[citation][nom]hellfire24[/nom]gulftown=expensive and useless.Sandybridges=king of the hill(price to performance)Sandybridge-E=expensive sandybridge.Bulldozer=budget cpu with multitasking capabilities.[/citation]
you disregarding the phenom, price-performance I believe they beat the sandy bridges at least the I7's in efficiency, where I wrote that the phenom 955 at $100 and the I7 at $300, the I7 would have to be at least 250 to about 300% faster. But in most cases I7 is barely double the speed of the phenom 955, I'm also considering overclocking the 955 best option making it about as fast as their highest and number for the phenom line, I forgot that number is exactly. The I5 can trade blows with the phenom, at least efficiency wise, but I would still rather have seen a for the most part. And I seriously considered because I would never have two core system, if a quad core even if it's a bit slower on single core applications was available.
Bulldozer in its current state shouldn't even be considered except for people who are used in multicore applications where can actually outperform the I7. These applications are few and far between and in most cases in I5 be a better option than a bulldozer, current. The bulldozer properly implemented into Windows 7 or Windows 8 could provide a great competition as long as you're looking at single thread which I'm not sure they can fix without a processor revision. Any correct implementation could help, but I'm not thinking single cores going to suddenly be better than a nice seven, it could just match the phenom line
phenom Quad core = Die Size: 258 mm² -45 nm
phenom Hex core = Die size: 346 mm² -45 nm
bulldozer eight core = 315 mm² - 32 nm
with the bulldozers sucking and single core efficiency, and being 32 nm and being just barely smaller than the six core phenom, it actually may have been better just stick with the phenom processor line and shrink it.
Are there any current benchmark showing for two bulldozer cores (2cpus a core?) against the four core phenom. I'm actually interested in the so if anyone can give me a link.
[citation][nom]shinkueagle[/nom]Meaning this war is a TOTAL loss to AMD... SADLY... AMD - ABSURDLY MORONIC DEVICES.[/citation]
it's a first-generation chip, Intel had problems with the Pentium 4 hyperthreading, AMD is to have problems with their hyperthreading solution.
The problem Intel was able to shelf hyperthreading until they got their crap together with it, AMD doesn't really have that option anymore. Unless they bring out eight core phenom designed at 32 nm I could see a modest performance jump of over 20% over 45 nmit would really beat the crap out of Intel's I series, but would probably perform better at least at a single core applications that the bulldozer, and that's where mainstream would really see the difference. Bulldozer seems like it would already good enough for server applications, and he could try and tweak all their threading problems in the server area before they bring it over to mainstream
[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]in any war, the best defense is a good offense. and amd has managed to offend most of the people who liked their cpus (fanboys excluded, obviously).[/citation]
if anything Intel's playing defensive with how cheap their CPUs are, if you do the math right there is that much markup for any other CPU lines. Their most expensive chips are expensive for reason, time went into designing them to have to pay off R&D and there never been selling multimillions of these chips so they have to increase the price of them a bit. From the math I did in the past it's about $300-$400 base chip cost. And Intel doesn't seem like they disable cores on chips that are perfect so they do lose out on some of their silicon space.
This allows him to stay relatively cheap while pulling a profit and not being so expensive that people would rather go AMD and Intel, I would go AMD out of choice but I wouldn't go bulldozer.
[citation][nom]technoholic[/nom]My latest decision about BD is that it is not a matured product YET. No, the war isnt lost, only 1 or 2 fronts are lost and that doesnt mean the war is lost. The ultimate problem of this chip is that it needs much power to operate. I am not a tech geek or a pro in CPU architecture but i think that AMD needs to do some improvements in the architecture, too (also in software side)Maybe some people will criticize me for this but i always like the most updated/newest approaches in tech; not the older and faster. But newer approaches mostly suffer from immature designs. However, i believe we will see some excellent CPUs from AMD in the near future. Because at least the idea behind this architecture is not worse than that of phenoms. Let's not forget, giant firms like Intel also had many failures in their history (remember pentium 3 was a mediocre design and 4 was much worse), but they managed to advance further with their new ideas. I am sure in this moment AMD guys are working hard on their next big step.[/citation]
if I was AMD licensing arm architecture, I would then see if there's anything I can learn from that apply to an x86 architecture. Sure it might cost them money just to license to see but whatever, we could do it with Nvidia is doing and putting out an AMD-based arm chip.
[citation][nom]theuniquegamer[/nom]Its true that amd's stock coolers are not efficient as the intel's . Because i have both intel i5 760k and amd 955be system , the amd system runs so loud at 40c on stock settings (idle) and the intel runs at above 57c on stock (idle). It makes noise after 70c.(I am not comparing intel with amd because intel i5 is 32nm amd 955 is 45nm). So i think amd should provide good quality stock coolers in the black edition cpus. I[/citation]
I think there might be something wrong with your cooler not just the stock coolers just yours specifically
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]no offence Toms, but this is an absolutely useless article. Who buys a BD chip for efficiency? It seems to me that most people buy them because they 1) are AMD fanboys and dont know better or find it immoral to fund the larger company (though how moral is it to offer a crappier product for more money?), or 2) people who need lots of threads for hard core 24/7 production work where BD shines a bit brighter than Intel chips.What would be really interesting would be to see the efficiency rating on the supposedly 'energy efficient' S and T chips put out by Intel. They cost a lot more money, and I wonder if they would pay themselves off over time for office and other light use applications, or if they are a complete waste like they seem to be.[/citation]
into a one point had a monopoly, and really screwed over AMD while they still have better chip than Intel, some people and rightly so find it hard to support Intel anymore after that crap happened. So long as there's an alternative to Intel that isn't complete crap (phenom II) I would choose it over any Intel.
[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]AMD Bulldozer is still the only 8 core CPU available for us, and it has yet to be used to its full potential.AMD APU's are an amazing product, combining CPU and GPU combined power that no company can match for anywhere near the same price.AMD 7970 is the fastest single-GPU graphics card, and it will be many months before Nvidia has any chance of matching or beating it.AMD is a true innovator that makes CPU's and GPU's cheaper for us all.[/citation]
you have to credit Intel for innovation, it wasn't for their hyperthreading I don't think AMD would ever go for their threading solution, and hyperthreading didn't work AMD would've never really developed their threading solution.
This is AMD's first GPU correct? Are there any real innovations in it? I'm not really aware of any of them, please if they are there point them out for me, I'd love to see them. Also I can tell it's just a die shrink and loading a crap ton of stuff on one chip, it's more the brute force than finesse. When AMD puts out a GPU with finesse, I'll give an innovation, till then they don't get, at least in GPU department.
I also have no idea how much of the CPU department was part of the APUs they made. And not quite sure exactly how it's integrated, whether it's heavily integrated or whether it's just CPU and GPU on one die I'm not sure. I could give them credit their though.[citation][nom]hellfire24[/nom]i also think that spending $600 or $1k on LGA2011 CPUs is not a good idea.2500k is the best buck for thing.then second comes 2600k.both of them are quad cores and beat AMD cpus in almost every benchmark.6-core sandybridges are not worth the cost for their 'unnoticeable' inncrease in performance.it is my personal thinking that waiting few more seconds to finish a work is better than upgrading to hardcore setups every now and then.i currently have 2600k and gtx 580.i don't wanna spend big amount of money for a faster system(x79)just to get 5~8 more fps.another thing.a frnd of mine has a system with 580 and x6@4.ghz.i play crysis 2 on my rig with max settings.i never experienced any lag.then i did same thing on his AMD/Nvidia system.i never felt any performance difference.anything above 40fps is unnoticeable.if you are scoring 40+ fps with your AMD rig then i would suggest not to upgrade to intel unless you have extra money.[/citation]
actually it is noticeable until you get up to 60 frames per second range. Most games tend to dip down the frames per second and not just stay at their average, most people buy better graphics cards not to increase their frames per second but to make that minimum frames per second go up to. Then again I just like you would notice it more than most people.
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]Star architecture(Phenom II) is a 3 issue instruction CPU that able to go head to head with 4 issue instruction CPU like Core 2 duo/quad. What AMD should have done is to improve Star architecture, fix its flaws, add a 4 issue to it. Add 2 more cores into 8 cores since its 32nm. If they do all that, they would have beating and completing SB-E by now. Besides it is still cheaper to do this way than designing a new architecture from the ground up.What the HELL AMD engineers are thinking?![/citation]
Remember when the Pentium 4, I'm thinking this is kind of the same situation but in reverse.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram