• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bulldozers Weak/Strong points?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AMD = A Motherload of Disappointment

AMD will be a step or ten behind Intel in terms of performance. AMD is budget oriented though. If anything is good about the Bulldozer then, shouldn't there be a glint of hope or leak about their upcoming first lineup and their benches. There is none. So, here's to a disappointing launch for Bulldozer.

AMD also claimed in that "one" supposedly leaked slide that their 8-core proc is 50% faster than Intels quad core of last year. You don't say! 8-core is 50% faster than intels 4-core.

Intel all the way until AMD get's their shenanigans together.
 
Anarchist420 said:
A major weak point is the slow L3 cache. There is a lot of it, but it's slow. I wouldn't be surprised if Bulldozer is only 20% faster per clock than the PII architecture.
Click to expand...

If by slow you mean slower than the L3 cache in SB then maybe, but it won't be slower than the L3 in Phenom II.

Did you mean 20% faster per clock performance for each core? Honestly I only see BD having between 5-15% higher IPC than PII, but it should offer greatly improved power efficiency and higher clocks. It seems likely to me that BD would fall slightly behind SB in performance even with higher clocks (1 to 4 threads), but once more threads are added a 4-module BD should overtake a 4-core SB. Of course price will be a major factor here, so we'll have to wait and see.
 
Mugenx said:
AMD = A Motherload of Disappointment

AMD will be a step or ten behind Intel in terms of performance. AMD is budget oriented though. If anything is good about the Bulldozer then, shouldn't there be a glint of hope or leak about their upcoming first lineup and their benches. There is none. So, here's to a disappointing launch for Bulldozer.

AMD also claimed in that "one" supposedly leaked slide that their 8-core proc is 50% faster than Intels quad core of last year. You don't say! 8-core is 50% faster than intels 4-core.

Intel all the way until AMD get's their shenanigans together.
Click to expand...

Lets not let another CPU thread degrade into some Intel vs. AMD nonsense with flamebait.
 
Mugenx said:
AMD = A Motherload of Disappointment

AMD will be a step or ten behind Intel in terms of performance. AMD is budget oriented though. If anything is good about the Bulldozer then, shouldn't there be a glint of hope or leak about their upcoming first lineup and their benches. There is none. So, here's to a disappointing launch for Bulldozer.

AMD also claimed in that "one" supposedly leaked slide that their 8-core proc is 50% faster than Intels quad core of last year. You don't say! 8-core is 50% faster than intels 4-core.

Intel all the way until AMD get's their shenanigans together.
Click to expand...


What was the purpose of this post?
 
For 10+ years I've bought only AMD CPUs (mid-range, not a gamer), and never had any issues whatsoever, no high temperatures, blah.
Very satisfied. I also tend to use only ASUS, avoid ECS and el cheapos. Just trying to do my part to foster competition.

Without AMD's competitive pressue, what would an Intel CPU cost?
Want more monopolies?
 
Lonbjerg said:
I remember a dual core AMD CPU patch:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81429
Click to expand...

"Here is how to get your dual core AMD system running like it should with no hitches and stibility issues..............since the new AMD DUAL CORE OPTIMIZER came out people say you dont need the MS HOTFIX anymore"

I think that was an MS Windows problem when dual cores first started coming out (ie. it was required for both Intel and AMD dual core CPUs)? From your link it looks like AMD just made something similar to the MS hotfix for their own CPUs.
 
The one thing thats wierd to me is that AMD was vocal about Phenom (at least I thought they were), and its improvements, and saying its going to be the best thing since x86's invention (Well they didn't really say that). In comparison, they are very tight lipped with BD. They trickle alittle info here and there. I don't know if that would be considered a good sign or bad sign?....

I still have a nagging feeling that BD is going to be delayed or have a subpar launch like Phenom did (much lower clockspeeds than expected). Hopefully though BD will please everyones expectations, although some peoples expectations might be unreasonable...
 
This thread has turned into amd fanboys vs. intel fanboys.

I hope AMD has an amazing offering. However, based on history of releases, it wont be "better in every way" than Intel's. My list in post #3 only reflects history.
 
dguy6789 said:
Have you really been here since 2007? Your posts sound like you're extremely new to computers. These problems you're talking about have never happened.
Click to expand...
I was thinking back to 1999/2000 (Irongate). 2007? That's practically modern. Prior to then, I know I wasn't the only one that lamented the scarcity and cost of real AMD chipsets (you had to get workstation/server boards), especially once the on-die memory controller made performance a null issue.

formulav8 said:
Is anything known whether AMD truly beefed up its integer performance? IIRC that has been a major advantage Intel has had since Conroe.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's different enough from basically any other CPU, that we're just going to have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Mugenx said:
AMD will be a step or ten behind Intel in terms of performance. AMD is budget oriented though. If anything is good about the Bulldozer then, shouldn't there be a glint of hope or leak about their upcoming first lineup and their benches. There is none. So, here's to a disappointing launch for Bulldozer.
Click to expand...

"As you can see, a complete lack of evidence is convincing evidence for concluding that..."

*sigh*
 
I'm with formulav8, either BD will kill SB or will in some cases will come close to SB in ways but yet be the value chip to have. I'm thinking that most of the time it will(BD 8 core) beat a SB at most benchs. I just have that feeling about it all.
 
stevech said:
For 10+ years I've bought only AMD CPUs (mid-range, not a gamer), and never had any issues whatsoever, no high temperatures, blah.
Very satisfied. I also tend to use only ASUS, avoid ECS and el cheapos. Just trying to do my part to foster competition.

Without AMD's competitive pressue, what would an Intel CPU cost?
Want more monopolies?
Click to expand...

My K6-2 was ridiculously hot, as was my T-bird :twisted:

Of course, then Intel released the Pentium 4 and the perception shifted to Intel running hot (with good reason, those things are insane).

Now both companies seem to have thermals under control (though advantage Intel atm), mostly due to aggressive down-clocking more than anything else. My Thuban gets very hot if I give it 6 threads to chew at for an extended period of time...


I doubt BD will "run hot". It has no reason to. It promises to have the most advanced power controls of any AMD cpu yet (TurboCORE 2.0 plus whatever CnQ advances), will be built on 32nm, and will be an enthusiast chip which means none of us is going to be silly and try to cool it with a box fan :hmm:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top