Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Releases FX-Series Bulldozer Desktop CPUs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by locovaca View Post
    We've been hearing this since the Pentium 4 got Hyperthreading in 2002. That's a decade of "everything will be written with parallelism in mind". Most applications do not need to be massively parallel, nor deal with the complexities that come with it. Fast single threaded performance will remain one of the most important aspects for years to come on the desktop.
    It's one of those things that's gradual, not instant. Also, for anything which is single threaded, single process, dependent, then anything on the market right now is more than sufficient. Having a super-powerful beast that does text editing is kind of a waste of time. Having a super-powerful beast running various virtual machines, web servers, etc, is another thing entirely.
    There's a good deal of middle ground - games, for one, video encode/decode, web browsers, etc, are still increasing their support multithreaded/multiprocess capabilities.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mcirsta View Post
      Taking a look at the numbers I wish they just launched some AM3+ Phenom II x4 and x6 ... manufactured in 32 nm this could actually be better than Bulldozer. It's sad because the Phenom II is very old stuff but that's the way it is.
      AMD screwed up big time and they should do their best to fix it. Intel did the same with the P4 way back but they could afford to, I'm not sure AMD can. And when they did fix it they came up with something that's very good , the Core CPUs.
      AFAIK the Pentium 4 was never fixed, but entirely scrapped. Core CPUs are based on Pentium IIIs, not Pentium 4s. So this is worrysome for AMD.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by blackshard View Post
        But this don't really explains why BD single core performance is much worse than Stars single core performance.
        If I remember correctly, AMD told about a year ago that one Bulldozer core would offer at the same frequency about 90% throughput performance of an Phenom K10 core. This CPU is clearly not for people who want single core performance.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
          i3/i5/i7 are all the same architecture with different performance grades.
          I realize that, that is why I went i3/i5/i7 instead of i3,i5,i7. I should have just said iSeries to avoid confusion.

          Intel has also been known in the past for building-to-benchmarks. AMD has a history of ignoring the benchmarks and just building the best chip they can.
          That is fine and all but when those benchmarks are not synthetic benchmarks but benchmarks of real world usage then it does matter and BD falls short in all areas.

          K7 is a different kind of case, from a different era. It wasn't just an architectural change, it was also just plain MUCH MUCH FASTER. You'll recall that it had a DDR FSB. The benchmarks at that time certainly would have been made for K6/P2, but even with that against it, it was ***SO MUCH FASTER*** that it didn't matter.
          Right and that is what typically goes along with a new architecture. Truthfully this is the first new architecture in I can recall where it did not out perform the previous going back to the 8088 even without code optimization.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Kano View Post
            @deanjo

            that means you will switch to ivi bridge next year or what
            Maybe, maybe not. Still undecided, it depends if intel stops putting artificial restrictions on their product for items like virtualization or not. For my workloads core count does seem to make a greater factor then anything else and I may just go with a workstation setup and skip the consumer level all together. I may even just say screw it and pick up a next gen MacPro since it is workstation class and would allow me to continue on with Win/Lin/OS X and iOS development with minimal hassle. Right now going with another AMD system would be really hard to justify without a much improved chipset for me.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
              Right and that is what typically goes along with a new architecture. Truthfully this is the first new architecture in I can recall where it did not out perform the previous going back to the 8088 even without code optimization.
              http://www.anandtech.com/show/661/18
              http://www.anandtech.com/show/661/19
              http://www.anandtech.com/show/661/20
              http://www.anandtech.com/show/661/21
              http://www.anandtech.com/show/661/23

              Comment


              • #37
                Even with the P4 it did out perform the P3 in most areas, the same cannot be said about BD. The P4 just did not match the competition.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by skies View Post
                  Take these tests by X-bit labs, Anandtech, etc with a big grain of salt.

                  Most of these tools used for testing (Sisandra, various games, etc) are compiled using Intels C/C++ compiler which generates fast and optimized codepath's for Intels own processors but very bad and inefficient codepaths for AMD processors. Very unfair to AMD and Bulldozer.

                  Ofcouse these tests will show Intel as a big leader over AMD as the Intel code runs optimized and AMD does not.

                  Do the tests using AMD's own Open64 C/C++ compiler and you will get a different result.
                  Possibly, but not a 50% difference and that's what we're looking at with single threaded apps. Take a look at the chart http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...8150-tested/11. Not a huge difference and certainly not enough to make up the difference with SB.
                  Anand seemed really bummed with Bulldozer but he also seems to think they had massive issues with the fab. This is their first SoI I believe and it's a new process node if nothing else.
                  Nevertheless, Bulldozer just doesn't seem worthwhile (not saying anything about their gfx, though) though it is still faster in every way than the previous gen, I think.
                  Even in multithreaded apps its not really any better than SB especially when you consider the number of cores in use (realising that amd is obfuscating this metric by using the term module).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    @deanjo

                    ivi bridge is basically ready i think, more a marketing reason that it is not out to sell the lots of snb hardware before xmas. if you want full features incl. ecc ram support you need to use the xeon series and a workstation chipset. those are not much more expensive than highend gamer boards, but lack most likely oc support. but when a 4 core intel already beats an 8 core amd what do you think will happen with an 8 core intel with much higher speed/core? the price tag is very high usally with outstanding intel cpus, but it will be fast...
                    Last edited by Kano; 10-12-2011, 03:31 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Kano View Post
                      @deanjo
                      if you want full features incl. ecc ram support you need to use the xeon series and a workstation chipset.
                      That's why I'm thinking of just going with the next Mac Pro.

                      but when a 4 core intel already beats an 8 core amd what do you think will happen with an 8 core intel with much higher speed/core? the price tag is very high of because of intel, but it will be fast...
                      Gonna first have to see how BD performs with a properly patched kernel before I make any end judgement. My workload is different then most of the "OMG 5 fps faster in Quake 9" crowd.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by liam View Post
                        Nevertheless, Bulldozer just doesn't seem worthwhile (not saying anything about their gfx, though) though it is still faster in every way than the previous gen, I think.
                        Even in multithreaded apps its not really any better than SB especially when you consider the number of cores in use (realising that amd is obfuscating this metric by using the term module).
                        It is pretty debatable as to whether or not the two integer cores within a bulldozer module should be considered true cores or not. The Windows 7 scheduler issues that AMD is claiming is costing them some performance in these benchmarks? Microsoft says they're working on fixing it in Windows 8 by having the scheduler treat a Bulldozer module the same way it treats an i* core with hyperthreading.

                        I think AMD would have been a lot better off just calling their Bulldozer module a core. Everybody would be complaining a lot less about today's benchmarks if the 8150 was marketed as a 4 core processor rather than an 8 core which gets trounced by Intel's 4 core offering in a few areas.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by psycho_driver View Post
                          It is pretty debatable as to whether or not the two integer cores within a bulldozer module should be considered true cores or not. The Windows 7 scheduler issues that AMD is claiming is costing them some performance in these benchmarks? Microsoft says they're working on fixing it in Windows 8 by having the scheduler treat a Bulldozer module the same way it treats an i* core with hyperthreading.

                          I think AMD would have been a lot better off just calling their Bulldozer module a core. Everybody would be complaining a lot less about today's benchmarks if the 8150 was marketed as a 4 core processor rather than an 8 core which gets trounced by Intel's 4 core offering in a few areas.
                          That's certainly true but then people would be wondering, 1)why does a 4 core AMD chip cost so damn much, 2) why does a 4 core chip need 2 BILLION transistors, 3)it's still slower than Intel's quad cores (I don't recall a single benchmark where it beat SB).
                          However, it is an interesting architecture (I think the 4 issue per module is actually a cool way to save space) but that cache latency is pretty damn high, but that's been an issue with AMD for awhile.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by liam View Post
                            That's certainly true but then people would be wondering, 1)why does a 4 core AMD chip cost so damn much, 2) why does a 4 core chip need 2 BILLION transistors, 3)it's still slower than Intel's quad cores (I don't recall a single benchmark where it beat SB).
                            However, it is an interesting architecture (I think the 4 issue per module is actually a cool way to save space) but that cache latency is pretty damn high, but that's been an issue with AMD for awhile.
                            Accoding to a big IT news publisher (heise.de) the FX-8150 is in many multithreading benchmarks faster than a Intel Core i5-2500K (4 core, about 19% cheaper than a FX-8150). Examples: 7-zip compression almost 50% faster, WinRar 38% faster, Cinebench R11.5 11%, Linux kernel compiling 20% faster. At data compression it can also beat Intels Core i7-2600K.

                            To 2) FX-8150 has a huge cache, that's why it has so much transistors. Don't ask me why it uses so much cache.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Fenrin View Post
                              Accoding to a big IT news publisher (heise.de) the FX-8150 is in many multithreading benchmarks faster than a Intel Core i5-2500K (4 core, about 19% cheaper than a FX-8150). Examples: 7-zip compression almost 50% faster, WinRar 38% faster, Cinebench R11.5 11%, Linux kernel compiling 20% faster. At data compression it can also beat Intels Core i7-2600K.

                              To 2) FX-8150 has a huge cache, that's why it has so much transistors. Don't ask me why it uses so much cache.
                              right the bulldozer do have strong parts. and they need so much cache because they need to hold so many queries for the core pipes, you need the double in query just because its a 8core instead of a 4 core CPU.

                              if you double the logical cores you need a double cache..

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                                Even with the P4 it did out perform the P3 in most areas, the same cannot be said about BD. The P4 just did not match the competition.
                                That is just wrong. The P4 didn't outperform the P3 (let alone Athlon) in most areas when it came out. When it did outperform the P3 (1GHz) it was by a small margin, and not what would be expected by a chip with 50% higher clock rates and a new architecture. Ok, in synthetic memory bandwidth tests it beat the crap out of everything else at the time, but that was it. The P4 was exactly in the same situation as Bulldozer is in right now. In some very few tests it manages to barely beat the competition, but in most cases it falls far behind.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X