Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FX is AMD's Pentium 4

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Is the FX CPU AMD's Pentium 4?

Total: 78 votes (9 blank votes)

  • Yeah, FX=Pentium 4/garbage/disapointing...
  • 78 %
  • Nah, I think FX is great!
  • 23 %
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 12:05:34 AM

Disclaimer: I am not an Intel fanboy, to the contrary I've only bought AMD CPUs (owned Intel but never bought).

AMD has been dropping the ball in it's CPU division ever since they bought ATI. They are a shadow of their former self, their CPUs have stagnated and their GPUs have blossomed, go figure! The FX reminds me of the Pentium 4, why? Lets go back in time.... Intel was late in releasing the Pentium 4 constantly pushing it back, and when it was released performance was sub par the higher clocked Pentium IIIs of the time were able to beat the Pentium 4 in most applications/benchmarks (sound familiar?). So the original Pentium 4 based on the Willamette core sucked but after, Intel was able to release a more competitive Pentium 4, the Northwood based Pentium 4, but with that CPU came high power consumption (remember how you needed a motherboard with a 4-pin CPU power connecter to use the higher clocked Pentium 4s?) and increased heat output (does this all sound familiar to the FX? Because it should). In the end the Pentium 4 was a hot and IPC inefficient CPU based on clock speed marketing just like how the FX is based on core count marketing. This is why I think the FX is AMD's Pentium 4. Does anybody agree?

More about : amd amd pentium

a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 12:18:26 AM

im not saying FX isnt a dissapointment, but lets wait to see if windows 8 really does improve on it
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 12:45:07 AM

I will allow this to continue, but please keep on topic, and no flame wars.
Related resources
a c 161 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 1:55:06 AM

Now we are to moderators watching this. Please keep it most clean and civilized as possible.
a c 152 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 2:42:31 AM

nna2 said:
im not saying FX isnt a dissapointment, but lets wait to see if windows 8 really does improve on it


Except it probably won't improve it not that much atleast. The Bulldozer is a lost cause.
a c 97 à CPUs
February 9, 2012 2:53:42 AM

Improvements to the scheduler in Windows 8 won't save Bulldozer. The design isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it is ahead of its time, the vast majority of software simply isn't threaded enough to take advantage of the higher core count. That combined with what in this day and age is almost abysmal single threaded performance, and you have a flop.

Its only saving grace as far as gaming goes is the fact that most games are GPU bound these days, so its poor performance is only really apparent in a handful of CPU heavy titles, or when it is paired with a really high end SLI/Crossfire setup. It also performs okay in a small number of content creation applications that are heavily multithreaded. However, the fact that a quad core Intel CPU without hyperthreading performs very close to an 8 core AMD CPU is quite telling. There are definitely some major flaws AMD has to work out with this design, you shouldn't need to overclock your CPU to 4 or 5 GHz to get good single threaded performance.
a c 899 à CPUs
a c 359 À AMD
a c 154 å Intel
February 9, 2012 2:55:15 AM

Not great but neither is it Garbage!
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
February 9, 2012 3:17:53 AM

i think voting options are too limited.
p4, disappointing and garbage do not usually mean the same thing. so the first option could come off as 'bulldozer-bashing'. amd fanboys could take offence and start up some verbal fights with ipcsomething or multithreadedthingamazig.
for instance, i am disappointed with bulldozer. but i don't think it is garbage. the idea behind bulldozer is pretty good. the implementation, execution and marketing were bad. still voted the first option because i could not fully agree with the other one.
imo if the voting options were a bit more diverse, people's responses would be more accurate.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 3:39:47 AM

Hi :) 

You say you are not biased , but....

You only compare cpus...

What about graphics ?

We all know that ONBOARD graphics are awful from Intel and stunning from AMD....

Lack of innovation in onboard graphics from Intel has set back laptops for years, if i had designed Intels ONBOARD graphics, I would have shot myself years ago....

Which is why lappies are rubbish at games, at least AMD are improving things rapidly with their APUs...

Its a case of swings and roundabouts, some companies have better things at one time than others, other times its the other company.....

So yes you are biased...

And my Computer companies sell BOTH Amd and Intel....we sell a LOT more Amd stuff though than as Intel is DRASTICALLY overpriced and customers see that and choose Amd generally...

All the best Brett :) 
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
February 9, 2012 5:33:41 AM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

You say you are not biased , but....

You only compare cpus...

What about graphics ?

We all know that ONBOARD graphics are awful from Intel and stunning from AMD....

Lack of innovation in onboard graphics from Intel has set back laptops for years, if i had designed Intels ONBOARD graphics, I would have shot myself years ago....

Which is why lappies are rubbish at games, at least AMD are improving things rapidly with their APUs...

Its a case of swings and roundabouts, some companies have better things at one time than others, other times its the other company.....

So yes you are biased...

And my Computer companies sell BOTH Amd and Intel....we sell a LOT more Amd stuff though than as Intel is DRASTICALLY overpriced and customers see that and choose Amd generally...

All the best Brett :) 


Maybe its cause you are overpricing them...anyways this thread is about fx not amd..
February 9, 2012 5:47:18 AM

FX is out performed by its predecessor just like the P4 was when it was released. So I think its pretty apt. Except Intel saw the error of the P4 and turned around and created Core, a truly great architecture, while AMD from what I have read at their recent event seems to be abandoning the high end desktop space.
February 9, 2012 5:48:35 AM

they do great in integer heavy benchmarks, and those that really use 8 threads.
they are not garbage, though i did select that option in the poll.

would i recommend it to anyone ? never.
would i ever buy it myself? never.
will win8 make it better? no.
but it is not garbage.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 6:11:13 AM

Quote:
and when it was released performance was sub par the higher clocked Pentium IIIs of the time were able to beat the Pentium 4 in most applications


I stopped reading at that point. If you can't get your facts straight I question everything else you say. And if I'm going to question it why read it.

Quote:
The Bulldozer is a lost cause.


Not sure I agree with this. First, if you've seen the win8 tests you'll know that BD does score higher. And more then just 1% like with the patches for win7. If PD and win8 turn out well, then the dozer family isn't a lost cause. I still feel there is something wrong with the front end of the chip, but my degree isn't in chip design.

Another thing to keep in mind is that yes, while BD has a lower IPC when compared to the PhenomII series or SB, all you need to overcome that is higher clocks. IF GloFlo can up the clocks by a lot on the next node then AMD will have quite the chip on its hands.

a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 8:33:19 AM

4745454b said:
Quote:
and when it was released performance was sub par the higher clocked Pentium IIIs of the time were able to beat the Pentium 4 in most applications


I stopped reading at that point. If you can't get your facts straight I question everything else you say. And if I'm going to question it why read it.

Quote:
The Bulldozer is a lost cause.


Not sure I agree with this. First, if you've seen the win8 tests you'll know that BD does score higher. And more then just 1% like with the patches for win7. If PD and win8 turn out well, then the dozer family isn't a lost cause. I still feel there is something wrong with the front end of the chip, but my degree isn't in chip design.

Another thing to keep in mind is that yes, while BD has a lower IPC when compared to the PhenomII series or SB, all you need to overcome that is higher clocks. IF GloFlo can up the clocks by a lot on the next node then AMD will have quite the chip on its hands.


Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s in all but a handful Applications at the time of release - In a sense, It was ahead of its time (Most applications still used older instruction sets and code more suited to the PIII or the Athlon) - Which again is a testament to his claim about how Bulldozer is a kin to the P4.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 9:01:05 AM

Quote:
Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s


Again, incorrect. Would you like me to bold the part that is wrong?
February 9, 2012 9:17:45 AM

I like the FX, keeps my table with one shorter leg very stable, AMD!
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 9:27:10 AM

I like the idea of the FX, With a little luck one or 2 incarnations of it Could see one of the best multicore designs out there.
But in it's current incarnation it's a let down that the Thuban CPU can out perform bulldozer still

In reference to the P3 vs P4 notes above, I believe they mean the SLOWER clocked P3's still beat the Higher Clocked P4's (as P3's only went to 1.2ghz?, while P4's started at 1.5ghz? not sure if that's correct)
February 9, 2012 9:28:34 AM

4745454b said:
Quote:
Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s


Again, incorrect. Would you like me to bold the part that is wrong?


Back then, i was still assembling computer for a company that built workstations and "boutique" computers. The original willamette (1.3 to 1.5 ) was weaker than most athlons, tualatin P3, and later on Intel launch a celeron 1200 model that also wiped their ass. Even tomshardware had charts reflecting that. P4 was a fluke. And using RIMMs increased alot the price of the computer.

Athlon XP/TB vs P4

[link]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-xp-meets-p4,...[/link]

Another Willamette Review
[link] http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,264-23.html [/link]

Quotes from the second review

"Let's get serious now however. We have learned that Pentium 4 has got a rather exciting and interesting brand new design that comes with a whole lot of potential. However, the benchmark results might seem a bit sobering to the majority of you. Whatever Pentium 4 is right now, it is certainly not the greatest and best performing processor in the world. It's not a bad performer as well though."

"Pentium 4 at 1.4 GHz goes for $644, Pentium 4 at 1.5 GHz costs $819 right now. It's not exactly a bargain, but, hey, who really cares about price if it really is all about style?"

Can't find any reviews under the codename Tualatin, that was the last iteration of PIII. It reached a maximum of 1.4GHz (stock) and we used it widely for our boxes. We could use 166 Mhz SDRAM at the fraction of the COST of RIMMS and usually with more than double capacity. Tualatins capabilities were always hidden from consumer because they were really good and Intel wanted to sell those extremely overpriced P4.

If you search a bit you will see, that P4's were crap. Too expensive for their own good. Any P3 or Athlon were literally half the price. And with more performance.




February 9, 2012 9:30:39 AM

And stop bashing BD like that. It is not the crap P4 was. It is just on the wrong price point.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 9:35:16 AM

Well Im an AMD fanboy, but well Intel is doing a great job with their strong processors...

I really hope that AMD will come with a better processor. At least the so much talked "improvement" that Win8 will give to FX should help, but what I am really waiting is a new architecture or at least the next FX gen... I´d would change my crappy processor by there. AMD! PUT YOUR EYES IN THIS KIND OF FURUMS!
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 9:40:15 AM

I didn't see anything wrong in that post. But take a look at what you two actually wrote and not what you think it says. Read it out loud if you need to. Its not a matter of semantics, but a serious flaw in your argument.
a c 82 à CPUs
February 9, 2012 9:48:33 AM

Brett928S2 said:
Hi :) 

You say you are not biased , but....

You only compare cpus...

What about graphics ?

We all know that ONBOARD graphics are awful from Intel and stunning from AMD....


Does FX have onboard GPU, is FX available in a laptop?

And to the original question, yes it might be ahead of its time, but you have design for the market that exists, not one that might exist in a 2-3 years.
February 9, 2012 9:49:15 AM

4745454b said:
I didn't see anything wrong in that post. But take a look at what you two actually wrote and not what you think it says. Read it out loud if you need to. Its not a matter of semantics, but a serious flaw in your argument.


Give me fact vs my main argument.

"Back then, i was still assembling computer for a company that built workstations and "boutique" computers. The original willamette (1.3 to 1.5 ) was weaker than most athlons, tualatin P3, and later on Intel launch a celeron 1200 model that also wiped their ass. Even tomshardware had charts reflecting that. P4 was a fluke. And using RIMMs increased alot the price of the computer. "

Even in the second review they refer that the athlon 1800+ would trash the p4 2000 in some benchmarks. for less than half the price. the 1800+ worked at 1533 Mhz. Comparing back then and the actual situation, we are complaining that BD is 50USD/Euro too expensive. That's it. If you sell the 8150/8120 at 199 USD it is a rather good deal.

Back then Intel was selling at 600 USD what supposedly should cost 250/300 USD. And yes, the P4 were beaten by lower clocked/priced athlons and PIII tualatins. And those are the facts.
a c 119 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 10:02:56 AM

wow op what a load of crap. amd made 1 cpu that managed to beat intel every 1 since has been slower and under performed against intels comparative cpu...
amd have always been a generation behind but got lucky in the early days and came up with a cpu that punched above its weight.
bulldozer was a gamble that didnt pay off. they were hoping to create another athlon but failed... to say that bulldozer is amds pentium suggests there was some sort of too and fro of the title of best cpu, when we all know ever since athlon, intel have held the crown...
amd had the budget cpu against intels premium for performance , but since sandy bridge and the 2100 intel have made inroads into amds territory in a big way...
no bulldozer isnt amd's pentium coz every cpu since pentium has been amd's pentium... and yes you are a fanboy....
(you gave it away by sayin you owned but never bought intel. like it left a bad taste in yer mouth.... grow up.... buy the best not a brand.)
February 9, 2012 10:57:46 AM

radnor said:
Give me fact vs my main argument.

"Back then, i was still assembling computer for a company that built workstations and "boutique" computers. The original willamette (1.3 to 1.5 ) was weaker than most athlons, tualatin P3, and later on Intel launch a celeron 1200 model that also wiped their ass. Even tomshardware had charts reflecting that. P4 was a fluke. And using RIMMs increased alot the price of the computer. "

Even in the second review they refer that the athlon 1800+ would trash the p4 2000 in some benchmarks. for less than half the price. the 1800+ worked at 1533 Mhz. Comparing back then and the actual situation, we are complaining that BD is 50USD/Euro too expensive. That's it. If you sell the 8150/8120 at 199 USD it is a rather good deal.

Back then Intel was selling at 600 USD what supposedly should cost 250/300 USD. And yes, the P4 were beaten by lower clocked/priced athlons and PIII tualatins. And those are the facts.

In many applications(especially games), Intel's Dual Core CPU's trounce Bulldozer.

Bulldozer is remarkably reminiscent of the P4.

Sure there are going to be some differences that don't make the comparison 100% in all instances, but it is striking how many instances that the comparison is very apt.

What's more, AMD even had the example of the P4 as a warning of how risky the low IPC/high clock speed strategy is, and at a time when AMD's process situation has never been more shaky, and yet that is still the road they travelled down.

As bad as Bulldozer is now, I suspect that by the time its follow on products get compared to Haswell, the Bulldozer architecture is going to win itself a very special place in the Hall of Shame.


a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 10:57:54 AM

If you need the help...

Quote:
Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s


This error is what stopped be in the original post as well. The p3s kept up with or were faster then the higher clocked P4s.

There are two ways to be the fastest chip. Either perform more instructions per clock, or have more clocks. Both BD and the P4 seem to be going or went the way of more clocks. But for me if you are going to talk about how things are and can't get your chips straight, step back and try again. P3s had better IPC then the P4s, and were clocked slower. I too remember the 1.3GHz P3s beating 1.6GHz P4s. It's not exactly news.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 11:00:08 AM

Quote:
What's more, AMD even had the example of the P4 as a warning of how risky the low IPC/high clock speed strategy is, and at a time when AMD's process situation has never been more shaky, and yet that is still the road they travelled down.


I really wish AMD had the ability to admit that BD wasn't ready and give us a true 8core PhenomII with the 4 thread front end. Adding two extra cores and beefing up the existing hardware would have gave us a faster chip then BD will probably ever be. Only reason I can think of as to why they didn't do this is pride, or the die would have been to large and they were thinking of profit margins...
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 11:09:29 AM

4745454b said:
If you need the help...

Quote:
Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s


This error is what stopped be in the original post as well. The p3s kept up with or were faster then the higher clocked P4s.

There are two ways to be the fastest chip. Either perform more instructions per clock, or have more clocks. Both BD and the P4 seem to be going or went the way of more clocks. But for me if you are going to talk about how things are and can't get your chips straight, step back and try again. P3s had better IPC then the P4s, and were clocked slower. I too remember the 1.3GHz P3s beating 1.6GHz P4s. It's not exactly news.


You Misunderstand.

What we (or at least I) meant was that the PIIIs with the higher clocks (1.0Ghz Coppermine, Coppermine T and Tualatin cores as opposed to 500Mhz) were faster than the early Willamette P4s, I am fully aware that P4s had terrible IPC and were shipped with higher clocks. Please don't confuse Chip Knowledge with your inability to understand a simple argument.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 11:17:41 AM

As I said back in the BD roumer thread, there were a lot of parallels between the P4 and BD, specifically the higher power draw, high clocks, and reduction in IPC.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 11:19:41 AM

If thats the case you should use "later P3s" or the chip names like Coppermine. The way it was written lead to confusion.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 11:27:23 AM

4745454b said:
If thats the case you should use "later P3s" or the chip names like Coppermine. The way it was written lead to confusion.


I can see why you read it like that however I'm unsure if anyone else would've. I know I certainly didn't read OPs post the way you did.

It may well be one of the more subtle differences between British English and American English, who knows?
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 1:19:02 PM

Chad Boga said:
In many applications(especially games), Intel's Dual Core CPU's trounce Bulldozer.

Bulldozer is remarkably reminiscent of the P4.

Sure there are going to be some differences that don't make the comparison 100% in all instances, but it is striking how many instances that the comparison is very apt.

What's more, AMD even had the example of the P4 as a warning of how risky the low IPC/high clock speed strategy is, and at a time when AMD's process situation has never been more shaky, and yet that is still the road they travelled down.

As bad as Bulldozer is now, I suspect that by the time its follow on products get compared to Haswell, the Bulldozer architecture is going to win itself a very special place in the Hall of Shame.


IMO, the poor power consumption, etc can be blamed on upper management's decisions from the time they spent too much money on the ATI acquisition, forcing them to sell off their fabs and thus be dependent on GloFlo's yields and process problems.

However, BD is also the latest example of AMD occasionally badly misjudging the current market. It's mundane IPC performance, having to rely on a future OS and software capable of using all those cores, is very similar to AMD's insistence on 'native quad-core' for Barcelona, instead of going with the MCM approach like Intel did. That decision gave Intel a solid year to market quad-core CPUs before the TLB-fixed Barcie came out, and marked the beginning of AMD shedding many billions in value up until the end of 2010.

If AMD got more involved in software development, like Intel does, they'd understand the present market and where it's going a bit better..
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 4:11:25 PM

I will say this once. This is not an AMD/FX bashing thread, it is a educated comparison between two CPUs. All I'm saying is that the FX shares a lot of similarities to the Pentium 4 (e.g. low IPC, marketing hype, high clocks, high heat etc.). FX may not be garbage to some but it is definitely not a huge success.

By the way 90% of my builds for me and for others have been AMD builds with nVIDIA GPUs, just to let some people know where my allegiances are.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 4:15:11 PM

It's also each companies first forte into "hyperthreading". Intel didn't get it 100% right the first time, not surprised AMD is having issues as well.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 4:16:51 PM

But hyper threading and integer cores are two different things are they not?
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 4:20:21 PM

AMDs Bulldozer should not be confused with SMT.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 4:25:21 PM

They are different, but not that much. There are 8 integer cores, but only 4 floating point cores. If you think about it, there is still the matter of 2 "cores" needing to share some resources. Just like with Hyperthreading.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 4:33:52 PM

I think they should have let Bulldozer ferment a little longer and just release an improved 32nm Phenom III X8 or something, it would've been better then what we have now.
a c 152 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 4:53:12 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
and when it was released performance was sub par the higher clocked Pentium IIIs of the time were able to beat the Pentium 4 in most applications


I stopped reading at that point. If you can't get your facts straight I question everything else you say. And if I'm going to question it why read it.

Quote:
The Bulldozer is a lost cause.


Not sure I agree with this. First, if you've seen the win8 tests you'll know that BD does score higher. And more then just 1% like with the patches for win7. If PD and win8 turn out well, then the dozer family isn't a lost cause. I still feel there is something wrong with the front end of the chip, but my degree isn't in chip design.

Another thing to keep in mind is that yes, while BD has a lower IPC when compared to the PhenomII series or SB, all you need to overcome that is higher clocks. IF GloFlo can up the clocks by a lot on the next node then AMD will have quite the chip on its hands.


Windows 8 isn't going to do anything for the Bulldozer. Even if it does make it a little better it's only going to put it equal to the first generation of Sandy Bridges. By that point Intel will be on the Ivy Bridges so they will again be two steps behind. That sure sounds like a lost cause to me.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 5:16:41 PM

The original Phenom was an undoubted flop, but it was also an evolution for AMD. They took their original Athlon Dual Core ideas and were able to translate that to quad core.

When I look at Bulldozer, I see the original Phenom. Not a stellar performer when compared to the competition, but at the same time, AMD is really the only company offering ANY competition to Intel right now. At least BD is able to stay in the same heat.

But when I look back at the original Phenom, I also realize that the Phenom II was a huge advance in both performance and capability over the Phenom. So I have my hopes set for Piledriver. I don't expect anything phenomenal, but I do have hopes that it will still be in the same heat as Intel yet again.

The future of mobile computing will always be tighter integration of resources into the same die. SoC for mainstream computing is already here in some cases, and for gaming it really isn't that much further off. And I think AMD has a better chance of getting it right than Intel does, given the lack of improvement Intel has had with graphics performance.

Bulldozer - a good candidate, but lackluster when compared to the Intel competition.

Piledriver - hope in the wings, but we will see what comes of it.

Llano - really enthused over this budget performer. Not necessarily an enthusiast platform, but this APU rocks hard for HTPC builds and budget laptops.

Trinity - Next gen APU...enthused to see PD with Radeon Cores on the same die. Even if PD is as lackluster as BD, the APU integration will only improve budget performance without taking anything away from the enthusiasts.
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 5:29:17 PM

Well, AMD have the Piledriver for this year with Win8... it will be a real improvement ( I REALLY HOPE SO)

Also I have to say that theres at least 4 generation more for bulldozer, so lets spect more from the near and long future. Intel also had their problems implementing new tecnologies and now they are doing it better over time...

Veredicto: 1st Bulldozer Gen fails as much as Pentium 4 did.. :( 
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 6:20:50 PM

whooleo said:
But hyper threading and integer cores are two different things are they not?


Same concept. The heart of SMT is to keep the inactive parts of the execution unit busy by allowing more tasks to be run at once. At a bare minimum, this requires a duplication of the register stack, which is essentially all HTT does. AMD CMT basically throws in extra Integer units, which would help in certain loads, but its the same concept overall. [FYI, the MIPS architecture was the grandfather of the "keep the CPU pipeline busy and ramp up clocks" approach]
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 6:21:13 PM

Only time will tell, but AMD doesn't have as much room for screw ups as Intel does....
a b à CPUs
February 9, 2012 6:49:57 PM

The biggest issue is that p4 had no hope




VS



It took over 500 mhz for a p4 to = Athlon XP in increase of 33%
BD is capable of overtaking even a i7 2600k with a mere 200 mhz or 5%

Think about this, this is a synthetic test. This test pretty much ignores the cache curse that follows BD around like the plague. but it shows that BD is more than capable of performing once that issue is taken care of. P4 had no hope at all, internally it was slow as hell. The only thing that helped P4 was the rambus speeds vs ddr 1 memory.

Again, keep in mind this is the cpu's potential in a benchmark, not real world. BD != P4
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 9, 2012 11:56:51 PM

Cache curse? Not familiar with that one.

And I (and others) think you are wrong. In many ways already listed they are very similar chips.
a b à CPUs
February 10, 2012 1:32:56 AM

AMD is leaving the performance desktop scene, FX is their swan song. mobile CPUs outsell desktops and the mobile market is constantly growing while the desktop scene has been stagnant for some time.

intel is the way to go for desktop CPUs but it may not be a major market for too much longer.

a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
February 10, 2012 2:33:58 AM

noob2222 said:
Cache curse http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review....

That's how you go from the top synthetic test to moderate performance.

i read that when zambezi launched. the cache design looks like a conscious design decision. i mean, from amd's perspective it must have looked like a design worthy of implementing (disregarding how it really turned out). it's not a curse.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2012 2:47:16 AM

Some odd reason the link didn't work for me. But I went to Anands site and looked up the page manually.

Looking at the page I don't see anything about a curse. Latencies went up, but I don't read anything where they say how this will impact performance. I have my own reasons for explaining why synthetics show one thing while programs show another but I'd like to hear yours.
a c 87 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 10, 2012 2:49:32 AM

Quote:
i mean, from amd's perspective it must have looked like a design worthy of implementing (disregarding how it really turned out).


Correct. They did the same thing when they moved from S939 to AM2. They had to increase the latencies a bit to handle any extra L2 Cache they might need to add later, and to handle the faster DDR2 speeds. They have done this throughout all their CPUs that I can remember. I have no idea what he's talking about but I'm always/usually in the mood for education/more info on something.
!