Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Bulldozer Processor Review... Insight on AMD's future...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bulldozer Processor Review... Insight on AMD's future...

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Check out this link for the review...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/10/can-amd-survive-bulldozers-disappointing-debut.ars/1


I hope these things come together for AMD.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks
FUSION
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD Llano A8-3870k ASUS F1A75-M Pro FM1 uATX Corsair Vengeance Corsair Force 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi ASUS DVD Burner Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VE247H 24" 1080p Razer Lycosa Corsair CX500 Fractal Define Design R3 ATX 
Mouse
Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
FUSION
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD Llano A8-3870k ASUS F1A75-M Pro FM1 uATX Corsair Vengeance Corsair Force 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi ASUS DVD Burner Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VE247H 24" 1080p Razer Lycosa Corsair CX500 Fractal Define Design R3 ATX 
Mouse
Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2 of 13
AMD has to accept that they'll never beat Intel at performance, but they can get better value. People didn't buy Phenoms because they were fast, people bought them because they, and the motherboards, were cheap - most motherboards even had integrated graphics. So to stay competitive, AMD needs to find a way to lower prices. Honestly a 32nm Thuban would be gold.
post #3 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by naizarak View Post

AMD has to accept that they'll never beat Intel at performance, but they can get better value. People didn't buy Phenoms because they were fast, people bought them because they, and the motherboards, were cheap - most motherboards even had integrated graphics. So to stay competitive, AMD needs to find a way to lower prices. Honestly a 32nm Thuban would be gold.
So you're saying AMD can never beat Intel at performance again? Can I borrow your crystal ball?
People bought Phenom II because they got more bang for their $$$ than a much more expensive 1366 or 1156 system,until Intel decided to undercut prices on AMD,keep in mind Intel can afford to lose money,AMD cannot.
Edited by Heavy MG - 11/24/11 at 6:04pm
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 #4 of 13
like what I said countless times. there's nothing wrong with the architecture. it's a great design.technically with the module design there should have little to none performance hit with the 2 cores sharing some resources in one module. if it was implemented correctly it would've been awesome. something went wrong with the manufacturing so with the release it was pretty much an old tractor instead of a bulldozer in terms of performance. amd and glofo effed up imo.
post #5 of 13
The problem with the performance is they are trying to limit how much power it uses. I never expected a 8 core chip to only use 125w.
They try to force it to stay at this limit with APM and slow base clocks.

Disable APM even at stock speeds and you get a good 5% performance increase but then the processor starts to use 130-140w.
The higher the clock speed the more performance you lose from APM doing its thing so its pretty pointless in desktops.
If they released it at the speed it was meant to be 4ghz with out APM then it would be drawing close to 230w but the performance goes way up as every one whos running a overclock bulldozer can tell you.
post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmgjet View Post

The problem with the performance is they are trying to limit how much power it uses. I never expected a 8 core chip to only use 125w.
They try to force it to stay at this limit with APM and slow base clocks.
Disable APM even at stock speeds and you get a good 5% performance increase but then the processor starts to use 130-140w.
The higher the clock speed the more performance you lose from APM doing its thing so its pretty pointless in desktops.
If they released it at the speed it was meant to be 4ghz with out APM then it would be drawing close to 230w but the performance goes way up as every one whos running a overclock bulldozer can tell you.
Intel SB-E cores are huge,yet they keep the TDP below 140W,why cant BD with its smaller cores stay below 140W?
Something is wrong with the BD design and manufacturing process,like jprovido said,both AMD and Global Foundries effed up.
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 #7 of 13
Whats the price difference again tho?
post #8 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jprovido View Post

like what I said countless times. there's nothing wrong with the architecture. it's a great design.technically with the module design there should have little to none performance hit with the 2 cores sharing some resources in one module. if it was implemented correctly it would've been awesome. something went wrong with the manufacturing so with the release it was pretty much an old tractor instead of a bulldozer in terms of performance. amd and glofo effed up imo.


 

Actually it does have problems, the long pipes allow more cores, but like Pent 4 AMD was unable to produce the clock speeds it needed. They also have a problem on the front end, it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with demand. The cache is too slow, and the IMC is still quite a bit behind Intel's. It has problems, but hopefully AMD has identified the major ones and a revision before 22nm can fix quite a few of them.

 

22nm should help, if AMD doesn't place more cores on the die, and instead makes some much needed tweaks to the design they could have a really good chip on their hands.

 

 

I read the first part of the link, it was pretty spot on and reflected what many of us know deep down. The reason we expected so much from bulldozer was because AMD did hold the performance crown before, we know they can do it. Bulldozer didn't do it, but you can't rule out AMD just yet. I like many others here can't wait for the day when AMD returns to the top, hopefully that day comes sooner rather than later.

 

 


Edited by BallaTheFeared - 11/24/11 at 6:43pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmgjet View Post

Whats the price difference again tho?

Between SB-E and Bulldozer?
BD FX-8150 3.1Ghz 8 core 125W TDP $269.99 USD
SB-E i7-3960X 3.3Ghz 6 core 130W TDP $1,049.99 USD
An FX-8150 costs $780 less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post




Actually it does have problems, the long pipes allow more cores, but like Pent 4 AMD was unable to produce the clock speeds it needed. They also have a problem on the front end, it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with demand. The cache is too slow, and the IMC is still quite a bit behind Intel's. It has problems, but hopefully AMD has identified the major ones and a revision before 22nm can fix quite a few of them.

22nm should help, if AMD doesn't place more cores on the die, and instead makes some much needed tweaks to the design they could have a really good chip on their hands.


I read the first part of the link, it was pretty spot on and reflected what many of us know deep down. The reason we expected so much from bulldozer was because AMD did hold the performance crown before, we know they can do it. Bulldozer didn't do it, but you can't rule out AMD just yet. I like many others here can't wait for the day when AMD returns to the top, hopefully that day comes sooner rather than later.

The IMC is ok once OC'ed to match SB's stock 3000Mhz,forget about the cache being slow,BD only has 16KB of L1 cache to work with,because of such a small L1 cache,it affects the whole processor. Terrible yields from Glofo can also be to blame for poor performance.
Edited by Heavy MG - 11/24/11 at 6:51pm
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 #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy MG View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmgjet View Post

Whats the price difference again tho?

Between SB-E and Bulldozer?
BD FX-8150 3.1Ghz 8 core 125W TDP $269.99 USD
SB-E i7-3960X 3.3Ghz 6 core 130W TDP $1,049.99 USD
An FX-8150 costs $780 less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post




Actually it does have problems, the long pipes allow more cores, but like Pent 4 AMD was unable to produce the clock speeds it needed. They also have a problem on the front end, it doesn't seem to be able to keep up with demand. The cache is too slow, and the IMC is still quite a bit behind Intel's. It has problems, but hopefully AMD has identified the major ones and a revision before 22nm can fix quite a few of them.

22nm should help, if AMD doesn't place more cores on the die, and instead makes some much needed tweaks to the design they could have a really good chip on their hands.


I read the first part of the link, it was pretty spot on and reflected what many of us know deep down. The reason we expected so much from bulldozer was because AMD did hold the performance crown before, we know they can do it. Bulldozer didn't do it, but you can't rule out AMD just yet. I like many others here can't wait for the day when AMD returns to the top, hopefully that day comes sooner rather than later.
 
The IMC is ok once OC'ed to match SB's stock 3000Mhz,forget about the cache being slow,BD only has 16KB of L1 cache to work with,because of such a small L1 cache,it affects the whole processor. Terrible yields from Glofo can also be to blame for poor performance.

 

Let's be fair :)

 

i5-2500k $200

8120 $210

8150 $270

i7-2600k $300

i7-3930k $600

 

I used slower ram, but I was going more cache comparison...

 

51ab9adc.png

 

The cache speeds of bulldozer are quite a bit slower than sandy, and the i5 is slower in that area than the i7-2600k, not sure about 2011. Clearly though the IMC still needs some work, even with faster ram it's lagging behind considerably.

 

Again not bashing, but AMD can do better, I expect they will as well. Hopefully it's enough to combat Ivy, but I believe AMD has more room to improve here than Intel does with Ivy vs SB. 


Edited by BallaTheFeared - 11/24/11 at 6:58pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Bulldozer Processor Review... Insight on AMD's future...