AMD Finally Releases 'Bulldozer' CPUs

[Ivy Bridge]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/1

That review is using AMD's top line Bulldozer 8 core CPU. I have to say it is nothing short of disappointing. I kind of knew that it would wind up this way when I considered all the delays... Delays mean something is wrong, in this case yields are far below expectations. I honestly think this could be really bad for AMD, like them losing a LOT of money.

Not only does it get beat by Sandy Bridge in pretty much every test, it costs more too. The 2500k comes in at $220 (vs $245 on AMD's side) and beat it in all but like one benchmark. Hell, even some of the Phenom II CPUs beat it in lightly threaded scenarios. I guess in order to get more cores they had to impact their single core performance... bad move AMD. More cores does not equate to more performance. Bad on you.

Thoughts? I know there were a lot of AMD fanboys waiting on Bulldozer to overtake the market from Intel.. I bet the ones who jumped ship because of delays are thanking themselves.

edit: Crap, misspelled the title >_< can a mod please fix? Thanks

 

[jimmy riddle]

Why did i have to be so im-patient and buy a new pc with a Phenom just a few days ago >.<

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Why did i have to be so im-patient and buy a new pc with a Phenom just a few days ago >.<

You're not missing much anyway. At this price point, you could have a better performing platform with Intel.

 

Finally! After so long! I'm gonna buy it soon.

 

[kill dank]

It may be a big step, but I bet the Q1 and Q2 Intel processors will still smash them. A quad core SB is pretty much equal to if not better than the 8150, with 6 or even 8 cores they won't even compare.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

It may be a big step, but I bet the Q1 and Q2 Intel processors will still smash them. A quad core SB is pretty much equal to if not better than the 8150, with 6 or even 8 cores they won't even compare.

Cores don't really determine performance. Most programs are only single threaded. Pretty much the ONLY places you see benefits of having more than say 2 cores is like high end video editing, archiving, etc. Even most games don't really make use of more than 2 cores. It's pretty much entirely about architecture. AMD does have a nice roadmap but 99% of the time these are overestimated to increase hype. Even the next step for AMD will be nothing in comparison to Ivy Bridge and SB-E if this trend continues...

Plus these Bulldozer chips don't even compare to Sandy Bridge right now tbh. The 2500k and 2600k still smash the 8150 at better price points. AMD is really failing lately.

Also, Black Tux, just curious but why do you want to buy this? The review was pretty bad tbh. The Intel i5 2500k performs (much) better and is $25 cheaper. Another thing I found interesting is that it's SOOO much more power inefficient than Sandy Bridge. The 2500k was pulling like half as much wattage as the FX8150. Those watts add up, man.

 

[kill dank]

Cores don't really determine performance. Most programs are only single threaded. Pretty much the ONLY places you see benefits of having more than say 2 cores is like high end video editing, archiving, etc. Even most games don't really make use of more than 2 cores. It's pretty much entirely about architecture. AMD does have a nice roadmap but 99% of the time these are overestimated to increase hype. Even the next step for AMD will be nothing in comparison to Ivy Bridge and SB-E if this trend continues...

Plus these Bulldozer chips don't even compare to Sandy Bridge right now tbh. The 2500k and 2600k still smash the 8150 at better price points. AMD is really failing lately.

I'm fully aware that the number of cores is not directly related to the performance of a processor, but let's face the facts, an 8 core is better than a quad core for a lot applications. Especially considering any company that doesn't optimize their software for hyperthreading in the future really needs to kick it up. Plus, you can set the affinity of a process to only use certain cores. More cores to spread things out over equals better overall efficiency.

and your second paragraph is basically what I was trying to say above.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

I'm fully aware that the number of cores is not directly related to the performance of a processor, but let's face the facts, an 8 core is better than a quad core for a lot applications. Especially considering any company that doesn't optimize their software for hyperthreading in the future really needs to kick it up. Plus, you can set the affinity of a process to only use certain cores. More cores to spread things out over equals better overall efficiency.

and your second paragraph is basically what I was trying to say above.

Setting processor affinity is not the same thing as being optimized to run on more cores. It can be counter-productive in some cases, actually.. Can you name any applications that make use of 8 cores? My guess would be very few, if any.. even most of the common video editing programs, where highly threaded apps are commonplace. Like 90% of games don't make use of more than 2 cores, setting affinity won't help that. If it was that simple, programs would automatically set it in Windows by themselves.... Also AMD doesn't use hyperthreading, these are 8 physical cores.

I'm not saying you were wrong or anything, just your post implied (at least to me) that you were saying 8 cores somehow equates to more performance. Sounds kind of like a contradiction to say:

I'm fully aware that the number of cores is not directly related to the performance of a processor

And then turn around and say:

an 8 core is better than a quad core for a lot applications

Not trying to be standoffish or anything, just trying to make sense of the situation

 

[&#9829;Z&#9829;]

I would rather have an i7 instead of the bulldozer.

 

[Clashfan]

Benchmarks were pathetic. My only hope is that

There's only a single Bulldozer die. The 6 and 4 core versions simply feature cores disabled on the die. AMD insists this time around, core unlocking won't be possible on these harvested parts.

might be wrong and make some of the four/six "core" ones worth it.

 

[HvHost]

The only reason I can see why I myself personally would get an AMD is to save a couple bucks, but Ivy Bridge pointed out the i5 2500k is basically the same, if not better, and is cheaper. AMD is falling again.

 

[kill dank]

Setting processor affinity is not the same thing as being optimized to run on more cores.

Yes but the usage is still there. If I'm using an application that isn't optimized for hyperthreading and a couple of my cores are running under a high load, when I go to use another application I use the set affinity menu to not allow it to use the cores that were already under a heavy load, but still use everything else. Does that make sense?

Can you name any applications that make use of 8 cores? My guess would be very few, if any.. even most of the common video editing programs, where highly threaded apps are commonplace.

SolidWorks 2012 is the only one I know off hand. I would think the others are more parallel tasks like video encoding, file compression, and rendering software. But more will come. I just like the idea that you have 4 solid cores for everything now and 4 more for when you need them or can use them.

Like 90% of games don't make use of more than 2 cores, setting affinity won't help that. If it was that simple, programs would automatically set it in Windows by themselves.... Also AMD doesn't use hyperthreading, these are 8 physical cores.

True, the programs just need to catch up. When using more than one application, why wouldn't you be able to use different cores?

I'm not saying you were wrong or anything, just your post implied (at least to me) that you were saying 8 cores somehow equates to more performance. Sounds kind of like a contradiction to say:
And then turn around and say:
Not trying to be standoffish or anything, just trying to make sense of the situation

Well when running one program like a game, the number of cores above what the game is made for won't really affect the performance of the game. But when when you're running a lot of programs at once, they can be used.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Yes but the usage is still there. If I'm using an application that isn't optimized for hyperthreading and a couple of my cores are running under a high load, when I go to use another application I use the set affinity menu to not allow it to use the cores that were already under a heavy load, but still use everything else. Does that make sense?



SolidWorks 2012 is the only one I know off hand. I would think the others are more parallel tasks like video encoding, file compression, and rendering software. But more will come. I just like the idea that you have 4 solid cores for everything now and 4 more for when you need them or can use them.


True, the programs just need to catch up. When using more than one application, why wouldn't you be able to use different cores?


Well when running one program like a game, the number of cores above what the game is made for won't really affect the performance of the game. But when when you're running a lot of programs at once, they can be used.

That's not how affinity works, still. Pretty much the only time you will see tangible benefits from setting affinity is when you consolidate lightly threaded programs so they're spread across different cores so that they don't negatively impact each other's performance. It's not like you can take a single threaded app and make it able to utilize 8 cores. Like I said man, if it was that simple, programs would just do it automatically. *edit- I hope I didn't misunderstand you. I feel like you were saying you're forcing programs to make use of those extra cores but at the same time can't tell if I just reworded what you meant to say. My b if so.

I think we're still a lllooonnngg way off of mainstream support for more than quadcore CPUs. Yeah I mean you could say it's nice for future proofing but by the time any worthwhile programs will actually be able to utilize those cores to their full potential, Bulldozer will be irrelevant anyway.

It would be nice to be able to have 8 cores just for the hell of it but frankly you're more likely to bottleneck elsewhere before you run out of CPU headroom by consolidating the programs to the individual cores. Not much point to having like 17 benchmarks, 50 chrome tabs, 3 games, or some crap like that running. Honestly AMD is like on an arm's race trying to have the most cores.

Another fucked up thing I just found out about AMD's pricing.. These Bulldozer cores are actually pretty inexpensive to manufacture. Compared to Phenom II it is apparently much cheaper, for not that huge of a gap in performance. They could have had a winner if the price point was lower.

 

Last time I had an AMD it worked great for me, it was better than a supposedly 5x times faster Intel atm.

I just don't care for benchmarks, I base myself completely in experience.

I've wanted AMD for months now.

 

[Laptop65]

I think I'll wait for Intel, everyones knows Intel is better than AMD. Besides, there's not that much of a performance increase for the Bulldozer.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Last time I had an AMD it worked great for me, it was better than a supposedly 5x times faster Intel atm.

I just don't care for benchmarks, I base myself completely in experience.

I've wanted AMD for months now.

What do you base performance on if not benchmarks? It's not like you can count FPS or something... and did you even have the "supposedly 5x faster Intel" to compare it to? Seems kind of like you just have an AMD bias... (just curious, which two processors are we talking about here?)

 

What do you base performance on if not benchmarks? It's not like you can count FPS or something... and did you even have the "supposedly 5x faster Intel" to compare it to? Seems kind of like you just have an AMD bias... (just curious, which two processors are we talking about here?)

It was an old 350Mhz AMD IBM PC vs a 1.8Ghz Intel Pentium 4 Compaq at that time. It ran faster. Since I discovered that, I like more AMD.

I've never went through benchmarks... In my mind, from my perspective AMD is better, is just that.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

It was an old 350Mhz AMD IBM PC vs a 1.8Ghz Intel Pentium 4 Compaq at that time. It ran faster. Since I discovered that, I like more AMD.

I've never went through benchmarks... In my mind, from my perspective AMD is better, is just that.

Lol basing which company is better on past experiences is kind of foolish IMO. There has always been periods where one company has been better than the other, just as in any other industry. Right now just happens to be an Intel period. I'm not loyal to one side or the other, but if one side offers more performance I am going to go with that. Brand name really doesn't matter, it's all about the pursuit of performance.

 

Lol basing which company is better on past experiences is kind of foolish IMO. There has always been periods where one company has been better than the other, just as in any other industry. Right now just happens to be an Intel period. I'm not loyal to one side or the other, but if one side offers more performance I am going to go with that. Brand name really doesn't matter, it's all about the pursuit of performance.

It's not like a game a lot, I don't even play games. =|

So yeah ^_^

Btw: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

AMD has best ratio in general.

The newest most powerful AMD doesn't beat the 2500K though, but in my mind is not like a big change.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

It's not like a game a lot, I don't even play games. =|

So yeah ^_^

Btw: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

AMD has best ratio in general.

The newest most powerful AMD doesn't beat the 2500K though, but in my mind is not like a big change.

I mean I'm not saying you can't like AMD lol. Those aren't real benchmarks... they don't determine the performance. That's just a price/performance calculation (and the 2500K is pretty much tied anyway, at a higher performance level). It's perfectly fine if you want to prefer AMD, I just wondered why.