EPTAMD Bulldozer official release and reviews. - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
gullberg
Sweden1301 Posts
| ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On October 13 2011 23:17 Antisocialmunky wrote: Microcenter has i5s at 149.99 again. fuk sometimes i wish i lived in the US. i'm gonna pay 225€ (300$) for a 2500K. | ||
|
gullberg
Sweden1301 Posts
On October 13 2011 23:34 Nizaris wrote: ^don't bother with the i7 unless money isn't an issue and/or you do video encoding (streaming). i5 does everything else just as good. fuk sometimes i wish i lived in the US. i'm gonna pay 225€ (300$) for a 2500K. I enjoy the performance boost HT gives to programs. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 14 2011 00:05 Antisocialmunky wrote: I5s have no hyperthreading. No shit, that's why he was saying he wanted the i7... people were saying he shouldn't get what he needs is all. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On October 14 2011 00:09 JingleHell wrote: No shit, that's why he was saying he wanted the i7... people were saying he shouldn't get what he needs is all. The language is ambiguous. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On October 13 2011 23:02 TadH wrote: So what you're saying is that if the cache size was reduced, the overall latency and performance ratio to mm would go up? edit: Question: Does more cache mean more latency by default, or is that just better manufacturing and design by intel? Well the comment about too much cache was just about die area. The overall design should have a much stronger impact on latency than how much cache there is. I'm not sure how the cache is connected on Bulldozer, but Sandy Bridge uses a ring architecture to connect the cores, cache, IGP, and system agent. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3922/intels-sandy-bridge-architecture-exposed/4 A ring is a well-studied network topology used still in some networks today (but not like Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cell networks): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_network | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 14 2011 00:34 Integra wrote: 6 years of work for this? wow. Certainly not something a gamer should acquire. Yeah. I'd maybe consider the 8120 if I wanted a machine to run a lot of dedi's off of, but that's about it. Seems like with CPU affinities, that would work ok. | ||
|
theBALLS
Singapore2935 Posts
 I was a big fan of your work in the socket 939 days | ||
|
IRONF1ST
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17612 Posts
On October 13 2011 23:14 gruff wrote: And you call yourself an archon... *shakes head* Yes, it's some sc2 tournament. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QR7oP.jpg) Been here long before SC2... But let's get it back on track: So, after a couple days this news have been out and heated discussion going on here, would someone be so kind as to sum things up nicely? Was this AMD release a failure? Is BD a viable purchase and in what cases? Are there any innovations in it people should know about? Or is it just an obsolete piece of hardware that has been released way past when it should? Edit: You know, simple explanation for people whose brain shuts off incoming audio/video after hearing/seeing phrases like "memory latency". | ||
|
zimz
United States510 Posts
![[image loading]](http://cdn5.tweaktown.com/content/4/3/x4353_28_amd_fx_8150_vs_intel_i7_2600k_crossfirex_hd_6970_x3_head_to_head.png.pagespeed.ic.Tlx-of4c02.png) im speechless. | ||
|
MileyCyrus
United States285 Posts
Guess they should change that commercial jungle from "bum-bu-bum-bum bah" to "cha-chu-cha-ccha-ching!" | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:58 Manit0u wrote: Been here long before SC2... But let's get it back on track: So, after a couple days this news have been out and heated discussion going on here, would someone be so kind as to sum things up nicely? Was this AMD release a failure? Is BD a viable purchase and in what cases? Are there any innovations in it people should know about? Or is it just an obsolete piece of hardware that has been released way past when it should? Edit: You know, simple explanation for people whose brain shuts off incoming audio/video after hearing/seeing phrases like "memory latency". Bulldozer is not a viable purchase for gamers and the majority of consumers. For gaming and lightly threaded software, it is greatly outperformed by Intel's Sandybridge and even AMD's older second generation Phenom can rival it. Bulldozer is only good at heavily threaded software. But imo, if you were serious about your work, you would invest money into Intel's upcoming core i7 3930k or its existing core i7 2600k. I don't see AMD succeeding with this architecture in the consumer market even if new iterations are due out every year. Intel's Ivybridge is likely to wipe the floor with the second iteration of Bulldozer, both of which are due in 2012. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
Amlitzer
United States471 Posts
 At least this website is funny. http://amdisfinished.com/ | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On October 14 2011 02:32 Antisocialmunky wrote: I don't get it when people say that something isn't viable when it is perfectly capable of doing so. That's like saying that an i3 isn't viable because its not an i5. I simply used the word because the question was phrased that way. But it's pretty common sense... Intel equivalents of Bulldozer which is the core i5 2400 and core i5 2500k far outperform it and has a upgrade path to Ivybridge. Even AMD's older second generation Phenoms rival it and they're less expensive. There is absolutely no reason to be purchasing Bulldozer for the majority if not all consumers. But hey if you think buying a vastly inferior product is viable than you're welcome to. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
Full load i7 at 3.4ghz = 155watts Full load FX-8150 at 3.6ghz = 223watts | ||
| ||
