Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › The problem with Bulldozer...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The problem with Bulldozer... - Page 12

post #111 of 121
"The problem with Bulldozer..."

I thought there was more then one problem with bulldozer.
KOMAHDIR
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-2500k  Asus p8z68-v/gen3 Sapphire AMD 290 8GB g-skill snipers @ 1866 9,10,10,28 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256 Crucial M4 XSPC,Swiftech,EK windows 8.1 ViewSonic VX2370Smh-LED Black 23" 
PowerCase
Coolermaster 850W Silent Pro Coolermaster CM690 
  hide details  
Reply
KOMAHDIR
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel I5-2500k  Asus p8z68-v/gen3 Sapphire AMD 290 8GB g-skill snipers @ 1866 9,10,10,28 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
256 Crucial M4 XSPC,Swiftech,EK windows 8.1 ViewSonic VX2370Smh-LED Black 23" 
PowerCase
Coolermaster 850W Silent Pro Coolermaster CM690 
  hide details  
Reply
post #112 of 121
Do you really think the OS is issue?

Sounds like an excuse.
post #113 of 121
The issue is that IPC decreased

Bulldozer IPC decreases
Piledriver IPC decreases
Steamroller IPC decreases
Excavator IPC decreases
AMD FX ~Seronx
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9800P Acer Wasp R7 M440 SK Hynix HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GUE1N Stock 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Microsoft Windows 10 Home Build 14393 Viewsonic XG2401 24 Hz-144 Hz Ducky Channel Shine 3 Stock 65W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Acer Exoskeleton Steelseries Rival 300 Razer Megasoma AMD-Realtek ALC255 
  hide details  
Reply
AMD FX ~Seronx
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-9800P Acer Wasp R7 M440 SK Hynix HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GUE1N Stock 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Microsoft Windows 10 Home Build 14393 Viewsonic XG2401 24 Hz-144 Hz Ducky Channel Shine 3 Stock 65W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Acer Exoskeleton Steelseries Rival 300 Razer Megasoma AMD-Realtek ALC255 
  hide details  
Reply
post #114 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seronx;15309893 
The issue is that IPC decreased

Bulldozer IPC decreases
Piledriver IPC decreases
Steamroller IPC decreases
Excavator IPC decreases

Piledriver IPC decreases from BD IPC?
Steamroller IPC decreases from PD IPC?
Excavator IPC decreases from ST IPC?
Hopefully the CEO stops any development of those if IPC keeps decreasing.
Moar cores!
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0Ghz/4.2Ghz turbo gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 rev. 4.0 Gigabyte Nvida GTX 770OC 2GB/ Gigabyte 970 G1 G... Gskill Sniper 1866Mhz 8GB (4GB x 2) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB WD Black 1TB Asus 24X CM Hyper 212Evo 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home X64 HP 22BW 21.5" LED-IPS CM Storm Trigger/MX Brown Corsair TX 650V2 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM HAF922 Logitech G500S Steelseries QCK Mini Asus Xonar DX 7.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Moar cores!
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8320 @ 4.0Ghz/4.2Ghz turbo gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 rev. 4.0 Gigabyte Nvida GTX 770OC 2GB/ Gigabyte 970 G1 G... Gskill Sniper 1866Mhz 8GB (4GB x 2) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB WD Black 1TB Asus 24X CM Hyper 212Evo 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home X64 HP 22BW 21.5" LED-IPS CM Storm Trigger/MX Brown Corsair TX 650V2 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
CM HAF922 Logitech G500S Steelseries QCK Mini Asus Xonar DX 7.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #115 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy MG;15310372 
Piledriver IPC decreases from BD IPC?
Steamroller IPC decreases from PD IPC?
Excavator IPC decreases from ST IPC?
Hopefully the CEO stops any development of those if IPC keeps decreasing.

Most programs have a ipc of around 1.8-2.2 on average, benchmarks typically have much higher ipc. Having a ipc of 4 is only advantegous if you can use it. Very and I mean Very few applications are written like that outside of scientific apps.

Latency seems to be what is likely hampering bulldozer, could be issues with the process node etc.
post #116 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammy4041;15309227 
Very Interesting Point. I have seen the Review at HardwareHeaven and the results are interesting to say the least, and make bulldozer seem much more respectable.

The gaming benchmarks from HH are NOT indicative of Bulldozer's full performance, or the Intel chips either, if thats what youre talking about. All those benchmarks say is that the FX 8150 can run those games without bottlenecking that graphics card on those very high settings.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K MSI P67A-G43 MSI GTX 460 Cyclone Ripjaws X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 WD Green ASUS Windows 7 
PowerCase
Antec TruePower New 750 HAF 922 
  hide details  
Reply
post #117 of 121
Also, The results are showing a much better return on the IPC front per unit as certain aspects of the chip are turned off. Pointing towards serious process allocation problems ranging from Latency to Extra Duty. Should be pretty nice when optimized. Will definitely trash the i5 in productivity if they can patch this up, not sure how close to the i7 is going to get on this revision though. Depends a lot on the softwares capabilities to use the 4/8 module/core setup.

As for gaming, I do not do enough of it to know for sure where it would land in regards to performance with proper optimizations. Seems like its doing pretty well right now because of AMDs advantage on controlling GPU bottle necks. But not so well when the full core set up is running trying to split loads across the "Fake Cores" on lower res setups.

Still anyones game in the long run as of now. But for now the SBs are edging a win.


I am slightly displeased with the marginal improvement of memory bandwidth though. I was really hoping they would iron this out on the initial chip. Looks like we have to wait for it to mature a bit.
ORL||H2O
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 5.1Ghz Asus 990FX Sabertooth XFX 7950 Mushkin Enhanced 2x8G 11/11/11/30 - 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
SSD:2xM4 120Gb // 2x640Gb Black Win7 Ultimate 64b Corsair K90 Enermax Revo85+ 1020W 
CaseMouse
Corsair Air 540 RAT7 + G9x 
  hide details  
Reply
ORL||H2O
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 5.1Ghz Asus 990FX Sabertooth XFX 7950 Mushkin Enhanced 2x8G 11/11/11/30 - 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
SSD:2xM4 120Gb // 2x640Gb Black Win7 Ultimate 64b Corsair K90 Enermax Revo85+ 1020W 
CaseMouse
Corsair Air 540 RAT7 + G9x 
  hide details  
Reply
post #118 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORL;15312160 
Also, The results are showing a much better return on the IPC front per unit as certain aspects of the chip are turned off. Pointing towards serious process allocation problems ranging from Latency to Extra Duty. Should be pretty nice when optimized. Will definitely trash the i5 in productivity if they can patch this up, not sure how close to the i7 is going to get on this revision though. Depends a lot on the softwares capabilities to use the 4/8 module/core setup.

As for gaming, I do not do enough of it to know for sure where it would land in regards to performance with proper optimizations. Seems like its doing pretty well right now because of AMDs advantage on controlling GPU bottle necks. But not so well when the full core set up is running trying to split loads across the "Fake Cores" on lower res setups.

Still anyones game in the long run as of now. But for now the SBs are edging a win.


I am slightly displeased with the marginal improvement of memory bandwidth though. I was really hoping they would iron this out on the initial chip. Looks like we have to wait for it to mature a bit.

The memory bandwidth could be the result of a crappy process.
post #119 of 121
no

the real problem is power consumption

I will get for a 95watts o cores unlocked revision
GTR-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k 4.3Ghz  ASRock Z77 Extreme 6 EVGA GTX 770 4GB FTW Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Zotac SSD - WD 1TB (x2) Zalman Performa W10 64 Bits HP 2509 25" 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sidewinder X6 Thermaltake Smart 700w 80Plus CM Storm Enforcer Mionix Naos 3200 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries QcK Gaming Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
GTR-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k 4.3Ghz  ASRock Z77 Extreme 6 EVGA GTX 770 4GB FTW Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Zotac SSD - WD 1TB (x2) Zalman Performa W10 64 Bits HP 2509 25" 1080p 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Sidewinder X6 Thermaltake Smart 700w 80Plus CM Storm Enforcer Mionix Naos 3200 
Mouse Pad
SteelSeries QcK Gaming Mouse Pad 
  hide details  
Reply
post #120 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR Mclaren;15313261 
no

the real problem is power consumption

I will get for a 95watts o cores unlocked revision

Again, could be a problem with the 32nm process.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › The problem with Bulldozer...