When we're talking about power consumption vs SB though, don't forget BD has >2x the transistor count so it's pretty competitive, especially at idle.
Do we know when this are due for actual retail availability, I have yet to see a website with any in stock, and most seem to say around to 25th to the 28th. I have preordered a FX-8150 from scan already, but if its likely that im going to wait till the 28th and even then risk not getting one, i might cancel and just get an i7.
Before anyone flames me for ordering bulldozer, the main reason is for the platform as a whole, all the intel boards of a similar spec seem to cost £50 higher if not more. Also coming from an e8400 any modern processor will be a huge upgrade.
Got to agree with you djpc, I am not liking the motherboard choice for Sandy Bridge in comparison to what you can get for Bulldozer. Unfortunately I find the benefits don't impact me enough to out weigh the reduced performance between FX-8150 compared to i5 2500K so I am sure my decision won't change.
Performance in workloads the user will use the CPU for.
Power consumption at idle and at the loads the CPU will be used for.
Price of the CPU and platform.
Completely irrelevant metrics.
As a general rule, SB is faster for most users than BD, uses less power at idle and load. It's only relevant disadvantage is that both the CPU and the platform are more expensive.
For intel, the fact that they are getting much more performance from a smaller die with less transistors means their gross margin is much higher as well. Good for investors in Intel. Bad for AMD.
Bulldozer is a pretty rubbish architecture for current software on current OS's. Maybe it will be much better in the future.
I suspected all along that Bulldozer is another R600. Lets just hope it evolves onto the next Evergreen/Northern Islands.
After Sandy bridge being a small dissapointment performance wise, I was hoping that Bulldozer would deliver. It hasn't so it looks like I'll wait some more for Ivy Bridge/Piledriver.
Current CPU's do not offer enough of a performance increase over my 4 Year old Q6600 and I am not buying anything less than twice as fast.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
The main reason I like the 990fx is the two full lanes of PCI-e connectivity, I run two monitors hooked up to individual cards, and dual box a game called eve. this ofc means that the nf200 chips are useless, and the data being sent is not identical like in xfire. I am being silly rly though as I doubt a HD4890 will saturate a x8 link, but some of these boards steal some of the PCI-e for USB 3 ect which could be an issue.
BD vs SB comparing core only, but Intel chips draw extra for the uncore silicon so might actually use more. As I said earlier, I think the current chipset is limiting how low the power consumption can go. As for load power though, again from a technical standpoint it's good, but performance/power - well I'm just hoping it's down to yield and will improve soon...
I see it being as you describe, a late bloomer - the potential is there, it's down to software development to take advantage of it now.
It's quite rare to see a massive jump in CPU power between releases, it's more incremental; you're more likely to benefit after about 3 gens have past, unless you must have THE latest hardware and the 10% performance increase it brings. The difference is more worthwhile if you go from a low power to a performance CPU though, e.g. I went from an E7200 to 1055T - a massive jump but now I'm using that chip it will be a while before it's possible to make a similar jump.
Last edited by watercooled; 13-10-2011 at 08:08 PM.
A few retailers this week have started to sell the 95W version of the Phenom II X6 1055T again for around £115.
hmm this is all making my next build a real hard decision.
I've got £800 to play with, do I get a FX-8150 or a i5 2500K?
In fact, for the kind of workload I put my main rig under I decided a Q6600 was *overkill*, and I've recently downgraded to a Pentium dual core (which I intend to overclock the bejesus out of ).
I can't help wondering if they couldn't have made a high clocked, 8 core Phenom II with the move to 32nm - they've done amazing things with the architecture on a 45nm node, after all...
Such a Phenom II X8 at 3.3GHZ would be as fast as a Core i7 2600K at 4GHZ in a highly multi-threaded application such as HandBrake! 4 core Turbo say to 3.7GHZ to 3.8GHZ would have still made the CPU around Phenom II X4 975 level in lightly threaded applications.
I was thinking the same thing about a Phenom II X8 myself, it would make it easier to move an existing architecture to a new process rather than starting both from scratch, surely? But again, I think AMD should be given a bit more credit - surely they wouldn't release BD if they didn't see a clear path to success with it. I think the comparison to HD3000 with its unified shaders is a good one.
I think bulldozer is a great idea tbh. On paper it should perform a lot better than it does: I think it's gone one step too far ahead in that it seems optimised for parallel int / AVX / AES workloads and a particular thread scheduling paradigm that simply isn't in place yet in the vast majority of software. So I don't think we're seeing the best of bulldozer. On the other hand, it took years for game developers to start doing anything worthwhile with DX10 after the DX10 graphics cards came out, so there's a big question over whether this was a good time for AMD to push ahead with such a radical architecture.
The biggest worry is the FPU performance: the chip's got 4 big fat 256bit FPUs on it, running at in excess of 3.5GHz. They can alledgedly process 2 128bit FP operations simultaneously. There's no reason for it to be slow in single/lightly threaded, floating point based, workloads. But it is. Something's not quite right there...
I really can't think of any good reason for them to not push K10.5 to 32nm as a test platform, tbh. They've done it in graphics before (the 4770 was a 40nm test card - they didn't really need to release a new card when it came out, but it let them sort out the 40nm process for the 5000 series), so I don't see why they didn't do it with their CPUs and try to iron out any process issues with what was a completely untested process. As far as I can tell they're now paying the price for twice jumping new architectures (I'm counting Llano due to the integrated graphics core) to a new a process at the same time. Only time will tell whether the real issue with BD is the architecture or the process it's fabricated on...
I agree. A new architecture on (and?) cadence t once was a bad idea, more so like you say, the 4770 proved to be a good litmus test for 5xxx production - why not repeat it again?
Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.
Main PC: Asus P8Z77 WS / 3570k @ 4.4GHz / 8GB Vengeance Black / GTX 780 (03G-P4-2783-KR) / Areca 1680 / X-Fi Titanium / Corsair: HX 850 / 600T / K60 / M60 / 2x Dell 3007 / 2 x 256GB Samsung 830 (RAID0) / 4 x 240GB Corsair Force 3 (RAID0) / 4 x 1TB Sumsung F1 (RAID5) / Multi-boot: Win 8 x64 Pro, Ubuntu and OS X Lion
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / E3-1230v2 / 8GB XMS3 / 7970 (GV-R797OC-3GD) / Tevii S480 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / PS50C6900 / 128GB Kingston V200 SSD + 3 x 1.5TB + 1 x 3TB / Windows 7 x64 and Windows 8 x64 Pro with WMC
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB RAM / GTS 450 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
Server Setup: HP ML110 G5 / 8GB RAM / Areca 1210 RAID / 2 x 300GB (RAID1) / 2 x 250GB (RAID1) / 3 NICs / Windows Server 2008 R2
2 x ESX 5.5 Nodes: Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 / AMD FX 6100 / 16GB XMS3 / 160GB SATA HDD / 5 NICs
NAS 1: HP Microserver N40L / 10GB RAM / 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) + 2 x 1TB / 3Gbps || NAS 2: HP Microserver N40L / 10GB RAM / 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) + 2 x 640GB (RAID1) / 3GBps || Network: TL-WR1043ND w/DD-WRT + Dell PowerConnect 5224
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)