Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 with OC'd 6990 Review - First Results Up!

Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
641
Seems like a thuban x6@4ghz is ~7% less performance compared to Bulldozer.

I really hope my 960t will unlock and OC to ~4ghz.
 

OmegaSupreme

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
279
AVP benchmarks Tomorrow! ^^

Nice write up. I know all the intel fanboys have been dogging BD since it came out, even though performance wasn't as promised, it's not as bad as some would lead you to believe.

It seems as though it's performance is very similar to a 2500k for the most. And then takes the lead in heavily multithreaded apps.

At any rate, Poly, some other benches to consider Far Cry 2 (just set it all to max and let it fly), the witcher 2 on Ultra settings surprisingly taxing even though its DX9.

And just for shits and giggles, you should bench Crysis also. :p
 

bastage

Pics of your wife?
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
12,859
Bd is getting the same kinda love as the 5830 did. Doesn't matter what changes, outta got the rap, andpeople will not look past it no matter what good it does later.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
People knock BD, but the truth is it rocks for BF3. Their CPU design with the BF3 Frostbite 2.0 game engine does better than people want to give it credit for. And if BF3 is any indicator of the future of DX 11 PC games, BD poses an intriguing solution. Especially when the revisions come. ;)

A DX 11 game like BF3 is optimized for Floating point calculations performance spread out on more than 4 cores, and proves not as optimal for Intels 4 core + HT design. The integer performance advantage of the 2500k/2600k/2700k is not as pronounced because, the BF3 frostbite engine IS designed to take advantage of more than 4 cores.

The weaker integer performance of BD seems to help SB in the matter of games designed for 2 CORES ex. Starcraft 2 and Skyrim.

But when stacked up with the amazing FP advantage of BD with an DX 11 engine like Frostbite designed for the future, it pays off for AMD.

7108ld.png


BD does great job with floating point and Prime calculations, and it's shared floating point cpu design is better than the Phenom II's.

The 1100T has better Floating Point Performance than a SB CPU also.

Obviously BF3 likes Floating Performance. The shared design is also an advantage here.

amd-bulldozer-design.jpg


Cry trolls.
 

jreinlie4

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
321
^^This^^
Unfortunately, their argument is that most games today do not perform like BF3. BD is a wild animal and needs the software to tame it. When tamed it can be a powerful CPU, AND heat your house in the winter.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,926

The above graph actually shows one of the major weaknesses of the bulldozer cores. The CPU Int benchmark is a big problem since integer instructions are used way more frequently than floating point in many applications. Losing by this much to a 4 core / 4 threaded processor is inexcusable

amd-bulldozer-design.jpg


Now since the BD is putting up a bad showing in the Integer part of the cores (previous graph) the "Two Strong Threads" pic reminds me of Phenom I marketing when Phenom I was losing all benchmarks and AMD kept talking about "monolithic quad core" and how much better that was than Intels 2 die core2. As an AMD fanboy at the time this was the straw the broke the camels back for me. No longer was I going to purchase 100% of my desktops / servers at work with AMD processors.
 
Last edited:

Acer_Sheep

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,201
^^This^^
Unfortunately, their argument is that most games today do not perform like BF3. BD is a wild animal and needs the software to tame it. When tamed it can be a powerful CPU, AND heat your house in the winter.
I'm sure people living near equator and down to south will appreciate this "feature".
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
This graph actually shows one of the major weaknesses of the bulldozer cores. The CPU Int benchmark is a big problem since integer instructions are used way more frequently than floating point in many applications. Loosing by this much to a 4 core / 4 threaded processor is inexcusable

The main reason they lose is because the majority of game engines are coded for 2 threads/CPU's.

1zn7mtl.png


So yeah Dual Cores are still the MAJORITY when it comes to peoples PC's. Just look at any Steam Hardware Survey. Dual Core PC owners outnumber even Quad Core PC owners 46 percent to 44.5 percent! It's 2012 and this is what people rock in their Steam gaming RIG?!! It's ok though 2012 is the year of Quad COre+ CPU's in peoples Steam RIGS!! YES! Yet I find The XBOX360 rocks a Tripe Core CPU, I find it hilariously depressing the average 360 owners CPU is more advanced than the average Steam users CPU! Haha we stupid majority of PC gamers are slow to change I guess.

This is also why you see Intel putting out i3's they know their main advantage to selling CPU's is Integer performance. They have to hype it for today and make profit now, forget longevity. And they can only milk that cow for so long, so they're in on it now. AMD is beyond Intel in this point, they only put out 4 cores or higher in 2012. They know where the future is. BF3 though is a rare game, but it is the FUTURE. Luckily Quad Core CPU's are taking off with BD FX CPU's whole CPU lineup is 4 cores and up, the 2500k/2600k/2700k helps also to get people into buying higher core count CPU's, and ditching their dual cores.

The i3's are gonna hold PC game makers back if that design becomes popular, and in this economy it just might lol! Look at Skyrim and SC 2 their FPS level cap is low. WHY? Because they run limited slightly modified game engine's they've been milking for almost a decade (DX 9 games) DX 9 I read was released in 2002! It's 2012!!! Oh snap! Those are some of the 2 biggest game franchises and they are built for Dual Cores on DX9 modified 10 year old API.

That's why Blizzard and Bethseda tick me off sometimes, all that money they make off of PC game buyers like me and everyone else who loves their games, and all they can crank out is Dual Core optimized game engines...sheesh! This is why I like Valve and DICE, at least their engines can take advantage of 3+ cores, and give us higher frames per second in games WITH higher game resolutions than consoles can.

It's the problem with being an enthusiast, the masses still haven't caught up to even Quad Core CPU's. Let alone AMD 8 Core Bulldozers. Give it another year or two. Bulldzozer design will really shine when the Dual Cores are dead, you will see ALL modern (serious game) game engines move to multi-threaded design like BF3. It's just going to take time is all. When Quad, Hex and Octo is mainstream the PC platform will be amazing for gamers again imo. Right now the future is just starting. You can hold it back or speed it up, it's your choice.
 

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
Wow, the cool-aid they've been making is getting stronger and stronger by the week!
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,714
AMD is for fite.

*lol*

Actually after I could finally play my Steam Library, this 8120 isn't bad at all. I don't lose in BF3 or SWTOR because my PC is running like crap and the game is unresponsive. I can open a bunch of things at once and still play my games while FRAPS is running.

My next upgrade will be a new video card; unsure what to get. I don't feel as if I need to upgrade my CPU because everything works. And works great. Now maybe an Intel system would be even faster, but there's no complaints from me about this one since the Steam issue was fixed.

Now this thing is a heater literally. It will heat my room to ridiculous temps. I am forced to clean my PC regularly as any amount of dust will shoot my components inside my case to nuclear meltdown temperatures. The labels on my video cards have peeled off before and one memory stick's pads no longer stick to the ram chips. NC is so dusty with these farmers!

Besides the heat issues, no complaints. Can't wait to see how it scales when the newest Nvidia GPU comes out. I'm still wary of AMD video card drivers.







*
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,893
7108ld.png


Cry trolls.

Do you play a lot of Passmark Floating Point Tests?

The truth is this.

Each BD core loses to a SB core by almost 65% at the same clock when single threaded. Stock it is slightly less, as the FX-8150's turbo is 4.2ghz, but the 2500K is only 3.7. Typical overclocks for BD are 4.5-4.6Ghz (OP seems to have his up to 4.8, but that is not typical at all). Typical 2500K overclocks are the same, ~4.5-4.6ghz.

So a 65% deficit core to core it is.

In some applications BD can make up for this deficit through its higher core count. In most applications it can't.

This makes owning BD an highly unpredictable experiment. Some games (BF3) may play great. Others (ARMA II, RO2) may play like absolute crap. Some applications may run superbly (Encoding/Rendering) others may not.

If - instead - you get a cheaper 2500K you get something that is consistent. it just works in every application you throw at it, and outperforms BD by a good margin in the vast majority of them.

I guess my point is this: There are a good deal of things you can't do with BD because its single threaded performance is so poor. There are very few things you can't do with the 2500K due to it having too few cores.

Multithreading may be the future, but this is by necessity, not because it is somehow a better solution. AMD is simply ratcheting up the core count because they are unable to compete on core for core performance. The problem here is that the software world just isnt ready for them yet. We are starting to see a few things here and there that are well coded for many-core CPU's, but this is still the vast minority of software.

Maybe in 2-3 years time we will all have very good multi-threaded applications, but by then the FX-8150 will no longer matter, as it will be obsolete and replaced with something new.

We need CPU's that work for the software landscape we find ourselves in TODAY, not something that might turn out to work well across the board in a few years.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
52
Just some food for thought,the people that make up these forums and own intel or amd cpu's make up a very,very very small % of people these company's sell to.this post makes it sound like AMD is on the way out because BD failed,but in reallity the mass's could care less as long as it works for them.Most consumer's arent power user's as long as it work thats all they care about and AMD works.Anyway looking forward to play:)off's...................
 

SonDa5

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
7,425
my memory clocks are not at 1600, those numbers are way off. My GPU clock isnt 250 Mhz either heh. Im running at 2175 Mhz.


So CPUZ isn't reading your speeds correctly?
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
People knock BD, but the truth is it rocks for BF3. Their CPU design with the BF3 Frostbite 2.0 game engine does better than people want to give it credit for. And if BF3 is any indicator of the future of DX 11 PC games, BD poses an intriguing solution. Especially when the revisions come. ;)

A DX 11 game like BF3 is optimized for Floating point calculations performance spread out on more than 4 cores, and proves not as optimal for Intels 4 core + HT design. The integer performance advantage of the 2500k/2600k/2700k is not as pronounced because, the BF3 frostbite engine IS designed to take advantage of more than 4 cores.

The weaker integer performance of BD seems to help SB in the matter of games designed for 2 CORES ex. Starcraft 2 and Skyrim.

But when stacked up with the amazing FP advantage of BD with an DX 11 engine like Frostbite designed for the future, it pays off for AMD.

7108ld.png


BD does great job with floating point and Prime calculations, and it's shared floating point cpu design is better than the Phenom II's.

The 1100T has better Floating Point Performance than a SB CPU also.

Obviously BF3 likes Floating Performance. The shared design is also an advantage here.

amd-bulldozer-design.jpg


Cry trolls.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...Quad-Core-Sandy-Bridge-E-under-300/Render-Tes

Aww it gets raped in multithreaded apps even more than in single!

It's like making a car designed to use electricity in the 1800's, what's the point? In the future, when things such as multithreaded games are actually gonna exist, Intel will have made a CPU that is even better(Although they already did that with socket 2011). AMD will make a better one as well, bulldozer just has nothing going for it really except for current AMD users who really don't wanna switch motherboards.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Zarathustra[H];1038230180 said:
Maybe in 2-3 years time we will all have very good multi-threaded applications, but by then the FX-8150 will no longer matter, as it will be obsolete and replaced with something new.

Yes but look at how long some people held onto their Q6600's.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,893
Yes but look at how long some people held onto their Q6600's.

Some people do silly things.

It's more cost effective to by a medium range CPU (or video card for that matter) and upgrade more frequently.

It will cost less long term, and average performance will be higher over the long term as well.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Zarathustra[H];1038235053 said:
Some people do silly things.

It's more cost effective to by a medium range CPU (or video card for that matter) and upgrade more frequently.

It will cost less long term, and average performance will be higher over the long term as well.

Do you know what i'm saying? ...hmm I'm saying look. The FX 8 cores have been out what 2-3 months? A Q6600 lasted people around 4 years, some still run them on this very forums TODAY, so some people on this forums run obsolete hardware here just like you stated, lol! I'd say an FX 8 core OC'd can last easily 3 years for a hardcore PC gamer. It does amazing with BF3, and when is the next BF3 killer coming along? Valve nope, they have CSGO DX9+. ID has Doom 4 built on the RaGE engine, so nope. Far Cry 3...looks like Far Cry 2 engine, nope. CryEngine 3 it handles fine. I mean that CPU design can last AMD 5 years easily at the rate of the PC gaming Industry! The next cutting edge engine should be the next Unreal Engine 3, and I see it running it easily.

I see myself getting the Piledriver core with an AM3+ board by the end of the year, I really think it is that good of a CPU DESIGN! So FX is going to stick around, and Piledriver won't see the light of day till Q3 or Q4 this year I read. So BD FX will be all you see from AMD when it comes to high end benching. You can obviously hate it, that's your prerogative. I don't see a reason to hate a CPU that smoothly plays every PC game you can find as long as you match it up with a set of good GPU(s).

Just because it doesn't bench the top score every test is no reason to hate an interestingly designed CPU, that runs DX11 games SMOOTHLY. Your lucky you have something you keep posting about I think. And it's called...! AMD CPU's! ;)
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Zarathustra also remember that AMD says it’s on a cadence to produce a new version of the Bulldozer core every year.

Every year should be more exciting/faster than the last from AMD , and it is a different model than Intels Tick Tock.

fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer,L-N-310523-13.jpg
 

dac7nco

n00b
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
10
Zarathustra also remember that AMD says it’s on a cadence to produce a new version of the Bulldozer core every year.

Every year should be more exciting/faster than the last from AMD , and it is a different model than Intels Tick Tock.

fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer,L-N-310523-13.jpg

They meant to say every 4-5 years. I don't actually believe AMD intends to compete is this space anymore... which they don't compete in now.

Daimon
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
They meant to say every 4-5 years. I don't actually believe AMD intends to compete is this space anymore... which they don't compete in now.

Daimon

No they didn't, you want me to get the Tom's Hardware article when BD was launched? And baby feed you today Mr. Troll?

Pile Driver comes out later this year (2012) duh. Then Steamroller in 2013. Then Excavator in 2014.

Cry moar.
 

mzs_biteme

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2001
Messages
1,595
No they didn't, you want me to get the Tom's Hardware article when BD was launched? And baby feed you today Mr. Troll?

Pile Driver comes out later this year (2012) duh. Then Steamroller in 2013. Then Excavator in 2014.

Cry moar.

You've must of overdosed on AMD Koolaid if you think they're gonna release Piledriver on time as in THIS YEAR!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,893
You've must of overdosed on AMD Koolaid if you think they're gonna release Piledriver on time as in THIS YEAR!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Even if they do release on time, they are only promising a 10% to 15% increase per year.

At this rate, its 3-5 years until they catch up with where Intel's per core speed is today.

I wonder where Intel will be by then.. :rolleyes:

I love AMD to death, but they are going to have to do better than this if they want to stay relevant...
 

dac7nco

n00b
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
10
No they didn't, you want me to get the Tom's Hardware article when BD was launched? And baby feed you today Mr. Troll?

Pile Driver comes out later this year (2012) duh. Then Steamroller in 2013. Then Excavator in 2014.

Cry moar.

I wasn't being snarky. AMD has a miraculous amount of work to do if they want IPC at the same clocks and transistor count as any Intel CPU, from top to bottom. Do you think the E-350 hurt Atom??? Wait until next year. IMO, they're screwed, and they know it. Marketing fluff about "not competing with Intel" means "God help us". Intel fell asleep once, with Netburst. There isn't much of a chance of it happening twice in ten years.

Daimon
 

Mr34727

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
3,989
Nice write-up OP.

I think a lot of people are missing the point here.

"Well SB is still better!"

Yeah, no sh!t.

The point is, all initial benchmarks made BD out to be a bloated pig. What this shows is that it trades blows. Sure, I own a 2600k, not a BD. Intel won this round. But they are in the same ring- which I think is what the OP was getting at. For those who already have an AM3 board, going BD will be cheaper and less hassle, and they really won't be missing out on too much. I'd bet a lot of people who buy them are students- aka: don't pay for power, so thats a non-issue.

I think AMD has a good start here with this architecture. Let it mature, bring yield success up and therefore lower prices, I'll bet it will be a good product in the next release.

I encode video and play SC2- so basically, I just look at H264 benchmarks. In the next release, lets see what the architecture has to offer.
 

mzs_biteme

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2001
Messages
1,595
What AMD is gotto concentrate on is getting their (GloFo's) yields up first, and perfect the process they have now... Without a solid process, and good yields, their not even gonna bother with PD this year... If they do, it's be ANOTHER miserable flop, and they definitely can't afford that... But I guess teletuby8 is amongst those who really know what AMD can or cannot do, so we shall listen.......just like we did to AMD_Gamer....:eek::cool::D
 

Acer_Sheep

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,201
I think the AMD still has a chance, but I really think they should focus more on development, they difinitelly didn't with BD.
 

OmegaSupreme

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
279
How didn't they? They completely changed the architecture type. That in and of itself says a lot. I too hope they can produce better chips and better yields now that they've switched over to TSMC.

Supposedly, it'll run better on win 8 as well.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Zarathustra[H];1038230180 said:
The truth is this.

Each BD core loses to a SB core by almost 65% at the same clock when single threaded.

The truth is DX 11 game engines are obviously not single threaded.

Look at the Alien VS Predator results, this guys AMD 8150 OC with a high end GPU decimates the 980x.

980x = 87.8 FPS MINIMUMS!

8150FX = 122.6 FPS MINIMUM!

Which would you rather play on wiseguy? I'd rather have the 120+ minimums cause I have a 120HZ display.

Did you look at the x264 benches Zarathusua? The 2500k and 8150 are very close when the 2500k is @ 4.2GHz. The 2500k is 22-23 percent faster in the first pass 151 vs 185 fps, and the 8150 is 10-11 percent faster in the more demanding 2nd pass. 48 vs 37 fps.

In 3D mark 11 the 990X from Intel (a thousand dollar 29 CPU) @ 4.4GHz scored 10566 this guys 8150 (269.99 dollar CPU) scored 10318. and a 2600k @ 4.8ghz scored 10,556. that cpu is 300.00-320.00 online @ newegg.

In this guys Passmark bench suite the 2500k only won in the Integer test lol! The 8150 won the other 7 tests in SSE performance, Physics, Prime numbers, FPoint, file compression and encryption, and string sorting.

BD is awesome in DX11. Now you might think SB is awesome because you run DX9 games and DX9 emulators. Which is really the only things SB outperforms BD with at the moment. Have fun playing PS2 games and WOW with your SB I guess.

Leave BF3, AVP, and all other upcoming DX 11 titles to the FX owners with powerful graphics cards.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
32,893
The truth is DX 11 game engines are obviously not single threaded.

Look at the Alien VS Predator results, this guys AMD 8150 OC with a high end GPU decimates the 980x.

980x = 87.8 FPS MINIMUMS!

8150FX = 122.6 FPS MINIMUM!

Which would you rather play on wiseguy? I'd rather have the 120+ minimums cause I have a 120HZ display.

Did you look at the x264 benches Zarathusua? The 2500k and 8150 are very close when the 2500k is @ 4.2GHz. The 2500k is 22-23 percent faster in the first pass 151 vs 185 fps, and the 8150 is 10-11 percent faster in the more demanding 2nd pass. 48 vs 37 fps.

In 3D mark 11 the 990X from Intel (a thousand dollar 29 CPU) @ 4.4GHz scored 10566 this guys 8150 (269.99 dollar CPU) scored 10318. and a 2600k @ 4.8ghz scored 10,556. that cpu is 300.00-320.00 online @ newegg.

In this guys Passmark bench suite the 2500k only won in the Integer test lol! The 8150 won the other 7 tests in SSE performance, Physics, Prime numbers, FPoint, file compression and encryption, and string sorting.

BD is awesome in DX11. Now you might think SB is awesome because you run DX9 games and DX9 emulators. Which is really the only things SB outperforms BD with at the moment. Have fun playing PS2 games and WOW with your SB I guess.

Leave BF3, AVP, and all other upcoming DX 11 titles to the FX owners with powerful graphics cards.

Theoretical and canned benchmarks don't mean shit. It's not even worth running 3D Mark (except for the demo mode, cause it's pretty.

So you found two games the BD architecture is competitive in? Congrats. Wake me when it plays everything else well, like a SB core, or even an overclocked Over 3 year old core i7-920. It wouldn't even have to keep up with Intel to make me interested. It would just have to be fast enough that I wouldn't be CPU limited at 60fps in any title. That's currently far from where it is.

We know that BD performs well in encoding and rendering jobs. If that's what you primarily do, then yes, an 8core BD can be good buy, as long as none of the other things you do/games you play rely on good single threaded performance.

It all keeps coming back to that BD excels at a few tasks and a couple of games for it's price, but then sucks at others whereas a similarly priced 2500k does well at pretty much everything.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
Zarathustra[H];1038237354 said:
Theoretical and canned benchmarks don't mean shit. It's not even worth running 3D Mark (except for the demo mode, cause it's pretty.

So you found two games the BD architecture is competitive in? Congrats. Wake me when it plays everything else well, like a SB core, or even an overclocked Over 3 year old core i7-920. It wouldn't even have to keep up with Intel to make me interested. It would just have to be fast enough that I wouldn't be CPU limited at 60fps in any title. That's currently far from where it is.

We know that BD performs well in encoding and rendering jobs. If that's what you primarily do, then yes, an 8core BD can be good buy, as long as none of the other things you do/games you play rely on good single threaded performance.

It all keeps coming back to that BD excels at a few tasks and a couple of games for it's price, but then sucks at others whereas a similarly priced 2500k does well at pretty much everything.


You could just get an i7 3820 which will cost ~$285 and beats it in every single multithreaded app. (I posted the review on the last page)

teletran8, if AMD released a Pentium I at 200mhz you would fap all over that. You yell at Intel fanboys, yet you are the worst AMD fanboy on this forum, even worse than AMDGamer.
 

That's_Corporate

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,738
i think AMD did something rare, and special with bulldozer - they made a piece of hardware that can be considered at least partially future-proof

it looks to be developed for where the computing landscape will be in the future, not the present. which is smart i think. what's the saying? "skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it is"?

i think they knew that their reputation would get torn to shreds shortly after release, but they're putting all their eggs in the archetecture blossoming in the future as 8+ threaded applications become dominant (akin to where 64-bit stuff was a while ago)

if that is indeed what they were going for, i'd say that takes guts as a company. mostly because it could sink them if the negativity after release is too strong, and pushed away too many customers. but i don't think that's the case.
 

dac7nco

n00b
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
10
i think AMD did something rare, and special with bulldozer - they made a piece of hardware that can be considered at least partially future-proof

What AMD did was suicidal. There is absolutely nothing in Bulldozer they did on purpose. If they had released a 32nm Phenom-II x8 with mild 5% improvements to IPC they would've had something future-proof. What they released is generally slower that a 2500K, with freakish power consumption. There is a reason the 12-core 2.2GHz Magny-Cours Opterons are so much more expensive than the higher-clocked 16-core Interlagos... because, unfortunately, Bulldozer is dreadful.

Daimon
 

jreinlie4

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
321
What AMD did was suicidal. There is absolutely nothing in Bulldozer they did on purpose. If they had released a 32nm Phenom-II x8 with mild 5% improvements to IPC they would've had something future-proof. What they released is generally slower that a 2500K, with freakish power consumption. There is a reason the 12-core 2.2GHz Magny-Cours Opterons are so much more expensive than the higher-clocked 16-core Interlagos... because, unfortunately, Bulldozer is dreadful.

Daimon

It must rain a lot where you live.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,505
What AMD did was suicidal. There is absolutely nothing in Bulldozer they did on purpose. If they had released a 32nm Phenom-II x8 with mild 5% improvements to IPC they would've had something future-proof. What they released is generally slower that a 2500K, with freakish power consumption. There is a reason the 12-core 2.2GHz Magny-Cours Opterons are so much more expensive than the higher-clocked 16-core Interlagos... because, unfortunately, Bulldozer is dreadful.

Daimon

Sure....

They're totally going to throw 3+ years of R&D plus untolds amount of money down the drain, and attempt to make a 32 nm Phenom II x8 based on Thuban/Deneb, because Global Foundries 8 32nm manufacturing process is just downright terrible. Makes total sense to me.

Thuban is 45nm, and has somewhere around 950 million transistors. Bulldozer is 32nm, and has 1.2 billion transistors. Somehow, the 32nm Bulldozer is consuming much more power and creating a lot more heat than Thuban, even though it only has a fraction more transistors, and is clocked similarly. This just screams immature manufacturing tech. Even if they were somehow able to release a 8-core processor using Thuban/Deneb cores, I doubt the situation would be better because of the immature Global Foundries tech.
 

lbj.

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
199
I hope AMD can rebound back somewhat in the next few years, about to start my 16 month co-op with them in May.
 

Acer_Sheep

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
1,201
Sure....

They're totally going to throw 3+ years of R&D plus untolds amount of money down the drain, and attempt to make a 32 nm Phenom II x8 based on Thuban/Deneb, because Global Foundries 8 32nm manufacturing process is just downright terrible. Makes total sense to me.

Thuban is 45nm, and has somewhere around 950 million transistors. Bulldozer is 32nm, and has 1.2 billion transistors. Somehow, the 32nm Bulldozer is consuming much more power and creating a lot more heat than Thuban, even though it only has a fraction more transistors, and is clocked similarly. This just screams immature manufacturing tech. Even if they were somehow able to release a 8-core processor using Thuban/Deneb cores, I doubt the situation would be better because of the immature Global Foundries tech.
The Global Foundries maybe made them wrong and there could be also a reason why they are slower and generating extensive heat, maybe they used bit different materials or something and the electrical properties of CPUs are greatly different. Maybe it's not the architecture itself.

But It's still not well understood why BD was out even, what they thought it will happen? It should be rather delayed or something, because now they did something that just supports the fact i5s are selling like hotcakes.
 
Top