Quote:iam sorry but bulldozer is crappier then phenom Ö_ö
That depends on the test. In the vast majority of tests it is not slower than phenom. In some tests bulldozer falls flat on its face, in some tests it matches the 2500k, in some tests it falls in between the 2500k and 2600k, and in some tests it beats both the 2600k and 1100T (phenom II X6). This is exactly what I expected considering the type of architecture it is. Multithreaded floating point heavy software will run faster on sandy bridge/phenom II X6 since 6 floating point cores (or 4 floating point cores with higher IPC for sandy bridge) are going to be faster than bulldozers 4 floating point cores. Single threaded applications will run faster on sandy bridge for obvious reasons (higher IPC). Memory bandwidth seems to be equal to sandy bridge now but it requires faster ram to reach the same speeds than sandy bridge can achieve with lower frequency ram (due to a better integrated memory controller design). However you can expect heavily multithreaded integer heavy software to run faster on bulldozer than sandy bridge (8 integer cores vs. 4). Also if you read the article you would know that they clocked them all at the same core clock rate (3.3GHz) to do an IPC comparison, bulldozer has higher stock clock rates than sandy bridge or phenom II so this is a very unfair comparison meant only to show the IPC of each architecture.
Most of the benchmarks are overall disappointing to bulldozer, although it did do very good in the media encoding and content creation tests. Performance is very inconsistent but that was to be expected.
Performance for bulldozer on windows 8 appears to be significantly better than windows 7 due to optimizations for bulldozers unique threading system. The problem is that right now multithreaded applications running on bulldozer are distributing their threads in order of available cores, this means that two threads will end up running on the same module rather than two separate modules. Windows 8 fixes this by treating it like a CPU with HT, so threads will be distributed to different modules instead of just different cores until all of the modules are occupied. Luckily dolphin is already set up to do this but in the meantime this is a serious bummer for AMD until windows 8 becomes common (which won't happen for a very long time).
AMD is stating that piledriver (which will replace bulldozer next year) will focus on IPC and power efficiency, which is exactly what bulldozer is lacking. Bulldozer is desperately lacking in IPC which means it will likely perform poorly with dolphin (perhaps even slower than phenom II).
With these results it looks like AMD will have to drop the prices on bulldozer cpus big time if they want to compete with intel at all.
Quote:ivy bridge will strike with 2x architecture
Ivy bridge is expected to be 20% faster than sandy bridge on average according to intel (assuming you're comparing quad core models). Which means it will actually be 10-15% faster since companies always use ideal situations
thanks you explained everything to 3% of dolphin user
my english isnt the best to argue with you
but i understand your point and you my
bulldozer is just disappointing like my foresee
but its ridiculous that he is slower to the phenom architecture...
it looks like amd is trying to reduce the production cost of the chips...
to optimize the profit...
Yep, now that the cat's out of the bag - I very much regret spending as much as I did on a 990FX motherboard as I most certainly will NOT be getting a Bulldozer CPU. My plan as of now is to get an Ivy Bridge chip next year, that'll probably be enough for any emulation I'll be doing in the foreseeable future.
Quote:it looks like amd is trying to reduce the production cost of the chips...
to optimize the profit...
Actually the production costs for bulldozer will likely be considerably higher than phenom II was. Even with the smaller fabrication compare the transistor counts and die size (243mm vs. 315mm) and not to mention the lower yields of 32nm SOI fabrication. I could be wrong but the evidence seems to point to higher production costs. The architecture doesn't seem to suggest that their design decisions were motivated by production cost otherwise they probably would have abandoned the idea of having 8 integer cores or having such large dedicated L2 caches. In my opinion this was a flop that was simply caused by poor design decisions made by the engineers. AMD just doesn't have the R&D budget to match Intel in engineering, the number of engineers AMD has pales in comparison to Intel and there fabrication is a year behind Intel so nothing short of a miracle will allow them to produce a better chip then what Intel can produce. What stuns me is not so much the performance of these chips but how ridiculously high they have priced them. I'd say the FX-8150 is worth about $175 if you compare it to current Intel chips in price/performance.
I'm now curious to see how it will do on the servers against xeon chips (and more importantly how they will price it against xeon chips), no doubt current xeon chips will beat it but if it can offer any significant improvements over the previous opteron chips and they price it right they might do okay thanks to how overprices xeon cpus are. Server applications tend to be heavily multithreaded and integer heavy but the big concern is the memory performance, servers need good memory performance and that's something AMD has not been able to deliver these past few years.
I'm also beginning to wonder if bulldozer would benefit heavily from a NB overclock (to improve memory and cache performance) since it seems like DDR3 1866 MHz memory should be heavily bottlenecked by the measly 2GHz NB frequency (same as K10). And the bulldozer execution engines should need a lot more cache/memory performance to keep them fed with instructions than K10.
Looks good on the low end though if they OC as good as the high end.
$115 4.6GHZ AMD FX-4100>$120 4GHZ Ph2x4>$124 3.1GHZ i3-2100
Hardly anyone buys a 2600K, nobody is going to spend $100 more an extra 100MHZ. The bottomless pocket overclockers will be getting SNB-E instead. A HT SNB at 8core BD prices would crash the party but not this.
The performance of Bulldozer is horrible specially in single-thread benchmarks. THis bad news for people who use Dolphin emulators which doesn't use more than two cores
![[Image: AMD_FX-8150-202.jpg]](http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/AMD_FX-8150-202.jpg)