Can AMD "rescue" the Bulldozer?

[RavenSEAL]

ok, i would like some free stuff from amd.

I thought you said it sucked?

 

[SickBeast]

I thought you said it sucked?

free stuff is always good.

an x6 thuban would be a nice drop in upgrade for my system.

are you gonna give it, IonusX? :sneaky:

 

[Chiropteran]

They need to own up to the fact that they made serious mistakes with Bulldozer and move on from it. They should be selling Llano on 32nm like hotcakes right now.

Uh, reality check buddy. Bulldozer might not be as impressive as everyone hoped, but it isn't that slow. I wish AT had the 3870k in the benchmark database, but this is close enough to prove the point-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=434

Every single test 8150 wins, and in several it wins by more than 100%. Llano is a nice cheap CPU but dumping bulldozer in favor of it would basically completely sacrifice the high end, for no useful reason. Also these results are pre "bulldozer patch" I still haven't seen a good thorough review on it, but what I've heard is it offers a 1-7% gain depending on the app. Not a huge different but given that 8150 is already winning by a huge margin it just reinforces how superior it is over llano.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Uh, reality check buddy. Bulldozer might not be as impressive as everyone hoped, but it isn't that slow. I wish AT had the 3870k in the benchmark database, but this is close enough to prove the point-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=434

Every single test 8150 wins, and in several it wins by more than 100%. Llano is a nice cheap CPU but dumping bulldozer in favor of it would basically completely sacrifice the high end, for no useful reason. Also these results are pre "bulldozer patch" I still haven't seen a good thorough review on it, but what I've heard is it offers a 1-7% gain depending on the app. Not a huge different but given that 8150 is already winning by a huge margin it just reinforces how superior it is over llano.

Pit a 3.6ghz llano against a 8150....performance gap would close just a little bit in some apps.

700mhz difference would be like comparing a stock 2500k to a 4ghz oced chip...numbers should be expected to be off comparing a 2.9ghz llano against a 3.6ghz 8150.

 

[Chiropteran]

Pit a 3.6ghz llano against a 8150....performance gap would close just a little bit in some apps.

Yeah, and if you pit a highly overlocked bulldozer against a stock i5 2500k, the bulldozer wins.

You can overclock both. It's a pointless comparison if you are only looking at one stock CPU and one overclocked CPU. This is why stock performance matters.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Not in gaming it doesn't.

You can't overclock the bulldozer chip enough to make it not suck in that aspect.

It is a decent performer against the i5 in other things, such as encoding, and decompressing rar files though.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Not in gaming it doesn't.

You can't overclock the bulldozer chip enough to make it not suck in that aspect.

It is a decent performer against the i5 in other things, such as encoding, and decompressing rar files though.

Don't know who would be smoking enough crack to purchase a 8 core bulldozer to game.

I would be expecting anyone with a 8150 to be putting it to work and if they decided to game i doubt they would care about frames per second cause their original intentions for the processor was for working.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Don't know who would be smoking enough crack to purchase a 8 core bulldozer to game.

I would be expecting anyone with a 8150 to be putting it to work and if they decided to game i doubt they would care about frames per second cause their original intentions for the processor was for working.

Well, even if you're using it for working (in other words, in multi-threaded applications) it's no better than the cheaper and much more power conservative i5-2500K.

When it comes down to scenarios that use all cores/threads, 8 Zambezi cores=4 Sandy Bridge cores.

Even though it performs the same in multi-threaded, it consumes 2x more power than the i5-2500K.

What you end up with is that Sandy Bridge delivers 2x better performance/watt.

Now please explain to me in what scenario Zambezi makes sense.

 

[Soulkeeper]

that's priceless axel

exactly why I went llano instead of bulldozer
although i5 is a wise choice too
I think my full load power usage is less than what bulldozer idles at

 

[AtenRa]

Intel has more than two CPUs (2500K/2600K) :whiste:

Bellow the $200,00 mark, AMDs Bulldozer is faster if Overclocked. Well unfortunately Intel have chosen not to allow all its CPUs to be Overclockable. :thumbsdown:

A Hex core AMD FX6100 priced at $149,99 overclocked to 4,7GHz will be faster and cheaper than Intel's Core i5 2310 priced at $184,99 that can only OC up to 3,2GHz.

The price difference can go to a faster graphics card, from HD6850 to HD6870 or from GTX560 to GTX560 ti, or for faster/more memory or better Motherboard.

So yes, 2500K/2600K are nice CPU's but not everyone can afford them

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Intel has more than two CPUs (2500K/2600K) :whiste:

Bellow the $200,00 mark, AMDs Bulldozer is faster if Overclocked. Well unfortunately Intel have chosen not to allow all its CPUs to be Overclockable. :thumbsdown:

A Hex core AMD FX6100 priced at $149,99 overclocked to 4,7GHz will be faster and cheaper than Intel's Core i5 2310 priced at $184,99 that can only OC up to 3,2GHz.

The price difference can go to a faster graphics card, from HD6850 to HD6870 or from GTX560 to GTX560 ti, or for faster/more memory or better Motherboard.

So yes, 2500K/2600K are nice CPU's but not everyone can afford them

True that. AMD and the retail outlets are finally starting to aggressively price the FX CPU's. I've recently seen fx4100 for $80.- When competitive prices like these start showing up AMD effectively "rescues" bulldozer.

 

[Smoblikat]

Intel has more than two CPUs (2500K/2600K) :whiste:

Bellow the $200,00 mark, AMDs Bulldozer is faster if Overclocked. Well unfortunately Intel have chosen not to allow all its CPUs to be Overclockable. :thumbsdown:

A Hex core AMD FX6100 priced at $149,99 overclocked to 4,7GHz will be faster and cheaper than Intel's Core i5 2310 priced at $184,99 that can only OC up to 3,2GHz.

The price difference can go to a faster graphics card, from HD6850 to HD6870 or from GTX560 to GTX560 ti, or for faster/more memory or better Motherboard.

So yes, 2500K/2600K are nice CPU's but not everyone can afford them

Well thats not exactly somthing to brag about. AMD's high end SIX core overclocked to 4.7ghz is faster than intels low end dual core at stock..............not to mention that hex core will guzzle energy by the gallon and output enough heat to melt the sun, all to beat intels DUAL CORE which casually sips its energy through a twisty straw and is cool as a cucumber. I dont think BD is that good, ive seen the benches, and ive actually used one (fx-4100). My friend had a 980BE and went to an 4x-4100 and he saw his performance drop and his power go up.

 

[AtenRa]

Well thats not exactly somthing to brag about. AMD's high end SIX core overclocked to 4.7ghz is faster than intels low end dual core at stock..............not to mention that hex core will guzzle energy by the gallon and output enough heat to melt the sun, all to beat intels DUAL CORE which casually sips its energy through a twisty straw and is cool as a cucumber. I dont think BD is that good, ive seen the benches, and ive actually used one (fx-4100). My friend had a 980BE and went to an 4x-4100 and he saw his performance drop and his power go up.

Clearly you have to check again, Core i5 2310 is a Quad Core,

Secondly, FX 4100 consume much LESS power than 980BE on stock frequencies.

Get your info straight next time

 

[Smoblikat]

Clearly you have to check again, Core i5 2310 is a Quad Core,

Secondly, FX 4100 consume much LESS power than 980BE on stock frequencies.

Get your info straight next time

Well im legally blind......i thought it said core I3. And were not talking about a stock FX-4100, were talking about an overclocked one.

 

[AtenRa]

Phenom 980BE will consume more power when overclocked too

 

[Phynaz]

Uh, reality check buddy. Bulldozer might not be as impressive as everyone hoped, but it isn't that slow. I wish AT had the 3870k in the benchmark database, but this is close enough to prove the point-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=434

Every single test 8150 wins, and in several it wins by more than 100%. Llano is a nice cheap CPU but dumping bulldozer in favor of it would basically completely sacrifice the high end, for no useful reason. Also these results are pre "bulldozer patch" I still haven't seen a good thorough review on it, but what I've heard is it offers a 1-7% gain depending on the app. Not a huge different but given that 8150 is already winning by a huge margin it just reinforces how superior it is over llano.

Ummm what? You just compared an 8 core BD against a 4 core Llano as proof it doesn't suck?

All you did was point out that it sucks less the Llano does, assuming price or power consumption doesn't matter to you.

You certainly didn't prove that BD doesn't suck.

 

[Phynaz]

A Hex core AMD FX6100 priced at $149,99 overclocked to 4,7GHz will be faster and cheaper than Intel's Core i5 2310 priced at $184,99 that can only OC up to 3,2GHz.

Links?

Because according to this:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=434
a $189 i5-2400 demolishes a 8150, let alone a 6100.

Also, the i5 can be overclocked 4 bins, which means 3.3Ghz with a 3.8Ghz turbo.

 

[Smoblikat]

Phenom 980BE will consume more power when overclocked too

nope. Unless a kill-a-watt lied to us.

 

[Phynaz]

nope. Unless a kill-a-watt lied to us.

Then it did, because power scales with clock. It's physics.

 

[AtenRa]

Links?

Because according to this:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=434
a $189 i5-2400 demolishes a 8150, let alone a 6100.

Also, the i5 can be overclocked 4 bins, which means 3.3Ghz with a 3.8Ghz turbo.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/3

In this case we’re looking at a Core i5-2500, which runs at 3.3GHz by default. When a single core is active, the chip can turbo up to 3.7GHz. If you want, you can change that turbo state to go as high as 4.1GHz (if your CPU and cooling can keep up).

Overclocking these limited unlocked chips relies entirely on turbo however. In the case above, the fastest your chip will run is 4.1GHz but with only one core active. If you have four cores active the fastest your chip can run is 3.8GHz. While Intel didn’t sample any limited unlocked parts, from what I’ve heard you shouldn’t have any problems hitting these multiplier limits.

Core i5 2310 has a base frequency of 2.9GHz, raising the multiplier by 4 bins will get us to 3.3GHz with all four cores, much like a Core i5 2500

I have said an overclocked FX 6100 at 4.7GHz will be faster than i5. 2310.

 

[Phynaz]

Wow, is there an echo in here? That's exactly what I said.

You still haven't provided any proof yet that 4.7Ghz is common on a 6100, or that it would be faster than the i5.

You are telling people to get their facts strait. How about you do the same and present some?

 

[bryanW1995]

Then it did, because power scales with clock. It's physics.

This is about emotions, not "logic" or "science".

 

[Chiropteran]

Not in gaming it doesn't.

You can't overclock the bulldozer chip enough to make it not suck in that aspect.

It is a decent performer against the i5 in other things, such as encoding, and decompressing rar files though.

Why is it so hard for some people to follow a conversation? Bulldozer is faster than llano. Bulldozer is faster than llano at games. Llano SUCKS at games, when compared to bulldozer.

SickBeast said that AMD should drop bulldozer and instead just focus on llano, as if llano is somehow a substitute for high end performance.

It isn't.

You can go on and on about how bulldozer sucks at this or that, that isn't my point. The point is, it DESTROYS llano in every single benchmark, at stock, without the "patch". The idea that AMD could dump bulldozer and just get by with llano is laughable.

Is bulldozer bad at gaming? Maybe, but llano is worse. AMD would only be making a mistake if they dropped it in favor of llano.

Ummm what? You just compared an 8 core BD against a 4 core Llano as proof it doesn't suck?

All you did was point out that it sucks less the Llano does, assuming price or power consumption doesn't matter to you.

You certainly didn't prove that BD doesn't suck.

I compared the best bulldozer to the best llano. What world do you live on where you need to artificially cripple the better of two products before making a valid comparison?

Llano is nice for it's niche, but it's performance is slaughtered by bulldozer. Bulldozer might not compete well with i5 or i7, but it is a hell of a lot better than llano. I'm really amazed that you are even making this argument.

You certainly didn't prove that BD doesn't suck.

Right, because it wasn't my intention. You certainly didn't prove that nvidia has quality drivers. See, we can both add completely irrelevant points to our posts!

 

[Phynaz]

Oh, OK, I was mistaken. I thought you were defending the fact that BD sucks. You're just saying that it's better than Llano, not that it is any good in general.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Idontcare]

nope. Unless a kill-a-watt lied to us.

Intriguing, but not likely.