Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: AMD Bulldozer Can Reach Up to 4.1GHz with Turbo Core Enabled

30 May 2011   #81
Rhammstein

HP Win7 Pro x64 | Custom Win7 Pro x64
 
 

I agree with your comment in its entirety.

I should probably have elaborated a bit on my previous post, so I'll do that here.

My issues with Intel go back quite some time, before AMD was really even a player. But I was most influenced by a professor, who would take the time to explain many of the things that had happened. Years later I did a lot of research, and I mean, a LOT, concerning Intel's antitrust.

I guess because of the way it was presented to me, and how I was influenced specifically, at time in my life when I was anti-establishment... this affects me in a way perhaps it doesn't others.

But this doesn't digress from the facts, which are that, Intel does produce a better x86 chip, period. There is no denying that. However we know it isnt this simple. An overly simple example would be, would you recommend a 2500K to someone running Chrome OS, who intends to actually use the machine that way, well of course not.

Anyway, what's important; I'm not sure there's anything Intel could have done, directly, to effect Bulldozer/Bobcat, so, if this launch is a failure, it's on AMD. At least, I would think so.

The Phenom II, should have been the original Phenom, but I won't get into that here. It's a long and drawn out process and too hard to prove what Intel may or may not have done, and because they settled out of court, we may never know. It would be nothing but speculation, and while I do take interest in the subject, it's not exactly that, important to me, to defend to such an extent in this forum. Sometimes I wish people could think a little more clear, and not make certain comments or assertions without the awareness necessary for it to be fully clear, understood and informed. It should be able to stand up to critisism. I hope you guys know what I mean by that, it's not to say an opinion isn't worth anything, I've done plenty of this myself in this thread. Speculating.

For what it's worth, if Bulldozer weren't any good, there's no damn way AMD would have settled, not how I see it.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
30 May 2011   #82
cmd187

Debian Squeeze Stable 64-bit
 
 

New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
30 May 2011   #83
Rhammstein

HP Win7 Pro x64 | Custom Win7 Pro x64
 
 

Interesting, if the Phenom II is that amazingly close, I wonder where Bulldozer will wind up... wink wink

But really, I'm actually amazed at how well the AMD Cpu's did there, impressive stuff.

It's funny though, the author of the article makes it sound like Zambezi is months away... I don't get it...? Why in the world would anyone buy a 990FX for a Phenom II, now, and then complain?

Oh toms, I shouldn't be surprised, idiots.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

30 May 2011   #84
cmd187

Debian Squeeze Stable 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Rhammstein View Post
Interesting, if the Phenom II is that amazingly close, I wonder where Bulldozer will wind up... wink wink

But really, I'm actually amazed at how well the AMD Cpu's did there, impressive stuff.
I agree. Still no built in USB 3.0 for the flagship though.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
30 May 2011   #85
essenbe

Windows 10 Pro/ Windows 10 Pro Insider
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cmd187 View Post
New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.
The only issue I will take with that test is the CPU they used. Perhaps performance would have been different had they used a Bulldozer chip against Intel's 2nd gen chip instead of a PhenomII X4.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
30 May 2011   #86
cmd187

Debian Squeeze Stable 64-bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by essenbe View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cmd187 View Post
New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.
The only issue I will take with that test is the CPU they used. Perhaps performance would have been different had they used a Bulldozer chip against Intel's 2nd gen chip instead of a PhenomII X4.
When its out they will, but given the prices its a fair test.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
30 May 2011   #87
Rhammstein

HP Win7 Pro x64 | Custom Win7 Pro x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by essenbe View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by cmd187 View Post
New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.
The only issue I will take with that test is the CPU they used. Perhaps performance would have been different had they used a Bulldozer chip against Intel's 2nd gen chip instead of a PhenomII X4.

Yeah, I think they published either because a lot of people wanted 990FX news, or just for ad click revenue. They should have waited, because they're gonna be do this again, lol, in just a few weeks. The only thing I've taken away from it is that a X4 AMD did pretty good against a damn fine Intel chip. Cool I guess.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
31 May 2011   #88
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18.2 MATE, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 
Depends on where you live

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
But for somebody who is coming into a new box without anything else, I don't see the "massive savings of going the AMD route" as we did years ago. I mean, when I was younger, you used to save $400+ on an AMD rig and it performed 85% as well. Nowadays, there just isn't this big price difference.
Depends on where you live.
My local parts supplier (Adelaide):
Intel i7-980X - $1215
AMD x6 1100T - $268

I seriously doubt that the Intel chip will do 4.5x the work that the AMD does.
For the price of that chip, I could build 2 complete 1100T systems.

The Intel i7-870X ($326) might be a better/closer comparison though.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
31 May 2011   #89
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by lehnerus2000 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
But for somebody who is coming into a new box without anything else, I don't see the "massive savings of going the AMD route" as we did years ago. I mean, when I was younger, you used to save $400+ on an AMD rig and it performed 85% as well. Nowadays, there just isn't this big price difference.
Depends on where you live.
My local parts supplier (Adelaide):
Intel i7-980X - $1215
AMD x6 1100T - $268

I seriously doubt that the Intel chip will do 4.5x the work that the AMD does.
For the price of that chip, I could build 2 complete 1100T systems.

The Intel i7-870X ($326) might be a better/closer comparison though.
The reason that you are seeing the massive price difference is that you are targeting one of the highest end 6 core Intel processor, the Core i7-980X. The highest end Intel chips have always been stupidly expensive.

The point here is that you don't have to have a 6 core Intel to battle a 6 core AMD. A Core i5-2500K which can be had for $224 here (NewEgg), outperforms the 6 core AMD 1100T ($200) in most tests. So, these 2 chips are relatively close in performance, with Intel winning out in this particular benchmark and the price difference is only $24.
PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

As you can see from that chart, here are the relevant PassMark scores
  • Intel 980X = 10,600
  • Core i7-2500K = 7,039
  • AMD 1100T = 6,281

Everything is relative however. If you have an app that you work with heavily and it benefits massively from more physical CPU cores, then the 6 core AMD would be better for you. If on the other hand, you use a collection of apps/games and use your PC for general purpose everyday tasks, the Intel will likely give you the most all around performance. And in this case, the price of these 2 chips is nearly the same. They are within about 10% of each other. Hence the reason I say that AMD doesn't have the massive price difference benefit that it used to have.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
01 Jun 2011   #90
lehnerus2000

W7 Ultimate SP1, LM18.2 MATE, W10 Home, #All 64 bit
 
 
My Bad

Agreed.
You should buy what is required to perform the task that you wish to accomplish.

I was using the other "popular metric", I must buy the top-of-the-line component.

One of my friends asked for advice about new laptops.
He edits videos (occasionally) writes emails when he is on the bus to work and he doesn't play games.

His preferred choice for his new laptop was a $4000+ Sager!

Additional
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
As you can see from that chart, here are the relevant PassMark scores

Intel 980X = 10,600
Core i7-2500K = 7,039
AMD 1100T = 6,281
In the "old days" (when I used to follow technical magazines) processors were rated by MFLOPS.
That measure fell out of favour years ago.
What do those numbers refer to?
Are those linear or exponential values?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 AMD Bulldozer Can Reach Up to 4.1GHz with Turbo Core Enabled




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
how much better is a 3.6 (3.9 turbo) cpu to a single core 3.6?
Read title ^^
Hardware & Devices
Intel core i3 Turbo boost
Hi, I have an core i3 530 processor. Decided to overclock it and went into bios settings and saw turbo boost enabled. Can someone please explain how is this possible, coz i "read" that turbo boost is not available in i3. My motherboard intel dh55pj with latest bios doesnt show the option...
PC Custom Builds and Overclocking
How to keep a specific core idle (AMD Bulldozer)?
I have a program that I want to run on one core of a compute unit (say, core 5), while ensuring that its matching core (core 4) remains halted. That way the program gets full use of the compute unit's shared resources. Whichever core I disable in this way, I can pin my test program to its...
Performance & Maintenance
Intel Core I7 990X @ 7.1Ghz
so yea.. all you need now is Money, a Sub Zero cooling system and a 990X :) crazy stuff..:p b0X9LSLDM6E 7Ghz on Air.. think he means the Air in the Antarctic haha It's out - XtremeSystems Forums
PC Custom Builds and Overclocking
Core i7-2630QM Turbo Boost question...
When using Intel's Turbo Boost monitor, very rarely does it hit the maximum 2.9GHz. Like right now... I'm using Handbrake to convert some videos. All 4 processor cores and all 8 threads are being used. I just noticed that my CPU is over 85C, so I cranked the fan up all the way. Anyway, the...
Hardware & Devices
AMD Announces 8-Core Bulldozer CPU!
All AMD fans rejoice! I've been eagerly waiting on this chip to debut before i built a new system.. awesome! For those in need of info: It will be running on a new motherboard socket, the AM3+. Source # 1. Source # 2. Source # 3. Keep rockin' AMD!
News


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find 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 11:31.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App