Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Interesting review of bulldozer

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Bulldozer
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 11:32:14 PM

Toward the end of bit-tech's (aka custom PC) review of bulldozer they bring up some interesting facts about its development history.

AMD FX-8150 – why so bad?
Apart from the idle power draw of the FX-8150 – which we’ll point once again is an excellent achievement by AMD considering that the FX-8150 is a high-performance desktop part and its rival Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K are both essentially power-efficient laptop processors that have been beefed up a little for desktop PCs – the results show AMD’s latest CPU to be awful at everyday, consumer applications.

It’s a lack of single-threaded performance that holds the FX-8150 back – its efforts in our single-threaded image editing test were dire compared to every other processor on test. Even worse, this supposedly 8-core CPU running at 3.6GHz was hardly much faster than a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T running at 3.3GHz in heavily multi-threaded applications that saturate all available execution cores. In Cinebench R11.5 and WPrime – applications where a 8-core CPU should dominate a 6-core (let alone a quad-core) – we saw a lack of performance.

The answer, we think, comes from Bulldozer’s history. We started this review with a brief history lesson for a reason: we really believe that Bulldozer was intended for servers and workstations, not desktop PC running consumer applications. The lack of grunt-per-core doesn’t matter too much in a server or workstation, as most professional applications are n-threaded and balance that load evenly to saturate every core available. Furthermore, it’s widely assumed that there will be an Opteron based on the Bulldozer design that incorporates eight modules, for 16 execution cores. Bulldozer, we believe, is built for massive parallelism.


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx...

Are AMD's "fans" being served a server CPU as a PC performance CPU? I'll let you discuss...

More about : interesting review bulldozer

a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 12:27:10 AM

Yeah, they really bombed on this CPU series. Intel is the way to for now, I am doubting that AMD can catch up now.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 10:56:15 PM

HostileDonut said:
Yeah, they really bombed on this CPU series. Intel is the way to for now, I am doubting that AMD can catch up now.

In terms of die size, they caught up, but not in terms of overall performance. I think AMD has a chance with Trinity and the HD 7000 series, but BD won't be turning into the must-have CPU anytime soon. I'll give them time.

So anyway, I don't see reviews pouring in anymore, most of which favor Intel. I expect BD to be "revisited" at some point once AMD does something about BD.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2011 1:39:29 AM

I think a lot of people knew the BD was going to be targeting the server market, and was in fact engineered for that reason. From the beginning of serious BD rumors a long time ago, AMD was talking about it's modular design and how it will be able to introduce greater core counts quickly to the market.

They have from day one talked about cores and scalability. WE know that doesn't work well but in certain environments with select software applications. Work station and servers mainly, networks setup for parallel computing.

I think AMD knew what they were releasing, don't think for a minute they were surprised by the public benchmarks going around. The hype is really just limited to the small bunch of uber geeks like us, that fanatically follow tech and spend time arguing about it. As far as most of the world is concerned, it's a new AMD cpu with 8 cores!! wow!! Most people don't know the difference and couldn't care, because marketing works for a reason, so most consumers are pray to it.
October 15, 2011 2:27:51 AM

why so bad?mobo issue!(asrock 4 did better)os issue.bios issue.amd issue and the fact everybody is comparing with a i7 2600k wich is a cpugpu(not a cpu)and you got the mess that is happening right now .as everybody almost took the amd kit they all had the same problem/and to top it all off amd used automatic design instead of manuel design like intel does ( a 15% loss for amd in performance in the best case scenario)and the word is amd will live with this 15% lost .and you got all the answe as to why it is the way it is!there is about 35% of power sleeping here and there in there .and all because of silly decision!
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2011 4:09:18 AM

drbaltazar said:
why so bad?mobo issue!(asrock 4 did better)os issue.bios issue.amd issue and the fact everybody is comparing with a i7 2600k wich is a cpugpu(not a cpu)and you got the mess that is happening right now .as everybody almost took the amd kit they all had the same problem/and to top it all off amd used automatic design instead of manuel design like intel does ( a 15% loss for amd in performance in the best case scenario)and the word is amd will live with this 15% lost .and you got all the answe as to why it is the way it is!there is about 35% of power sleeping here and there in there .and all because of silly decision!

I honestly think AMD should have just dropped the 8 core idea and should have gone with 4 powerful SINGLE cores that are not in a module design.I would have been much happier with BD.
!