EPTAMD Bulldozer official release and reviews. - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
| ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
Feels like AMD's R&D did absolutely nothing for 2 years. They could have just as well released X6 on 32nm and gotten the same performance "benefits". | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
They are probably still interesting for AMD fanboys who don't play games and only use their comps for video encoding and stuff like that but it is a niche already covered by the Thuban. Bulldozer looks like AMD PIV, more cores, higher freqs but no real increase in performance except for some multithreaded apps. Don't really know what to say, maybe it have more success on the server market but again Intel is already so strong here and their procs just have better TDP. It seems that we will have to wait for the next gen ( will be an APU ). edit: also they are fucking dumb to call that proc FX. On October 12 2011 18:46 nalgene wrote: There were already a bunch of leaked benchmarks before the nda lift.. and it wasn't like all of them would end up conspiring against amd. Just that the oct 12+ benchmarks only confirmed them... anything beyond 2005 seemed like it all went down hill for amd Tons of fakes too ;D Ph II and Athlons II ( especially x3 ) pre SB were kinda cool if you wanted value. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3822 Posts
What in the hell were they doing all that time? Really sad: I've bought AMD chips in the past, but not recently... this doesn't help by any means. | ||
|
Phaded
Australia579 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/drS8z.png) Relevant image for this board, given many people will eventually be asking, "is this a good cpu for SC2?", to which we can say nope It's insane the amount of power draw that this chip has. No doubt some inexperienced folks are gonna try and build this in with a cheap 500W PSU then experience some serious stability issues under load | ||
|
PepperoniPiZZa
Sierra Leone1660 Posts
 | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On October 12 2011 19:23 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: Well at least they have competitive video cards.Is it possible that there are compatibility that need to be patched with firmware updates? I feel pretty bad for them since they've supported IPL 3 | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Anyway there is still a speck of light in there for us budget computer builders. I think if they can work on the power consumption while getting 10%-15% increase every year it's going to be OK. | ||
|
Bodom
United States17 Posts
On October 12 2011 19:23 PepperoniPiZZa wrote: Is it possible that there are compatibility that need to be patched with firmware updates? I feel pretty bad for them since they've supported IPL 3 There's some fixing that can be done through a bios update with cache thrashing and Windows 7 isn't optimized for BD's module. Preliminary testing on fixes for the cache thrashing don't bring a lot more performance and tests with windows 8 dev preview with better ability to align threads brought less than 1% increase in performance. Other than that it seems most likely to be a problem with GLoFO and their yields. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/95bOe.png<br>) From: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=137554¤tpage=646 Thirsty thirsty. | ||
|
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
Better luck next time, AMD! | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
sixfour
England11061 Posts
| ||
|
Soleron
United Kingdom1324 Posts
On October 12 2011 19:30 Bodom wrote: Other than that it seems most likely to be a problem with GLoFO and their yields. I don't think so. Clock speeds are quite high already (4.2GHz Turbo). The problem is that AMD has between 1/10 and 1/8 of the R&D funding and employees of Intel. No one should expect them to be competitive any more. | ||
|
rajssten
Ethiopia34 Posts
I guess I will be stickin with SouthBridge for next 2-3 years then :| | ||
|
Kira__
Sweden2672 Posts
| ||
|
Bodom
United States17 Posts
On October 12 2011 19:44 Soleron wrote: I don't think so. Clock speeds are quite high already (4.2GHz Turbo). The problem is that AMD has between 1/10 and 1/8 of the R&D funding and employees of Intel. No one should expect them to be competitive any more. On paper the BD module design isn't bad. Yes, single thread performance is going to be worse, that was a conscious design decision, but it shouldn't be as horrible as it is right now. That, along with the massive power usage overclocking brings, could very well be explained by GLoFo's poor yields. We already know they were having issues with Llano. All we can do is wait and see if better manufacturing techniques bring better yields with FX8170 in Q1, but I'm not holding my breath. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On October 12 2011 20:02 Bodom wrote: On paper the BD module design isn't bad. Yes, single thread performance is going to be worse, that was a conscious design decision, but it shouldn't be as horrible as it is right now. That, along with the massive power usage overclocking brings, could very well be explained by GLoFo's poor yields. We already know they were having issues with Llano. All we can do is wait and see if better manufacturing techniques bring better yields with FX8170 in Q1, but I'm not holding my breath. To be fair though, who are they really trying to target by having chips with more cores and less single thread performance? Gamers and standard users both really need the single thread performance. The multi-thread performance is good for like servers and video rendering, etc, but why would you cater your entire lineup towards that? Or are they just aiming towards the future? | ||
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
| ||
| ||
