Well comparing voltage on 32nm SOI to 32nm bulk Si is kind of apples to oranges. AMD's SOI processes seem to be more tolerant of higher voltages. 32nm Llano runs at like 1.4V I think, so I wouldn't be surprised if stock voltage for BD was in that area as well.hitting 5GHz on SB isn't that hard when you force 1.5v down its throat, which is what this review got with BD...and 1.5v isn't exactly reasonable for 24/7 use. It'd be a much different story if they were able to easily get BD to 5GHz @ 1.35v without ridiculous cooling and prove it to be rock solid stable
even if BD turns out to be a golden overclocker and can regularly hit above 5GHz with reasonable volts, again, that doesn't mean much if its consistently outperformed by 2500K/2600K rigs that have been taken to their own reasonable limits
well we still need to see some more/better (or even real?) reviews to see where everything shakes out, with numbers like this if BD can only "reliably" hit ~5GHz @ 1.5v that doesn't exactly put AMD in any sort of favorable position when Sandy's K series can regularly hit 4.7-4.8. We still don't know enough to make any definitive conclusions from from this one "review" (we don't know what kind of cooler or temps they were getting, let alone to what degree of stress testing they employed and resulting stability or lack thereof)
BD might certainly make an interesting price/performance option for highly threaded situations, but with early numbers like this showing it to be poorer than AMD's own Phenom 2 chips in IPC, it simply doesn't bode well for its overall value in today's software landscape.
I am not understanding what you are trying to get across. Are you saying that because BD puts up mixed #s with i7-965 and 2500k/2600k that's it's suddenly a great chip? From those leaked benches, if true, it can't beat either in single threaded performance. This means that an overclocked Nehalem, or 2500k/2600k will still smoke it even if BD is overclocked to 4.8-5.0ghz. And considering those Cinebench results, it's barely better than a $190 X6 1100T that has been available for a long time.
This is what a lot of people are thinking:
1) If I want a top-notch multi-threaded CPU, I'll get a $159.99 X6 1090T and overclock it to 4.0ghz. And based on those 'leaks' the $189.99 FX-6100 wouldn't stand a chance against the X6 1090T.
2) If I want a top-notch all-around performance CPU, I'll get a $220 2500k.
3) If I want a top-notch fastest performance CPU without breaking my wallet, I'll get a 2600k.
Where do FX-8120 for $220 or the FX-8150 for $260 fit in this picture? If those benchmarks are true, those prices are way too high, esp. since most programs can't use more than 4 threads. It was somewhat acceptable to pay $160-180 for the X6 but $250+ for the FX-8150 that barely performs faster than the X6? That would be a huge failure if true.
Also, if BD @ 4.8-5.0ghz consumes way more power at load vs. a 4.5ghz SB, that's not going to bring it any accolades. I am obviously going to wait for official benchmarks, but not a single leak thus far has shown anything out of the ordinary. Wouldn't you have expected an 8 core FX-8150 to at least beat 2600k in the most heavily multi-threaded apps such as Cinebench? That should have been a given.
Okay, I want you to explain to me how this would be a disaster to release cpus equally as fast as your competitor? You guys just make no sense.
Well, AMD currently positions an X4 vs. i3 and X6 vs. i5 for very low prices. And despite those AMD processors being superior in multi-threaded apps (i.e., Cinebench) vs. their Intel counterparts, AMD was still unable to gain market share.
In other words, X6 1100T already beat such processors as the i5-750/760/860/870/875/920/930/940/950/2500K in Cinebench:
But very few people care about this rendering advantage, unless you do render. Even when priced at only $160-180 (with such awesome multi-threaded performance), Phenom II still failed to gain momentum. Most people still chose Intel processors I listed since they simply perform better in actual real world tasks. I am sure that a lot of people expected BD to at least match Nehalem in 1-4 threaded apps and be faster than X6/2600k in multi-threaded apps. That was a pretty good compromise. And yet, it looks like 9 months late vs. SB and multi-threaded performance barely better than X6.....with no increase in single-threaded performance.
Okay, I want you to explain to me how this would be a disaster to release cpus equally as fast as your competitor? As I mentioned before all the technical talk doesn't change if product A is equally as fast as product B. You guys just make no sense. Its like saying a porsche isn't as good as a vette because it has a higher reving engine.
Can someone please show me the info where this was suppose to be a quantum leap in cpu technology? I love Intel cpus, but to see the info leaking so far, if true, I gotta give credit where credit is due.
Let me ask you this: Why would you pay $250 for an FX-8150 when you could pay $159 for a 1090T and get basically the same results?
Oh, and by the way, the 1090T also has 2 less cores.
The FX-8150 should DESTROY the 1090T\1100T in multi-threaded, yet it barely beats it, and this is due to the higher clock speeds.
This means AMD has made ZERO progress over the last couple of years!
Well comparing voltage on 32nm SOI to 32nm bulk Si is kind of apples to oranges. AMD's SOI processes seem to be more tolerant of higher voltages. 32nm Llano runs at like 1.4V I think, so I wouldn't be surprised if stock voltage for BD was in that area as well.
Okay, I want you to explain to me how this would be a disaster to release cpus equally as fast as your competitor? As I mentioned before all the technical talk doesn't change if product A is equally as fast as product B. You guys just make no sense. Its like saying a porsche isn't as good as a vette because it has a higher reving engine.
this review simply doesn't give us enough information to make a definitive conclusion either way, but right now it doesn't exactly bode well from the information we do have to make inferences about realworld performance tasks for today's software that likely won't favor BD's architecture
So what are we falling back on, the business side of things or are we still talking tech side of things?
On one hand you use cinebench to make an argument against AMD, but in your comparison where AMD is superior in the same benchmark, you dismiss that one and use the floating castle of real world instead.
Again. Why are you doing this again? Seriously, why in the world this vague review is better than any other fud spread before? As for me this is only another site doing its attention whoring.
You can't even wait 5 days. Too bad both fanboy factions can't be wrong at the same time, I would laugh my ass off.
In fact the highest IPC with the lowest multithread performance would be such a plot twist.
This is curious slide showing the FX-8150 wiping the floor in minimum FPS with 2600K at 1024x768 in Unigine Heaven Benchmark.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pyUWXUhTaBg/To3yPVbK3vI/AAAAAAAABLo/2dFwwB7Bn_Y/s1600/bulld_unigine.jpg
All the AMD marketing BS aside, was anyone really expecting AMD to beat two generations of Intel CPU's with just one release?Besides, AMD has a lot up their sleeve next year. I'd hold off on calling Bulldozer a failure just yet until official release but so far it doesn't look good.
Only in its present desktop form. This is actually a very clever design. server to apu with one design.
This is curious slide showing the FX-8150 wiping the floor in minimum FPS with 2600K at 1024x768 in Unigine Heaven Benchmark.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pyUWXUhTaBg/To3yPVbK3vI/AAAAAAAABLo/2dFwwB7Bn_Y/s1600/bulld_unigine.jpg
didn't stop intel doing it after recovering from their Netburst debacle, of course they were in a much better financial situation
no doubt about that from me, but that's not exactly what this thread has been about
I think AMD still has a very bright future in server/HPC and of course with APUs, but for now I don't have much hope for them for the things I (and I'm sure most of us here) care about
all the while getting wiped just as hard in average frame rate...
But they're not equally as fast. At best, it looks like BD has comparable performance to the 2600K if 8+ CPU intensive threads are run. The 2600K will pull away with fewer threads and will probably be 50% or more faster at 4 threads or less. It's a disaster because BD was hyped as an efficient, throughput oriented processor using CMT. Yet it turns out Intel can match it with a much smaller supposedly desktop oriented processor. 16-core Interlagos will probably be matched by just the 6-core SB.Okay, I want you to explain to me how this would be a disaster to release cpus equally as fast as your competitor? As I mentioned before all the technical talk doesn't change if product A is equally as fast as product B. You guys just make no sense. Its like saying a porsche isn't as good as a vette because it has a higher reving engine.
But they're not equally as fast. At best, it looks like BD has comparable performance to the 2600K if 8+ CPU intensive threads are run. The 2600K will pull away with fewer threads and will probably be 50% or more faster at 4 threads or less. It's a disaster because BD was hyped as an efficient, throughput oriented processor using CMT. Yet it turns out Intel can match it with a much smaller supposedly desktop oriented processor. 16-core Interlagos will probably be matched by just the 6-core SB.
Basically, if you want to use a car analogy, AMD promised a radically new full size pickup offering great towing capabilities but as it turns out, Intel's sports sedan actually can tow just as much. And when not towing anything, the sports sedan remains a sports sedan while the pickup truck remains a pickup truck.
But they're not equally as fast. At best, it looks like BD has comparable performance to the 2600K if 8+ CPU intensive threads are run. The 2600K will pull away with fewer threads and will probably be 50% or more faster at 4 threads or less. It's a disaster because BD was hyped as an efficient, throughput oriented processor using CMT. Yet it turns out Intel can match it with a much smaller supposedly desktop oriented processor. 16-core Interlagos will probably be matched by just the 6-core SB.
No, because it appears the 2600K beats BD even in applications that can use all of BD's cores. That's what makes the 2600K good, it has excellent performance in low-threaded or high-threaded applications.Does that make the 2600K a terrible cpu when you run a mutlithreaded app that can use all of bulldozers cores? You cant run this logic in just one direction .
Not quite, as it appears Intel's 4-cylinder engine appears to have the same or better peak hp, with a broader power curve while using less fuel than AMD's V8.And if we stick to car analogies its like intel makes a 4 cylinder car but call it a V8 .....which will work fine until you actually turn up with a real v8
The FX-8150 gets owned in that slide. Except for min FPS, which means nothing in my opinion. Avg FPS is where the bar is set.