money while they touched up on the design with Piledriver and Piledriver's future successors.
rds1220
Splendid
- Sep 10, 2011
- 3,717
- 8
- 23,815
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]At 8.8GHz or 9GHx, two FX cores would beat Sandy/Ivy in all but highly threaded programs on i5s and i7s. Besides, it's just an overclocking record and in that sense, it beats Sandy and Ivy by large margins.[/citation]
Once again woopy freaking doo it's unrealistic and doesn't mean anything because no everyday user or gamer is going to go out and buy liquid helium to overclock their Bulldozer to 8 GHz. So the wholre thing is a useless pissing match that doesn't mean anything in the real world.
Once again woopy freaking doo it's unrealistic and doesn't mean anything because no everyday user or gamer is going to go out and buy liquid helium to overclock their Bulldozer to 8 GHz. So the wholre thing is a useless pissing match that doesn't mean anything in the real world.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]It's not Windows 7 kernel per se, but the programs themselves not supporting the new instruction set in the FX series.As usual, AMD trusted Intel and went along with FMA4, but Intel did a turncoat and went with FMA3 for it's new Archs. I don't know about the AVX instructions though, but I'm sure 99% of Windows programs don't use it on AMD CPUs.Cheers![/citation]Well AMD was pretty fast this time when it comes to supporting new Intel instructions, so they support FMA3 and FMA4 now on Piledriver, as well as F16C. They also made strides in reducing leakage and improving IPC over Bulldozer, so we need them to release a desktop CPU-only Piledriver FX chip. Or call it the Phenom III maybe. Either way the Piledriver improvement combined with good clocks (and better Turbo) would make for a massive improvement over BD, especially with an overhauled scheduler to back it up.
[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]Depends which benchmark you use but that happens regularly A bit like taking a sandybridge processor and a huge graphics card , connecting it to a low resolution monitor and claiming its a gaming champion because it makes 200fps when the Bulldozer will only run to 120 fps? You only have to completely ignore that no one with a brain builds that computer , and that the 60 Hz monitor its connected too will only show 60 FPS with either set up so the user experience would be identical ...and then you can claim sb is the better chip . LOL ![/citation]
I prefer a smooth 60 to taking dips and dives.
That being said... both my 1100T and 2500K are laughing quietly to themselves at your statement while I shun the FX line altogether this generation.
120 htz monitors aren't uncommon, and quite a few people I know have their computers hooked up to television sets that are quite a bit faster than that. I'm sorry you are offended so terribly that Bulldozer is an inferior chip (even compared to the Phenom X6), but... c'est la vie.
I prefer a smooth 60 to taking dips and dives.
That being said... both my 1100T and 2500K are laughing quietly to themselves at your statement while I shun the FX line altogether this generation.120 htz monitors aren't uncommon, and quite a few people I know have their computers hooked up to television sets that are quite a bit faster than that. I'm sorry you are offended so terribly that Bulldozer is an inferior chip (even compared to the Phenom X6), but... c'est la vie.
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 2,159
- 87
- 19,890
[citation][nom]ashinms[/nom]When the original reviews came out, it actually beat the 2600 at stock clocks on multithreaded workloads.[/citation]
while it does beat it in a select few test, for most tasks that most people do, it is much slower and the overclocking brings it closer to the overall speed of the core i7 2600k.
I wish AMD would start making high end CPU's again, if they leave us alone with intel only, then CPU prices will skyrocket and performance improvements will happen less often.
while it does beat it in a select few test, for most tasks that most people do, it is much slower and the overclocking brings it closer to the overall speed of the core i7 2600k.
I wish AMD would start making high end CPU's again, if they leave us alone with intel only, then CPU prices will skyrocket and performance improvements will happen less often.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]Rds1220[/nom]Once again woopy freaking doo it's unrealistic and doesn't mean anything because no everyday user or gamer is going to go out and buy liquid helium to overclock their Bulldozer to 8 GHz. So the wholre thing is a useless pissing match that doesn't mean anything in the real world.[/citation]
It means exactly what it is; it's an overclocking record. Besides, anyone with a little money could buy a phase-change cooler and overclock their BD CPU to over 7GHz, even if 8GHz and 9GHz are unrealistic. It would then still beat anything except for i5s and up in highly threaded performance and beat anything except the most highly overclocked i5-2500Ks, i7-2600Ks, i7-2700Ks, etc. That's realistic.
It means exactly what it is; it's an overclocking record. Besides, anyone with a little money could buy a phase-change cooler and overclock their BD CPU to over 7GHz, even if 8GHz and 9GHz are unrealistic. It would then still beat anything except for i5s and up in highly threaded performance and beat anything except the most highly overclocked i5-2500Ks, i7-2600Ks, i7-2700Ks, etc. That's realistic.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
[citation][nom]tajisi[/nom]I prefer a smooth 60 to taking dips and dives. That being said... both my 1100T and 2500K are laughing quietly to themselves at your statement while I shun the FX line altogether this generation.120 htz monitors aren't uncommon, and quite a few people I know have their computers hooked up to television sets that are quite a bit faster than that. I'm sorry you are offended so terribly that Bulldozer is an inferior chip (even compared to the Phenom X6), but... c'est la vie.[/citation]
TV Hz is not really equal to monitor Hz. They're a little different. Also, the 1100T is not superior to the FX-8150 for gaming.
TV Hz is not really equal to monitor Hz. They're a little different. Also, the 1100T is not superior to the FX-8150 for gaming.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
Not in lightly threaded performance (such as gaming). The FX-8120 and 8150 only beat the similarly priced i5s in highly threaded performance (although as you said, they beat the i5s very bad in that). For highly threaded performance, the i5s would beat this 8.8GHz or 9GHz FX-8150 with only two active cores. However, the 9GHx FX would beat the stock i5s in single threaded performance and in pretty much all games by a large margin, even up to and possibly over 100%.
blazorthon
Glorious
- Sep 24, 2010
- 14,022
- 21
- 43,265
Eight core FXs at stock are in the same highly threaded performance range as the stock i7s are. For lightly threaded performance, this 8.8GHz and the 9GHz FX-8150 overclocks would be about twice as fast as a stock i7-2600. As for the last question, I'm assuming that even if the other question wasn't rhetorical, the last question is rhetorical. Regardless, I'll answer it anyway: no company is going to offer machines with 9GHz FX-8150s that have only a single module in use.
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 2,159
- 87
- 19,890
[citation][nom]mykebrian[/nom]how much power will this consume?[/citation]
at those voltages, it will probably consume around 150 watts, assuming the disabled cores are not pulling any power (most of the cores are disabled) but it will most likely benchmark lower than the CPU on all stock settings
when you boost the CPU voltage, efficiency takes a nosedive performance pretty much goes up linearly while power consumption goes up exponentially
in a multithreaded environment that overclocked CPU will pretty much have 17.6GHz worth of clock cycles to throw at hat ever it is doing while at stock 3.6GHz, you are getting 28.8GHz worth of clock cycles to throw at what ever you are doing (and if you push that to a modest air cooled overclock of 5GHz, then you have 40GHz worth of clock cycles to throw at a multithreaded task). Furthermore, at stock, you don't need liquid nitrogen to cool the CPU (PS liquid nitrogen evaporates quickly so most people cant afford to overclock under liquid nitrogen then do a full round of benchmarking)
you simply crank up the voltage and the clock speed and keep going higher until you can no longer keep the system from blue screening before you can run CPU-z
other than that, proper stability testing is for when you have one of the motherboard companies sponsoring your overclocking and can get you a giant vat of liquid nitrogen
at those voltages, it will probably consume around 150 watts, assuming the disabled cores are not pulling any power (most of the cores are disabled) but it will most likely benchmark lower than the CPU on all stock settings
when you boost the CPU voltage, efficiency takes a nosedive performance pretty much goes up linearly while power consumption goes up exponentially
in a multithreaded environment that overclocked CPU will pretty much have 17.6GHz worth of clock cycles to throw at hat ever it is doing while at stock 3.6GHz, you are getting 28.8GHz worth of clock cycles to throw at what ever you are doing (and if you push that to a modest air cooled overclock of 5GHz, then you have 40GHz worth of clock cycles to throw at a multithreaded task). Furthermore, at stock, you don't need liquid nitrogen to cool the CPU (PS liquid nitrogen evaporates quickly so most people cant afford to overclock under liquid nitrogen then do a full round of benchmarking)
you simply crank up the voltage and the clock speed and keep going higher until you can no longer keep the system from blue screening before you can run CPU-z
other than that, proper stability testing is for when you have one of the motherboard companies sponsoring your overclocking and can get you a giant vat of liquid nitrogen
rds1220
Splendid
- Sep 10, 2011
- 3,717
- 8
- 23,815
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]It means exactly what it is; it's an overclocking record. Besides, anyone with a little money could buy a phase-change cooler and overclock their BD CPU to over 7GHz, even if 8GHz and 9GHz are unrealistic. It would then still beat anything except for i5s and up in highly threaded performance and beat anything except the most highly overclocked i5-2500Ks, i7-2600Ks, i7-2700Ks, etc. That's realistic.[/citation]
Yea ok I'm sure eveyone out there with a Bulldozer is going to try to overclock thier CPU to 8 GHz. Obviously there is no talking any logic into an AMD fanboy. Face it the Bulldozer is just a hyped up Core 2 Duo because thats exactly how it performs.
Yea ok I'm sure eveyone out there with a Bulldozer is going to try to overclock thier CPU to 8 GHz. Obviously there is no talking any logic into an AMD fanboy. Face it the Bulldozer is just a hyped up Core 2 Duo because thats exactly how it performs.
[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]Wow, Douglas should definitely edit the article. Looks like dropping base clock down helped a lot. He didn't have to go quite as low as Young, and with half a step higher multiplier. I'd like to see pics of his setup, or a video walkthrough of his mad science lab.[/citation]
http://www.overclockzone.com/forums/showthread.php/1533313-gt-gt-AMD-FX-81XX-CLUB-lt-lt/page67
There you go, you can see a short video, some pictures etc Sorry for not posting it earlier.
http://www.overclockzone.com/forums/showthread.php/1533313-gt-gt-AMD-FX-81XX-CLUB-lt-lt/page67
There you go, you can see a short video, some pictures etc
Sorry for not posting it earlier.- Nov 18, 2008
- 20,307
- 4
- 74,960
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]So does this mean the AMD FX CPU can equal an i7-2600 at its factory clock speed?Does this mean everyone can buy such a machine from Dell, HP or any other mainstream company?[/citation]
In some benchmarks the FX 9150 does out perform the i7 2600 at stock speeds . In most its a little behind . But you'd expect that since it cost less .
In some benchmarks the FX 9150 does out perform the i7 2600 at stock speeds . In most its a little behind . But you'd expect that since it cost less .
thomaseron
Distinguished
- Nov 4, 2007
- 154
- 0
- 18,680
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies- Started by Admin
- Replies: 30
-
-
-
-
Latest posts
-
Question Can I use the P310 2280 with ASRock X870 Steel Legend WiFi 7?- Latest: DigitalInnovator9
-
Question Sensor problem with Logitech G Pro X Superlight 2 mouse ?- Latest: itzNighthawKx
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram