Discussion Forums > Technology
Your view on AMD's Bulldozer
kureshii:
Fooled by Intel and Apple? That's an amusing way to put it. Is AMD then "fooling" people into thinking it's the best value-for-money now, when as mentioned earlier it doesn't even hold the position in some segments anymore?
Nice job pulling percentage numbers from thin air btw. Maybe supporting your statements will help immensely.
[edit] OpenBenchmarking.org benchmarks of FX-8150 vs i7-2600K. Without more detailed hardware setup info it's hard to make conclusive statements about how Bulldozer performs in Linux compared to the i7; one would note that the Bulldozer processor is running on 4GB of RAM while the i7 is running on 8GB. No mention is made of DIMM speeds or configuration. Hard disk configuration is different as well. These differences all considered, the discrepancy in performance seems to be greater in Linux than in Windows; FX-8150 has a visible lead on the i7-2600K in 7zip MIPS in Windows while it doesn't have the lead in the p7zip benchmark. Not even the impact of DIMM speed (as estimated from other investigations, particularly from TweakTown and VR-Zone), sufficiently accounts for the difference.
bloody000:
Yes, another one who thinks anyone that doesn't care about computers must be a mindless drone. You are not above "them" just because you care about a few pieces of silicon, kamuixtv99, maybe you will understand that when you find out that you're an "average joe" by shampoo enthusiast standard.
per:
--- Quote from: nstgc on September 26, 2011, 10:12:46 PM ---Everything I've read about the Bulldozer's architecture screams "revolutionary", and I am an AMD fan boy, but when I went to build a new computer over the summer, I ended up buying a i5-2500k because it was more cost effective than AMD.
--- End quote ---
At least in a server setting the (server version) is anything but revolutionary. Unless you count lower performance and higher power usage as a revolution in internal heating.
It's "real" cores even scales worse than Intel Xeon hyperthreading. Per CPU clock it seems to be about at least 30% slower with very heavy multithreaded loads (200+ processes per node, with 24 "cores", versus 12 cores with hyperthreading for Intel).
In fact, in our tests a 2.2Ghz Intel Xeon L beat the bulldozer 2.4Ghz based test node hands down, the difference was about 20% in the intel CPU:s favor.
That might not look too bad unless you consider that the intel solution is cheaper and uses about 30% as much power.
per:
--- Quote from: kamuixtv99 on October 15, 2011, 12:55:01 PM ---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
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately bulldozer is priced higher or the same as the competing intel parts. And the Intel parts use about a third of the power, which saves you a surprising amount of power over the years.
What I am most irritated about is that their server CPU section has been promising us lower power and more performance, the the truth is actually that their old server CPU:s are more efficient, and faster!
However, those are still not competitive with the Xeon CPU:s.
kitamesume:
^ true at that, the problem is the PPW! seriously, who would want to save a couple of bucks(100$ vs i7-2600K) just to end up racking up his electric bill by another notch.
i can't even think of any advantage of getting a bulldozer, the motherboards costs like 2x more if you're talking "cheapest", the CPU sucks in electricity(lol pun), theres like three or four? benches that bulldozer gets a fair win.
BUT, if they ever find a way to make bulldozer more worth it, then consider me getting one as well, that is, if ivy bridge isnt more worth it than bulldozer/piledriver.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version