Bulldozer is out and it sucks

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

  1. Posts : 24
    Windows 7 Ultimate X64
       #50

    There certainly should be a fix. It's a new architecture. Windows doesn't know how to handle the Bulldozer yet
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 7,878
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #51

    omegaman7 said:
    There certainly should be a fix. It's a new architecture. Windows doesn't know how to handle the Bulldozer yet
    Typically though, you don't build a processor and then expect that all software vendors and OS vendors are going to sit down and retool their product to work better with your product.

    While I expect that advances in Windows 8 will increase performance on these new processors, I also think that these improvements will also benefit Intel CPU's as well. So, I'm not convinced this is a sure fire win for AMD.

    Not to mention, we are at least a year away from a Windows 8 release. Why would you want to sit back on something for a year in hopes that it performs better when you can invest in something today that does perform better? Build for the present, not the future....that's always been my opinion.
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 24
    Windows 7 Ultimate X64
       #52

    I agree that release was premature. But technology/software needs to advance, or we'll be on the same architecture til the end of time :S
    It's in everybody's best interest, to redesign coding/OS's for new hardware.
    Besides, 8 Cores in X264, with a healthy overclock is rather tempting(Unless you already have 1090t/1100t). E.g. I'm sure they had their sites on a particular market with these CPU's. Perhaps not encoders, but certainly people that can make use of 8 threads. If I were a software engineer, I'd be looking very closely at this CPU.

    Applications need to start supporting more than 2 cores. I can only think of a handful that support 4 let alone 8. That's not right when you think about it eh?
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 7,878
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #53

    At the end of the day, i don't think the Bulldozer is a terrible chip. However, with all of the fanfare and promises and everything else....it didn't even come close to expectations. AMD fans can back peddle all they want, but this isn't the chip that they have been preaching to us as the Intel killer.

    As far as 8 cores in X264 with a healthy overclock, if you have seen the power consumption numbers...I'm not sure I would even want that rig.

    True multi-core apps are not over abundant. no doubt about that. Hence reason I think Intel has been wise to stick to making the most of quad core CPU's for the most part.

    The last AMD cpu I owned was an Athlon 64 x2 4400+. This chip was far superior in it's day to anything Intel had. Since the release of the Core 2 Duo, I haven't even looked at or considered an AMD setup. The Bulldozer has not changed my opinion whatsoever on this topic.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 24
    Windows 7 Ultimate X64
       #54

    I've seen the power consumption reports. I don't factor stuff like that, provided it isn't TOO extreme. The electrical bill will be negligible at the end of the month. And the heat, that can be dealt with with proper cooling.
    I'm a neutral party by the way. I just like two companies that compete with each other. The consumer wins

    I believe people are certainly into the higher number of cores. Looks like places are selling out quickly. Perhaps they don't read review sites. Their loss for sure
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 7,878
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #55

    omegaman7 said:
    I've seen the power consumption reports. I don't factor stuff like that, provided it isn't TOO extreme. The electrical bill will be negligible at the end of the month.
    Well, considering that the overclocked AMD is chewing up 452 watts and the overclocked Intel 2600K is 275 watts, I'd call that pretty extreme. It's almost 2x the power. If the CPU's perform roughly the same..(and they do...if not the Intel being faster)...why would I want the one that will cost me 2x as much to run. It just doesn't make sense.


    omegaman7 said:
    I believe people are certainly into the higher number of cores. Looks like places are selling out quickly. Perhaps they don't read review sites. Their loss for sure
    Yeah, people always buy into the more is better philosophy. Lots of people had high hopes for this CPU, and they are simply going forward with it. That would explain alot of the sales, I'm sure. Lots of people "Think" they multitask a ton and really need all of these cores. Sadly, they don't...but they don't realize it.
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 5,941
    Linux CENTOS 7 / various Windows OS'es and servers
       #56

    Hi all
    Apart from inveterate gamers I can't think of ANY app that a normal user would be running that would even need a FRACTION of some of the compute power we are talking about here.

    I'm quite a large user of COMPLEX Engineering type spreadsheets and usually even a relatively modest netbook will suffice.

    Enough RAM to run sufficient concurrent applications and enough compute power to run a few VM's is all I need and I'm sure that goes for about 99% of typical users.

    I'm struggling to find an application (excluding gaming) that a HOME user would need an 8 Core CPU for!!!

    Scientific / Laboratory / Military uses are different so compute power will continue to increase -- and I suppose eventually when we have decent holographic projection which will replace the rather anaemic 3D Video we are currently saddled with then I agree a MASSIVE increase in compute power will be needed but I suspect this type of component will be built in to a dedicated device rather than a "Laptop".

    Cheers
    jimbo
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 24
    Windows 7 Ultimate X64
       #57

    I believe Apophysis supports 8 cores. X264 I'm uncertain what it's limits are. But I believe it'll bring even bulldozer to its knees. And then there are of course benchmark suites that will no doubt utilize the cores. But of course benchmarking is only a select number of people
    I have a lot of patience, but I sure am seriously curious just how much Windows 8 will address this new cpu. And surely Microsoft will update windows 7 in this area.
    I'll be building in february. Tax return time The next 4 months I'll be researching a great deal. Perhaps a revised chip will be out by then.
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 7,878
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #58

    jimbo45 said:
    I'm struggling to find an application (excluding gaming) that a HOME user would need an 8 Core CPU for!!!
    Games don't need 8 cores. The overwhelming majority of games don't even use 4 cores. It's usually best to go with a higher clock speed dual core over a slower clock speed quad core.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 4,517
    Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
       #59

    Well, x264 can be quite demanding.
    Especially if you use higher settings to obtain higher quality results, slows it down a lot. Dowsizing 1080 --> 720P, De-Interlacing etc all add into that as well.


    From the tests Ive seen, it doesnt look like Bulldozer fairs all that well with a conversion of Bluray/DTS --> x264 AC3.
    It still struggles to keep up with a i2600k.
    In fact, from the ones Ive seen, the Phenom x6 actually beats it by a few FPS.

    I would think, in a multithereaded application like this, the Bulldozers 8 cores should make the Intel Quads look silly. But that doesnt seem to be the case.
    Not sure why exactly.
      My Computer


 
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09.
Find Us