AMD Releases Interlagos Opterons With Up to 16 Cores

[Marcus Yam]

Bulldozer may find its well-suited home in the server and workstation market.

AMD Releases Interlagos Opterons With Up to 16 Cores : Read more

 

[wintermint]

Dear AMD,

Pleas throw a bone to pc gamers because bulldozer is a complete flop to us.

Thanks.

Side note: I'm glad that bulldozer still have some use in the market.

 

[lenell86]

dear wintermint, stfu, bye, clueless moron

 

[mayankleoboy1]

hoping that atleast this works for AMD

 

[illo]

@wintermint bulldozer competes with the 2500k, or intels top selling gamers processor. amd also supports a 100% unlocked cpu and has crazy OC ability. stop reading opinions and start reading facts.

 

[brizzelsprout]

[citation][nom]lenell86[/nom]dear wintermint, stfu, bye, clueless moron[/citation]

wow, fanboy much?

Yes bulldozer has some pluses but it still has a LOT of faults.

 

[LongLiveRock1974]

But will it blend?

 

[KelvinTy]

Like Intel, what do you think about the i5-2500k and i7-2600k and the i7-2700k?
the 2500k is more than enough to power all current-gen games and yet people chooses to the 2600k or 2700k for gaming. This is just preference.
In the AMD side, there are 955BE, 1100T, FX8150.
What do you think now? 955BE, up the multiplier and turns into 975BE, then they all perform extremely similar in games, just like in the intel match up.
---------------------------------------------------------
Please, just use your brain. It tells that up until a point of processing power, the limiting factor (bottle-neck) is or are the display card(s).
You want your maximum performance? Same your budget on CPU and dump that on GPUs.

 

[shqtth]

They should be releasing 24 core / 32 core magny cours. As they already had 12 / 16 core cpus, even if it was two 6/8 core cpugs on one die.

 

[shqtth]

I would rather still use a magny cours cpu as it would be true cpu cores and not ones with screwed up fpu units

 

[KelvinTy]

[citation][nom]illo[/nom]@wintermint bulldozer competes with the 2500k, or intels top selling gamers processor. amd also supports a 100% unlocked cpu and has crazy OC ability. stop reading opinions and start reading facts.[/citation]
Please read the FX8150 oc review, the FX8150 doesn't oc very well under the same condition, as like, the 2500k. You might need to stock up on some facts.

 

[ltdementhial]

So 16 Core Bulldozer Cores are 84% better than 6 intel cores...well 6 core -12 threads...but how many "modular" cores are in the Bulldozer CPU?.

it will be interesting to see Tom's Benchmarks and Server Architecture comparation...maybe we need an Bulldozer "10" core that can compete against i7 2600k

 

[molo9000]

All very nice, but the Xeon X5670 is 20months old and Sandy Bridge Xeons are right around the corner.

 

[gmcizzle]

So basically bulldozer with hyperthreading

 

[lasaldude]

16 cores from AMD and it will still get beat out by a quad core Intel Processor!

 

[shqtth]

big reason why the bulldozer failed witht he FX line, is becuase they had a 6 core phenom processor, and the bulldozer only had a 4 module version. AMD should of came out with a 6 module version, that way it would of been on par with the 6 core phenom in terms of fpu power. As it stand the 8 core phenom is kind of on par with the 6 core phenom despire hte fact the FX is clocked faster.

 

[shqtth]

in a lot of areas the 8 core / 4 module be haved like 4 core phenom or flightly faster due the clock speed, and seldomly beat the 6 core phenom.

You have to think the fx has a large l2 cache per cpu, where it should of been smaller, so the latency is higher, and since windows canmove a thread around of different cpus, latency is doubled as it has to copy cache to cache, and since the cache has higher larecy, the latency ends up being a big hit.


I would of reducted l2 cache or make it shared per module helping the module out in latency.


Also since the cache in the fx is inefficient, means the FX takes more penatly when a pipeline stall due to the longer pipeline. AMD thought they could throw more cache at the problem, but the more inefficient cache creates evena bigger problem when threads are mobed all over the place, creating even more stalls.

 

[jdamon113]

here is one issue, intel has been in the lead for so long, It may be hard to consider the AMD as an options.
I am an admin and one of the no brainers is no AMD in the server room. Our workstation are quad cores intel and video is quatro,
I like AMD but I think this will be and up hill battle. AMD fanboys may jump quick but here is the world of IT , I would need a compelling case for the suggestion, and let me tell you, its never cost. If I am buying a Server, the suggestion better work with all know software we have.
As for VM-ware this is not a good option becasue you are unable to use HF going from AMD to intel.
So for esx this cant work unless they are building from the ground up.
So AMD fanboys do not flex anything yet, AMD is far from being out of the woods. At leaset they can keep intel from Pricing these system in the stratosphere

 

[hp79]

[citation][nom]kelvinty[/nom]Like Intel, what do you think about the i5-2500k and i7-2600k and the i7-2700k?the 2500k is more than enough to power all current-gen games and yet people chooses to the 2600k or 2700k for gaming. This is just preference.In the AMD side, there are 955BE, 1100T, FX8150.What do you think now? 955BE, up the multiplier and turns into 975BE, then they all perform extremely similar in games, just like in the intel match up.---------------------------------------------------------Please, just use your brain. It tells that up until a point of processing power, the limiting factor (bottle-neck) is or are the display card(s).You want your maximum performance? Same your budget on CPU and dump that on GPUs.[/citation]

Sure, AMD C-50 can play 1080p mkv files just fine. Why would anyone in their right mind buy intel's i7-2600k, right?
I'm sure everyone only plays games on their desktop computers and have nothing better to do.

 

[Hupiscratch]

Just a side note, Interlagos is where the brazilian Formula 1 GP is held. It´s in São Paulo city.

 

[de5_Roy]

would love to see some server benches against xeons... and some real world general purpose benches e.g. gaming and transcoding on the side.
would also love to see amd rebadging lower end bd server cpus (may be valencia) as bd-ex or something (similar to what intel did during presscrap vs athlon days) and sell them to desktop enthusiast market against sb-e. fx's epic hilarious failure in desktop hurt customers - intel is selling overpriced cpus (i am looking at you, i7 3820!) claiming they're aimed at enthusiast segment.
fanboys of both brands should take note that these are not zambezi (fx) cpus - these are valencia and interlagos cpus with features different from zambezi e.g. tdp capping so they should perform differently from fx. bulldozer is the name of a whole bunch of different cpus.

 

[lunchbox4k]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Um the Xeon X5670 has 6 cores. Intel should make an X5670 with 16 cores and blow the Opteron 6276 out of the water just to shut AMD up.[/citation]
First of all AMD has been the major innovator in new technology on Intels ancient x86. It was AMD that made x64, and was criticized for it. It was AMD that developed single die multi core and was mocked for it. Its now AMD that is redesigning the x86/64 CPU to be more economical and scalable with multiple cores. It would be imposable to have 16 cores with the previous technology and meet the power ratings they have. So what do you sacrifice in a chip that is mainly suited for integer math. The integer pipes or the floating point pipes?

 

[RogueKitsune]

[citation][nom]illo[/nom]@wintermint bulldozer competes with the 2500k, or intels top selling gamers processor. amd also supports a 100% unlocked cpu and has crazy OC ability. stop reading opinions and start reading facts.[/citation]

The Bulldozer desktop part was a flop, because games and other everyday desktop applications are lightly threaded. Where as the desktop Intel parts can handle a huge number of instructions per clock making them better at those applications. Where Bulldozer shines is in the use of highly threaded applications. You only tend to see those types of applications on workstations and servers.

Also for your information my Phenom II x4 965 matches the new bulldozer cpus in almost every benchmark out there. Well that is until you get the bulldozers overclocked to the point where they generate so much heat and suck down so much power that it is no longer worth it.

In the end what i am saying is that bulldozer will make a GREAT server and workstation part, but as it is now it is a pretty MEH desktop part.

 

[rahulkadukar]

AMD, nobody runs Linpack on their machines, do some real world tests and get humiliated

 

[nordlead]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Thumb my comment down all you want... 6 cores to 16 which one do you think is going to come out on top? AMD proclaiming it's so much better is an insult to people's intelligence. Intel should compare BD to the 2600k...it would be a laugher.[/citation]
Yes, but so far Intel is incapable of putting out 16 cores on a processor. And yes, it is much better since it does run faster. Right now AMD is faster and it doesn't matter how it is done (cores/clock speed/high ipc) since these processors are for servers, not nerdy basement dwelling gamers who only need 2-4 cores so they can get a high FPS.