Bulldozer B3 Stepping in Work

Not really. This platform is really buggy and to tell you the truth I didn't know a processor could be buggy. I'm using all of my patience to try and make this crap stable, but I don't really think it's possible. It needs a complete revamp or a miracle bios or driver.
 
I wonder if this new stepping will slightly increase performance and they need to fix the massive power consumption.
 
that's nice, may look at BD/AM3+(or AM4) in 6 to 9 months when new chips surface.
i thought 'piledriver' was supposed to be released sometime next year?

in any case, whether its new stepping or new core, it's too long for me to wait on a better performing BD system. think i'll be dumping AM3+ (asus chv) on fleabay or in the forums.
 
aphasia said:
that's nice, may look at BD/AM3+(or AM4) in 6 to 9 months when new chips surface.
i thought 'piledriver' was supposed to be released sometime next year?

in any case, whether its new stepping or new core, it's too long for me to wait on a better performing BD system. think i'll be dumping AM3+ (asus chv) on fleabay or in the forums.
Click to expand...

a newer phenom 2 would drop into a 990 board and with an overclock out perform your sig rig.
 
is it buggy and not stable because they are trying to make new architecure work with old motherboard chipsets / sockets (AM3)
 
buttons said:
is it buggy and not stable because they are trying to make new architecure work with old motherboard chipsets / sockets (AM3)
Click to expand...
NO. Take a look at all the reviews. All the reviews were done with AM3+ motherboards and approved bios. Even AMD signed off on using the Asus Crosshair V mobo for reviews and included it in the press kits.
 
Scrap BD and just tweak a phenom II and juice it up a bit few tweaks
An 8 core PhII would thump the FX 8 processors

FX design is flawed and simply not up to par dump it
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
NO. Take a look at all the reviews. All the reviews were done with AM3+ motherboards and approved bios. Even AMD signed off on using the Asus Crosshair V mobo for reviews and included it in the press kits.
Click to expand...

I think he means that it may have been more stable if AMD design its own socket... instead of keeping backward compatibility
 
stealthy123 said:
a newer phenom 2 would drop into a 990 board and with an overclock out perform your sig rig.
Click to expand...

i would hope a relatively new revision of deneb/thuban would OC and perform better than a 4+ year old chip. tho it's not by much.

i bought a PII555 for shits and giggles & to have a play with the Asus CHV 990 before BD arrived so i have an idea of the performance. i ran a few benchmarks on the q6600 @3.7 and compared it to the unlocked 4core 555 @4.2 and there was nothing in it. the scores were almost identical (+/- 1 or 2%). that was fine for some laughs but cannot be considered a upgrade. i was really waiting on BD to bring big gains over my old q6600 which it doesn't
i'd like my new hardware to remain relevant for last 3 to 4years, my q6600 @ 3.7 did tho may have been a bit spoiled on that one. in 12 months and 1100T or 8150FX will be hopelessly out classed.


buttons said:
is it buggy and not stable because they are trying to make new architecure work with old motherboard chipsets / sockets (AM3)
Click to expand...

i played the waiting game when i bought the asus MB in july/august. not going to sit on a PII555 for 6 to 9months or whenever AMD gets a chip revision out. the best we can hope for is slightly reduced power usage and a little more OC headroom.
if AMD had released a less thirsty chip that didn't beaten in single threaded applications buy it's pervious gen CPU, i'd consider getting a BD.

Mr Spocko said:
Scrap BD and just tweak a phenom II and juice it up a bit few tweaks
An 8 core PhII would thump the FX 8 processors

FX design is flawed and simply not up to par dump it
Click to expand...

have to agree with this. tho the current incarnation of BD is flawed, i wouldn't be surprised if intel copied it in some way in the future, minus the poor single threaded performance and large power draw that is.
 
Yeah an 1100T @ 4.2 would be like a Q6600 around 3.6, with 10-20 percent better FPS overall.

So the 1100T is basically a beast 775 Hexcore chip (That if Intel made would cost 600+) Yet this has the 200.00 or less AMD price ;)

The main benefit is 2 extra cores with OC'd Q6600 performance for a better price than about any 775 CPU's you can find these days (NIB), they're hard to find for a reasonable/low price. (That's why I ditched my 775 system with my old E6600 dual core CPU, nothing reasonably priced to upgrade to, so I went with the AMD AM3 platform.)

Lets face it. IF your gaming 1080p or + res with High/Ultra settings. Almost every benchmark becomes CPU limited, so having 6 cores like the 1100T and 1 or 2 high end graphics cards (current gen or next gen) might actually last longer than you think when it comes to high res / high end gaming. IMHO 1100T is sound upgrade as long as your primary goals are HIGH res gaming and video encoding, web browsing etc. Good affordable chip. Great AMD price.
 
Mr Spocko said:
Scrap BD and just tweak a phenom II and juice it up a bit few tweaks
An 8 core PhII would thump the FX 8 processors

FX design is flawed and simply not up to par dump it
Click to expand...

You know nothing of semiconductor design. What you are suggesting is simply not possible. Piledriver would be out before an eight core Phenom at 32nm could be completed. Do you know how much it costs to even make the wafer mask?
 
malih said:
I think he means that it may have been more stable if AMD design its own socket... instead of keeping backward compatibility
Click to expand...

Exactly, I am not talking about performance at all -- but the stability/crashing issues people are having. I suspect it has to be a little difficult to make pre-existing systems work with a chip that should of had its own socket -- but im just speculating.
 
Poisoner said:
You know nothing of semiconductor design. What you are suggesting is simply not possible. Piledriver would be out before an eight core Phenom at 32nm could be completed. Do you know how much it costs to even make the wafer mask?
Click to expand...

about tree-fiddy? $3.50?
 
Poisoner said:
You know nothing of semiconductor design. What you are suggesting is simply not possible. Piledriver would be out before an eight core Phenom at 32nm could be completed. Do you know how much it costs to even make the wafer mask?
Click to expand...

I can't make up for AMD's blunder on this one.
They should have been well aware of the problems with the chip design of FX and it's application with the software people use "now"

Have a read of this:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...sappointing-debut.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

IMO it's highly undesirable to have a long pipeline and trying to ramp clock speed to improve performance, as it was they couldn't keep the clock speeds high enough. We've also got issues of shared resources so it's really best to ignore FX as an 8, 6, 4 core processor because the 8 core is really a 4 core but unfortunate for AMD Intel have far better 4 core performance, much lower thermals, far better overclocking.

Even pushing FX hard overclocking the performance simply is not there for most normal applications. You can't possibly defend a new design CPU that manages to underperform even v the older PhII's and Ath II processors.

I like AMD but I'm not blind to what is going on. It's the wrong design choice and they screwed up badly. Do you know nothing of processor design and what the goals are?

I don't like these put down AMD comments anymore than anyone else but I can't really argue with them

"EPIC FAIL" is about the most haunting and sadly it's actually true. AMD are going to really struggle with this even more so with Ivy Bridge which will have far lower power consumption, far better performance and will be a much more appealing option for buyers. You can't polish a turd my friend..
 
LOL! ^

I want to see the first gen Athlon X2 benched against a FX 4100 with 1 module disabled and see who comes out a winner now!!

Seriously though, no way in hell should have AMD released this version of BD to the public!

But really the icing on the cake is the slapping on of the the FX /moniker tag...Maybe they wanted to prove it performed at the same level as the old FX from 2003 per core IPC?

WOWZERS! AMD is gettin crazy lol!
 
The Athlon X2 would win no question about it. One BD module can't match the performance of two real cores.

This is a real problem for them I've just build a 3.2Ghz Athlon II x2 and it's twice as fast as the old Athlon 64 x2 4200 and uses less power as well. It cost a lot less than the 4200 did back then too a lot less. That's progress things get better. That's just a pc I made for my son so that's plenty fast enough for him and it's far from sloppy for most users. It was good value which is what AMD should be like

Right now if you were using an Athlon II x2 and wanted to update even if you had an FX ready board the Athlon II or Phenom II quad cores are much more appealing than a 4 core FX

If you have a quad core AMD the 6 core FX is not really as good as it should be get a 1090T no question a far better buy

And if you're crazy enough to lash out on the 8 core version you are not getting very good value at all
If you have nothing and start from scratch and you want a good performance pc you'd simply buy a 2500k and be done with it or maybe even one of the slightly lower down models.

Fail all around even for AMD upgraders FX is not attractive it's the original Phenom all over too toasty and not enough performance, poorly priced
 
2 Billion transistors and it can't keep up with 700 million transistor CPUs.

This tells me there is a lot of room for improvement.
 
phenom 2 are just about equal clock for clock with core 2.

not sure where anyone else got their info that core 2 vastly outperforms phenom 2 clock for clock, because it doesn't.
 
aphasia said:
\

i bought a PII555 for shits and giggles & to have a play with the Asus CHV 990 before BD arrived so i have an idea of the performance. i ran a few benchmarks on the q6600 @3.7 and compared it to the unlocked 4core 555 @4.2 and there was nothing in it. the scores were almost identical (+/- 1 or 2%). that was fine for some laughs but cannot be considered a upgrade. i was really waiting on BD to bring big gains over my old q6600 which it doesn't
Click to expand...

I am going to go ahead and call this out as BS.

a 4.2 ghz phenom 2 quad does not perform within plus or minus 2 percent of a 3.7 core 2 quad.

It's great and all that you are pissed off about Bulldozer, don't make up stupid shit to make it worse.
 
stealthy123 said:
I am going to go ahead and call this out as BS.

a 4.2 ghz phenom 2 quad does not perform within plus or minus 2 percent of a 3.7 core 2 quad.

It's great and all that you are pissed off about Bulldozer, don't make up stupid shit to make it worse.
Click to expand...

Wow

AMD Phenom x6 1090T 3,2 GHZ VS Intel Q6600 2,4@3,2 Clash of my Gaming Rigs 3DMark Vantage with 5870

Scores

1090t @ 3.2 Q6600 @ 3.2
Overall
H -- -- = 12,158 ------ H = 10,271
GPU = 11,729 ----GPU = 10,552
CPU = 15,341 ---- CPU = 8,924
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top