Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[TakeNoPrisoners]

The reason I don't like BD at this point is because I play alot of MMOs and they don't use many cores. I would like the per core preformance to be better. It makes me want to go Intel next time.

 

[Edrick]

Not to be an arse or anything, but don't your 2 posts contradict each other?

They use Intel because its the fastest, and want to completely eliminate any possible CPU bottleneck.

Eh, thats debatable, but even so, gaming is irrelevant to CPU's in this day and age for several reasons. Games in their nature arent very CPU intensive, and are usually bottlenecked by the GPU or other parts.

 

[Arkaign]

Not to be an arse or anything, but don't your 2 posts contradict each other?

Not when you think about it. When you're benchmarking the GPU, you want to show them with as little potential outside bottlenecks as possible, and it happens that Intel's high-end CPUs offer that best right now.

At the same time, it's somwhat rare to find a game that won't run just fine on AMD and Intel CPUs starting at prices right around $100ish.

In other words, given these three options :

A $100 cpu with a $300 gpu
A $200 cpu with a $200 gpu
A $300 cpu with a $100 gpu

The first option will USUALLY give the best real-world gaming results, while the last option will usually give the worst. But all three cpu options will deliver good to great gaming results, while all three gpu options may not, the lower ends will be somewhat lacking at higher res/details.

 

[Edrick]

When you're benchmarking the GPU, you want to show them with as little potential outside bottlenecks as possible, and it happens that Intel's high-end CPUs offer that best right now.

I agree with that statement. And that is how it should be. But if you admit the fact that using an Intel high end CPU eliminates any possible bottleneck, you also must admit that CPU bottlenecks do exist. (Starcraft II for example). Granted it is not common in the market today.

 

[Arkaign]

I agree with that statement. And that is how it should be. But if you admit the fact that using an Intel high end CPU eliminates any possible bottleneck, you also must admit that CPU bottlenecks do exist. (Starcraft II for example)

Oh yeah for sure, I'm not one of those nitwits who think that CPU is irrelevant for games. Try playing the Witcher 2 on a low-end dually and see how that goes as well

Like many general truths, it's important to examine the granularity of the elements that comprise it. And while GPU is indeed fundamentally much more important to a good gaming experience, lack of CPU power can be a game-breaking problem with certain situations.

What does seem to be fairly immutable is about a 3/1 budget for GPU vs. CPU for gamers until the $300ish price point is hit, then move closer to balance as things go up, then flip again as xfire/sli become feasible to the budget.

So :

$400 budget for CPU / GPU, spend $100 cpu, $300 gpu
$500 budget, spend $150 cpu, $350 gpu
$600 budget, spend $250 cpu, $350 gpu
$700 budget, spend $300 cpu, $400 gpu
$800 budget, spend $300 cpu, $500 gpus
$900 budget, spend $300 cpu, $600 gpus
$1000 budget, spend $300 cpu, $700 gpus
etc

 

[Ares1214]

Not to be an arse or anything, but don't your 2 posts contradict each other?

Benchmarkers have to get rid of any possible bottleneck as small as it may be. If using a 990x makes a faster card be just a little bit faster, they would use it. for example a 1090T might make a GTX 580 12.5% faster than a 6970, but using a 990x might make it 15.5% faster. Small real world difference, but benchmarkers have to isolate the variable as well as possible.

 

[Ares1214]

Oh yeah for sure, I'm not one of those nitwits who think that CPU is irrelevant for games. Try playing the Witcher 2 on a low-end dually and see how that goes as well

Like many general truths, it's important to examine the granularity of the elements that comprise it. And while GPU is indeed fundamentally much more important to a good gaming experience, lack of CPU power can be a game-breaking problem with certain situations.

What does seem to be fairly immutable is about a 3/1 budget for GPU vs. CPU for gamers until the $300ish price point is hit, then move closer to balance as things go up, then flip again as xfire/sli become feasible to the budget.

So :

$400 budget for CPU / GPU, spend $100 cpu, $300 gpu
$500 budget, spend $150 cpu, $350 gpu
$600 budget, spend $250 cpu, $350 gpu
$700 budget, spend $300 cpu, $400 gpu
$800 budget, spend $300 cpu, $500 gpus
$900 budget, spend $300 cpu, $600 gpus
$1000 budget, spend $300 cpu, $700 gpus
etc

True, but if we are comparing a BD vs SB, does it really matter if the SB gets 110FPS vs the BD getting 100FPS? Or in Crysis, the BD getting 35FPS, and the SB getting 36FPS? I dont think so.

 

[piesquared]

I certainly hope AMD is not going to attempt to go again down the path that almost destroyed them back when Ruiz was CEO.

Oh please. Everyone knows what 'almost destroyed' them, and it starts with illegal and ends with intel.

 

[Arkaign]

True, but if we are comparing a BD vs SB, does it really matter if the SB gets 110FPS vs the BD getting 100FPS? Or in Crysis, the BD getting 35FPS, and the SB getting 36FPS? I dont think so.

No, at that range of performance obviously more $$ at the GPU will give better results every day of the week and twice on sunday.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Please, show me a game where an Intel CPU gets playable frame rates yet the AMD CPU doesnt. They use Intel because its the fastest, and want to completely eliminate any possible CPU bottleneck.

Your simply playing with words. Playable framerates was not the discussion unless you want to change the topic ti Llano and than we could talk playable fram rates on my 24" monitor at native res. Than we could talk playable.

 

[Mopetar]

If you pick an arbitrarily low-end CPU, of course it will impact performance. However, you really don't need to spend more than about $150 before you run into serious diminishing returns on performance gains. From a benchmarking perspective, it's always best to use that CPU that maximizes performance, but from a consumers perspective it's usually fine to maximize price for performance, especially when any additional performance carries a whole lot of price.

That said, I'm curious about the performance of the four and six core BD chips. It's nice that AMD will (allegedly) have a nice competitor for the 2600K, but I want to know how their other parts will stack up against the 2500K in terms of price and performance.

 

[Arkaign]

Your simply playing with words. Playable framerates was not the discussion unless you want to change the topic ti Llano and than we could talk playable fram rates on my 24" monitor at native res. Than we could talk playable.

Ehhh, yeah but any competing product from intel at that price level is also totally useless for 1920x1080/1920x1200.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Oh please. Everyone knows what 'almost destroyed' them, and it starts with illegal and ends with intel.

Oh please everyone who really knows the industry knows. It started with AMDs capacity restraints and ends with them selling their fabs. Dell couldn't take on AMD because AMD couldn't and wouldn't garrentee a stocking supply to dell.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

True. I personally consider $400+ to be high end. The $300 market is usually the top end of 'mainstream'. Everyone has their own opinion of what high end is, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. But that does not make it fact. And the only opinions which carry some weight are those of AMD and Intel, since they create the market.

Yes, and according to Intel the top end of Mainstream is the 2500K ($220). Anything higher is considered Performance/Enthusiast up to the i7-970 ($580). After that comes the Extreme category reserved for their Extreme line.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/12/intel-roadmap-charts-rollout-dates-for-ivy-bridge-cedarview-sa/

"High-end" is a term defined by the user and people should just stop using it altogether.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ehhh, yeah but any competing product from intel at that price level is also totally useless for 1920x1080/1920x1200.

Yes I am aware of this . But this is the same reasoning the other side of the debate has taken up as its flag.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yes, and according to Intel the top end of Mainstream is the 2500K ($220). Anything higher is considered Performance/Enthusiast up to the i7-970 ($580). After that comes the Extreme category reserved for their Extreme line.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/12/intel-roadmap-charts-rollout-dates-for-ivy-bridge-cedarview-sa/

"High-end" is a term defined by the user and people should just stop using it altogether.

Yes and you said it exactly correctly . 2600K is the highend of intels midrange. You understand it as do many others . So whats with the people who pretend not to comprend this FACT?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Well, if BD really beats the i7-2600K AMD just left 2007 and landed in 2011.

If that isn't great for AMD I don't know what is.

 

[skipsneeky2]

They won't because it is a 6 core processor and can beat the 2500K in some heavily threaded apps that require more cores.

Newegg sells the X4 965 for $119. I'd say the pricing is right.

Well if i was looking for a processor for under $200 on a budget i will always go amd do admit their quads like the x4 955 are excellent value.

Almost went x4 955 and gtx570 but i think i would have had to overclock that cpu to high hell for that card to not be bottlenecked.

 

[Accord99]

Well, if BD really beats the i7-2600K AMD just left 2007 and landed in 2011.

If that isn't great for AMD I don't know what is.

Doesn't look much different than 1100T versus i7-860, AMD has a modest throughput advantage in some 3D rendering and video encoding applications but significant disadvantage if work load doesn't take advantage of all cores.

 

[Phynaz]

Oh please. Everyone knows what 'almost destroyed' them, and it starts with illegal and ends with intel.

Please go troll elsewhere.

 

[pantsaregood]

Yes and you said it exactly correctly . 2600K is the highend of intels midrange. You understand it as do many others . So whats with the people who pretend not to comprend this FACT?

Nobody gives a damn about arbitrary labels. The FX-8130P appears to significantly outperform the 2600K at the moment. The FX-8130P is priced to compete with the 2600K. Quad-core SB-Es are going to perform almost identically to the 2600K. Six-core SB-Es will gain a modest performance improvement.

As of now, the i7-990X is Intel's flagship/extreme/high-end CPU. The i7-995X will replace it sometime soon. Neither of those CPUs will compare to a 2600K, however. The "enthusiast" label applied to the 2600K pretty clearly places it OUTSIDE of the "midrange" performance bracket.

 

[Edrick]

The FX-8130P appears to significantly outperform the 2600K at the moment

Based on Fud. Wait until we see real reviews before making such claims.

The FX-8130P is priced to compete with the 2600K

Based on what? A chart that was posted a month ago? AMD never claimed it to be valid. Again, what until we see real prices.

Six-core SB-Es will gain a modest performance improvement.

So 50% is modest to you? Interesting.

Please, get off of Intel's [redacted].

Funny, after reading your posts, I was just thinking to myself something very similar about you and AMD.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

If (and that's a big if) these numbers are to be believed, then AMD's 3/3 on Zacate, Llano, and Bulldozer. It's a pity the economy is so terrible right now, otherwise they'd be moving lots of Zacates and Llanos right now and Bulldozers in a few months.

Despite the delays, I think soon is a good time to buy AMD. After the short-sighted investors see they underperformed in Q2, it'll probably hit 5/share or a bit lower. I'd be very surprised if it isn't at 10/share by year's end. Nothing like doubling your money in less than six months. Edit: ok, sure, a lot of things are better than that, but it's still solid in this economy, ha.

Please, get off of Intel's [redacted].

The feeble attempts to communicate such bizarrely twisted takes on reality, all because the nitwit likes to 'back the winning horse' on an anonymous internet forum, are amusing, but not really worth a reply.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Based on Fud. Wait until we see real reviews before making such claims.

Do you not know what 'appears' means? Also, good news is not fud.

So 50% is modest to you? Interesting.

Do you think SB-E, by adding 50% more cores, will yield a 50% performance increase?

 

[RussianSensation]

Eh, thats debatable, but even so, gaming is irrelevant to CPU's in this day and age for several reasons.

If that's true, then the release of Bulldozer would also be irrelevant for several reasons:

1) Why should we spend $300+ on a Bulldozer if the current X4 965 $119 or the $195 i5-2400 are fast enough for games? In fact it appears that a 2500k is everything we could want and more since at 4.5ghz+ it will be fast enough for any game for years to come.

It looks to me like an overclocked 2500k has the best IPC, still maintains reasonable power consumption while overclocked, and whoops everything this side of 2600k in most every day tasks (outside of video rendering and video encoding). All that available today for $220.

True, but if we are comparing a BD vs SB, does it really matter if the SB gets 110FPS vs the BD getting 100FPS? Or in Crysis, the BD getting 35FPS, and the SB getting 36FPS? I dont think so.

2) Following your logic once again, then whatever advantage Bulldozer may have over Sandy Bridge is also irrelevant then if Sandy Bridge is already fast enough for games. So why wait to buy Bulldozer since it won't matter anyway? In that case it's better to just purchase a SB platform right now and not wait, wouldn't you agree?

Of course I don't agree with the idea that AMD processors are good enough today; that's why I look forward to AMD producing a much faster processor. And if you thought a $120 965 Phenom II X4 was good enough, you wouldn't even care about how a $320 Bulldozer would do against a 2600k

Well, if BD really beats the i7-2600K AMD just left 2007 and landed in 2011.

If that isn't great for AMD I don't know what is.

If true when it launches with official benchmarks, :thumbsup::thumbsup: