AMD Launches Two Bulldozers, Reduces Price of FX-8120

[mitunchidamparam]

Your points are good.
Did you see the new review of toms of A8 vs celeron.
There you can see the power of A8.

 

[blazorthon]

@SteelCity1918

Wrong again. Yes, an FX is better than a Core 2 Duo, but only because it has 4 times as many cores and can clock higher because of it's die shrink, as an architecture Core 2 is better. Core 2 has roughly equal IPC to Phenom II and Phenom II is proven to be better than FX in IPC, hence Core 2 is also better in IPC.

Some Core 2 Quads can and do beat FX in gaming and hang with the top Phenom II quad cores, so yes, it can be better than FX. FX 8120 is far worse than even the much cheaper i3s in gaming so no, it's not a good purchase for modern gamers. I already stated that in highly threaded work that the FX 8 core chips beat everything except for the quad core i7s and better on the desktop side. Highly threaded work starting from the i5s goes this way: i5<PIIx6<FX-8xxx<i7<i7(6core) and ends with higher end servers.

I would take an i5 over FX because like most people, I don't use 8 threads. I'm not complaining about AMD making FX, some people will find them useful, but in gaming and most other work you see them never beat anything but Intel's lowest end processors. Sure, sometimes they can meet Intel or get close, but there are often times when an Intel will fly past AMD.

Intel currently also has a far better upgrade path for gamers, especially if you overclock. Think about budget users. A budget overclocker woulds undoubtedly have budget cooling such as one of Cooler Master's Hyper 212 models. An Ivy will overclock further than a Sandy on budget coolers because it generates less heat.

For gamers, Intel offers more lightly threaded performance for the money, better upgrade path (unless you have an already very high end system, but the same is true for AMD too), and are more stable (FX has been known to dislike some programs, a few of which are games).

FX has great value for highly threaded work, but gaming is usually not well threaded. Most games don't use even three or four threads.

 

[eddieroolz]

Is it just me or is the turbo core on FX-4170 not that useful, as it only boosts by 100MHz...

 

[mitunchidamparam]

Is it just me or is the turbo core on FX-4170 not that useful, as it only boosts by 100MHz...

That is true it is not that useful , but it can be over clocked so who cares about that , and i3 cannot be over clocked.
Buying a FX shows you that you are unique just like ferrari.
Tons of car can beat Ferrari but it is awesome.
Buying intel is like buying some cheap ass american cars.
Dont say that it is not true people.

 

[blazorthon]

That is true it is not that useful , but it can be over clocked so who cares about that , and i3 cannot be over clocked.
Buying a FX shows you that you are unique just like ferrari.
Tons of car can beat Ferrari but it is awesome.
Buying intel is like buying some cheap ass american cars.
Dont say that it is not true people.

It isn't true because Intel's chips are BETTER for most work, especially gaming. It is more like Intel being a small, fast car with AMD being a huge, slow truck. Sure, for profession business and people whom use the many threads/pulling power of the larger chip/vehicle, it's better, but most people don't need it and would prefer the faster, more efficient vehicle.

Then you have Intel actually beating AMD in every way once you go to quad core Sandy Bridge i7s and beyond. So no, Intel is not like some crap American car. Besides that, the FX-4170 might not be able to be overclocked too much further. It might be a higher binned chip, but even then I doubt it would be too different from an overclocked 4100 and would thus only match an i3 even once overclocked.

Besides that, the i3 would use around half of the electricity being used by the FX chip and that would negate ANY price difference over a year or two unless this FX-4170 is cheaper than the 4100, which it won't be. Once again, the FX will only beat the i3 in highly multi-threaded work and this time in some FP work such as encryption because i3s don't have proper encryption acceleration support.

 

[mitunchidamparam]

It isn't true because Intel's chips are BETTER for most work, especially gaming. It is more like Intel being a small, fast car with AMD being a huge, slow truck. Sure, for profession business and people whom use the many threads/pulling power of the larger chip/vehicle, it's better, but most people don't need it and would prefer the faster, more efficient vehicle.

Then you have Intel actually beating AMD in every way once you go to quad core Sandy Bridge i7s and beyond. So no, Intel is not like some crap American car. Besides that, the FX-4170 might not be able to be overclocked too much further. It might be a higher binned chip, but even then I doubt it would be too different from an overclocked 4100 and would thus only match an i3 even once overclocked.

Besides that, the i3 would use around half of the electricity being used by the FX chip and that would negate ANY price difference over a year or two unless this FX-4170 is cheaper than the 4100, which it won't be. Once again, the FX will only beat the i3 in highly multi-threaded work and this time in some FP work such as encryption because i3s don't have proper encryption acceleration support.

I have a doubt what is encryption and what is quick sync , where are they used?

 

[blazorthon]

I didn't mention Quick Sync and what it is used for is mostly encoding/trans-coding media such as video files and audio files.

I shouldn't need to explain what encryption is...

It is a method of hiding information/data. One particular type of digital encryption, AES aka Advanced Encryption Standard or something like that, has hardware acceleration on i5s, i7s, Xeons, and FX CPUs (probably some other CPUs as well, but lets keep this explanation simple) to make it faster. Encryption is resource intensive for large amounts of data and without the hardware acceleration it is slower.

Encryption is used when you have sensitive data that you don't want someone else to have access to. It basically scrambles the data along certain patterns based on a large number of things such as the type of encryption and the codes being used. The goal is often to make the data appear as random as possible so that it can't be easily deciphered by anyone without you giving them necessary info to get to the data.

It takes vast amounts of processing power to break encryption codes and get to the data if you aren't given the codes or you can't hack into it through a vulnerability.

If I have some blueprints for a company project on a laptop and I need to move the laptop from one place to another, there is a risk of losing the laptop and/or someone else getting access to it. You encrypt the documents so that they are inaccessible without the password(s) or a vast amount of processing power.

 

[blazorthon]

Encryption sees many uses outside of the corporate world by anyone who stores important information on their computers. For example, maybe I keep a digital back up of my tax history and such and would like it to be more secure.

 

[mitunchidamparam]

Encryption sees many uses outside of the corporate world by anyone who stores important information on their computers. For example, maybe I keep a digital back up of my tax history and such and would like it to be more secure.

okay, thanks for your explanation

 

[blazorthon]

Any time, sorry I was a little rude about it, the question kinda caught me off guard.

 

[blazorthon]

it advantages only in multithreaded that barely pass sandybridge (what? only 10%? avr).
http://www.****.gif

Funny how your link doesn't work at all for me. Besides that, FX is more than 10% faster on average than similarly priced Sandy Bridge unless you count FX six core CPUs against i5s.

FX-4100 beats the i3s in multi-threaded performance despite it being cheaper. The FX-8120 beats similarly priced i5s in multi-threaded performance. What more do you want me to say?

We could also include Llano and Phenom II here as well. Llano beats similarly priced i3s AND Pentiums and Celerons in multi-threaded performance and it meets or beats the Celerons and Pentiums in single/lightly threaded performance.

Phenom II x4s also hang a little above FX in multi-threaded performance. Phenom II x6s hange between an i5 and an FX-8120 in multi-threaded performance.

 

[CDdude55]

Still would rather wait for Pildedriver as i hope to see an increase in IPC. Bumping up the clock speed on these chips isn't going to help much with their performance against all the alternatives out on the market. I think the issue is AMD going with more cores rather then stonger cores which would help then a lot more because most software still isn't coded to be executed on multiple threads. Most mainline software is at most coded to utilize up to at least around 4 threads/cores.

I bought a 990FX board a while ago, but still waiting for a worthy AM3+ chips to replace my current 1055T.

 

[muy]

Still would rather wait for Pildedriver as i hope to see an increase in IPC. Bumping up the clock speed on these chips isn't going to help much with their performance against all the alternatives out on the market. I think the issue is AMD going with more cores rather then stonger cores which would help then a lot more because most software still isn't coded to be executed on multiple threads. Most mainline software is at most coded to utilize up to at least around 4 threads/cores.

I bought a 990FX board a while ago, but still waiting for a worthy AM3+ chips to replace my current 1055T.

lol, i bought a rog crosshair V formula a month before buldozer launched in anticipation of upgrading my athlon X3 450.

i'm still using that x3 450, can't be arse to upgrade to buldozer, for the most demanding things i do, dual cores with high IPC and high clock speed are what's best.

give phenom II+ x2, x3 (and i guess x4, but not more than that) on 32 fabrication pls.

 

[de5_Roy]

because sandybridge scales better, more effecient, lower power, overclock friendly, consistent performance in almost everything (general) even games, prices lower, and it just works for now and then.. man, thats aloooooot advantages.

so why pick bulldozer? it advantages only in multithreaded that barely pass sandybridge (what? only 10%? avr).

this is the original message.

Funny how your link doesn't work at all for me. Besides that, FX is more than 10% faster on average than similarly priced Sandy Bridge unless you count FX six core CPUs against i5s.

FX-4100 beats the i3s in multi-threaded performance despite it being cheaper. The FX-8120 beats similarly priced i5s in multi-threaded performance. What more do you want me to say?

We could also include Llano and Phenom II here as well. Llano beats similarly priced i3s AND Pentiums and Celerons in multi-threaded performance and it meets or beats the Celerons and Pentiums in single/lightly threaded performance.

Phenom II x4s also hang a little above FX in multi-threaded performance. Phenom II x6s hange between an i5 and an FX-8120 in multi-threaded performance.

looks like you've keep answering spam posts...
Do Not Click Any URL In Spam Message. update your browser security and get addons like noscript if you're using firefox.

 

[blazorthon]

My bad, oh well. I have a fully updated Firefox (10.0.2 if I remember correctly) and plenty of security programs. My point still stands anyway.

 

[Tlight131]

People who want to build a budget computer and be able to perform moderately well because they're not pooping money on the ground, this is good news. If you have something crappy to say, write it on a pad of paper.

I've never used one I haven't liked. Cheap upgrade in a year to another one.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

amd fx works great. I got myself one of these, and I must say that it is a huge upgrade from sandybridge. now, I did come from a core i3, but that proves that sandy bridge isnt really superior in the real world. everything (games, file compression, rendering, ece) runs much faster. also, for whatever reason, the fx runs COOLER 0.0

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]TheinsanegamerN[/nom]amd fx works great. I got myself one of these, and I must say that it is a huge upgrade from sandybridge. now, I did come from a core i3, but that proves that sandy bridge isnt really superior in the real world. everything (games, file compression, rendering, ece) runs much faster. also, for whatever reason, the fx runs COOLER 0.0[/citation]

Bulldozer is not a superior architecture over Sandy Bridge or even Nehalem. All that shows is that four slow cores are better for some application work than two fast ones with Hyper-Threading. The 4100 is not that much faster than an i3 in the relatively few application work that utilizes four or more threads and is commonly used by home PCs. Anything that doesn't use more than two threads is a lot faster on the i3 and that includes gaming and a lot of other stuff such has some web browsers (Firefox, Opera, maybe some others, but not Chrome because Chrome is multi-threaded) and other commonly used programs. The FX uses almost twice as much power as the i3 (actually closer to 75%, but I digress) so the only way it runs cooler is if it has a CPU cooler that has twice the cooling performance of the i3's CPU cooler. Otherwise, it really isn't faster and you only see the placebo effect combined with CPU throttling.

So yes, Sandy Bridge is superior in the real word as an architecture. The only reason that FX wins at all against similarly priced Sandy Bridge processors in some work is simply because AMD glued on more slow cores. For multi-threaded performance, refer to this:

i3<Athlon II x4<FX-4xxx<Phenom II x4<i5<FX-6xxx<Phenom II x6<FX-8xxx<i7

This includes Sandy Bridge, Athlon II x4, Phenom II x4/x6, and FX, nothing else. For single/lightly threaded performance (most programs and games too), it takes AMD's top Phenom II CPUs to beat even the sub $100 Pentiums. Intel has a huge lead in single/lightly threaded performance because they have a better architecture.

Even in highly threaded situations, the FX-4100 is only around 20% faster than an i3 so it's not a huge difference. That the FX-4100 uses about 75% more power kinda ruins that. Going up to the 4170 just to get a more significant lead on the i3s will mean the FX uses more than double the i3's power usage.

 

[delbi1]

i can see a future in 10 years where intell have there 3 chips on the market at 1k$ 2k$ 3k$ cos amd is no longer making cpu for the desktop and concentrating on the portable market, IE: the F1 cpu/gpu as these blow away anything intel have for the laptop/portable market.
Lets hope it don`t happen and the Intel Fanboys don`t get thier own way or we all suffer, I have been supporting AMD since late 90s and will continue too or the desktop for us mere mprtals will be out of our price range.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]delbi1[/nom]i can see a future in 10 years where intell have there 3 chips on the market at 1k$ 2k$ 3k$ cos amd is no longer making cpu for the desktop and concentrating on the portable market, IE: the F1 cpu/gpu as these blow away anything intel have for the laptop/portable market.Lets hope it don`t happen and the Intel Fanboys don`t get thier own way or we all suffer, I have been supporting AMD since late 90s and will continue too or the desktop for us mere mprtals will be out of our price range.[/citation]

Highly unlikely situation. If AMD was really having that much trouble, then Intel would pay AMD to keep competing with them because Intel already has trouble with anti-trust laws and such across the globe. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Tlight131]

You couldn't convince me to pay for intel based on miniscule numbers and 2 second increments on threading time for the mustache on my action game character. Some people will, but don tell everyone its better because you flash fancy numbers in front of nay-sayers. ill get the amd and upgrade two years from now (you know because technology moves pretty quick.) Its all about preference.