Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[NostaSeronx]

So the phenom ii is 100% faster than itself? X/X = 1

In the case of this argument Phenom II is 50% and Sandy Bridge is 100%

Phenom II has half the units of Sandy Bridge

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

LOL!

you would!

Anyway! Its not that i believe nvidia is automatically better or anything. Its just your statement is just as true to foolish as your claims that these others are.

biased, anyone?

Do you have any actual facts to back up what you're saying instead of stating "you're biased"? The simple truth of the matter is that Intel has overall dominated the CPU market since 2006 with Core 2 and AMD has dominated the GPU market since 2008. NVIDIA keeps pushing out GPUs that are constantly behind AMD in launching, are much worse in performance/watt, have much bigger dies, and not that competitive in pricing (except GTX 460 and GTX 570). The GTX 480/580 may be 10-15% faster than the fastest from AMD in their gen, but that doesn't mean NVIDIA did better, especially with their abysmal power consumption and pricing.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Tom's hardware is utter crap.

Goodbye. Don't bother replying, I don't take kindly to fanboys/trolls that make up statements and pass them as fact.

 

[exar333]

X times 1.86(186%) or 1.66(166%) comes out with the result Y

My math is correct



Sandy Bridge has 3 more functional units than Phenom II so it is 100% higher IPC(Phenom II having 3 functional units functioning at any given time and Sandy Bridge having 6 functional units functioning at any given time is a big boost)

Passmark is the most accurate benchmark to date.

Dude, you need to re-learn your 'math'.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Goodbye. Don't bother replying, I don't take kindly to fanboys/trolls that make up statements and pass them as fact.

Good riddance

Dude, you need to re-learn your 'math'.

You need to re-learn your 'English.'

 

[RussianSensation]

X times 1.86(186&#37 or 1.66(166%) comes out with the result Y

My math is correct

186% faster than X means

X (starting point) + 186% of X (1.86*X) = 2.86X

So if processor Y benches 100 points, a 186% faster processor X would achieve 286 points [X* (1+1.86)]

You are confusing "Faster than/greater than X" with "186 percent of X" or with 86% greater than X.

If a processor X was 186% of the speed of Y (Y=100), then the speed of processor X would be 186 points.

 

[NostaSeronx]

186% faster than X means

X (starting point) + 186% faster of X (1.86*X) = 2.86X

So if 1 processor benches 100 points, a 186% faster processor would achieve 286 points.

You are confusing "Faster than/greater than X" with "186 percent of X"

If a processor was 186% of the speed of X (X=100), then it's speed would be 186 points.

X = 1

X x Percentage(faster or slower) = Y

I don't know what you are going on about

In the case of Phenom II, Sandy Bridge, Llano

X = 6

Phenom II

6 x .5(50%) = 3 Functional Units

Sandy Bridge

6 x 1 = 6 Functional Units

Llano

6 x 1 = 6 Functional Units

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A8-3850+APU+with+Radeon+HD+Graphics
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+930+@+2.80GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2310+@+2.90GHz
(All CPUs have 6 functional units thus they all get the same score)

 

[StrangerGuy]

Goodbye. Don't bother replying, I don't take kindly to fanboys/trolls that make up statements and pass them as fact.

Who cares about how SB utterly destroys anything AMD right? Since Phenom II is "fast enough".

 

[RussianSensation]

X = 1

X x Percentage(faster or slower) = Y

I don't know what you are going on about

No, you aren't understanding math.

The percentage formula is:

A = B * (1 + % faster / 100%)

Example:

One person travels in Car A at 100 km/h. The other person is travelling in Car B at 20% faster speed, while Car C is travelling 186% faster than Car A.

100% faster = 2x as fast.

Car A = 100 km/h
Car B = A * (1 + 20% / 100%) = 100 * (1 + 0.2) = 100 * 1.2 = 120 km/h
Car C = A * (1 + 186% / 100%) = 100 * (1 + 1.86) = 100 * (2.86) = 286 km/h

You should revisit grade 8 math. What you are talking about is Percent OF X, not Greater than X.

 

[exar333]

Good riddance



You need to re-learn your 'English.'

You know what they say about arguing with a fool...

 

[NostaSeronx]

No, you aren't understanding math.

If I travel on the highway at 100 km/h and you are going 100% faster.

100% faster = 2x as fast.

So your speed would be 100 * (1+1) = 200 km/h

If you are travelling 186% faster than me, then you are going 100 * (1+1.86) = 286 km/h

You should revisit grade 7.

In this case you are using the percentage sightly wrong...

If you were traveling the highway at 100 km/h and I am going two times your rate I would be traveling 200% your speed

You know what they say about arguing with a fool...

Don't jest the jester.

 

[RussianSensation]

In this case you are using the percentage sightly wrong...

If you were traveling the highway at 100 km/h and I am going two times your rate I would be traveling 200% of your speed



Don't jest the jester.

If X = 100, Y = 200

1) Y is 100% greater than X
2) X is half of Y, 50% less than Y
3) Y is 200% of X

Fixed.

If 2500k scores 165 and 980X scores 100, then 2600k is 65% faster than 980X OR 980X has 100/165 = 60.6% of speed of 2500k.

 

[aphelion02]

In this case you are using the percentage sightly wrong...

If you were traveling the highway at 100 km/h and I am going two times your rate I would be traveling 200% your speed



Don't jest the jester.

You would be going 200% of his speed, but your speed would be 100% of his speed.

If you had the same velocity as him, you would be 100% of his speed, but 0% faster than him.

 

[Vesku]

No, you aren't understanding math.

The percentage formula is:

A = B * (1 + % faster / 100%)

Example:

^This, you can deny it all you want NostaSeronx but math is math and when you say Y is % faster than X you have established X as the base performance. Hence YPerformance= XPerformance + (XPerformance*Yfaster%).

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Who cares about how SB utterly destroys anything AMD right? Since Phenom II is "fast enough".

What are you talking about? The Phenom II X6 1090T is competitive with the Core i5-2400 in multi-threaded, and in everything else it loses by a considerable margin. I've said this for a LONG time now.

Also, saying that a Core i5-2500K is 86% or whatever absurd number he came up with faster than a Phenom II X4 is a complete and utter lie. He's basing his arguments on a synthetic benchmark that's FAR off from representing real-world numbers. Again, read the chart by Tom's Hardware. 40% faster both at 3GHz.

 

[RussianSensation]

What are you even talking about? The Phenom II X6 1090T is competitive with the Core i5-2400 in multi-threaded, and in everything else it loses by a considerable margin. I've said this for a LONG time now.

His point was regarding:

"If you swap someone's Sandy Bridge for a Phenom II, then the user won't even notice." If that statement was accepted as true, then how fast BD turns out relative to Phenom II would also be deemed irrelevant under the assumption that the base case Phenom II is sufficient enough already.

Basically, it's illogical to present the argument that if Sandy Bridge isn't fast enough to justify spending more $ vs. Phenom II, then suddenly a $205-245 BD would be worth the premium over Phenom II. :sneaky:

If A (Phenom II) is fast enough, then how fast B (Sandy Bridge) or C (Bulldozer) are relative to A is immaterial. Of course we know this isn't true which is why we are anxiously waiting for C's benches

 

[sm625]

Sheesh this is what I get for thinking I could visit this thread and find something about bulldozer performance.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

His point was regarding:

"If you swap someone's Sandy Bridge for a Phenom II, then the user won't even notice." If that statement was accepted as true, then how fast BD turns out relative to Phenom II would also be deemed irrelevant under the assumption that the base case Phenom II is sufficient enough already.

Basically, it's illogical to present the argument that if Sandy Bridge isn't fast enough to justify spending more $ vs. Phenom II, then suddenly a $205-245 BD would be worth the premium over Phenom II. :sneaky:

If A (Phenom II) is fast enough, then how fast B (Sandy Bridge) or C (Bulldozer) are relative to A is immaterial. Of course we know this isn't true which is why are all anxiously waiting for C's benches

I don't know what that would have to do with anything I wrote, TBH. I never said a Phenom II X4 is fast enough for most enthusiasts. For some it probably is, but saying it's fast enough for everyone is a blanket statement.

Every time I'm sure more of it: The FX-8120 will end up being another Phenom II X6 1090T. A bit faster in multi-threaded, and much slower in everything that's not. We'll see in a month.

 

[Idontcare]

Tom's hardware is utter crap.

What's your basis for this assertion?

I'll admit I have a strong nostalgic rememberance of the original THG before Tom sold it, but the articles on the current THG seem to pass muster.

 

[mosox]

CPU's don't run on their own. Lets say an average gaming machine costs $1000-without a mobo/cpu. The choice is between an AMD package that costs $200 or an Intel package that costs $300 but is 30% faster. Quick calcs suggest that AMD are better value but on anything that is CPU limited an Intel PC will be 30% faster while the system only costs 8.3% more.

In a budget gaming rig (average gaming machine is $600-700 in most of the world) an extra $100 towards the video card will always give more performance then an extra $100 in the CPU.

For a $1300-1500 budget sure Intel's higher end CPUs are fine, I keep recommending those on forums. So are expensive cases or even RAM. But this was about the bang for the buck. For gaming in full HD once you have a powerful video card the diff is only some 10-15% between the 2500K and the Ph II X4.

Definitely the Intel is not twice as fast in anything and mostly not in gaming.

There are some 1 billion PCs in the world, the enthusiast market is maybe 5%. Same with the cars. Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, etc don't sell many cars.


IMO the most interesting part of the Bulldozer line are the budget quads. I would like a quad that is close to the i-3 in single threaded apps and has the benefits of the extra cores.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Do you have any actual facts to back up what you're saying instead of stating "you're biased"? The simple truth of the matter is that Intel has overall dominated the CPU market since 2006 with Core 2 and AMD has dominated the GPU market since 2008. NVIDIA keeps pushing out GPUs that are constantly behind AMD in launching, are much worse in performance/watt, have much bigger dies, and not that competitive in pricing (except GTX 460 and GTX 570). The GTX 480/580 may be 10-15% faster than the fastest from AMD in their gen, but that doesn't mean NVIDIA did better, especially with their abysmal power consumption and pricing.

Uh, nice fallacy.
Make a claim, get a counter claim, ask for documentation for the counterclaim.
It called reversal of proof.

You made an argument.
You document that argument.
Or do you think people have to prove their innocence too in order to not be guilty?

 

[lau808]

100% faster means twice as fast, 186% faster means almost 3 times as fast... your math is wrong...

 

[AC2]

Sheesh this is what I get for thinking I could visit this thread and find something about bulldozer performance.

+++

 

[bronxzv]

X times 1.86(186%) or 1.66(166%)

you get it wrong, 1.86x speedup amount for 86% faster, it's easy to understand if you think at 1.0x speedup (0% faster) or 2.0x speedup (100% faster)

 

[StinkyPinky]

Now up to 81 pages of crap