AMD bulldozer

killadoob said:
No man, i mean like do they have offices in South africa?

So intel brings in the cpu's, distributes them. Does amd do the same?
Click to expand...

AMD is very much in SA I met the marketing guy at the Rectron Roadshow a few months back, he told me to "watch this space"
 
killadoob said:
Frankly that could be 18 carrot gold but if the cpu is a let down i could care less. Tease me with benchies, give me a stiffy with some nice benchies showing a good cpu. Don't flash some badge it won't get you a sale if your product if not up to scratch. :p

Now gimme a damn 8 core cpu and now bitches!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You could care less? That means you care at least a little. How sweet of you.
 
As long as the new amd cpu's give intel a run for it's money so that the prices can start to drop. Then I'll be a happy man because we need some competition in the high end cpu industry. Not everyone can afford to spend 2k or more on a cpu.
 
Qwikslver said:
You could care less? That means you care at least a little. How sweet of you.
Click to expand...

Yup i could care less what fancy badges and BS they show us, performance is what matters. If they bring it then they got a 8 core buyer, if not intel has a new sandy bridge client :D

i've never been one these die hard fans of a brand who will buy a brand even if it is inferior at the time.
 
killadoob said:
Yup i could care less what fancy badges and BS they show us, performance is what matters. If they bring it then they got a 8 core buyer, if not intel has a new sandy bridge client :D

i've never been one these die hard fans of a brand who will buy a brand even if it is inferior at the time.
Click to expand...

That so flew over your head. The correct expression is "I couldn't care less." Meaning you don't give a flying ****.
 
:sick:

Prepare for some disappointment. 2600k still clearly ahead majority of the time, especially in gaming scenarios. 8150 gains multithreaded wins, but in reality 80% of benchmarks aren't heavily threaded. Pricing is 244 euros on the 8150. Power consumption also way too high for my liking - i.e. 430w on full [email protected]. And really it needs to be overclocked to see gains on Sandy Bridge.

AMD...g/l with this one.
 
Finished reading... I am disappoint :cry:
So basically, if you are into heavy heavy heavy multithreaded tasks, and do not plan on overclocking, you could save yourself $50 by going AMD. Even this scenario I'm hesitant to recommend AMD though as in some applications it still struggles
If you are a gamer, save yourself $50 and go for a i5-2500k
Overclocking is pretty worthless too. Sure, you can probably break into 5Ghz with an air cooler and match a 2600k, but you'll also be pulling ±250W more. How thats even possible I have no freakin clue. Someone dropped the ball there big time!

All in all, skip this gen of CPUs from AMD, and hope the the next stepping sorts out the issues, the same way that the Phenom line sucked, but then Phenom II put AMD half back into the game. For that, you're looking at Q2, maybe Q1 2012. Its a sad day in my opinion, Intel now has zero reason to drop prices. But at least I can finally decide on what CPU to put in my current build :D
 
Last edited:
Bulldozer Benchmarked and Analyzed: Is AMD Back in the Game?

AMD finally catches up, sort of

AMD’s newest CPU is perhaps the worst kept secret in the industry. The company telegraphed the microarchitecture seemingly years ago but garnered much attention. That’s no surprise as the chip codenamed “Bulldozer” is considered AMD’s first true redesign of a chip since the original Athlon 64. Truth be told, there’s also a lot hanging on new chip as many are wondering if AMD still has any mogjo to go toe to toe with Intel’s processors. To find out, read on.

Personally I'm keen on the AMD FX-6100, anyone have anything to say about that specific model?
 
Guru of 3D Review

Final words and conclusion

Alright, conclusion time, and this is not going to be easy to explain -- a tough one really. The Octacore AMD FX 8150 processor surprised me positively in some ways, yet bewilders me in others.

AMD has set the strategy to pursue processors with as many CPU cores as possible. The Bulldozer design is scalable, very scalable, meaning they are focusing on more CPU cores. The benefit here is that massively threaded applications really like that very much. Look at the Handbrake (multi-threaded video transcoding application) results and content creation with MAXON's animation software CINEMA 4D. It's there where the processor really flexes its muscles.

To put it very simple, the hardware needs the software in order to shine. However, the problem remains that most software anno 2011 certainly doesn't multi-thread as well as we all would have hoped.

Most applications go for two, maybe four cores. It's already hard to utilize six threads simultaneously, let alone eight. As such, per-core performance is much more important than more processor cores.

That is a matter of time though, I mean we had the single core to dual-core revolution, quickly followed by four, six and thus now eight cores. So where multithreaded applications are programmed right AMD really starts to shine with the FX series.

So the opposite effect is that with applications that prefer say two CPU threads and thus utilize only two cores... well that's where the FX series has a really hard time as the per core performance starts to lack significantly opposed to the competition.

You have been able to see that the FX 8150 mostly is competing with the Core i5 2500 (which costs 180 EUR by the way). Once multithreading kicks in well, performance quickly rises and you'll see Core i7 2600 (260 EUR) performance. Surprisingly enough even the Phenom II X6 1100T (170 EUR) stands ground and is mostly on par with the FX 8150 a lot of the time, that complicates things even more. So where do we need to position the FX 8150 then? I mean, this is supposed to be AMD's fastest processor.

In games we see exactly the same thing. We specifically took two titles to show you that difference. The older title, Far Cry 2, is where we can see a performance hit, in fact CPU limitation kicks in as the per core performance of the FX 8150 can't keep up with the graphics card (CPU bottleneck). A Core i7 2500 or 2600, though with four cores have better per core performance, hence you'll see better performance.
Click to expand...

More
 
Really disappointing AMD. Why cant their server division deliver like their GPU division?
 
Eish not again amd :(, been behind intel since core 2 came.

I don't make use of 8 cores very often. O well i held out and hoped but as usual let down again. I miss the days when my 3800+ and 3800x2 was better than it's intel counter part. Boy that was long ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X