AMD's Bulldozer Pushed to 8.46 GHz, Breaks Own Record

[ChiefTexas_82]

[citation][nom]geekapproved[/nom]Until software like Windows 7 can actually recognize BD's architecture and knows where and when to place the threads in order, it's not going to look good compared to Intel chips. FACT.[/citation]

Where Bulldozer fails most is in instructions per clock, where single threaded performance is affected. Tons of programs are still single threaded. Even if the software handles the architecture perfectly, the IPC is still going to be low and single threaded performance suffer.

 

[ozzy702]

[citation][nom]gamebrigada[/nom]Windows isn't optimized for Bulldozer. Comparing the processors in the same benchmarks with the same setups is like comparing apples to oranges. I've seen some hack attempts to make windows recognize and use the modules more efficiently. Just wait till Windows 8. Bulldozer is definitely not a loss. Its just not used correctly.[/citation]

The problem with this kind of logic from AMD fanboys is that by the time windows 8 is out and bulldozer is performing to its potential Intel will already be significantly ahead with Ivy Bridge and Haswell will be right around the corner.

In the mean time AMD looses a TON of potential customers to Intel. AMD should have held off on releasing bulldozer until they had they act together with Microsoft and instead should have produced die shrunk Phenoms and Thubans.

 

[srgess]

Not impressive since only 2 core was active and if you guys remmember a old pentium 670 could hit 7.1 ghz and could even run some benchmark. I hope this isnt a marketing tactic to help boost sale lol

 

[captaincharisma]

my god all the AMD fanboys defending bulldozer sound like the old intel fanboys that defended the Pentium 4 back in the day.

it was sad then and it is even more sad now

 

[de5_Roy]

Not impressive since only 2 core was active and if you guys remmember a old pentium 670 could hit 7.1 ghz and could even run some benchmark. I hope this isnt a marketing tactic to help boost sale lol

speaking of amd's marketing tactics, this one was before bulldozer came out. and the rest is [strike]history[/strike] disappointment.
notice in the at article that bd reaches only 600 mhz(using water cooling) over its max. turbo core unlike sb cpus which usually reach 700 mhz to 1.2 ghz over their max. single core turbo boost(using air cooling).
left out approximate power consumption on purpose.

 

[digiex]

I can't keep pouring liquid nitrogen in my rig forever...

 

[kilo_17]

Impressive! Almost 2v has got to be bad for the chip though lol, but it's not like it's running at that speed and voltage all the time.

 

[saint19]

[citation][nom]fomoz[/nom]Did he pass 20 runs of LinX?[/citation]

Do you know what's the difference between a world record and a stable rig?

[citation][nom]officeguy[/nom]If this Andre Yang did indead break this record, why have a screen shot. This should have been documented (recorded on some type of media). Sorry Andre I don't believe a screen shot because it could have been altered.[/citation]

It's reported in HWBot.org, do you know what's it? Ohh, and yeah, here is the official ASUS ROG forum: http://www.asusrog.com/forums/showthread.php?5371

Enjoy it, because the current one it's not a 8.46 it's 8.58GHz

[citation][nom]srgess[/nom]Not impressive since only 2 core was active and if you guys remmember a old pentium 670 could hit 7.1 ghz and could even run some benchmark. I hope this isnt a marketing tactic to help boost sale lol[/citation]

Again, they want a CPU-Z WR, not a 8GHz+ for run BF3. At that point keep 8 cores active isn't necessary and more when the 1st pages on those records are owned by Celeron and mainly Cedar Mill CPUs.

 

[gnesterenko]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]This AGAIN? Why, then, 8-threaded i7-2600 outperforms it? Somehow Win7 CAN place all the threads in Intel's case.[/citation]

For full explanation as to why, see a rather in depth article found here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

That said, Bulldozer is to AMD as Nehelem was to Intel. Great for server architecture - useless on the desktop. Only difference is that, althought it is uselss on the desktop, you can still put one on there at a reasonable price. In Intels case, you could spend $600-$700 to put a server chip on your motherboard, with about equal effect in terms of performance.

All that said, I'm sticking to my original plan and building a Phenom 1100T system. One generation back, mad cheap, equal performance to current gen offerings at a fraction of the cost. Considering my almost 8 year old 939-socket Athlon 64 X2 (2.2GHz/core) is still good enough to play modern games with (paired with a modern GPU of course), I am pretty happy with the fact that I can get an exponential boost to processing for under $350 (mind you, thats for CPU, motherboard AND RAM combined).

Intel did a great job with their 2600K and 2700K chips, hands down these are the best peformers out there today. But marginal performance difference? Worth the extra few hundred bucks that the platform will cost? That's a question only your budget and computing needs can answer. For things like Crysis though, much more benefit from spending money on a dual GPU setup then worrying about which CPU performs better in which synthetic benchmark.

Posting from work, so need this disclaimer:
"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

 

[upgrade_1977]

So.... As you can see, this is how Amd stays in the market, by winning on paper... Just like ati cards, not trying to be a fanboy, but before I knew about how the computer stuff benchmarked, i went off the specs on the box, and ati always had more stream processors, higher bandwidth (ringbus), faster ram, ect.. But they lacked "usable" features that I thought gamers "should" have, like physx, cuda, 3d, ect and for years, performance lacked (go ahead give me thumbsdown for that). just like when intel released 6 core cpu's, then amd comes out with 8 core, and then they release video knocking intels chips, and saying how much faster they are.. When really, you can see by the benchmarks how much faster intel "STILL" is.

But, lesson learned for me, as you can see, Amd fails again. They only care about how the chips look to the average consumer, not actually how they perform. They just want to have the "records" for speed, core count, ect., not performance, because thats something you have to research, and most consumers don't bother.

I loved amd and ati back in the day, but got tired buying parts with better specs, just to find out I should have done my homework first. So years later, i'm much older, and I won't buy something just by comparing box's, now I research "ever thing" on the internet, and weigh the positives and negatives.

As of today, I am all for intel and nvidia, and that is why. Yeah nvidia and intel might make compromises, like gtx 480, everyone made fun of it because of the heat, but that is manageable, you can make up for it by switching coolers, but you can't make up for bad architecture, low performance, or lacking features..

But thats the whole thing about being into pc's, that battles keep the tech going.. So i'm not complaining, or even ranting. Hopefully Amd gets on the ball and quits playing games. They need to start providing more competition to help notch the market up, raise the bar and lower prices. Tax times a coming and i'm thinking about building a second gaming machine...

 

[xx_pemdas_xx]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]So.... As you can see, this is how Amd stays in the market, by winning on paper... Just like ati cards, not trying to be a fanboy, but before I knew about how the computer stuff benchmarked, i went of the specs on the box, and ati always had more stream processors, higher bandwidth (ringbus), faster ram, ect.. But they lacked "usable" features that I thought gamers "should" have, like physx, cuda, 3d, ect (go ahead give me thumbsdown for that). just like when intel released 6 core cpu's, then amd comes out with 8 core, and then they release video knocking intels chips, and saying how much faster they are.. But, lesson learned for me, as you can see, amd fails again. They only care about how the chips look to the average consumer, not actually how they perform. They just want to have the "records" for speed, core count, ect., not performance, because thats something you have to research, and most consumers don't bother. I loved amd and ati back in the day, but got tired buying parts with better specs, just to find out I should have done my homework first. So years later, i'm much older, and I won't buy something just by comparing box's, now I research "ever thing" on the internet, and weigh the positives and negatives. As of today, I am all for intel and nvidia, and this is why. Yeah they make compromises, like gtx 480, everyone made fun of it because of the heat, but that is manageable, you can make up for it by switching coolers, but you can't make up for bad architecture, or lacking features..[/citation]


Intel FANBOY alert!

 

[pale paladin]

I'm not sold AMD. those guys need to mature the architecture before it will be a viable option for me. single core efficiency does matter and until they get within spitting distance the new architecture doesn't matter.

 

[warezme]

Intel fanboys, AMD fanboys, who cares. The new AMD chips are good chips but they are not top of the line performers like they are made out to sound by these bogus world record claims. It is just another desperate attempt to convince those that lack the knowledge to buy them. It is a page ripped out of the Apple playbook. Make up magical claims and people will believe them. It is both desperate and sad for AMD.

They should limit all these so called records to only chips that are AIR cooled. Then I would believe them.

 

[ohim]

[citation][nom]dirtyferret[/nom]things bulldozer is not optimized forwindows 7gamingheat efficiencypower efficiencysingle core performancemulti core performancepricelady gagamid-east peacethe weatherother then those things, bulldozer is the best CPU you can possibly buy![/citation]
Actually i saw ppl that own bouth BD and i7 that are putting the BD in front of the i7 while multitasking with "heavy duty" programs. I still want to see this kind of benchmarks around not some synthetic nonesense ... we don`t buy the powerfull processors to play in sysmark and have boners , we don`t use itunes to convert in mp3 all day, and for sure we don`t play 3D Mark! I for one i`m using on daily basis 2 or 3 heavy resource hog programs in parallel(adobe premiere / Photoshop/After effects), transcoding media in the background, edidting video and audio while making some dvd menu projects in After effects at the same time. This are the conditions that i want to know how the BD stands in front of i7 , not runing winzip. Prolly gonna get my post bashed by intel gamers but there are ppl out there that use their computers to other things than playing Battlefield 3 all day long.

I`m watching my laptop running Battlefield 3 just fine on a core i3 but when is about to multitask that processor is useless ... so i don`t care how the BD ran in games only .. i wanna know how is he multitasking against the i7 ... put photoshop with h264 encodings at the same time then show the results ... that`s how you impress ppl.

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]gamebrigada[/nom]Windows isn't optimized for Bulldozer. Comparing the processors in the same benchmarks with the same setups is like comparing apples to oranges. I've seen some hack attempts to make windows recognize and use the modules more efficiently. Just wait till Windows 8. Bulldozer is definitely not a loss. Its just not used correctly.[/citation]

about this.....

Comparing the processors in the same benchmarks with the same setups is like comparing apples to oranges.

I could be wrong but last i checked.... If i have the same setups and same benchmarks... it cant be comparing apples to oranges...

That's like saying i cant compare 2 cars speed on the same race track, in the same weather condition, and with the same driver....

Or i cant compare to 2 light bulbs brightness in the same socket.....

If there the same thing, you can compare them.

Apple to Oranges is like trying to compare a bike and jet plane in a speed competition. You cant compare them because they use different means of power to move and that for a plane to get up to speed, it needs to be in the air while a bike stays firmly on ground.

What everyone done on comparing BD to other cpu's is Apples to apples comparison and as of right now, BD isn't looking to good in most things.

 

[billybobser]

What this tells me is they made a processor specifically to break useless records, at the expense of the entire consumer market.

WELL F*$"ING DONE

If it was more efficient, and ran slower, I'd take it.

If it was bagain price/performance, I'd take it.

If the lesser models were competitive overclocked with intel lower models, I'd take it.

and it sucks on all counts.

 

[ern88]

They must have use 3000 watt PSU LMAP

 

[Guest]

The single threaded performance is disappointing for sure. It should have at least been on par with the phenom 2.

However that said, IF it would fit in my motherboard id buy one right now. I constantly peg out all 4 cores on a quad, and i could easily peg all 8 on a bulldozer. Im the kinda person it was made for. But, its more of a side grade to what i have now, then a real upgrade, that that does not justify buying a new platform at this time.

 

[professorprofessorson]

AMD just dropped the ball on Bulldozer. It would instill some user confidence back in them if they would just come out and admit it, and price the chips in line with the actual performance they give, regardless of core count, but nope, they continue to stay mum on the subject really. As is, I'm just going to continue to stick to my unlocked to 4 core Phenom II 550 and Athlon II X4 635 builds.

AMD is usually the huge innovator, and kudos for that, but this time they took a chance and released a product that really should have been developed and refined more, and waited until Windows 8 release so it was better utilized. Right now there just is not much out there that can use the extra cores. It may be future proof, but as is, its currently moot.

 

[srgess]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]So.... As you can see, this is how Amd stays in the market, by winning on paper... Just like ati cards, not trying to be a fanboy, but before I knew about how the computer stuff benchmarked, i went off the specs on the box, and ati always had more stream processors, higher bandwidth (ringbus), faster ram, ect.. But they lacked "usable" features that I thought gamers "should" have, like physx, cuda, 3d, ect and for years, performance lacked (go ahead give me thumbsdown for that). just like when intel released 6 core cpu's, then amd comes out with 8 core, and then they release video knocking intels chips, and saying how much faster they are.. When really, you can see by the benchmarks how much faster intel "STILL" is.But, lesson learned for me, as you can see, Amd fails again. They only care about how the chips look to the average consumer, not actually how they perform. They just want to have the "records" for speed, core count, ect., not performance, because thats something you have to research, and most consumers don't bother. I loved amd and ati back in the day, but got tired buying parts with better specs, just to find out I should have done my homework first. So years later, i'm much older, and I won't buy something just by comparing box's, now I research "ever thing" on the internet, and weigh the positives and negatives. As of today, I am all for intel and nvidia, and that is why. Yeah nvidia and intel might make compromises, like gtx 480, everyone made fun of it because of the heat, but that is manageable, you can make up for it by switching coolers, but you can't make up for bad architecture, low performance, or lacking features.. But thats the whole thing about being into pc's, that battles keep the tech going.. So i'm not complaining, or even ranting. Hopefully Amd gets on the ball and quits playing games. They need to start providing more competition to help notch the market up, raise the bar and lower prices. Tax times a coming and i'm thinking about building a second gaming machine...[/citation]

My gtx 480 is the best card for me, good performance , heat up my room in winter, and power cost almost nothing where i live.

 

[srgess]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]Actually i saw ppl that own bouth BD and i7 that are putting the BD in front of the i7 while multitasking with "heavy duty" programs. I still want to see this kind of benchmarks around not some synthetic nonesense ... we don`t buy the powerfull processors to play in sysmark and have boners , we don`t use itunes to convert in mp3 all day, and for sure we don`t play 3D Mark! I for one i`m using on daily basis 2 or 3 heavy resource hog programs in parallel(adobe premiere / Photoshop/After effects), transcoding media in the background, edidting video and audio while making some dvd menu projects in After effects at the same time. This are the conditions that i want to know how the BD stands in front of i7 , not runing winzip. Prolly gonna get my post bashed by intel gamers but there are ppl out there that use their computers to other things than playing Battlefield 3 all day long. I`m watching my laptop running Battlefield 3 just fine on a core i3 but when is about to multitask that processor is useless ... so i don`t care how the BD ran in games only .. i wanna know how is he multitasking against the i7 ... put photoshop with h264 encodings at the same time then show the results ... that`s how you impress ppl.[/citation]

There is a lot of multicore benchmark up there that show bd isnt superior to i2600k. And bf3 can be played just fine with a old dual core computer with a high end graphic card the fps is around 5-8 fps over the best cpu on the market.

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]There's a difference between fanboy and someone speaking the truth. I'm not a fanboy of either but Bulldozer is total failure. If it was released a year ago it would've been a decent product. Today the only thing it's good for is the value market.[/citation]
You say it is a "total failure" so tell us why this fails in the server market!!!

 

[upgrade_1977]

Intel FANBOY alert!

Correct me if i'm wrong.... But isn't the "FX" series originally created as a prefix for AMD's GAMING PROCESSORS? And isn't the new FX series supposed to be the sequal to AMD's old FX gaming CPU's?

So wouldn't it make sense that "GAMING" is what it should excell at? Because you would think that a cpu that is designed "TODAY" as a gaming processor by AMD would be able to beat the competition's CPU from 3 years ago "AT GAMING" ......

Just saying..

 

[andywork78]

Real life time software AMD win but Benchmarking fail.
Real life time software Intel fail but Benchmarking GOD.

 

[jdwii]

my god all the AMD fanboys defending bulldozer sound like the old intel fanboys that defended the Pentium 4 back in the day.

it was sad then and it is even more sad now

Correct me if i'm wrong but Isn't the sandy bridge like the Pentium 4 in some ways.