AMD - Bulldozer Chitchat

[dean n91]

It's so irritating that they haven't released Bulldozer yet. I have been waiting for ages but instead i just went for a 2500k.

[Biscuit]

These 'leaks' could be from the competition/fanboys to make AMD look incompetent. Like lots of the benchmarks of the early silicon claiming to have full performance.

Possibly, however i doubt it. The explanation that Llano has had poorer yields than expected which has further delayed bulldozer kind of ties up wiht the bulldozer thing as there isnt really many llano laptops around.

[bassjunkie]

It will have to be a intel if I have to wait any longer :-(

[EvanJackPenn]

May I ask, is it wise to jump straight onto a new technology? Because I really want to build around January (after the fund amassing time of Christmas) but Bulldozer will still be *pretty* new then, and the second revision (and Ivy) is 'said' to be due for March. Do I wait for possible performance increase and an FM2 socket which should last longer, but risk delays and missing game releases?

[Biscuit]

*sigh*

we dont know until they are released. If you leave it a couple of days from when they are released before you order one, people will probably notice and announce any serious issues with the chip.

[kalniel]

May I ask, is it wise to jump straight onto a new technology?

That's a decent question, and the answer depends somewhat on the nature of the technology and the track record of the people behind it. Software-wise I'd say not usually. Window 7 was an exception for me because of the excellent release candidate trial. Games get cheaper and more polished after release as well. Hardware is normally a one shot, but new types of technology, such as SSDs, can show problems, and even QA giants like Intel have fallen foul of problems with new technologies.

But come to CPUs, and it's very rare to have a problem with a new technology, so the other consideration is value for money. A performance leading product always has an early adopter price premium. You have to weigh up whether you have a mission critial (or e-peen critical) need that makes that premium worth it.

Do I wait for possible performance increase

No. This is technology. You will always be waiting as there is always performance increase around the corner.

[EvanJackPenn]

That's a decent question, and the answer depends somewhat on the nature of the technology and the track record of the people behind it. Software-wise I'd say not usually. Window 7 was an exception for me because of the excellent release candidate trial. Games get cheaper and more polished after release as well. Hardware is normally a one shot, but new types of technology, such as SSDs, can show problems, and even QA giants like Intel have fallen foul of problems with new technologies.

But come to CPUs, and it's very rare to have a problem with a new technology, so the other consideration is value for money. A performance leading product always has an early adopter price premium. You have to weigh up whether you have a mission critial (or e-peen critical) need that makes that premium worth it.

Haha yeah, I'm still running XP here. Games and stuff, I'm fine getting Skyrim later because it's single player - I won't miss anything AND it'll be cheaper and with bug fixes. Whereas Guild Wars 2, I want to get on release so I can play with my friends.

I remember the issues with the Cougar Point chipsets and that mass recall. That would be of annoyance

But, with the second generation Bulldozer it'll be the same architecture (I guess) - just refined. I might as well just get the best price/performance piece of hardware at the level I want at the time I want. If a £10 early-adopter premium gives me a superior product when I want it, I'm fine.

I don't forsee myself upgrading CPU regularly, as TBH there hasn't been many major changes since multi-cores became common. If I buy an AM3+ BD, I most likely wouldn't upgrade to an FM3 BD super version (tm). As the GPU is now the bottleneck in game performance, I'd rather get a new ~£200 GPU every 2-ish years than CPU. As long as the CPU isn't noticably slow (to me, it'll be sooo fast - I'm on a 1.73GHz Pentium M, single core! It hurts D I'm fine until a new breakthrough is released, as dual cores were.

[dean n91]

I decided to stop waiting for the blldozer chip. When it does come out it may offer the performance of a 2500k at a slightly lower price but it's taken too long for them to come to the market and you might as well just spend the little bit extra to get an equivalent cpu a lot earlier i think.

[kalniel]

I decided to stop waiting for the blldozer chip. When it does come out it may offer the performance of a 2500k at a slightly lower price but it's taken too long for them to come to the market and you might as well just spend the little bit extra to get an equivalent cpu a lot earlier i think.

Yes, you said the same thing 7 posts ago

[jim]

The CPU might be roughly equivalent, but the chipset isn't.

I really don't fancy a half-arsed SATA3/USB3 integration.

[Terbinator]

The CPU might be roughly equivalent, but the chipset isn't.

I really don't fancy a half-arsed SATA3/USB3 integration.

Which does the half-assed apply to, or both AMD and Intel?

[jim]

Which does the half-assed apply to, or both AMD and Intel?

Intel. I can't believe how sluggish they're being over USB3 and SATA3.

[kalniel]

Intel. I can't believe how sluggish they're being over USB3 and SATA3.

What's the difference between Intel and AMD then?

SATA3 - both Intel and AMD have native controllers.

USB3 - both Intel and AMD have to use third party controllers.

[watercooled]

AMD have native USB on the APU chipsets. But then Intel have been better with SATA drivers in the past, AMD have only recently got their act together AFAIK.

[jim]

What's the difference between Intel and AMD then?

SATA3 - both Intel and AMD have native controllers.

USB3 - both Intel and AMD have to use third party controllers.

So it seems, not sure why I thought that was the case.

Am I right in saying that during the AM3 vs P55 era AMD were the only ones with native SATA3 controllers then? I'm beginning to wonder if Intel added native support with P67 and I missed it somehow.

[watercooled]

So it seems, not sure why I thought that was the case.

Am I right in saying that during the AM3 vs P55 era AMD were the only ones with native SATA3 controllers then? I'm beginning to wonder if Intel added native support with P67 and I missed it somehow.

Yeah I think that's correct.