[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Lab Tested: AMD's Bulldozer Packs Plenty Of Cores, But Not Enough Power here

[kronoscornelius]

Finally. It is time to upgrade !

I thought I would never see the day

Well. Now, to tomshardware.com for some hardcore performance articles.

[Scottyugs7]

4170 AMD will have 4ghz Quad core with 1866mhz RAM controller 12 mb cache for 120 buck retail. correct me if I'm wrong
2600K has 3.6ghz quadcore with 1333mhz RAM controller 9mb cache for 300 dollars.
So even the quad core stomps 2600K. oh but hyperthread is magic
Now intel hyperthread relies on the inefficiency of a process to execute in order to boost performance. so to perform well it has to perform badly to have gaps. then hyper thread fills those gaps. Oh btw that data is sitting in cache and RAM using it up and causing latency. It causes stutter which is coincidentally good for more hyperthreading. Now imagine the front side of that x86 core is beefed up for 2 cores instead of one core waiting for a gap with 2 processes. 2 strong threads with 2 cores per module would make intel the badest azz CPU around, too bad AMD doesn't have that.
There are a lot of fake benchmarks out. many were posted before the final silicone was ever produced

[IlonaRamic]

We waited, waited and waited ... I wonder, what did AMD actually do in previous four years?
It seems that this will be a huge disappointment. I wonder whether in AMD are trying to drive out those who still do not want to move over to Intel. If so, then it is well on the road. I do not know if anyone from the company monitors these comments, all the same, congratulations on being thrown for four years. What happened to you?

We waited, waited and waited ... I wonder, what did AMD actually do in previous four years?
It seems that this will be a huge disappointment. I wonder whether in AMD are trying to drive out those who still do not want to move over to Intel. If so, then it is well on the road. I do not know if anyone from the company monitors these comments, all the same, congratulations on being thrown for four years. What happened to you?

[timw076]

What a huge dissappointment.

Well as someone who has used AMD for the last 8 years, I'm really inclined to ditch to Intel. I just recently went and upgraded to an ASUS am3+ board with an Athlon 2 X3 (4th core unlocked). It's great, but the processor was supposed to be a temporary one until i went for a high performance one. Now i'm left wondering what to do.

On one side, i'm hoping for a price cut to justify the purchase. But i'm also just willing to wait another 6 months. I can then see Ivy Bridge and Piledriver. If Piledriver only is a 10-15% increase as AMD has stated, i'll probably start with a new build and go Ivy Bridge.

Sorry AMD to be less than impressed, but i hoped for more in the 5 years of promises. I'll always consider you as an option, but you've got to give me something to work with.

[waldojim]

Scottyugs7, on 12 October 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

4170 AMD will have 4ghz Quad core with 1866mhz RAM controller 12 mb cache for 120 buck retail. correct me if I'm wrong
2600K has 3.6ghz quadcore with 1333mhz RAM controller 9mb cache for 300 dollars.

The SB CPUS all support 1866 ram.

Quote

So even the quad core stomps 2600K. oh but hyperthread is magic
Now intel hyperthread relies on the inefficiency of a process to execute in order to boost performance. so to perform well it has to perform badly to have gaps. then hyper thread fills those gaps. Oh btw that data is sitting in cache and RAM using it up and causing latency. It causes stutter which is coincidentally good for more hyperthreading. Now imagine the front side of that x86 core is beefed up for 2 cores instead of one core waiting for a gap with 2 processes. 2 strong threads with 2 cores per module would make intel the badest azz CPU around, too bad AMD doesn't have that.
There are a lot of fake benchmarks out. many were posted before the final silicone was ever produced

No the AMD 'Quad core' Bulldozer does NOT touch any of the SB chips. You need the 8 core to come close. Even then, they are slower clock for clock than the last generation Phenom II's. These new chips are crap.

[waldojim]

IlonaRamic, on 13 October 2011 - 02:48 AM, said:

We waited, waited and waited ... I wonder, what did AMD actually do in previous four years?
It seems that this will be a huge disappointment. I wonder whether in AMD are trying to drive out those who still do not want to move over to Intel. If so, then it is well on the road. I do not know if anyone from the company monitors these comments, all the same, congratulations on being thrown for four years. What happened to you?

TO be fair, this is a complete and total redesign of the core. It is designed to be expandable very easily and quickly. Moving to a 22nm process will drop the TDP a bit, and possibly allow for 10 or even 12 core processors. For heavily multithreaded applications, this could be worth something.

[xyberviri]

When the price of Intel V AMD was 600.00 v 300.00 AMD was always on top for budget systems.

the price of intel and amd was almost the same and really depended on which graphics card you used. Now AMD is starting to be priced like old intel with out the performance.

[timw076]

waldojim, on 13 October 2011 - 05:37 AM, said:

IlonaRamic, on 13 October 2011 - 02:48 AM, said:

We waited, waited and waited ... I wonder, what did AMD actually do in previous four years?
It seems that this will be a huge disappointment. I wonder whether in AMD are trying to drive out those who still do not want to move over to Intel. If so, then it is well on the road. I do not know if anyone from the company monitors these comments, all the same, congratulations on being thrown for four years. What happened to you?

TO be fair, this is a complete and total redesign of the core. It is designed to be expandable very easily and quickly. Moving to a 22nm process will drop the TDP a bit, and possibly allow for 10 or even 12 core processors. For heavily multithreaded applications, this could be worth something.

Yea but that's not an option until 2013 at the earliest. The issue is performance now. Hopefully this succeeds in the server market or we won't see an AMD in 2013.

[waldojim]

timw076, on 13 October 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:

Yea but that's not an option until 2013 at the earliest. The issue is performance now. Hopefully this succeeds in the server market or we won't see an AMD in 2013.

Nah, people have predicted AMD's demise for many years now. Truth is, in the budget market, AMD always takes the lead. For sub $200 processors, there still isn't much choice. For sub $500 complete builds there flat out is no other choice.

[OliverCam]

<really big sigh!> too little, too late. we migrated our entire appliance line back to intel chips after seeing how the intel lynnfield cpus, which are 2 generations behind amd's latest 12-core chips, consistently outperformed the latest gen 8 and 12-core opterons. in previous years we always saw the opterons outperform the xeons up until nehalem came out. but when lynnfield came out, oh boy, we just couldnt ignore the major performance gains we were seeing in our appliances! here's hoping amd will still be able to create something to catch up with intel to keep the pressure up. we all stand to lose if there's no healthy competition to intel!

[Scottyugs7]

intel fanboy, ALL SB SANDY BRIDGE CPU are 1333mhz RAM. unless you overclock the crap out of them to get 1600mhz. Yes go check Intel website before you burn out your ram controller. It is fact, i dont care what you overclocked to. if we over clock an AMD's stock 1866mhz RAM it would be in the 2500 range easily

[waldojim]

Scottyugs7, on 14 October 2011 - 06:07 PM, said:

intel fanboy, ALL SB SANDY BRIDGE CPU are 1333mhz RAM. unless you overclock the crap out of them to get 1600mhz. Yes go check Intel website before you burn out your ram controller. It is fact, i dont care what you overclocked to. if we over clock an AMD's stock 1866mhz RAM it would be in the 2500 range easily

Considering that all the 2100+ ram out there were designed with Intel CPUs in mind... I think I will pass on your judgment. I run 1600Mhz ram on my i5, and haven't hurt it yet. Maybe because you have little real understanding of the situation?

[MrHasselblad]

timw076, on 13 October 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:

waldojim, on 13 October 2011 - 05:37 AM, said:

IlonaRamic, on 13 October 2011 - 02:48 AM, said:

We waited, waited and waited ... I wonder, what did AMD actually do in previous four years?
It seems that this will be a huge disappointment. I wonder whether in AMD are trying to drive out those who still do not want to move over to Intel. If so, then it is well on the road. I do not know if anyone from the company monitors these comments, all the same, congratulations on being thrown for four years. What happened to you?

TO be fair, this is a complete and total redesign of the core. It is designed to be expandable very easily and quickly. Moving to a 22nm process will drop the TDP a bit, and possibly allow for 10 or even 12 core processors. For heavily multithreaded applications, this could be worth something.

Yea but that's not an option until 2013 at the earliest. The issue is performance now. Hopefully this succeeds in the server market or we won't see an AMD in 2013.

Looking at only the facts; and not anyone that wants their off the wall opinion taken as fact... We'll see ten core next year.

AMD is a company so diverse that it is no suprise it's been around since 1969; had a last year revenue of 6.494 Billion, and builds quite the number of products well outside of chips - and btw even outside of servers these chips are being built today into gaming systems that are flying off the shelf so to state.

No need to worry about AMD. This chip will stand well on it's own. Even if the chip were to fail massively (which it will not) the AMD company and name will still be around for the long haul. I'll take that bet.

[kellerbl]

I wonder how much the performance is impacted by used of only 2 memory channels to feed 8 cores. Doesn't the Intel processor use 3 channels? I was expecting BullDozer to support 4 memory channels, but apparently not for desktop processors at this time.

[dragon69]

kellerbl, on 17 October 2011 - 04:48 AM, said:

I wonder how much the performance is impacted by used of only 2 memory channels to feed 8 cores. Doesn't the Intel processor use 3 channels? I was expecting BullDozer to support 4 memory channels, but apparently not for desktop processors at this time.

sandy bridge only supports dual channel too it was the older intel that tried triple channel and it did not help out much

[dragon69]

In a couple of months the FX 8150 will drop to 150 to 175 in Canada ( the FX 8150 with the stand alone water cooler will be 250 to 270 bucks Canadian) but knowing Intel their sandy bridges will stay the same price ( or go higher)

before Xmas

Then AMDs price to performance will be better

:-)

GL and TC

This post has been edited by dragon69: 17 October 2011 - 02:43 PM

[dragon69]

also these cpu are great for multi threaded application of the future ans suffer in single thread application so they should be good for mid to heavy multi tasker .

it sounds like they would be good to convert one or two divx files to dvd ( with convertx2dvd) and you could still surf the web and use skype ( or google talk) and suffer no slow downs


when the price drops some i would like to check out my theory

[dragon69]

waldojim, on 13 October 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

timw076, on 13 October 2011 - 08:01 AM, said:

Yea but that's not an option until 2013 at the earliest. The issue is performance now. Hopefully this succeeds in the server market or we won't see an AMD in 2013.

Nah, people have predicted AMD's demise for many years now. Truth is, in the budget market, AMD always takes the lead. For sub $200 processors, there still isn't much choice. For sub $500 complete builds there flat out is no other choice.

i think jim is right here if you've got big bucks to spend and need top performance then go Intel BUT if you want a decent computer and don't need the extra 15% performance go AMD


With out AMD around we would be paying a 1000 bucks for a sandy bridge so competition is good ... for us consumers IMHO

[waldojim]

dragon69, on 17 October 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

kellerbl, on 17 October 2011 - 04:48 AM, said:

I wonder how much the performance is impacted by used of only 2 memory channels to feed 8 cores. Doesn't the Intel processor use 3 channels? I was expecting BullDozer to support 4 memory channels, but apparently not for desktop processors at this time.

sandy bridge only supports dual channel too it was the older intel that tried triple channel and it did not help out much

It was a specific line of CPUS - the 1366. The new Socket 2011 "performance" line if you will from Intel will use a Sandy Bridge core and support quad channel ram. It does help, you just have to have the right applications to take advantage of it.