AMD Releases FX-Series Bulldozer Desktop CPUs

[deanjo]

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.

OK we will draw a parallel between P4 and Bulldozer and it is still the exception to the rule rather then the rule. The question is can AMD really afford to have a P4? When do they start considering not killing the x6 line and dropping it down to 32nm and adding functionality to it? This is what intel had to do with their line after the P4 didn't pan out, the difference being is that intel could afford it, I'm not so sure AMD can.

[devius]

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.

[Fenrin]

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.

[liam]

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.

[psycho_driver]

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.

[deanjo]

@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.

[Kano]

@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...

[liam]

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).

[deanjo]

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

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.

[locovaca]

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