Solution


My calculation is based on two factors

1. The CPU is handling highly orthogonal workloads. Workloads that are constrained by process sequence and process interdependence (single threaded and thread-safe respectively) will perform even worse on the bulldozer processor due to each scheduler having less resources to work with. Games are highly constrained by design, which is why Bulldozer falls behind even compared to Phenom II. On the other hand, transactional workloads and simulations are often significantly less constrained by interdependence and sequence which...

xa376

Honorable
Jun 8, 2012
126
0
10,690
Ideally the cpu's would be overclocked correct? Disabling the extra 2 cores on the 8150 and overclocking would surely make it much faster than the Intel i7. At the point I don't see how Intel would be faster.
 
AMD is faster than Intel..prove it, O wait you can't because that is compeatly wrong. Intel is faster at most programs the only time AMD beats out Intel CPU's is in a very few heavily threaded programs and even there it beats out Intel by only a small amount.
 


No even overclocked a Bulldozer will be beaten by a stock I5 or I7.
 

xa376

Honorable
Jun 8, 2012
126
0
10,690


Do you know of some kind of comparison chart?
 


Hi :)

Umm I am not quite sure thats true..it depends how far the dozer is overclocked...and my 1100T BE overclocked can certainly beat a stock i5 ....and in some benchmarks an i7 AS WELL...

All the best Brett :)
 


What are you talking about. Intel has a faster, more efficient micro architecture than AMD. A 3 GHZ Bulldozer will never be as fast as a 3 GHz AMD CPU. You can have an I5 at 3.3 GHz and a Bulldozer at 4.1 GHz and the lower clocked I5 will still beat out the Bulldozer.
 


You are looking at it all wrong. clock speed doesn't mean anything. so no "speed" is specified. the architecture and actual perfomance is what matters. Clock.speed hasn't been an accurate measure of PC CPU performance for over a decade
 


read my statement again. I never said either was the faster one, i only simply made the statement that the same ghz are not equal.
 


yes

Given that Sandybridge gets approximately 2.5 times as many integer operations per clock per core we can normalize a 4 core Sandybridge to a relative performance index of 10 (4x 2.5) per clock cycle

Bulldozer with 8 cores gets a relative performance index of 8 per clock cycle and 6 per clock cycle with 6 cores. If we then overclock the 6 core Bulldozer to 5Ghz the frequency performance ratio becomes 5/3.5 (should be 3.4 but I'm being nice) 1.5

6*1.5 = 9

9 < 10

So even with 6 cores active a 5Ghz bulldozer will still fall just behind a 3.5Ghz i7 with 4 cores active
 


My calculation is based on two factors

1. The CPU is handling highly orthogonal workloads. Workloads that are constrained by process sequence and process interdependence (single threaded and thread-safe respectively) will perform even worse on the bulldozer processor due to each scheduler having less resources to work with. Games are highly constrained by design, which is why Bulldozer falls behind even compared to Phenom II. On the other hand, transactional workloads and simulations are often significantly less constrained by interdependence and sequence which allows them to be spread out across multiple execution units much easier.

2. That a Bulldozer CPU will not only be able to operate stably at 5Ghz but will last more than a few months. A 3.5 Ghz Ivybridge or 3.4 Ghz Sandybridge will last many many years at their stock frequencies.
 
Solution

TRENDING THREADS