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 17

post #161 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steak House View Post
Yes, that was in relation to this question -



I Fold On A Daily Basis - So SCollins, are you saying that BD is a good chip to buy if I want to fold?
Honestly, not without binary patching and retesting performance to see if BD improves. without doing that, making a decision to fold on BD would be ill advised.
post #162 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordikon View Post
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.
There have been a few CPUs out there that "had no place in the market". K5, nearly all of NetBurst, some late Pentium 3 processors that were clocked too high to be stable... the original Phenom... they simply needed to release something. You can't just hold back a product for ages, relying entirely on an old architecture to keep you afloat while the competition is pounding you. Thu bulldozer may not make sense to you or anyone here, but from business and marketing perspective it's almost a necessity to push out a new product every now and again, even if the product is sub-par. It's an entirely new architecture and problems were to be expected, just not apparently of this magnitude, and I'm fairly convinced that the engineers at AMD knew what would happen and how the chip currently fares but marketing demanded something to ship and now we have Bulldozer.

Quote:
I agree that I don't see Microsoft changing Windows to support Bulldozer either.
I don't see why Microsoft wouldn't do it - sure, it's got a small market share now that it's only just been released and didn't get off to a good start, but since that's the direction AMD is headed and these types of architectures will obviously be more prominent in the future, they'll eventually have to get it sorted out. MS did it with HT too, I believe that XP got HT support with SP2.
post #163 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).
It can be faster than Phenom II...If you recompile the program to use the new stuff it offers and the program will fill all cores well.

That said, the lack of performance really does hint that Piledriver is the actual main launch for AMD and they just released BD to start getting third party software optimization out of the way.
Too late for me, either way, I'm saving up to go 1155. (Maximus IV GeneZ and an i3 2120 for now, will get a cheap Z78/whatever board and Ivy Bridge when the time comes, I get a good HTPC and a good gaming rig out of it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
The most I remember him saying was that he was on the server-end of things, but also wouldn't discuss pre-release performance either. But on the other hand, I remember on occasion he'd mention that the BD architecture release would yield an improvement in instructions per clock cycle, which confused me on many levels.
To be fair, JF was probably talking servers which have a different workload than desktops, so BD may actually be faster clock for clock there. Doubt it though, nor does it make up for the absurdly bad marketing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCollins View Post
Which BTW is hilarious as F@H has a disclaimer about using AMD cpu's due to their choice of using the the ICC becuase they wrote F@H with fortran.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandeg...lding/QMD.html
That disclaimer is so out-dated its not funny, ICC has support for SSE3 on AMD now, just not SSE4.

And "new" chips, like the Pentium M and Pentium 4?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ASRock Z77 Pro3 Powercolor Radeon HD7950 3GB @ 1150/1350 4x4GB G.Skill Ares 2000Mhz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 840 250GB Western Digital Black 1TB WD1002FAEX Seagate Barracuda 3TB ST3000DM001 Samsung Spinpoint EcoGreen 2TB 
Optical DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Pioneer DVR-220LBKS Noctua NH-D14 Scythe Gentle Typhoon 1850rpm Corsair AF140 Quiet Edition 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Arcitc Cooling Acclero Twin Turbo II Arch Linux x86-64, amdgpu BenQ G2220HD BenQ G2020HD 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine III Year of the Snake, Cherry Blue Silverstone Strider Plus 600w CoolerMaster CM690 II Black and White SteelSeries Sensei Professional 
Mouse PadAudioOther
Artisan Hien Mid Japan Black Large ASUS Xonar DX NZXT Sentry Mesh 30w Fan Controller 
  hide details  
Reply
post #164 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post
It can be faster than Phenom II...If you recompile the program to use the new stuff it offers and the program will fill all cores well.

That said, the lack of performance really does hint that Piledriver is the actual main launch for AMD and they just released BD to start getting third party software optimization out of the way.
Too late for me, either way, I'm saving up to go 1155. (Maximus IV GeneZ and an i3 2120 for now, will get a cheap Z78/whatever board and Ivy Bridge when the time comes, I get a good HTPC and a good gaming rig out of it.)



To be fair, JF was probably talking servers which have a different workload than desktops, so BD may actually be faster clock for clock there. Doubt it though, nor does it make up for the absurdly bad marketing.



That disclaimer is so out-dated its not funny, ICC has support for SSE3 on AMD now, just not SSE4.

And "new" chips, like the Pentium M and Pentium 4?

According to Agner ICC does not support AMD cpu.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#127

the PPD results make sense when you look at this .net C# app that uses the Microsoft compiler compared to the ppd results of F@H. the spec benchmark uses SSE2 fairly heavily.


Edited by SCollins - 10/26/11 at 2:11pm
post #165 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by toX0rz View Post
Thats a bit much, are you sure you didnt mix it up with the 8150 ?
The 8120 has a pretty huge clock hit compared to the 8150, I'm pretty sure it would lie behind by 30+% compared to the 2600k performance-wise, and thats simply too much to justify a merely 50$ lower price, it would need to be even lower.
And I'm pretty sure the 8120 is priced on par with the 2500k while the latter easily performs on 8150 level in multi-threaded tasks and even miles better in low-threaded tasks and games...
As I said before, from a price/performance view, bulldozer is a completely obsolete chip for now, theres absolutley nothing that would justify buying it unless you are a "fanboy".. because even if you have an AMD board, the Phenom X6 would simply be the smarter choice.
Australia @ PC Case Gear.

AMD FX-6100 6-Core Processor=$215.00
AMD FX-8120 8-Core Processor=$259.00

Intel Core i5 2500K=$229.00
Intel Core i7 2600K=$339.00
post #166 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post
To be fair, JF was probably talking servers which have a different workload than desktops, so BD may actually be faster clock for clock there. Doubt it though, nor does it make up for the absurdly bad marketing.
Oh yeah, agreed--different applications, different potential performances. But it was confusing to "demux" the statements that were being made in various locations about various performances.
    
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 #167 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomfunk View Post
these types of architectures will obviously be more prominent in the future, .
If the "Module" design is the future then why isn't Intel doing it? Intel has no interest in doing "Module's". Why should they? Intel keeps getting better and better. Amd took a shot in the dark and it failed horribly.
post #168 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Karnage View Post
If the "Module" design is the future then why isn't Intel doing it? Intel has no interest in doing "Module's". Why should they? Intel keeps getting better and better. Amd took a shot in the dark and it failed horribly.
Why do u even remotely care?

You have an Intel chip and you are still not happy with it. So anything you keep saying becomes pointless. Specially when u do not use an OS like most people.
post #169 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Karnage View Post
If the "Module" design is the future then why isn't Intel doing it? Intel has no interest in doing "Module's". Why should they? Intel keeps getting better and better. Amd took a shot in the dark and it failed horribly.
The same was said to Hyperthreading with Pentium 4

Most of the AMD Enthusisasts still think Hyperthreading is still *beep*

The sad part is


Andy Glew's Path of Progression:
Hyperthreading -> Multicluster Multithreading -> Multistar

Is the path of progression and who ever wins in 201X -> 202X wil be dependent on who will use the Multistar architecture the earliest
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 #170 of 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Karnage View Post
If the "Module" design is the future then why isn't Intel doing it? Intel has no interest in doing "Module's". Why should they? Intel keeps getting better and better. Amd took a shot in the dark and it failed horribly.
I didn't say nor imply it is "the future". I said that they will be more prominent in the future. That's because AMD will keep making chips based around these modules. It doesn't matter how horribly the concept might have failed, Phenom II is at its limits and this new arch is all AMD has. Nobody can conjure up a working, marketable uarch in half a year, so regardless of how bad these modules might turn out, we'll be seeing more of them.
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