Page 87 of 100 FirstFirst ... 37475767778485868788899097 ... LastLast
Results 1,377 to 1,392 of 1594

Thread: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

  1. #1377
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,991
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked
    222 times in 182 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5K-E Wifi/AP
      • CPU:
      • Core 2 Quad Q6600 B3
      • Memory:
      • 4*2GB Corsair DDR800
      • Storage:
      • 160GB Intel X25-M G3 and 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire 6870 1GB Vapor-x
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 X64 ultimate
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • Cerberus 5 Mbit

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Actually not entirely true. They used a simulated E5-2630 with 33% more L3 cache - both me and scaryjim pointed this out to you. Being objective,I cannot say whether the 100MHZ clockspeed decrease they implemented will compensate for the increase in L3 cache.
    Fair point. However my money's on my statement about price/performance still being valid when the actual E5-2620 and E5-2630 are tested.
    "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."

  2. #1378
    AMD representative
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 3 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    Well DDR4 probably isn't far off, mass production in H2 2012 IIRC.
    I'll take the over on that bet

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    Which is exactly my argument.
    Same performance, Xeon is cheaper
    Same price, Xeon is faster.

    This was demonstrated on my previous post. The Xeon E5-2620 is faster than the top bin Opteron and cheaper than the mid range one.


    The comparisons are linked by me earlier in this thread. They are on Anandtech.
    Nope, sorry. Anandtech results don't cut it in my book. When you are using cinebench and winzip compression to test server processors, it's not a fair fight.

    SPEC INT and 1KU price

    A 2620 is priced at $406, our 12-core 6238 is priced at $455, so those are pretty close. SPEC INT on a 6238 is 414. Let me know when you get a score on the 2620.

  3. #1379
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,588
    Thanks
    1,335
    Thanked
    693 times in 607 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    I'll take the over on that bet
    Hmm.

    Also important to note that lots of synthetic benchmarks like Cinebench are compiled with the Intel compiler so optimised better for their architecture.

  4. #1380
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    /dev/boogie
    Posts
    4,200
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked
    341 times in 308 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 2x4GB Ballistix Sport 1600
      • Storage:
      • 660GB Linux, 250GB Games (Win 7)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Palit 460GTX 2GB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 19 + Win 7 Pro 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152 23" lcd
      • Internet:
      • 40Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    Haswell is rumoured to have on-die stacked RAM for the GPU and it seems that AMD might be also working on something similar too.

    SA,leaked this picture last year:

    http://semiaccurate.com/2011/10/27/a...-gpu-pictured/



    Some more information:

    http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showp...8&postcount=26
    At the back of my mind when I wrote my sideport/on package dram comment was this:

    http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/02/s...th-an-amd-gpu/

    which implies the PS4 could have an AMD cpu with dram and an FPGA stacked in 1 package.

  5. #1381
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,588
    Thanks
    1,335
    Thanked
    693 times in 607 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    I think an FPGA would be a great addition to current platforms, consoles/PCs alike. Yeah I'm biased because I'm a hardware enthusiast but still...

  6. #1382
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,991
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked
    222 times in 182 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5K-E Wifi/AP
      • CPU:
      • Core 2 Quad Q6600 B3
      • Memory:
      • 4*2GB Corsair DDR800
      • Storage:
      • 160GB Intel X25-M G3 and 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire 6870 1GB Vapor-x
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 X64 ultimate
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • Cerberus 5 Mbit

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by JF-AMD View Post
    Nope, sorry. Anandtech results don't cut it in my book. When you are using cinebench and winzip compression to test server processors, it's not a fair fight.

    SPEC INT and 1KU price

    A 2620 is priced at $406, our 12-core 6238 is priced at $455, so those are pretty close. SPEC INT on a 6238 is 414. Let me know when you get a score on the 2620.
    You've completely ignored the fact the linked pages were virtualisation scores, something the vast majority of these processors will actually be doing.

    Please can you explain how SPEC numbers for CPU's are more relevant than real world virtualisation scores.
    I find this particularly odd as you've just used the "not real world" argument to attempt to rebuff my figures.
    Secondly, I don't care about the 1KU price. I care about the price of the servers I can buy with said processors in.
    You brought up the 2 Dell systems to compare, now you've moved the goalposts.

    You're treating this like anyone trying to sell the inferior product does. They treat it like it's top trumps, it's their turn and they can see the other players card. They have a selection of metrics to choose from and choose only the ones where their card wins.

    Instead of fighting the losing battle trying to suggest any Bulldozer processor is better than the similarly priced intel equivalent, how about picking a battle you can win, such as "Piledriver will be better in every metric than bulldozer"

    EDIT: I've just realised you've chosen SPEC INT. What an absolutely meaningless benchmark to choose. About as meaningless as SPEC FP TBH. I bet however that the Xeon CPU gets a much higher score. That further reinforces my top trumps argument.
    "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."

  7. #1383
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    8,181
    Thanks
    430
    Thanked
    576 times in 491 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i5 3570k @ 4.4GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Dominator DDR3-1600 LP
      • Storage:
      • 3 RAID Arrays and 3 SATA Stand-alones
      • Graphics card(s):
      • GTX580 SLI
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 x64 / OSX Lion / Ubuntu 11 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • M247 40/10 FTTC

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    A potential return to CPU slots or even those "cache slot" upgrades....
    Main PC: Asus P8Z77 WS / 3570k @ 4.4GHz / 8GB Vengeance Black / GTX 780 Ti / Areca 1680 / HX 850 / 600T / K60 / M60 / 2x Dell 3007 / 2 x 256GB Samsung 830 (RAID0) / 2 x 240GB Corsair Force 3 (RAID0) / Windows 8.1
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / E3-1230v2 / 8GB XMS3 / GTX 780 / Tevii S480 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / PS50C6900 / 128GB Kingston V200 SSD + 3 x 1.5TB + 1 x 3TB / Windows 8.1 x64 Pro with WMC
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB DDR3 / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Windows 8.1 x64 Pro with WMC
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB RAM / GTS 450 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    Server Setup: HP DL160 G6 / 2 x E5620 / 64GB RAM / 2 x 300GB SAS (RAID1) / 6 NICs / ESX 5.5
    2 x ESX 5.5 Nodes: Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 / AMD FX 6100 / 16GB XMS3 / 160GB SATA HDD / 5 NICs
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 10GB RAM / 2x 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) || NAS 2: HP N40L / 10GB RAM / 2x 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) || Network: TL-WR1043ND w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Thinkpad T510 / 4GB RAM / 240GB Corsair Force 3

  8. #1384
    AMD representative
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 3 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    You've completely ignored the fact the linked pages were virtualisation scores, something the vast majority of these processors will actually be doing.

    Please can you explain how SPEC numbers for CPU's are more relevant than real world virtualisation scores.
    I find this particularly odd as you've just used the "not real world" argument to attempt to rebuff my figures.
    Secondly, I don't care about the 1KU price. I care about the price of the servers I can buy with said processors in.
    You brought up the 2 Dell systems to compare, now you've moved the goalposts.

    You're treating this like anyone trying to sell the inferior product does. They treat it like it's top trumps, it's their turn and they can see the other players card. They have a selection of metrics to choose from and choose only the ones where their card wins.

    Instead of fighting the losing battle trying to suggest any Bulldozer processor is better than the similarly priced intel equivalent, how about picking a battle you can win, such as "Piledriver will be better in every metric than bulldozer"

    EDIT: I've just realised you've chosen SPEC INT. What an absolutely meaningless benchmark to choose. About as meaningless as SPEC FP TBH. I bet however that the Xeon CPU gets a much higher score. That further reinforces my top trumps argument.
    So, the virtualization benchmark is what you want to talk about.

    The 2690 is ~40% faster than a 6276.

    But, when you compare them, you are essentially saying a $2000+ processor is faster than a $788 processor. Or, in simple terms would you pay 150% more for a CPU that gives you only 40% more performance. The economics just don't work.

    You keep talking about how much faster the 2690 is and then how cheap the 2620 is. Let's stop splitting the discussion. Pick your part, 2690 or 2620 and stick with it.

    As for SPEC scores, those actually happen to be the most relevant for comparing CPUs. Integer math is 90% of what a CPU does. Floating point is the other 10%. SPEC Int tends to be less influenced by compiler, configuration and component issues outside of the CPU. It's not totally abstracted, some of those things will influence, but not to the same degree.

    Also, keep in mind that Anandtech's virtualization benchmark is not really fair as it relies on an OS that is not optimized on the AMD processor. So any results there are automatically skewed anyway. The reason that SPEC works well is that every vendor submits their score. I am pretty sure that if AMDzone.com did a benchmark where Interlagos beat Sandybridge you'd call foul. When each vendor submits their own scores you have the best actual representation of performance.

  9. #1385
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,991
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked
    222 times in 182 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5K-E Wifi/AP
      • CPU:
      • Core 2 Quad Q6600 B3
      • Memory:
      • 4*2GB Corsair DDR800
      • Storage:
      • 160GB Intel X25-M G3 and 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire 6870 1GB Vapor-x
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 X64 ultimate
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • Cerberus 5 Mbit

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by JF-AMD View Post
    So, the virtualization benchmark is what you want to talk about.

    The 2690 is ~40% faster than a 6276.

    But, when you compare them, you are essentially saying a $2000+ processor is faster than a $788 processor. Or, in simple terms would you pay 150% more for a CPU that gives you only 40% more performance. The economics just don't work.
    You've all ready tried that straw man argument and it was debunked. Stop bringing it up or properly counter it.
    You keep talking about how much faster the 2690 is and then how cheap the 2620 is. Let's stop splitting the discussion. Pick your part, 2690 or 2620 and stick with it.
    I have not mentioned the 2690 at all. Just the 2620 and 2630. So I have chosen which one.
    The 2620 and 2630 are both faster and the servers you can buy with them are cheaper.
    Is that clear enough?

    As for SPEC scores, those actually happen to be the most relevant for comparing CPUs. Integer math is 90% of what a CPU does. Floating point is the other 10%. SPEC Int tends to be less influenced by compiler, configuration and component issues outside of the CPU. It's not totally abstracted, some of those things will influence, but not to the same degree.
    Why do I care about any of that? As you have all ready stated, server users care about cost at what level of performance they need or the best performnace at a certain cost. So why bring a synthetic benchmark into it?
    Also, keep in mind that Anandtech's virtualization benchmark is not really fair as it relies on an OS that is not optimized on the AMD processor. So any results there are automatically skewed anyway. The reason that SPEC works well is that every vendor submits their score. I am pretty sure that if AMDzone.com did a benchmark where Interlagos beat Sandybridge you'd call foul. When each vendor submits their own scores you have the best actual representation of performance.
    I presume you mean VMware - as in the most popular Virtualisation solution for businesses in the world.
    As a user, why would I care about the optimisations - I just care about performance and cost.

    However I accept that if ESXi is not optimised for AMD CPU's and is for Intel CPU's that does not reflect on the underlying architecture.
    I am a little surprised if this is the case as I thought Vmware are vendor neutral.
    "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."

  10. #1386
    AMD representative
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    15
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    4 times in 3 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    You talked about performance, you linked to the Anandtech article. They are using a 2690. You talk about the price of the 2620, but can't share any performance on that.

    If you had both price and performance we could discuss this, but without the performance of the 2620, your straw man of "it's faster" just doesn't hold up.

    I don't care to continue this.

  11. #1387
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,991
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked
    222 times in 182 posts
    • badass's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P5K-E Wifi/AP
      • CPU:
      • Core 2 Quad Q6600 B3
      • Memory:
      • 4*2GB Corsair DDR800
      • Storage:
      • 160GB Intel X25-M G3 and 2TB WD Green
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire 6870 1GB Vapor-x
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX520W
      • Case:
      • Antec P182
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 X64 ultimate
      • Monitor(s):
      • Del U2311, LG226WTQ
      • Internet:
      • Cerberus 5 Mbit

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by JF-AMD View Post
    You talked about performance, you linked to the Anandtech article. They are using a 2690. You talk about the price of the 2620, but can't share any performance on that.

    If you had both price and performance we could discuss this, but without the performance of the 2620, your straw man of "it's faster" just doesn't hold up.

    I don't care to continue this.
    OK. We can wait until the 2620/2630 performance becomes public. The only part of the equation missing is what effect the losing of 33% of the cache will have. In the extremely unlikely event that in real world tests the losing of the 33% of the cache from the simulated 2620 to a real 2620 results in the 6276 overtaking it, I'll concede that the 6276 based server represents better value.
    I think it'll be a small miracle that losing that much cache results in that much of a loss of performance in real world applications.
    "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."

  12. #1388
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    /dev/boogie
    Posts
    4,200
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked
    341 times in 308 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • M5A-97 EVO R2.0
      • CPU:
      • FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 2x4GB Ballistix Sport 1600
      • Storage:
      • 660GB Linux, 250GB Games (Win 7)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Palit 460GTX 2GB
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 19 + Win 7 Pro 64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152 23" lcd
      • Internet:
      • 40Mb VDSL

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    You've all ready tried that straw man argument and it was debunked. Stop bringing it up or properly counter it.

    I have not mentioned the 2690 at all. Just the 2620 and 2630. So I have chosen which one.
    The 2620 and 2630 are both faster and the servers you can buy with them are cheaper.
    Is that clear enough?


    Why do I care about any of that? As you have all ready stated, server users care about cost at what level of performance they need or the best performnace at a certain cost. So why bring a synthetic benchmark into it?
    As "synthetic" benchmarks go, SPEC is a pretty good one. Some of us care about things like GCC and perl performance that go into that score.

    Quote Originally Posted by badass View Post
    I presume you mean VMware - as in the most popular Virtualisation solution for businesses in the world.
    As a user, why would I care about the optimisations - I just care about performance and cost.

    However I accept that if ESXi is not optimised for AMD CPU's and is for Intel CPU's that does not reflect on the underlying architecture.
    I am a little surprised if this is the case as I thought Vmware are vendor neutral.
    Not sure what to think of VMware these days, though Neutral isn't something they are usually accused of

  13. #1389
    Militant Battle Moose! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Of The Moose
    Posts
    21,864
    Thanks
    2,308
    Thanked
    3,295 times in 2,552 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    More details about Trinity:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD...emo,15009.html

    The 35W mobile version was running DiRT3 at high settings at 1366X768 with 4XAA smoothly and the desktop version was running the same game at lower settings without AA at 5040X1050!

  14. #1390
    Senior Member Noxvayl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Guildford
    Posts
    2,219
    Thanks
    573
    Thanked
    194 times in 154 posts
    • Noxvayl's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z
      • CPU:
      • AMD FX-8350
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Kingston HyperX Beast
      • Storage:
      • 256GB Crucial m4 SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 4GB Asus GTX670 DirectCU II
      • PSU:
      • Enermax Platimax 750W
      • Case:
      • Corsair 550D
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2412M + Ag Neovo H-W22
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    I am upgrading the family PC with a trinity APU for sure, my dad has been itching to play some simulator games like Dirt3 and Microsoft Flight so this seems to be perfect for that. I hope the MOBO/APU/RAM is as affordable as the current A series systems.

  15. #1391
    Militant Battle Moose! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Of The Moose
    Posts
    21,864
    Thanks
    2,308
    Thanked
    3,295 times in 2,552 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Wrong thread.

  16. #1392
    Militant Battle Moose! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Planet Of The Moose
    Posts
    21,864
    Thanks
    2,308
    Thanked
    3,295 times in 2,552 posts

    Re: AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

    Trinity A10 performance in Super Pi and 3DMark06:

    http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showp...postcount=1302

    Here are the scores for the Llano A8-3850:

    http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/34996/5/

    http://www.computerbase.de/bildstrecke/34996/6/

    Bulldozer and Piledriver lack an X87 unit,so the top end desktop Trinity is still outperforming the A8 3850 by around 19% or thereabouts. The A10-5800K has a top Turbo Core speed of around 4.2GHZ,so at least in Super Pi a 3.5GHZ Piledriver should be around the same as a 2.9GHZ Llano A8 which has an X87 unit.

    However,the CPU-Z picture shows the CPU running at 2GHZ so it could be not running at its full Turbo Core speed.

    The SM3.0 score in 3DMark06 is around 29% higher for the Trinity A10 too.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 17-03-2012 at 08:11 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Benchmarking clash between NVIDIA and AMD
    By GheeTsar in forum Graphics Cards
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-10-2010, 06:36 PM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 27-08-2010, 03:10 PM
  3. AMD price drops to follow Conroe launch
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 17-06-2006, 08:49 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 20-04-2005, 09:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •