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... - Page 2

post #11 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post


Let's be fair smile.gif

i5-2500k $200
8120 $210
8150 $270
i7-2600k $300
i7-3930k $600

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

LL

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. 
I was comparing AMD top end vs. Intel top end. A die shrink won't do anything for BD but reduce the heat output,unless AMD goes back to TSMC.
Like I said the L1 is not enough and probably causes a bottleneck in the CPU,hopefully BD will improve,we'll get a glimpse of Piledriver cores with the Trinity APU next year,though how much better can AMD do when Intel is already becoming a monopoly while AMD loses sales everyday because GloFo is screwing up the processors?
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 #12 of 13
Two-fold issue with Bulldozer performance.

Lets take a look at the Llano first. It kicks ass, there's no other way to describe it. It is outperforming AMD's own expectations and the graphics-on-die features are running in a way AMD never designed, end result is they produced probably the best "APU" GCPU ever made both in and out of game consoles. It really does kick ass, the 500 shaders in it can keep up with everything on the pcie buss except 6970/6990 and even then, the scalability of crossfire at the 6850 level means it just plain rocks.

The Athlon ][ without the L3 kicks butt, the Deneb Phenom ][ x4 in my box is running so cold at spec that it can't evaporate water from a tissue laying above the sink!

The problems that the Bulldozer has are
1. Its NOT an 8 core chip, it is a 4 core chip with sideband processing that Windows tries to jam full threads down..
Basically windows sees it as 8 individual processors that it can manipulate in whatever way it wants, its not simply a load balancing issue, its a massive screw-up that AMD didn't emulate the hardware and get the support written before they hit market. AMD SUCKS at getting support written, vis a vis OpenCL locking up on accelerated web graphics... what's the point of having a lightning fast mathematical structure that simply cannot DO so on a system someone is using. Dropping the ball on software is nothing new...

2. When they realized they couldn't hit their clock they needed to delay shipping and revamp the L3 AM3/+ compatibility tuning.
What am I saying here? Well, its pretty straight forward. The L3 is tuned for the cores running at 4.7GHz and as such with the cores down in the 3.4GHz range, the L3 is running the chip's system interface as if it was a 2.6GHz CPU. Its choking the oxnards of the cores, we've all seen the Athlon ][ and no-L3 Deneb chips be much much more nimble.. and exactly how nimble the Llano is as well. The heavy front end of the BD bi-cores needed some sort of cache system but it looks like they needed a scalar head more than 8MB of sluggish over-accessed ram. So they already knew that the L3 was going to get in the way but they shipped it anyway. Dropping the ball, office politics, whatever. Its a fail.

Tahiti! So I watched the video presentation on the 79xx chip design and it looks like they took what they learned from the Llano and the Dozing Bull and stuck it all together. It will probably be dead awesome once someone comes along and writes drivers that work. It shows that AMD's microarchitecture people ARE brilliant...

tldr?

BD's ass is too fat and it has too many office managers giving it work.
Edited by prjindigo - 12/17/11 at 8:46pm
post #13 of 13

The title of the article is absolute bleh.

The market that the FX series desktop processors are targeted at makes up a tiny percentage of the actual computer market.  In short.... YES, AMD will survive this.
The first-generation Bulldozer architecture was an important step forward in improving per-core performance & power efficiency through high clocks and optimization.

I cannot wait for future iterations, particularly in APUs.

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...