Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [ExtremeTech] Analyzing Bulldozer: Why AMD’s chip is so disappointing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[ExtremeTech] Analyzing Bulldozer: Why AMD’s chip is so disappointing - Page 14

post #131 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomfunk View Post
Over here the 8120 costs about ~$50 less than 2600 so while the BD isn't a top performer, the pricing doesn't seem bad at all.
.
But FX-8120 is slower than even i5 2500
http://www.legionhardware.com/articl...fx_4170,5.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/452-a...dozer-fx-cpus/

Even in multi-threaded applications, i5 2500 performs neck to neck with 8120, but it is much faster in low-threaded applications.
post #132 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePath View Post
But FX-8120 is slower than even i5 2500
http://www.legionhardware.com/articl...fx_4170,5.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/452-a...dozer-fx-cpus/

Even in multi-threaded applications, i5 2500 performs neck to neck with 8120, but it is much faster in low-threaded applications.
Oh my, that's even worse than I thought.

Good thing I didn't consider buying one...
post #133 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky 13 SpeedShop View Post
Not to be nit picky about it, but what you forgot was the power consumption which is approaching double that of the 2600k.

Test Setup....Idle (Watts)....CPU Loaded (Watts)
i7 2600K........97 W.............158 W
FX-8150........121 W............246 W

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-fx-8...ocessor-review

That puts a rather large dent in the performance per watt category with folders, which is one of their primary concerns aside from ppd. El Gappo did a test @ 4.9 Ghz as well, where it pulled 22,025.2 ppd. However, at those current draw levels, no one would want the power bill that would beget.

Post #3 @ XS
Sure, I agree, BD is a higher power consumer--I think we all knew that. But what I'm trying to clear the air about is that everyone talks about BD as if it couldn't even boot to a windows screen, let alone do the things we need to on a day-to-day basis. Which it's been shown to do over and over--it's just sad that it hasn't greatly surpassed PhII, but by any means, it's still capable of delivering performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toX0rz View Post
Not sure if serious..
Guess why theres a performance gap between the 2600k and the 8150? Correct, because the FX-8150 simply bottlenecks the heck out of the cards and cant deliver data quick enough to fully utilize them. In my book that pretty much falls under "can't handle".
If I were going by the same approach that you did, I could say an ancient Athlon 64 or P4 single-core can handle two SLI'd 480's too just because it runs .. thats pretty dull, isnt it?

If a CPU cant deliver fast enough so that it bottlenecks a graphics card, it pretty much cant handle it.
I was addressing his previous specific statement that a BD can't deliver the performance to push two 480's in SLI. Yes, the 8150 bottlenecks three6970's--you can see that in the benchmarks clearly. Does that make the game unplayable? I would consider 90fps at a high resolution extremely playable. Can your example of an athlon 64 or P4 do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post
Anyone else wondering why AMD hasn't released a software fix? I'm not talking BIOS update or waiting for MS to patch Win7. If Bulldozer performs better in a 4M/4C arrangement- why not restrict it to this configuration until there is a need for >4 cores. Meaning once 4M see near 100% load then goto the 4M/8C configuration.

With all the powersavings features AMD implemented on a per module basis, I gotta believe this can be done in realtime. But even if they can't implement some sort of state change on the hardware, couldnt AMD atleast release software that modifies Task Scheduler CORE affinities?

I'm sure I'm extremely oversimplifying the issue, but it seems to me something could be done here.
I don't think the problem is as simple that a software fix will achieve the gains people expect. Or rather, I don't know how much Microsoft cares to roll out fixes that may address some or all of the discrepancies between how the CPU's function vs. current windows architecture.

And I don't know that any of it can really be "fixed" with some software fixes--at least, I haven't read much yet about that potential.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #134 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
Sure, I agree, BD is a higher power consumer--I think we all knew that. But what I'm trying to clear the air about is that everyone talks about BD as if it couldn't even boot to a windows screen, let alone do the things we need to on a day-to-day basis. Which it's been shown to do over and over--it's just sad that it hasn't greatly surpassed PhII, but by any means, it's still capable of delivering performance.
Sure, it's capable of giving performance right around the level of its two year old predecessor. The point isn't that it's broken or something, it's that the CPU really has no place in the market. I still don't understand why it was released at all. If a consumer wants something cheap or efficient, they won't be buying Bulldozer, if they want a lot of cores for their money they'll but something like an i7-950 for the same price and get way better performance, and if they just want something fast, they'll get a 2600k or 990x. The only market for Bulldozer is for people who don't know how weak it really is, and that's a sad place to be for a CPU, only selling due to complete ignorance (or fanboyism for some).

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I was addressing his previous specific statement that a BD can't deliver the performance to push two 480's in SLI. Yes, the 8150 bottlenecks three6970's--you can see that in the benchmarks clearly. Does that make the game unplayable? I would consider 90fps at a high resolution extremely playable. Can your example of an athlon 64 or P4 do that?
Games are probably not the best argument against getting a Bulldozer, unless you're an enthusiast gamer looking to get 2-3 monitor with 2-3 GPUs. So I'll agree that if Joe Schmo walks into a store and says "I want 8 cores and a computer that can play games", then technically the Bulldozer would be fine for him. However, as I said above, there's still no reason to sell someone the Bulldozer, anyone with a little knowledge would point Joe Schmo at an i7-950 or 2600k instead, which both handle 8 threads just like BD, and do so more efficiently and faster anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I don't think the problem is as simple that a software fix will achieve the gains people expect. Or rather, I don't know how much Microsoft cares to roll out fixes that may address some or all of the discrepancies between how the CPU's function vs. current windows architecture.

And I don't know that any of it can really be "fixed" with some software fixes--at least, I haven't read much yet about that potential.
The only chance I can see is if highly threaded programs were specifically recompiled for Bulldozer, so that they scheduled their work to each core differently. However, there's no real incentive for developers to do this when Bulldozer has almost no market-share. I agree that I don't see Microsoft changing Windows to support Bulldozer either.
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
Foldatron
(17 items)
 
Mat
(10 items)
 
Work iMac
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 950 EVGA x58 3-way SLI EVGA GTX 660ti GTX 275 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
3x2GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 80GB Intel X25-M SSD 2TB WD Black 150GB WD Raptor 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
2x 150GB WD V-raptor in RAID0 Win7 Home 64-bit OEM 55" LED 120hz 1080p Vizio MS Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000 
PowerCase
750W PC P&C Silencer CoolerMaster 690 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5 2500S AMD 6770M 8GB (2x4GB) at 1333Mhz 1TB, 7200 rpm 
Optical DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
LG 8X Dual-Layer "SuperDrive" OS X Lion 27" iMac screen Mac wireless keyboard 
Mouse
Mac wireless mouse 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7-2600K AMD 6970M 1GB 16GB PC3-10600 DDR3 1TB 7200rpm 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB SSD 8x DL "SuperDrive" OS X 10.7 Lion 27" 2560x1440 iMac display 
Monitor
27" Apple thunderbolt display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #135 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post
Anyone else wondering why AMD hasn't released a software fix? I'm not talking BIOS update or waiting for MS to patch Win7. If Bulldozer performs better in a 4M/4C arrangement- why not restrict it to this configuration until there is a need for >4 cores. Meaning once 4M see near 100% load then goto the 4M/8C configuration.

With all the powersavings features AMD implemented on a per module basis, I gotta believe this can be done in realtime. But even if they can't implement some sort of state change on the hardware, couldnt AMD atleast release software that modifies Task Scheduler CORE affinities?

I'm sure I'm extremely oversimplifying the issue, but it seems to me something could be done here.
Binary,

I'm not sure Windows is designed to re-detect the number of CPU cores in a system on the fly. Even Nvidia's Kal-El (which does shut off four cores in a penta-core system when in idle mode) does so in a manner that's invisible to the OS.

But more than that, the answer is "die size." While such an option might make sense (if possible) for the FX-8100 series, all the other chips are focused on stacking modules. The quad-core FX-4100 parts are two module / quad-core.

AMD *could* improve multi-threaded performance by building 4M/4C chips--but that destroys small advantage BD still offers in terms of die savings. In fact, it would make BD *much* more expensive than Thuban when comparing cores-to-die-size.
post #136 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordikon View Post
Sure, it's capable of giving performance right around the level of its two year old predecessor. The point isn't that it's broken or something, it's that the CPU really has no place in the market. I still don't understand why it was released at all. If a consumer wants something cheap or efficient, they won't be buying Bulldozer, if they want a lot of cores for their money they'll but something like an i7-950 for the same price and get way better performance, and if they just want something fast, they'll get a 2600k or 990x. The only market for Bulldozer is for people who don't know how weak it really is, and that's a sad place to be for a CPU, only selling due to complete ignorance (or fanboyism for some).



Games are probably not the best argument against getting a Bulldozer, unless you're an enthusiast gamer looking to get 2-3 monitor with 2-3 GPUs. So I'll agree that if Joe Schmo walks into a store and says "I want 8 cores and a computer that can play games", then technically the Bulldozer would be fine for him. However, as I said above, there's still no reason to sell someone the Bulldozer, anyone with a little knowledge would point Joe Schmo at an i7-950 or 2600k instead, which both handle 8 threads just like BD, and do so more efficiently and faster anyway.



The only chance I can see is if highly threaded programs were specifically recompiled for Bulldozer, so that they scheduled their work to each core differently. However, there's no real incentive for developers to do this when Bulldozer has almost no market-share. I agree that I don't see Microsoft changing Windows to support Bulldozer either.
Well, duh, moare corez = gooder performances!!!

You know what's funny--despite what people probably glean from my statements, I'm also disappointed with BD's general results. To computer enthusiasts, I wouldn't think any of "us" at OCN would or should get one except out of complete curiosity--it flopped in that segment. But I'm just equally disappointed with people talking it up to be some CPU that literally can't run a computer or accomplish the day-to-day tasks needed.

But I don't know that it's that easy of a decision between an i7-950 and an 8120 or 8150--at least, it would be nice to see a head-to-head comparison.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #137 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I wouldn't think any of "us" at OCN would or should get one except out of complete curiosity--it flopped
Finally.
post #138 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steak House View Post
Finally.
I never stated otherwise, only provided evidence contrary to the perpetuated false idea that BD is useless or incapable of running day-to-day tasks. By the way, you should really get a job for the media--you're great at quoting only portions of statements with absolutely no context.
Edited by guyladouche - 10/26/11 at 9:45am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #139 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I never stated otherwise, only provided evidence contrary to the perpetuated false idea that BD is useless or incapable of running day-to-day tasks. By the way, you should really get a job for the media--you're great at quoting only portions of statements with absolutely no context.
this is true, and when you call him out on it other "people" come to the defense. it's very frustrating.

and not conducive to conversation at all.
AMD Transplant
(11 items)
 
To be a NAS
(13 items)
 
Death Kühler
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
965BE GA-78LMT-S2P MSI TFIII 7950 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Noctua NH-D14 Win7 Pro FX2490HD 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X660 Antec Three Hundred Saitek Rat 7 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Gateway GM5072 AMD HD5550 2.0 Gb 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Seagate Barracuda 500Gb Samsung FX2490 MS Keyboard 3000 300w generic 
Mouse
MS Intellipoint 3000 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k GigaByte Z68M-D2H-B3 MSI 560 Ti TFIII Corsair Vengance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Antec Khuler 920 Win7 HP Samsung FX2490 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Keyboard 3000 Seasonic X-660 Antec Three Hundred Microsoft Mouse 3000 
Mouse PadAudio
None - Blue Track baby Senn HD428 
  hide details  
Reply
AMD Transplant
(11 items)
 
To be a NAS
(13 items)
 
Death Kühler
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
965BE GA-78LMT-S2P MSI TFIII 7950 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Noctua NH-D14 Win7 Pro FX2490HD 
PowerCaseMouse
Seasonic X660 Antec Three Hundred Saitek Rat 7 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Gateway GM5072 AMD HD5550 2.0 Gb 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
Seagate Barracuda 500Gb Samsung FX2490 MS Keyboard 3000 300w generic 
Mouse
MS Intellipoint 3000 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k GigaByte Z68M-D2H-B3 MSI 560 Ti TFIII Corsair Vengance 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Antec Khuler 920 Win7 HP Samsung FX2490 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Keyboard 3000 Seasonic X-660 Antec Three Hundred Microsoft Mouse 3000 
Mouse PadAudio
None - Blue Track baby Senn HD428 
  hide details  
Reply
post #140 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I never stated otherwise, only provided evidence contrary to the perpetuated false idea that BD is useless or incapable of running day-to-day tasks.
You can say that about any modern CPU - I have an old Intel Core 2 still going strong...

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
By the way, you should really get a job for the media--you're great at quoting only portions of statements with absolutely no context.
You should really be a Politician - you're good at spinning disasters.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [ExtremeTech] Analyzing Bulldozer: Why AMD’s chip is so disappointing