grandpatzer
Gawd
- 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.
I really hope my 960t will unlock and OC to ~4ghz.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AVP benchmarks Tomorrow! ^^
I'm sure people living near equator and down to south will appreciate this "feature".^^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.
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
Cry trolls.
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.
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.
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.
Cry trolls.
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];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.
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.
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.
You've must of overdosed on AMD Koolaid if you think they're gonna release Piledriver on time as in THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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
It must rain a lot where you live.
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
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.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.