EPTIt's probably some games or other workloads where resource sharing could be beneficial, where BD module-aware scheduling will help out. Also, smarter scheduling for some tasks may involve grouping tasks on the same modules so the remaining modules can be parked, allowing for higher Turbo Core frequency boosts.
AMD Bulldozer official release and reviews. - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
It's probably some games or other workloads where resource sharing could be beneficial, where BD module-aware scheduling will help out. Also, smarter scheduling for some tasks may involve grouping tasks on the same modules so the remaining modules can be parked, allowing for higher Turbo Core frequency boosts. | ||
|
PunkyBrewster
22 Posts
All these reviews use DDR3-1600 when the Bulldozer's NATIVE RAM is DDR3-1866(and yes I know the difference is minuscule most of the time), that would make quite a difference on quite a few of those benchmarks. EDIT: I agree that it's probably a flaw in the architectural design of the processor, AMD hasn't been known for great single-threaded performance.. But it's a very likely scenario that Bulldozer's issue does lie with scheduling. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 14 2011 11:41 Myrmidon wrote: How is the poor single thread performance because of scheduling issues? It's not hard to figure out where to schedule 1 thread (hint: any core will do). It's probably some games or other workloads where resource sharing could be beneficial, where BD module-aware scheduling will help out. Also, smarter scheduling for some tasks may involve grouping tasks on the same modules so the remaining modules can be parked, allowing for higher Turbo Core frequency boosts. Hey, none of those fancy technical details, we're talking about computers, powered by the same devilry as Tarot cards, Astrology, and Ouija boards! And TL is famous enough to pop near the top of the Google results, so they sent their advertisers here to make up for the bad hype. | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
bull shit dozer. | ||
|
PunkyBrewster
22 Posts
Intel may own desktop processors, but AMD still has the majority of the server market. I'm not claiming that Bulldozer lived up to its hype, but i'm not going to make my judgment on the first few days of release. The design still has quite a bit of potential. | ||
|
FinBenton
Finland870 Posts
You want some logic? The all new bulldozer is crap and consumes wayyyyyyyy too much power. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
and don't they only have like 7% ( rounded up from 6.5% ) of the market share... | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 14 2011 12:01 PunkyBrewster wrote: I shouldn't expect logical arguments from people on a gaming website. I thought people posting in this forum would act a bit more rational. ... But talking about technical problems with people that are fans of a company because their favorite team is sponsored by them is what I should have expected. Why would you want Bulldozer to fail? Competition is what drives the market. It wasn't so long ago that AMD was king, or have all you fanboys forgotten about the P4? Intel may own desktop processors, but AMD still has the majority of the server market. I'm not claiming that Bulldozer lived up to its hype, but i'm not going to make my judgment on the first few days of release. The design still has quite a bit of potential. This is the most moronic excuse for a "logical" argument I've heard on behalf of AMD yet. Just a few days ago I was repeatedly subjected to your horrendous hype over and over again watching IPL, just like everyone else here. AMD sponsors a ton of Starcraft related events, and if we went based on sponsorship, A: we'd all be broke with shitty PCs, and B, we'd all use AMD. | ||
|
r4pture
United States397 Posts
...off the bridge. To add some content, I'm really really disappointed in this. I really want to like AMD, but with the problems I'm having with their video drivers and releasing a CPU that, in some test, is worse then its previous...sigh. No one wins. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Miss_Cleo
United States406 Posts
On October 14 2011 12:18 r4pture wrote: It looks like this bulldozer couldn't handle pushing the sand... ...off the bridge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o To add some content, I'm really really disappointed in this. I really want to like AMD, but with the problems I'm having with their video drivers and releasing a CPU that, in some test, is worse then its previous...sigh. No one wins. i think intel does in this situation | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On October 14 2011 12:01 PunkyBrewster wrote: I shouldn't expect logical arguments from people on a gaming website. I thought people posting in this forum would act a bit more rational. ... But talking about technical problems with people that are fans of a company because their favorite team is sponsored by them is what I should have expected. Why would you want Bulldozer to fail? Competition is what drives the market. It wasn't so long ago that AMD was king, or have all you fanboys forgotten about the P4? Intel may own desktop processors, but AMD still has the majority of the server market. I'm not claiming that Bulldozer lived up to its hype, but i'm not going to make my judgment on the first few days of release. The design still has quite a bit of potential. ... The only market AMD has the majority of is the bargain bin desktops. Everywhere else AMD either eats up too much power or doesn't offer the same robustness as Intel. Don't get me wrong. I want AMD to do well in all markets, but not by ignoring their weaknesses compared to Intel. You said yourself that Intel based their duel-core designs off of the Athlon64 (a claim I don't feel like validating right now), which shows they were willing to address the shortfalls of their design philosophy. AMD continues to believe they don't have memory architecture (and philosophy) problems and continue to push their processors to their power boundaries. I don't have respect for that approach. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
I haven't dabbled in it personally, but Im pretty sure the intel Xeon Westmere Hexacores are imba imba. | ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
The APU system, where you get like a 2.4ghz 4 core and a videocard for the same price as an i3 + intergrated graphics...owns | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On October 14 2011 12:39 Twistacles wrote: Well... IMO AMD's laptop solutions are really great. The APU system, where you get like a 2.4ghz 4 core and a videocard for the same price as an i3 + intergrated graphics...owns Notebook Llano is relevant to FX underperforming how, exactly? | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
Do we really get forum infiltrators in TL? I know some companies do this but you can see post count so easily here. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
He rabidly defends a bad product, has excellent spelling and grammar, and sounds like a bad late night TV infomercial. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
On October 14 2011 12:31 JingleHell wrote: Oh, and I like how he says 8150 "completely obliterated 2600k in x264 encoding... Why are you using the quick benchmark tool which can't account for system settings and versioning when you can instead quote Anand's own head to head...? http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7 | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
| ||
