EPTAMD Bulldozer official release and reviews. - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
| ||
|
TheUnderking
Canada202 Posts
I don't call it a fail, but its definitely not ideal. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
To be on topic, I'm curious about the performance after Microsoft deals with the scheduling issues Bulldozer has with Windows. Having performance worse than a Phenom II is rather...odd and the fact performance improves quite a bit in Windows 8 seems to suggest the operating system seems to hold performance back a bit. Strange AMD didn't get Microsoft to patch it before release. | ||
|
Asday
United Kingdom388 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:31 Holy_AT wrote: Most of the comments here are really unquallified. The Bulldozer design is at the start of its lifecycle and it starts where the phenom II line stopps. Bulldozer is for sure not inferior to the phenom II line, and it is compareable to the i7 line in many benchmarks.It also outclasses the i5 in many benchmarks. Its flaw is the single core performance but that performance is nowhere near as horrendously bad as stated by some posters here. Also stating it is "fail" or whatever for gaming or for SC II is utter nonsense when it can run SC II on +90 FPS with a bad graphics card. I dont think the CPU was made to outclass Intel but to create a successor for the phenom II line wich reached its technical limits and to create a platform that can compete with intel in the future, maybe not at all performance level but for sure with better pricing. I think that AMD is going for the more bang for bucks instead of some percent more calculations for double the price. I would place the card between i5 and i7 but giving the price advantage to AMD. And Zambesi does not have an integrated graphics like some people stated here. this is just delusional. bulldozer is more expensive than phenom ii x6 and delivers slightly better performance for the price of a 2500k. if they drop the prices by like $50+ it might be somewhat appealing but considering a decent overclock will put you somewhere in the range of 300w+ it makes little sense to go that route. as a successor it fails. as competition it fails. saying it outclasses a 2500k is ludicrous when in single threaded performance it is blown out of the water and only manages to barely best it in all but the most heavily threaded benches. hopefully amd can turn piledriver into bulldozers phenom ii but i'm guessing they are going to need more than a 10% increase to deal with ivy bridge. | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
On October 12 2011 23:57 Womwomwom wrote: Sure they can (especially with them only paying for the good processors), whether it earns them enough money to improve their prospects in a different matter. Its not like they can do anything about Global Foundries except hope they catch up to Intel's fabs and keep giving AMD sweet deals. To be on topic, I'm curious about the performance after Microsoft deals with the scheduling issues Bulldozer has with Windows. Having performance worse than a Phenom II is rather...odd and the fact performance improves quite a bit in Windows 8 seems to suggest the operating system seems to hold performance back a bit. Strange AMD didn't get Microsoft to patch it before release. I agree that having a suboptimal scheduler really suck - in fact a lot of these numbers probably deserve another review after microsoft patches it up (if they do bother). I am really worried about the single thread performance. I see almost no reason for AMD users to upgrade, and I will still recommend sandy bridge to people over the new AMD BD. | ||
|
Swwww
Switzerland812 Posts
| ||
|
AZN)Boy
United States57 Posts
I think Bullzdozer is a worthy successor to AMD's Phenom II, it's built upon support multi GPU support, hence the PCI-E X16 (2x). As a systems builder, you need to look at all aspect of the chipset and support rather than relying on the CPU alone. Also the pricing of these CPUs are extremely attractive, also the overclockability of these chips will help further decide the purchasing decision by consumers. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:03 Asday wrote: Same. I guess when it's time to upgrade my Phenom II 965, I'll have to go Intel. My AM3 motherboard isn't compatible anyway.Disappointed. Total AMD fanboy, and I can't bring myself to want to buy one. Really disappointed. I wanted to stay AMD, but it's looking pretty hard to. I shall stick with AMD/ATI graphics though, they've never disappointed. | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
On October 12 2011 23:57 Womwomwom wrote: Sure they can (especially with them only paying for the good processors), whether it earns them enough money to improve their prospects in a different matter. Its not like they can do anything about Global Foundries except hope they catch up to Intel's fabs and keep giving AMD sweet deals. To be on topic, I'm curious about the performance after Microsoft deals with the scheduling issues Bulldozer has with Windows. Having performance worse than a Phenom II is rather...odd and the fact performance improves quite a bit in Windows 8 seems to suggest the operating system seems to hold performance back a bit. Strange AMD didn't get Microsoft to patch it before release. I read about the schedule issue, but 3% seems to be the quoted number here. The flipside (or optimistic) is why didn't AMD get that resolved before release if it would significantly help performance? So logically it probably does not really help much. When you consider the consistent bad performance in the leaks, and then even lab501 releasing similar numbers about 1.5 days earlier, it really put to bed any real expectations for "surprising" performance boosts. Some of the AMD fans clung to BIOS updates or AGESA problems changing things (lol), but they really are grasping at straws at this point. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15728 Posts
On October 13 2011 00:29 AZN)Boy wrote: Also the pricing of these CPUs are extremely attractive, also the overclockability of these chips will help further decide the purchasing decision by consumers. Which bulldozer chip is priced competitively to Intel? Honestly looking at the benchmarks, every Intel chip at the same price point will perform better with and without overclocking. It feels like this is a time when Intel finally has AMD beat in every possible way. | ||
|
amd098
Korea (North)1366 Posts
| ||
|
Amalaxi
United States180 Posts
 | ||
|
Arkaridge
Australia48 Posts
| ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
|
ChrisXIV
Austria3553 Posts
On October 13 2011 01:19 Grobyc wrote: Still glad I got my Intel SandyBridge then My thoughts exactly. I expect a CPU in the same price range that comes out 6 months later than the one I'm using right now to be at least 10% better in most benchmarks, not only some specific cases. | ||
|
sureshot_
United States257 Posts
| ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
It just has way to many weird quirks since it favors parallelism over single threaded and the current revision kinda sucks at OC at reasonable levels. There's issues with the scheduler and cache thrashing and other things but it's a good starting block for a new line of processors. The processor only really fails at the enthusiast sectors while not being particularly mind blowing compared to Phenom II and its leaking so much power that it could heat your home in winter. That's the only real problem with it since they hyped it so much for 4 years :p. | ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
a man can dream... | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
 I loved my Phenom IIs, but it looks like ill be keeping them for a longer time now. | ||
| ||
