Discussion Forums > Technology
Your view on AMD's Bulldozer
kamuixtv99:
You get what you pay with AMD, They have poor benchmarks but with its price, it's still the 'king' for massive buyers like for schools and internet cafes. These days what you see inside internet cafes are facebook and its lousy games and WoW :P
kitamesume:
^ not at all, if some school bought bulldozer they'll be breaking their pockets because they're looking at PCs eating 3-4x more power than the equivalent competition, they're already running at megawatts per hour just by air conditioning, the additional heat those bulldozer would increase it further, well do you want to pay 500$ more per semester?
or are you talking about the cheap schools? then thats even worse, those kind of schools still uses pentium4s these days.
if they're smart enough, they'd either go with Llano or i3 with additional dGPU if needed, specially on graphic arts schools.
why? schools dont need that much power, nor do they game.
internet cafes i've seen has C2Q Q6600 + 9800GT in them, much newer cafes has i3-530 + GT450 in them.
kureshii:
AMD actually only has two “value-for-money” product lines at the moment.
Propus (Athlon II X4, including the Phenom II rebrands), which offers quad-core performance below the $100 CPU price point, where Intel only offers dual-core non-HT (Sandy Bridge) Celerons at that price.
Thuban (Phenom II X6), which offers hex-core performance that still edges out the i5-2500 in heavily-multithreaded applications at a similar price point (The i5 still wins lightly threaded benchmarks though).
No, Zambezi (FX-series) doesn’t fit anywhere in there at all. The 900-series AM3+ motherboards are way overpriced, and the eight-core processor loses to Thuban in value-for-money (not to mention availability). The quad-core parts may yet prove themselves; lets see how the reviews go.
There is a niche market for Deneb cores (Phenom II X4), which are great overclocking chips, especially the BEs. Unfortunately, performance-wise an overclocked Athlon II X4 is still better performance for money, and at higher price points you might as well be getting an X6 already.
Let’s not talk about the rock-bottom SKUs, because a consumer buying those might as well be buying second-hand, in which case price is difficult to discuss since it depends much on luck.
TMRNetShark:
--- Quote from: kureshii on October 15, 2011, 02:34:50 PM ---Let’s not talk about the rock-bottom SKUs, because a consumer buying those might as well be buying second-hand, in which case price is difficult to discuss since it depends much on luck.
--- End quote ---
I recently bought an X6... you calling that second hand? XD
I mean, I have a 1055T X6... so it's bottom of the bottom of the X6 CPUs. Surprisingly, that CPU held up really nicely in the BF3 beta on the Caspian Border map... Not once did my FPS go below 50 even with the multitude of tanks and helicopter bombings. :P
That's besides the point though. It would seem that Intel is doing whatever it wants right now while AMD is trying to be the competitive 2nd place contender. Bulldozer doesn't seem to be THAT competitive with a lot of the higher end CPUs, but we will have to wait to REAL benchmarks are made.
kureshii:
By rock-bottom I meant Sempron actually; old Athlon Is, 65nm X2s, and whatever else AMD has at that price point. What made you think an X6 is rock-bottom?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version