Bulldozer is out and it sucks

[linnemeyerhere]

BES,
Cheers mate for being a voice of reason with direct usage reports. We tend to get into mindsets that don't except those idea's that go contrary to our own.....I'm guilty of this as well so I blame myself along with most others. The idea that this revolutionary chip is dog do for being of a design which looks to best be exploited with some future bios and OS updates makes me a little crazed. I look for the performance results to improve over time and yes I understand that Intel likely has new pipelined stuff that will match or best it.....I as I've mentioned time and time again I cast my vote for the underdog and firmly believe we all benefit from the healthy competition. So go AMD go !

 

[pparks1]

The problem here is that we all overfocus on benchmark results. And really, the difference between 12,123 (random jib jabs) and 10,950 (random jib jabs), is unlikely noticeable to just about anybody. From a percentage basis, it's a decent amount, but what does it really equate to in real life?

Anybody who is running an older rig, lets say an Athlon 64 X2-3400 that upgrades to an FX-8150 will find it to be a fast processor. Regardless of what they do with it, it's just going to be fast. But the same would be said of that user if they had upgraded to a Core i7-2600k, an AMD Athlon 1190T or even an Intel Core i5-2500. These are all fast processors and nothing is likely to be considered slow or feel slow.

The issue in particular here, is all the hype that this particular chip design was going to decimate anything that currently existed. For people who really bought into the hype and hoped for a chip that was going to absolute change the game and become the de-facto standard for anything performance related, this chip was a disappointment. After so many years of development, it's really just a CPU that can now compete with Intel offerings that have existed for some time. Does this mean that it's bad, or not worth owning? Of course not, it's still a fast performing chip. But would I upgrade a machine running a core i5-2500k to an AMD FX-8150 to be blown away by it's sheer power? Nope, not unless I was going to run a heavily threaded application 16+ hours a day and needed the absolute fastest results...even if it's just 30 minutes faster to complete.

I agree completely that competition is good. And I want AMD to compete, but I really would love to see them go ahead in the processor wars for a bit. That would really help to fuel the fire. Perhaps this chip will do it, after some BIOS updates, and new OS coding changes. But that's a big if at this point...especially considering the chip was years in the making.

 

[M1GU31]

sad thing is it seems amd is pushing away from the processor making market which sucks because that means intel will pretty much dominate the industry and will be the only processors available which are worth buying which means they can set what ever prices they want so it would become expensive and there really is no one else who can compete with intel besides amd so it would be almost a monopoly :/

 

[Dave76]

Truly a sad event, a turning point in the CPU evolution.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

I'm pissed and disappointed and very little of it directed at AMD. Oh, I'm sure Intel will continue to deeply discount their processors !? All I can hope is that AMD is pulling some political style slight of hand to divert attention.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Meh

IMO, Intel CPUs vs AMD CPUs, is just like SSDs vs HDDs.

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy, AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU! :shock:
Those systems would have better specs than my current system, except HDD capacity.

Based on my local supplier's stock & prices:

• Intel Core i7-3960X - $1245
• AMD AM3+ x8 FX-8150 - $288

$957 gives you a lot of options for MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software.

If you only have $1000 to spend, the top-of-the-line AMD CPU automatically wins vs the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.

Just a clarification, I probably wouldn't buy the top-of-the-line CPU from either company, as I don't need the performance for the computing that I do.

 

[Beta]

IMO, Intel CPUs vs AMD CPUs, is just like SSDs vs HDDs.

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy, AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU! :shock:
Those systems would have better specs than my current system, except HDD capacity.

Based on my local supplier's stock & prices:

• Intel Core i7-3960X - $1245
• AMD AM3+ x8 FX-8150 - $288

$957 gives you a lot of options for MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software.

If you only have $1000 to spend, the top-of-the-line AMD CPU automatically wins vs the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.

Just a clarification, I probably wouldn't buy the top-of-the-line CPU from either company, as I don't need the performance for the computing that I do.

The 2011 socket is a server socket. You can not relate a server chip to a desktop chip. You need to compare the 1155 socket chips to AM3+ chips. So you idea that you can nearly $1000 is flawed. Just compare desktop chips to desktop sockets with desktop sockets and server sockets with server sockets.

 

[Dave76]

LGA 2011

LGA 2011, also called Socket R, is a CPU socket by Intel. It replaces Intel's LGA 1366 (Socket B) and LGA 1567 in the performance and high-end desktop and server platforms.

The Intel 2011 is the new high-end desktop socket.

Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Family for the LGA-2011 Socket Datasheet, Vol. 1

Supporting Desktop Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition Processor, Core i7-39xxK and i7-38xx Processor Series for LGA-2011 Socket.

 

[lehnerus2000]

"The Intel® Core™ i7 processor family for the LGA-2011 socket is the next generation of 64-bit, multi-core desktop processor built on 32-nanometer process technology."

According to Intel it is a desktop processor.
Intel® Core

It doesn't appear in their server CPU list.

 

[Phone Man]

IMO, Intel CPUs vs AMD CPUs, is just like SSDs vs HDDs.

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy, AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU! :shock:
Those systems would have better specs than my current system, except HDD capacity.

Based on my local supplier's stock & prices:

• Intel Core i7-3960X - $1245
• AMD AM3+ x8 FX-8150 - $288

$957 gives you a lot of options for MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software.

If you only have $1000 to spend, the top-of-the-line AMD CPU automatically wins vs the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.

Just a clarification, I probably wouldn't buy the top-of-the-line CPU from either company, as I don't need the performance for the computing that I do.

You make a good point on the price difference, however if you compare the AMD FX-8150 to an Intel I7-2600k which is close to the same price it is no contest, the Intel is faster.
I have used AMD since I stared building my own rigs years ago as they were the best bang for the buck, but now AMD does not have that price advantage with CPU's in the same performance range. I still use AMD as I like the AMD based motherboards better. The newest thinking is the GPU taking over a lot of the CPU processing and that is where AMD has a big advantage over Intel. As more programs take advantage of GPU computing things will change in the market. Always something new to spend my money on.

Jim

 

[lehnerus2000]

IMO, Intel CPUs vs AMD CPUs, is just like SSDs vs HDDs.

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy ...

You make a good point on the price difference, however if you compare the AMD FX-8150 to an Intel I7-2600k which is close to the same price it is no contest, the Intel is faster.
...
The newest thinking is the GPU taking over a lot of the CPU processing and that is where AMD has a big advantage over Intel. As more programs take advantage of GPU computing things will change in the market.

That is true enough.

My point was, some people seem to assume that the most expensive CPU is the best investment (for a complete PC setup).
IMO, skimping on the other parts, so you can have the most expensive CPU, is a bad option.

As you mentioned, graphics cards are becoming more important, as more "ordinary" programs (e.g. Firefox, IE, etc.) start using GPU acceleration.
A decent monitor is important, especially if you spend a lot of time working with your desktop PC.

IMO, buying top-of-the-line AMD CPU, an SSD, a big HDD and a decent monitor, would make most people's computers more pleasant (and probably useful) than skimping on those items to buy the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.

I'm not an SSD guy (too expensive currently) but I would get more benefit from one of those than a top-of-the-line Intel CPU.
My CPU (AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz) only "maxes out" when I encode video, which is rarely.

 

[M1GU31]

sdd arent really worth buying imo since im a gamer i dont see a big difference besides the loading areas coming up 4secs earlier which i don't care for but would be nice to own one mabye in the future when they cost as much as hdd's do now with big memory and hdds are really out dated then ill buy one

 

[pparks1]

AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

I disagree and I will explain more in a bit.

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU! :shock:

You are making the common mistake of taking the "over the top priced high end Intel which is always absurdly priced. Very few people build systems with these chips.

Based on my local supplier's stock & prices:

• Intel Core i7-3960X - $1245
• AMD AM3+ x8 FX-8150 - $288

$957 gives you a lot of options for MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software.

However, if you want to compare from a performance standpoint, you don't need an i7-3960X at $1245 to be faster than the AMD FX-8150. A Core i7-2600K for $299 will do the trick.


Before the bulldozer came out, people were buying the 1090T and the 1100T CPU's and these would come in around $199. They would compare to the Core i7-990X at $1000 and say, "Woah...Intel is overpriced" However, a Core i5-2500K is faster in most tasks than the 1100T and runs $219. So, yeah, the Intel costs $19 more, but that's a pretty reasonable difference.

My point was, some people seem to assume that the most expensive CPU is the best investment (for a complete PC setup).
IMO, skimping on the other parts, so you can have the most expensive CPU, is a bad option.

I've never had the most expensive CPU option. Wouldn't even consider it for a second. Far better things to spend money on.

A decent monitor is important, especially if you spend a lot of time working with your desktop PC.

This is very true and so many people buy fancy rigs, overclock them, excessively cool them, and then use a craptastic monitor because it was cheap. Always makes me shake my head, the monitor is the one thing that you see, and must use, 24x7 when using the computer. Spend the money on a quality monitor.

IMO, buying top-of-the-line AMD CPU, an SSD, a big HDD and a decent monitor, would make most people's computers more pleasant (and probably useful) than skimping on those items to buy the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.

My CPU (AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz) only "maxes out" when I encode video, which is rarely.

Yep, I'm on an older CPU too. Intel Q9550 which is almost never maxed out. It does everything that I throw at it and it spits out the results plenty fast enough. I'm playing BF3 on this rig nearly maxed out and it's never struggling. I'll probably be on this chip for at least 1 more year, if not 2.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Believe it or not ...

My quotes got a bit mangled in your post (not out of context though).

IMO, Intel CPUs vs AMD CPUs, is just like SSDs vs HDDs.

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy, AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU!

You are making the common mistake of taking the "over the top priced high end Intel which is always absurdly priced.

Believe it or not, I basically agree with you.

My point was some people believe that the most expensive is always the best.
If you research the components, you can find a better performance/$ comparison.

Very few people build systems with these chips.

Enough people must buy them or they wouldn't be released at any price.

If the price was lower more people would buy them (just like SSDs).
The other chip in that series (that my supplier stocks) is half the price (i7-3930K = $679).

However, if you want to compare from a performance standpoint, you don't need an i7-3960X at $1245 to be faster than the AMD FX-8150. A Core i7-2600K for $299 will do the trick.

My point was some people believe that the most expensive is always the best.
If you research the components, you can find a better performance/$ comparison.

I've always used AMD, because most of my PCs were built from hand-me-down parts.

A decent monitor is important, especially if you spend a lot of time working with your desktop PC.

This is very true and so many people buy fancy rigs, overclock them, excessively cool them, and then use a craptastic monitor because it was cheap. Always makes me shake my head, the monitor is the one thing that you see, and must use, 24x7 when using the computer. Spend the money on a quality monitor.

Spend over $500 on a graphics card and then buy a $100 monitor. WTF?

IMO, buying top-of-the-line AMD CPU, an SSD, a big HDD and a decent monitor, would make most people's computers more pleasant (and probably useful) than skimping on those items to buy the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.
...
My CPU (AMD Phenom II x6 1055T, 2.8 GHz) only "maxes out" when I encode video, which is rarely.

Yep, I'm on an older CPU too. Intel Q9550 which is almost never maxed out. It does everything that I throw at it and it spits out the results plenty fast enough. I'm playing BF3 on this rig nearly maxed out and it's never struggling. I'll probably be on this chip for at least 1 more year, if not 2.

It makes me angry, when I'm waiting for some program to do something and I check my system monitor (Process Explorer) only to see that I'm using 16% of my CPU power and I've still got 2 GB of RAM sitting idle!

 

[Darththorn]

That sucks

 

[pparks1]

My point was some people believe that the most expensive is always the best.
If you research the components, you can find a better performance/$ comparison.

Technically, from a pure benchmark perspective, the $1,000+ Intel is the "best" in terms of full raw performance.

But then your second comment, brings into scope the price/performance ratio. This is where things go awry and aren't clear cut. What is the "best" for 1 person, might not be the "best" for somebody else. Everything depends upon what you are using the computer to achieve.

The comments that I don't agree with are the ones that say "AMD is always cheaper, way cheaper and far more bang for the buck". These people often then compare the $1000 Intel to the $200 AMD. Sure enough, it costs 5x as much. However, a $215 Intel could also outperform the AMD. And I wouldn't say $15 is way cheaper.

I agree you can save a few bucks most times and get adequate/equivalent performance from an AMD based rig...but it's not going to be substantially cheaper in the end. And for many people, we are after the most performance we can possibly get. Since the Core 2 Duo days, i've found Intel to be leader without question for nearly the same price. My last AMD box was an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an AMD again if they could ever get the performance edge back. In todays market, it would be an Intel recommendation 100 out of 100 times for me thought...because I don't see enough cost savings to sacrifice performance.

 

[lehnerus2000]

I still think that we mostly agree

Technically, from a pure benchmark perspective, the $1,000+ Intel is the "best" in terms of full raw performance.

But then your second comment, brings into scope the price/performance ratio. This is where things go awry and aren't clear cut. What is the "best" for 1 person, might not be the "best" for somebody else. Everything depends upon what you are using the computer to achieve.

Agreed.

The comments that I don't agree with are the ones that say "AMD is always cheaper, way cheaper and far more bang for the buck".

Agreed, but I didn't really say that (or mean to say that - extra emphasis added).

Unless you absolutely need the fastest, most expensive equipment that money can buy, AMD saves you so much money that you can upgrade other parts of your system (e.g. MB, graphics card, RAM, HDD or SSD, case, monitor, PSU, expansion cards & software).

Based on my local supplier's prices, I can literally almost build 2 complete systems using the top-of-the-line AMD CPU, for the cost of just the top-of-the-line Intel CPU! :shock:
...
If you only have $1000 to spend, the top-of-the-line AMD CPU automatically wins vs the top-of-the-line Intel CPU.
...
Just a clarification, I probably wouldn't buy the top-of-the-line CPU from either company, as I don't need the performance for the computing that I do.

​

Poor phrasing by me though.
I should have included "top-of-the-line" in the first sentence (I thought that "... most expensive equipment ..." and the second sentence implied that).

Gamers, "number crunchers" and video editors need every CPU cycle they can get.
For "general" use, CPU cycles aren't the critical factor.

IMO, for "general" use these are more important:

• RAM (capacity vs speed complicates the issue).
• A good monitor is a big factor.
• Graphics cards are becoming more important, as more "ordinary" programs start using GPU acceleration (e.g. Firefox, IE, etc.).
• The "little things" also play an important role (keyboard, mouse, etc.).
• A good chair and workdesk.

It would be interesting to compare two $1000 systems (an Intel and an AMD) to work out how the "ideal" combination of parts can perform in various "real world" situations (not just benchmarks).

These people often then compare the $1000 Intel to the $200 AMD. Sure enough, it costs 5x as much. However, a $215 Intel could also outperform the AMD. And I wouldn't say $15 is way cheaper.

Agreed (at my supplier, the price difference for the Intel Core i7-2600K vs AMD FX-8150 is about $30).

Even $30 would buy one of the following (based on my supplier's prices):

• Better RAM (capacity or speed)
• Better PSU (brand or Wattage)
• Better monitor (brand or size)
• Better MB (brand or features)
• Better graphics card (possibly)
• Better HDD
• Better case (construction)
• etc.

If the price difference was $900 ... :shock:

In todays market, it would be an Intel recommendation 100 out of 100 times for me thought...because I don't see enough cost savings to sacrifice performance.

I would suggest that is because you are prepared to do the required research.


Regarding Bulldozer itself, I have read comments stating that:

• The "old 6-cores" can outperform it.
• Current software doesn't utilize the new features.

The fact that MS is apparently planning to release a "speed-up" patch, seems to confirm the latter.
http://www.sevenforums.com/news/202783-microsoft-releases-amd-bulldozer-boosting-hotfix.html

 

[M1GU31]

i actually made a presentation for my tech class comparing a 6 core phenom ii vs a 4core i5 at the same clock speeds at 3.0ghz and the i5 has two less cores but guess what its faster then the 6core phenom based on gaming benchmarks and just doing normal task on a desktop so my conclusion was that if your on a budget you can go for amd but for a few more bucks get intel i suggested intel was the better choice and my friend now is going to buy a i5 2500k now its a pretty fast quad core processor and its price at 200$ margin Newegg.com - Intel Core i5-2500 Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000 BX80623I52500 while a 6core phenom ii is cheaper http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...CODE=GOOGLEBASE&cm_mmc_o=VRqCjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE and has more cores the i5 still beats it i say its worth the few more extra dollars and im not saying amd is bad either look at my specs i bought myself a budget quad core and it fits all my needs and its around 100$ not bad what im trying to say is short on cash go amd ,for a couple more dollars then get intel


its almost toe and toe but for gamers the i5 beats the phenom ii x6 and thats the i5 is using 4cores imagine if it was x6 woe

make sure you read the benckmarks correctly because in some of them it says lower is better and some says higher is better
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=288

 

[lehnerus2000]

Flops

make sure you read the benckmarks correctly because in some of them it says lower is better and some says higher is better
AnandTech - Bench - CPU

I remember the "good old days", when the only thing you had to know about CPU benchmarks was "how many FLOPS does it perform".

 

[ionbasa]

make sure you read the benckmarks correctly because in some of them it says lower is better and some says higher is better
AnandTech - Bench - CPU

I remember the "good old days", when the only thing you had to know about CPU benchmarks was "how many FLOPS does it perform".

To bad Bulldoser only has 1 FPU per every 2 cores, meaning that FPU intensive operations like prime testing suffer severely. This is also the reason for low FLOPs on Bulldoser.