Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Buldozer Question

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2012 10:32:52 PM

I bought the FX 8120 without knowing what sandy bridge is i thought something was wrong eith
the cpu and i did not buy one lol but now im stuck with my 8120 and i think it's a great upgrade from a intel atom but anyway i was wondering how exactly bad is the bulldozer like if you did 200 calculations what would be the cpu load? i want to know how much the bulldozer can take under load beacause i want to use xna game studio and i dont want to bottleneck a game do to my own system issues campared to the 2500k sandy bridge

More about : buldozer question

a b à CPUs
February 28, 2012 10:58:41 PM

the fx 8120 is not bad cpu. you can run all modern games just fine granted your grapics card is good enough. It doesnt do too well in benchmarks against sandy bridge but real life applications are a different thing. I played starcraft 2, a cpu intensive game, on both a fx 8150 and i5-2500k on the exact same graphics card and i probably couldnt tell the difference if no one told me.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2012 11:15:28 PM

computernewb said:
the fx 8120 is not bad cpu. you can run all modern games just fine granted your grapics card is good enough. It doesnt do too well in benchmarks against sandy bridge but real life applications are a different thing. I played starcraft 2, a cpu intensive game, on both a fx 8150 and i5-2500k on the exact same graphics card and i probably couldnt tell the difference if no one told me.

well i mean is each core only half the power of a sandy bridge or is it just weak on some calculations?
m
0
l
a c 478 à CPUs
February 29, 2012 2:26:59 AM

Overall Bulldozer is at best a minor upgrade from the previous Phenom II series. Phenom II's performance level means that it actually competes against Intel's older Core 2 series, not the Core i series.

Since Bulldozer is more or less a lateral move, it too also competes against the Core 2 series. Piledriver should include some performance tweaks and if it can manage a 10% performance increase over Bulldozer, then it should be able to compete against the 1st generation of Core i CPUs (Lynnfield & Nehalaem).

Ivy Bridge is coming soon. Many people think it will get between a 15% - 20% boost over Sandy Bridge. I'm thinking it will be more like 6% (assuming same clock speed) because it seems most of the purported performance is based on AVX acceleration. Therefore, programs that do not use vector and scalar data sets (many, many programs do not) will not see too much of a performance boost. Anywaste, that's my opinion for now... hopefully I will be wrong and the general performance increase (same clockspeeds) will be closer to the 15% - 20% as other claims.

In terms of overall CPU raw computational power, the difference between Sandy Bridge CPUs compared the Core 2 / Phenom / Bulldozer (FX) is about 20% - 22%.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 29, 2012 5:04:17 AM

jaguarskx said:
Overall Bulldozer is at best a minor upgrade from the previous Phenom II series. Phenom II's performance level means that it actually competes against Intel's older Core 2 series, not the Core i series.

Since Bulldozer is more or less a lateral move, it too also competes against the Core 2 series. Piledriver should include some performance tweaks and if it can manage a 10% performance increase over Bulldozer, then it should be able to compete against the 1st generation of Core i CPUs (Lynnfield & Nehalaem).

Ivy Bridge is coming soon. Many people think it will get between a 15% - 20% boost over Sandy Bridge. I'm thinking it will be more like 6% (assuming same clock speed) because it seems most of the purported performance is based on AVX acceleration. Therefore, programs that do not use vector and scalar data sets (many, many programs do not) will not see too much of a performance boost. Anywaste, that's my opinion for now... hopefully I will be wrong and the general performance increase (same clockspeeds) will be closer to the 15% - 20% as other claims.

In terms of overall CPU raw computational power, the difference between Sandy Bridge CPUs compared the Core 2 / Phenom / Bulldozer (FX) is about 20% - 22%.

so your saying that overall not to much o a dierence but enough to make a difference in games?

but what i dont get is what does ivy bridge have that sandy bridge does not?
and why does amd not do fixes sandy bridge/ivy bridge have basicly do everything they have exept make it like 16nm or really anything smaller then ivy bridge like is that illegal to copy what intel does and add more and if not why does amd bother to sell chips like it really costs them money to do changes, like it's any more expensiver then making a bad cpu
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
February 29, 2012 5:07:17 AM

Amd is in debt and are going to lose money by doing that. It is an entirely new gamble, between: Do we want to refine bulldozer? (piledriver) or spend more money to completely re do our bulldozer arcitechture and possibly lose money in the process or gain money.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 29, 2012 5:21:34 AM

amuffin said:
Amd is in debt and are going to lose money by doing that. It is an entirely new gamble, between: Do we want to refine bulldozer? (piledriver) or spend more money to completely re do our bulldozer arcitechture and possibly lose money in the process or gain money.

well they need to understand there basicly waiting to go bankrupt at this point and need to understand they are not going to be in buisness for long i they keep this up and they are willing to make a 8 core cpu for a price of a intel 4 core they might make it, it's just the fact that they had the wrong idea so they should make a cpu like the i7 extreme for about $150 like the bulldozer and they will be overlowing with cash in no time and make a $100 4 core for people who want to overclock higher without to much power or people who dont have the extra $50 i mean that would be nice of them but i know they are kinda dumb there chips are really smarter then them beacause last time i checked i your gonna hit a wall take the chance and turn not keep going and hope you make it


i mean it does not cost amd more to make a 8150 then a 4100 so i dont see why they can sell higher end CPUs for lower and get rid of the lower end CPUs and thats a start
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 29, 2012 6:31:34 AM

The FX 8120 is really best suited as a server CPU, or in applications where all 8 (cores!) are used, it is poor at single threaded tasks. For use in a general purpose computer it would be a poor choice compared to the i3 or i5 processors. However in programs like Solidworks Photoshop etc it holds its own. In everyday use you would not be able to tell the difference between a FX8120 and i5. Its really only in benchmark programs that you can see the speed difference between a FX8120 and a i5
m
0
l
a c 172 à CPUs
February 29, 2012 7:27:17 AM

melikepie said:
so your saying that overall not to much o a dierence but enough to make a difference in games?

but what i dont get is what does ivy bridge have that sandy bridge does not?
and why does amd not do fixes sandy bridge/ivy bridge have basicly do everything they have exept make it like 16nm or really anything smaller then ivy bridge like is that illegal to copy what intel does and add more and if not why does amd bother to sell chips like it really costs them money to do changes, like it's any more expensiver then making a bad cpu

Ivy Bridge is basically a die shrink from 32 nm to 22 nm combined with some micro-architecture improvements.

Intel cannot do a 16 nm CPU. And AMD no longer owns its own fabs.

Bulldozer is not a "bad" CPU chip. It's just too little two years too late. And the unreasonably high expectations of it as an i-killer doesn't help.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 29, 2012 12:42:21 PM

each sb core is 70% faster than a bd core at same speed, also phenom2 are 20% faster than bd at same speed.

A 4.5ghz fx8 will be equal to 5ghz i5sb in heavily highly threaded tasks provided that software is using all bd cores at their full efficiency and scaling loss is 0.
But currently, 6ghz fx8 is equal to 5ghz i5sb (due to loss in scaling multicore and other factors)
m
0
l
February 29, 2012 1:24:25 PM

You already own the 8120 & you'll be fine with it. Don't worry about all the reviews, suggestions, etc. & just try it out for YOUR normal usage. In the end I doubt that you will be disappointed.

One more thing, go on Newegg.com or another retailer website & read some reviews from actual owners. The 8120 has a "5 Egg" rating after 315 reviews, so it can't be all bad.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
February 29, 2012 1:46:45 PM

If they tried making a chip like the i7 extreme and sold it for $150, they would be losing money. It probably costs more than that to make the chip, even on intel's side.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 29, 2012 1:53:41 PM

AMD are all automated and that costs money, selling a extreme level chip for peanuts is one way to go bankrupt. Its okay, they will Pedel on AMD GPU's until they lose that market to.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 29, 2012 10:08:22 PM

amuffin said:
If they tried making a chip like the i7 extreme and sold it for $150, they would be losing money. It probably costs more than that to make the chip, even on intel's side.

well making the chip does not cost the money it's hiring people to assemble it thats what making it cost money so if they sell it for a really good price and not make 50000 of them then there good
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
February 29, 2012 10:30:18 PM

You don't understand, they don't have the money to do that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2012 4:14:17 AM

AMD have made positions redundant, moved to full automated systems to produce chips, from a former AMD developer he claimed that Automation is not only slower but also bigger hence the wasted trasistor to die ratio.

At the end of the day a solid 8core would have performed better.
m
0
l
a c 478 à CPUs
March 1, 2012 5:09:33 AM

melikepie said:
well they need to understand there basicly waiting to go bankrupt at this point and need to understand they are not going to be in buisness for long i they keep this up and they are willing to make a 8 core cpu for a price of a intel 4 core they might make it, it's just the fact that they had the wrong idea so they should make a cpu like the i7 extreme for about $150 like the bulldozer and they will be overlowing with cash in no time and make a $100 4 core for people who want to overclock higher without to much power or people who dont have the extra $50 i mean that would be nice of them but i know they are kinda dumb there chips are really smarter then them beacause last time i checked i your gonna hit a wall take the chance and turn not keep going and hope you make it


i mean it does not cost amd more to make a 8150 then a 4100 so i dont see why they can sell higher end CPUs for lower and get rid of the lower end CPUs and thats a start


Designing a CPU like the i7 extreme for about $150 is easier said than done. They will not be overflowing with cash because it takes cash (and time) to design a CPU. If AMD could design a CPU that can compete against the Sandy Bridge CPUs in general I'm am sure they would love to.

Basically all FX CPUs are the same chip, but not all of this chips comes out in 100% working ordering. If so then they could all be sold as FX-8150 CPUs. The manufacturing process does not produce 100% working products. I don't know what the yield of Bulldozer processors is, but I do know it is higher than Llano APUs which basically has a 50% yield. The more defects in the cores/modules the lower the model number because the defect cores/modules will be switched off.

AMD's relationship with Global Foundries (formerly part of AMD) has gone from warm & fuzzy to more or less frigid. GloFo fabricates FX and Llano chips for AMD at least for now. AMD may switch to TMSC to manufacture future 28nm APUs and CPUs though...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2012 9:24:08 AM

melikepie said:
well making the chip does not cost the money it's hiring people to assemble it thats what making it cost money so if they sell it for a really good price and not make 50000 of them then there good

This might give some gimpse into a CPU fab. http://www.sudhian.com/content/?p=1372

You can't supply demand since it takes nearly 2 months from a silicon wafer to an actual product. Instead you have to make your best guess on what demand will be in 2 months time.

Quote:
Following the weeks required for the initial wafer to be turned into layers and layers of metal, silicon and other materials, it’s time to see what developed. The wafer itself is tested for electrical properties, to see if any errors were made, and if possible what step they occurred at.


Thats what fabs refer to when they state thier "wafer starts" is the number of wafers they intend to push through. There are sooooo many things that can go wrong, even as simple as cutitng can be fatal. How would you like to pay $5000+ for something like this.



Figure by counting that there are easily 200 good chips on that even if its 50% yield, thats $25 each. But that entire wafer is junk because the machine can't work it anymore. That just jumped your price of the next one if it works to $50 each. They are still going to charge you the $5000 for the broken one, thats how fabs work sales.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/106217-manufacturi...
m
0
l
!