I find it hard to believe AMD has managed to design a chip that uses more transistors at a higher clock speed, but is slower than its predecessor on benchmarks that are AVX aware.
donimhaber
pass
based on these observations I'll say that Bulldozer supports AVX-256 just for compatibility sake but it is probably better (TBC) to not enable AVX-256 for Bulldozer targets. It gives a refreshing new perspective on the issue of the Intel compiler enabling SSEx optimization only on Intel CPUs, since in this case it may well be a *legit optimization to disable AVX-256 for Bulldozer*, i.e. not only rely on the features flag but to look at the manufacturer string ("Genuine Intel", "Authentic AMD")
Its actually funny to read this from you .
I think a month or 2month ago i was the positive one and you were the negative one and at this point we seem to have changed positions . (Maybe due to different expectations?)
Not sure if BD can compete in the 100-200$ segment. The only advantage they have is fully unlocked cpu's at a low price range.
Well based on the leaks, at this current time I would recommend a SB chip for a performance system and a 1090T for a mid-range rig. But I still think if BD adds 300mhz+ with each new update, then its performance will start to improve significantly in multi-threaded apps. We'll have to see how fast AMD can ramp up clocks because power consumption may become an issue.
AMD has always found a way to compete in lower price segments since it was their only option in the last 5 years. I think their pricing strategy for putting FX-8120 @ $220 and FX-8150 @ $266 (if true) is way too high. But if those processors were priced at $180 and $200, and FX-6100 at $150, I can see some people choosing to buy them for multi-threaded tasks.
I fear that when IVB launches, it's going to get enough tougher for them.
I just cannot recommend an X6 for a mid-range system, unless you are only doing number-crunching applications. The 2500k is more power efficient, much faster in single-threaded tasks, and will OC much higher.
AMD is only currently relavent in extreme budget builds or budget multi-threaded setups. Thats not much of a market, when many people can go to MC and get a 2500k + MB <$250. Why even get AMD?
Where can I find this 2500k combo?
Nice try ignoring all of the other benchmarks.
These leaked results are troubling to say the least. That said, tomorrow's (right? hopefully?) Anand review will be necessary to interpret these results. Will the headline read "The Bulldozer debacle: what went wrong", or will it be "Bulldozer: great for servers and HPC, not so much for the desktop user". Normally, the bar graphs are the interesting bit, but I'm willing to bet the discussion is going to be far more interesting this time around.
These leaked results are troubling to say the least. That said, tomorrow's (right? hopefully?) Anand review will be necessary to interpret these results. Will the headline read "The Bulldozer debacle: what went wrong", or will it be "Bulldozer: great for servers and HPC, not so much for the desktop user". Normally, the bar graphs are the interesting bit, but I'm willing to bet the discussion is going to be far more interesting this time around.
AMD is only currently relavent in extreme budget builds or budget multi-threaded setups. Thats not much of a market, when many people can go to MC and get a 2500k + MB <$250. Why even get AMD?
Ya, my comment more relates to the general market pricing. Obviously, if you can get a 2500k for $149.99-$179.99 at MC, esp. for $250-300 as part of the CPU+Mobo combo, then AMD processors make no sense. I mean then you are starting to get into a situation where a 2500k is $179.99 vs. $266 for the FX-8150. Under such a case, the FX-8150 would have to cost $149 at MC to even make any sense. If you have access to Fry's or MC, then unless you get a $10-20 mobo as part of the AMD deal, AMD isn't even on the radar.
AMD looks more attractive if you start comparing a Phenom II X4 955 @ $119 vs. say an i3. For those who run multi-threaded apps, the Phenom II X4 is more attractive. But obviously, during special sales at MC where a 2500k goes down as low as $149.99, $30-40 savings on a Phenom is laughable to say the least. An overclocked 2500k is going to be some 50% faster than an overclocked Phenom II X4. So that $30-40 savings isn't at all worth it.
?
I highly dont think so, because as i have been saying the X6 trounces near it with almost half the clocks.
You expect people believing this kind of nonsense ?...
What clockspeed do you think BD runs at?I highly dont think so, because as i have been saying the X6 trounces near it with almost half the clocks.
What clockspeed do you think BD runs at?
so a 4ghz BD slightly beating a stock X6?
You call that nonse?
Then tell me where does Bulldozer fit into... please enlighten me..
Because if you want to pull out Enterprise features.. well, then let me bring in AMD's real Enterprise CPU, the Magoney.
so enlighten me where does Bulldozer fit?
so a 4ghz BD slightly beating a stock X6?
You call that nonse?
I highly dont think so, because as i have been saying the X6 trounces near it with almost half the clocks.
Everyone prepare for ACT 3 of the fanboy war : How Intel sabotaged Bulldozer and the 3960X is as big a fail as the 8150 (same X6 1100T vs 8150 logic)
So that s a 2 Ghz or so X6 being on par with a 4 ghz FX , according
to your own words that you are currently denying...