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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

yyk71200

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
877
0
19,160
[citation][nom]gnesterenko[/nom]For full explanation as to why, see a rather in depth article found here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865That 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."[/citation]
That's a decent performance gain for BD gain from assigning affinity to certain cores. The problem is, by the time Windows 8 with fixed BD scheduler hits the market, Piledriver cores should be out. Therefore, buying BD as it is right now makes no sense (except for specific multithreaded applications and Linux which can have a BD friendly scheduler redone much faster than Windows).
 

panders4

Distinguished
Oct 17, 2011
47
0
18,530
Bulldozer definitely wasn't what I expected, but I'll buy one anyway when prices drop. I want to see how well it does running my virtual machines. My current machines are lacking.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]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[/citation]

i had a p4, the prescot one, cant defend that, it was a good upgrade from my p2 333mhz, so im not the person to judge it entirely.

but like others are saying, bulldozer isn't a loss, and win 8 will fix some of the more outlying benchmark flubs.

ill wait till ivy bridge to see the performance boost that a die shrink will bring, but it most likely wont be more than an extra few seconds shaved off it wont be bad but nothing ground breaking.
 

dissbelief

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2011
71
0
18,630
Bulldozer does not perform as expected, period. Sandy bridge wails on it most of the time, and sometimes the previous generations of AMD cpus beat on it too. But for most people, Bulldozer is more than enough. When considering the value, one must consider AMD's recycling of sockets. This plays a major part of upgrading when price is a factor. If you want the best of the best, go Intel. If you want value and cheaper upgrades, go with AMD. I don't understand the debate every time Bulldozer is mentioned in a forum.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
[citation][nom]srgess[/nom]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.[/citation]
What part of multitask you don`t get ? Multitask not multicore ! put 2-3 programs running at the same time and show me the results on bouth! that`s multitask , put 1 program to run on multiple cores is not multitasking.
 

upgrade_1977

Distinguished
May 5, 2011
665
0
18,990


First... Do you actually read benchmark articles or are you just commenting based off of other forum post's?

Intel has been, and still is, winning not just synthetic benchmarks but also real life life benchmarks..

W/ this series, a true 8 core AMD FX CPU is getting whooped by a 3 year old intel quad core CPU in REAL LIFE GAMING BENCHMARKS.... (by real life, I mean not synthetic, they are benchmarked using "ACTUAL GAMES"...

f1%202011%201920.png

wow%201920.png

sfiv.png

41710.png

41709.png

41701.png

41708.png

41700.png

41706.png



Need I get more?

The "FX" which was supposed to be a gaming CPU, Basically got raped by intel..... IN GAMING..

Notice in the pictures, it's even higher clocked, in some, still getting beat by even it's own lower clocked CPU's.....

Don't get mad at me, go read some benchmark articles...


:D
 

rooket

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2009
1,097
0
19,280


I don't understand the above statement unless you are talking about the weakly pentium 4's that used RDRAM.

I still use a Pentium 4 Northwood with hyperthreading. It is a very solid and stable machine. On its third motherboard too, thanks Asus (I won't buy Asus products any more mind you, pure junk company). And hence the fallout of red coming on me, I use EVGA so don't get your panties in a bunch.

I'm uncertain why people are flocking to bash AMD after all a lot of people on this site build AMD systems for gaming (for god knows what reason.. I do all Intel). It doesn't make sense as much as this post.

And no I don't game on a Pentium 4. It is a spare machine but it is very useful. I also still have a Pentium 3 which is one of the most solid products Intel has ever made. And no need to knock me down because I'm about to recycle the Pentium 3 as well as dismantle the Pentium 4 anyway.

I also still have a 533bus P4 and it works great but there's really not much use for it.

Anyway all this back talk on AMD cpu is getting old. If you aren't going to buy it, nobody is making you. Sure I won't build myself an AMD system but that doesn't mean that I have to go teasing about it. That is just silly. At least someone is trying to put out technology and sometimes AMD comes out ahead. Who knows maybe there's a bunch of people who want 8 cores right now and that is the selling point.

I'm going to upgrade to Ivy Bridge next year and the sandy bridge seemed to me like a stopgap product that I do not need. I'm waiting to see what chipsets actually support the thing before buying anything. For now, Core2Duo does the job and it does it very well. Why grab an i7 when a core2 does everything one needs... Only drawback though is I am assuming that evga does 10year warranty rather than lifetime however my PC is about 2-3 years old now so the lifetime warranty isn't really serving. But at least my evga board doesn't all in the sudden totally fail on me like Asus products do. User installation error? hell no. I've been building PCs for over 10 years and use ESD precautions and put in all the screws and use good components. I think Asus is a good company but luckily they are not the only choice.
 

gnesterenko

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2008
150
0
18,680
@upgrade_1977 - in the real world, most monitors refresh at 60Hz - so anything above 60fps is, in the real world, theoretical. Seems Zambezi is plenty capabale of maxing out *most* monitors' refresh rates, just like the 2600K.

Of course this doesn't apply to people with 120Hz monitors, however considering how expensive those are, I don't think a price/performance comparison is something those people will care about. But that is such a insignificant slice of the overall market that is laughable to look at this market segment as being an example of anything at all.

And one more note, I've read the same benches you have, and about 50% of the games they test show exactly identical performance for all high end processors, showing the games to be entirely GPU limited. I wonder why you chose to only copy the games that have, historically, always favored Intel over AMD architecture? I think we all know the answer to that question. If you were trying to make any sort of point, you would have used the composite, aggregate comparison graphs included in each of those very same review articles that sum up the differences across all games.

I'm not going to get mad because I don't care, I'm just going to call you out on a bad argument. Cherry picking data to start. Mispresenting data interpretation to follow. All around arugmentative fail.

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."

 

masterasia

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
1,128
0
19,360
That's cool...but it's not gonna help sell the stupid processor. What needs to happen is AMD needs to drop the price on it to less than $99, because according to the latest power efficiency benchmarks, this thing needs it's own power plant to be able to run. Then they need to credit you with about $100 a month to help you pay our power bill.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]First... Do you actually read benchmark articles or are you just commenting based off of other forum post's? Intel has been, and still is, winning not just synthetic benchmarks but also real life life benchmarks.. W/ this series, a true 8 core AMD FX CPU is getting whooped by a 3 year old intel quad core CPU in REAL LIFE GAMING BENCHMARKS.... (by real life, I mean not synthetic, they are benchmarked using "ACTUAL GAMES"...Don't get mad at me, go read some benchmark articles...[/citation]on other sites with other graphics cards i see something elese.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg10/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-deus-ex-human-revolution.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
To be honest who cares... AMD is the budget chip manufacturer if you want decent performance on a tight budget then go AMD. If you have way to much cash on your hands then go Intel. I currently have one of each and they both work well for that I'm doing with them (my I7 is my development machine and the FX4100 if in my HTPC/gaming machine). I really don't see any other chip manufactures making chips to compeat with these 2 giants so if they are the only companies how is either one Junk...? Even if the FX is Junk why is AMD selling them and the same goes for Intel with the 1156 sandy-bridge chips that degrade your data on raid sets.....but that is another story!
 

verbalizer

Distinguished
the same goes for Intel with the 1156 sandy-bridge chips that degrade your data on raid sets.....but that is another story!
incorrect story...
LGA 1156 is not part of Sandy-Bridge (Mr Know-it-All).....
it's Core i - Nehalem that's on 1156.

SB is on LGA1155 and it's the one that first had the data / SATA issues...
thanks for making your entire statement null and void..
whatever..
 
Cant say I care for OC records at all. I wish AMD would make a quad APU to crossfire with at least a 6870. Now for gamers this would be a move in the right direction. This would most likely require triple channel memory so not even trinity gives me any hope. :(

WHY is AMD not working to leverage high end cross-fire in APU's?
 

upgrade_1977

Distinguished
May 5, 2011
665
0
18,990


Did you notice hardwareheaven was only using a AMD 6950 in there test's? Could putting the load on the GPU instead of the CPU possibly affect the tests? And that the games they used are games that hardly anyone one plays? Bias review possibly?
 

kjsfnkwl

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2011
65
0
18,630
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]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[/citation]All I can say is, what AMD fanboys defending bulldozer? Look around, kid. The truth is that the year old sand bridge is better than bulldozer, and everyone, amd fanboy or not, knows it.
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]Did you notice hardwareheaven was only using a AMD 6950 in there test's? Could putting the load on the GPU instead of the CPU possibly affect the tests? And that the games they used are games that hardly anyone one plays? Bias review possibly?[/citation]
Hardly ? Deus EX ? ... the F1 is used by toms also. Shogun don`t know.. maybe sheer number of units on the screen . And what do you want now ? 1024X768 low details to see the CPU in games that normaly don`t fully use multicores and resolutions and details at which nobody plays ? Whit that makes you feel better that the 2600k is faster in low resolution and details when cranking up the graphics at max won`t make any fukin difference in real world scenario ? Because that`s what every gamer does first... puts everything at max.
 

upgrade_1977

Distinguished
May 5, 2011
665
0
18,990


What does the refresh rate of your monitor have to do with FPS? They are two seperate measurements. FPS, "Frames Per Second" is a measurement of how many frames your graphics card can draw in a second, while HZ is the measurement of how many times a second your monitor can refresh itself.

FPS is dependent on PC Graphics card and CPU,
HZ is not.. Your monitor stays at whatever hz you set it at regardless of your monitor.

Also, 120hz monitors are becoming the norm these days, and no, they aren't expensive anymore.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the power of your CPU or your GPU..

I can run my 120hz monitor on a 10 year old system and it will still run at 120hz.

Bad argument huh? :non:
 

ern88

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2009
882
12
19,015
Man, BD failed big time. If I had a 1100T, I wouldn't get BD. I am glad I moved to the i5 2500K. Best move I made. BD does win in one test. THE POWER CONSUMPTION, It's like the Simpson's Canyonero gas guzzler!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.