|
On October 13 2011 02:46 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact.  afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers. I'm no server/performance guy
Leave it at that please.
|
On October 13 2011 02:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:29 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still. Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100. Uhm, OCing might be the same end result on high end custom loops, according to AT a 2500k hits roughly the same clock on air as an 8150, with better clock for clock performance.
You can get a 2500k to 4.6ghz on air cooling? I had no idea... I'm gunna have some fun tomorrow
|
On October 13 2011 02:50 B00ts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:35 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:29 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still. Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100. Uhm, OCing might be the same end result on high end custom loops, according to AT a 2500k hits roughly the same clock on air as an 8150, with better clock for clock performance. You can get a 2500k to 4.6ghz on air cooling? I had no idea... I'm gunna have some fun tomorrow
Most of them, yes, from what I've read.
|
On October 13 2011 02:51 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:50 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:35 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:29 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still. Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100. Uhm, OCing might be the same end result on high end custom loops, according to AT a 2500k hits roughly the same clock on air as an 8150, with better clock for clock performance. You can get a 2500k to 4.6ghz on air cooling? I had no idea... I'm gunna have some fun tomorrow Most of them, yes, from what I've read.
Sad thing is, I'm at 4.7 on liquid, but can't go past that due to some fucked up voltage issues. Pisses me off.
|
On October 13 2011 02:50 B00ts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:35 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:29 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still. Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100. Uhm, OCing might be the same end result on high end custom loops, according to AT a 2500k hits roughly the same clock on air as an 8150, with better clock for clock performance. You can get a 2500k to 4.6ghz on air cooling? I had no idea... I'm gunna have some fun tomorrow
Yes and you can get a 2600k to 4.6ghz as well on air, at 4.6ghz it uses less than half the energy of the bulldozer at 4.6 and outperforms it in everything but maybe 7zip, you get the extra 75$ back over time because of electricity bills.
Btw I don't really understand bulldozer if cores is all that matters for servers, why not just have 1.6ghz 16cores and stuff?
|
...god dammit. Now we're one step closer to an Intel monopoly. I used to love supporting AMD back in the early 2000's when their products were both higher-end AND better bang for buck than Intel's. Sadly I kinda already knew that Bulldozer was going to be an enormous failure, given how badly it was delayed. I'm just hoping at the very least when AMD goes under, ATI gets spun-off and stays alive.
|
On October 13 2011 02:49 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:46 Bibdy wrote:On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers. I'm no server/performance guy Leave it at that please.
So, it's too difficult to directly answer, so you pick on that little tidbit? How mature. From the sound of it, you aren't a server guy yourself. Just bragging about what your business uses and claiming authority.
|
On October 13 2011 02:54 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:50 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:35 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:29 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still. Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100. Uhm, OCing might be the same end result on high end custom loops, according to AT a 2500k hits roughly the same clock on air as an 8150, with better clock for clock performance. You can get a 2500k to 4.6ghz on air cooling? I had no idea... I'm gunna have some fun tomorrow Yes and you can get a 2600k to 4.6ghz as well on air, at 4.6ghz it uses less than half the energy of the bulldozer at 4.6 and outperforms it in everything but maybe 7zip, you get the extra 75$ back over time because of electricity bills. Btw I don't really understand bulldozer if cores is all that matters for servers, why not just have 1.6ghz 16cores and stuff?
Limitations to how much you can mash onto one die? They just use multiple socket boards instead.
And stuff like this.
|
On October 13 2011 02:54 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:50 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:35 JingleHell wrote:On October 13 2011 02:29 Antisocialmunky wrote:On October 13 2011 02:21 B00ts wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves here. They released an absolute turd of a product. When the i7-2600k, which has been out for almost close to a year now, completely annihilates the FX-8150 in virtually every benchmark that is applicable to 99.9% of the consumer base out there, you know AMD has a massive failure on their hands.
This is fair... Except that the FX-8150 is not ~$314, but $245. Still I think the price/performance ratio leans towards Intel still. Someone on [H] ran the numbers and its questionable if the 2500's or one of the FX-81xx's are better since OCing is kinda meh due to the power issues. At stock the FX are better and at OC they are about the same. The only issues are the cost of system and the fact that BD mobos have more PCI-e lanes etc etc. So its kinda a wash and really depends on what you want. I'd be more curious about the FX-4100. Uhm, OCing might be the same end result on high end custom loops, according to AT a 2500k hits roughly the same clock on air as an 8150, with better clock for clock performance. You can get a 2500k to 4.6ghz on air cooling? I had no idea... I'm gunna have some fun tomorrow Yes and you can get a 2600k to 4.6ghz as well on air, at 4.6ghz it uses less than half the energy of the bulldozer at 4.6 and outperforms it in everything but maybe 7zip, you get the extra 75$ back over time because of electricity bills. Btw I don't really understand bulldozer if cores is all that matters for servers, why not just have 1.6ghz 16cores and stuff?
wrong quoted person
|
Just out of curiosity what is the point of having many cores? to me it just seems like a fuckload of overhead and synchronization. Why dosn't the industry build really, really powerful dual cores instead of weaker but more cores?
|
On October 13 2011 02:46 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers. I'm no server/performance guy, but isn't the total cost of ownership of a server farm dominated by both the salary of the guy you pay to maintain it, and the long-term power consumption costs? I can't think of any business that would just up and go "Yeah, fuck it, get the super heavy-duty chips, and to hell with the power costs!"
If you want a detailed answer here you go.
The total cost of a server farm or data centre is completely IRRELEVANT. You're paying for good equipment for a couple reasons: Stability, failsafe mechanisms' and data retention.
If you end up making money from the server farm then, great. People don't invent all this money into a huge data centre to make a profit, it's a guaranteed loss (in it's own respect)
It's there to run the company, the infastructure and to make sure everything works as it should. It's a necessity.
A data centre tech or NOC manager makes about oh I don't know 70~90k a year, which is a few months of electricity. Believe it or not, the cooling and air conditioners in a data centre cost more then most hardware (to operate 24/7) so it's somewhat of a moot point.
the only way you can make a profit from a data centre is to rent out a collocation to another company, perhaps a reseller of your services, or a smaller fish who's renting some pipe from you. these usually cost about 15k, for a small 4x6 or 6x8 foot area.
|
On October 13 2011 03:02 KaiserJohan wrote:
Just out of curiosity what is the point of having many cores? to me it just seems like a fuckload of overhead and synchronization. Why dosn't the industry build really, really powerful dual cores instead of weaker but more cores?
Well, probably because it's faster doing more things at once almost as fast than it is doing less things at once slightly faster. At least so far. Like folding and bitcoin mining, those only really work on GPU's with their shitload of slower cores. Different kinds of processing take different kinds of hardware.
|
That sucks. Competition between AMD and Intel is good for us customers. Keeps 'em on their toes.
|
On October 13 2011 03:03 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 02:46 Bibdy wrote:On October 13 2011 02:40 TadH wrote:On October 13 2011 02:37 Shikyo wrote:On October 13 2011 02:05 B00ts wrote:On October 13 2011 02:01 Bibdy wrote:
Well, where's the test that shows off its merits? If it was intended for a specific niche, shouldn't that be the benchmark? I find it more likely that they hedged a lot of bets on a single research line that was not particularly fruitful, and they've decided to release something to try and get some of that investment back. If you follow the industry at all... You would know that the new platform was designed for The Server market. However, I'm fully aware that not everyone is as nerdy as I when it comes to this stuff... But any google search for Bulldozer will eventually get you search results from prior to today and you can plainly see this fact. afaik servers stay on 24/7 and you ideally don't want to spend 50$ a day on the electricity bill for your computer, please correct me if I'm wrong. Wrong. Any large scale server/noc centre would have no issue at all paying 50 dollars per day for a solid reliable server. EDIT: For clarification, the Data Centre/Noc I work for spends roughly $25,000 per month on our electricity bill, and we use the AMD platform in most of our servers. I'm no server/performance guy, but isn't the total cost of ownership of a server farm dominated by both the salary of the guy you pay to maintain it, and the long-term power consumption costs? I can't think of any business that would just up and go "Yeah, fuck it, get the super heavy-duty chips, and to hell with the power costs!" If you want a detailed answer here you go. The total cost of a server farm or data centre is completely IRRELEVANT. You're paying for good equipment for a couple reasons: Stability, failsafe mechanisms' and data retention. If you end up making money from the server farm then, great. People don't invent all this money into a huge data centre to make a profit, it's a guaranteed loss (in it's own respect) It's there to run the company, the infastructure and to make sure everything works as it should. It's a necessity. A data centre tech or NOC manager makes about oh I don't know 70~90k a year, which is a few months of electricity. Believe it or not, the cooling and air conditioners in a data centre cost more then most hardware (to operate 24/7) so it's somewhat of a moot point. the only way you can make a profit from a data centre is to rent out a collocation to another company, perhaps a reseller of your services, or a smaller fish who's renting some pipe from you. these usually cost about 15k, for a small 4x6 or 6x8 foot area.
Irrelevant? Really?
So you're saying a 1% increase in core capacity, would justify 500% more power consumption? Those three metrics are the ONLY ones under consideration? Please. Maybe to a business that likes to hemorrhage money, but over here in the real world, the total cost of ownership is a huge deal. It's pretty much the sole reason my company's IPBX product wins deals against the equivalents from Cisco and Avaya. At least in this industry, people give much less of a shit about the simpler, intuitive interface and the distributed architecture, than they do the simple fact that power consumption is stupid-low and you only need one guy to maintain it.
|
BD release is turning AMD vs Intel into Mac vs Windows... it's fucking ridiculous. People are so busy hating stuff for their use that they can't admit the validity to a totally different market.
|
On October 12 2011 21:25 Phayze wrote:
Rofl AMD. Kinda feels like they arent even trying to compete in the consumer market any more.
Yea that's why zacate is destroying the atom line up on the low end mobile market lol.
On October 12 2011 22:24 android_245 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:34 TheBomb wrote:
I knew it. The fact that they were delaying it so much and the fact that early leaked benchmarks showed bulldozer loosing to I5 2600K in the cpu area and only winning in the graphics area which is not even important as 90% of the people have dedicated graphic card anyways! How does Bulldozer beat Sandy Bridge in the graphics area when it doesn't even have a IGP?
He is probably mistaking Bulldozer with Llano.
Next gen Bulldozer will be an APU too.
Anyway even if it is a failure i don't thing that the situation is desperate for AMD. zacate is doing good ( they can't ship enough actually ) Llano isn't doing decent too and their GPU are selling well.
They were in a way worse shape during the Core era before the Phe/ Athlon II tbh. Still disappointing though.
|
On October 13 2011 03:13 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:25 Phayze wrote:
Rofl AMD. Kinda feels like they arent even trying to compete in the consumer market any more. Yea that's why zacate is destroying the atom line up on the low end mobile market lol. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:24 android_245 wrote:On October 12 2011 21:34 TheBomb wrote:
I knew it. The fact that they were delaying it so much and the fact that early leaked benchmarks showed bulldozer loosing to I5 2600K in the cpu area and only winning in the graphics area which is not even important as 90% of the people have dedicated graphic card anyways! How does Bulldozer beat Sandy Bridge in the graphics area when it doesn't even have a IGP? He is probably mistaking Bulldozer with Llano. Next gen Bulldozer will be an APU too. Anyway even if it is a failure i don't thing that the situation is desperate for AMD. zacate is doing good ( they can't ship enough actually ) Llano isn't doing decent too and their GPU are selling well. They were in a way worse shape during the Core era before the Phe/ Athlon II tbh. Still disappointing though.
First gen phenom was the darkest days, even the low end enterprise server market had to move away from them for that. Phenom 2 had it's moments at least, despite being relatively obsolete at release. They still had some good moments. Llano absolutely has awesome uses in the market for inexpensive notebooks that are capable of playing games to some degree, and BD will have some enterprise server market share.
|
On October 13 2011 03:13 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 21:25 Phayze wrote:
Rofl AMD. Kinda feels like they arent even trying to compete in the consumer market any more. Yea that's why zacate is destroying the atom line up on the low end mobile market lol. Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 22:24 android_245 wrote:On October 12 2011 21:34 TheBomb wrote:
I knew it. The fact that they were delaying it so much and the fact that early leaked benchmarks showed bulldozer loosing to I5 2600K in the cpu area and only winning in the graphics area which is not even important as 90% of the people have dedicated graphic card anyways! How does Bulldozer beat Sandy Bridge in the graphics area when it doesn't even have a IGP? He is probably mistaking Bulldozer with Llano. Next gen Bulldozer will be an APU too. Anyway even if it is a failure i don't thing that the situation is desperate for AMD. zacate is doing good ( they can't ship enough actually ) Llano isn't doing decent too and their GPU are selling well. They were in a way worse shape during the Core era before the Phe/ Athlon II tbh. Still disappointing though.
Source on next generation Bulldozer being an APU?
Just because Trinity and Kaveri will be using Piledriver and Steamroller cores does not mean that the FX brand will be getting an IGP...
|
On October 13 2011 03:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2011 03:02 KaiserJohan wrote:
Just out of curiosity what is the point of having many cores? to me it just seems like a fuckload of overhead and synchronization. Why dosn't the industry build really, really powerful dual cores instead of weaker but more cores? Well, probably because it's faster doing more things at once almost as fast than it is doing less things at once slightly faster. At least so far. Like folding and bitcoin mining, those only really work on GPU's with their shitload of slower cores. Different kinds of processing take different kinds of hardware.
There is also the issue of the heat ceiling. Instead of 2 really extreme cores that would overheat, you spread that over more cores at a lower clock frequency, thus reducing the maximum temperature. Phase changing / liquid cooling isn't exactly something you can mass market, costs put aside.
The problem is that most programs aren't designed to take advantage of multi-core technology right, and we are caught in this transition.
|
Huh? We knew BD tech would be utilized for Trinity - this was presented in the June 2011 keynote. Remember the guy holding up the Trinitiy APU? It's for this reason people are linking the success of the two together. If BD sucks, kind of diminishes the excitement for Trinity doesn't it?
GPU improvement will be just fine (ATi held up their end of the deal), but if BD-side stalls the CPU performance, it's not going to be a balanced approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
