Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[Davidh373]

Yes, Multithreaded

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203

EDIT: I rarely ever use 7z. How often do you use folder compression? I know I encode video, play games, and render 3D a lot more than I compress things.

 

[Crap Daddy]

Don't know where you got those graphs but this very own anand bench tells a completely different story:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288

 

[Abwx]

Don't know where you got those graphs but this very own anand bench tells a completely different story:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288

As an exemple , neither 3DSmax9 neither 3DSmax10 , both VASTLY used
in ANAND s comparison are well optimised for phenom cpus ,
contrary to 3DSmax11.5 as shown by Techreport s charts
that i did post..

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20486

 

[RussianSensation]

Yet the same old urban legends unrelentlessly recycled....

Multithread , did you say ?...

If you do a lot of compression and rendering, then of course a 6-8 core chip is more suitable for you. But that's a small area where AMD chips are competitive. What about the other 90% of applications we "regular" guys/gals use? Oh ya.....about that.

And btw, not everyone even uses 7-zip. Some people use WinZip 12, some use WinRAR. The compression performance also matters based on the type of program you use.

 

[Davidh373]

As an exemple , neither 3DSmax9 neither 3DSmax10 , both VASTLY used
in ANAND s comparison are well optimised for phenom cpus ,

Yes, and no professional uses Blender, or the render engine POV-Ray

Professionals use mostly MentalRay and VRay for the rendering as far as I know (I am "in the industry" after all). 3DS Max, Maya, Cinema4D, Softimage, Rhino, CAD ect. are modeling suites which aren't very heavy on processing to begin with.

 

[-Slacker-]

You certainly should consider making a different comparison next time. There was some sarcasm in my words, but that very statement suggests Intel goes about poor (or even illegal) business practices. Which they couldn't do.

First off, apologies to everyone for further derailing the thread.

Second, you're kidding, right? Right, let's keep this brief. For starters, google " intel patent infringement" .

 

[whatdidyousayman]

For the people trying to say Intel is just a company that does nothing illegal: Intel has been found to have been anti-competitive and monopolistic in the past. Why do you think they're paying money to AMD?

Please don't mistake my comment as fanboyish, but some of the comments in here are just silly.

 

[Vesku]

In the computer enthusiast demographic I think there is some serious downplaying of the value proposition of a 6-8 core chip with acceptable performance. Reminds me of people who downplayed how useful a 4 core chip was up until big hit game titles started coming out that could take advantage of the core count. The gaming market is not the be all end all of the enthusiast arena.

I just recently changed motherboards and the x2 Phenom II I'd unlocked to 3 won't unlock on it. Three cores was tolerable for my use but I still had a second machine for some home server tasks. Now with two cores even highly clocked I'm feeling a bit frustrated whenever I run cpu heavy tasks while actually using the machine. A better per thread performing 2 core would get those tasks done faster, assuming they had a finite run time, but only by presenting more 'cores' to the OS will my use experience improve. A decent performing 8 core chip would let me consolidate down to one home machine and not feel held back just because it happens to be using 2-4 cores for server duties or long (indefinite) run time demanding programs.

The faster each individual BD core is the better but it doesn't have to beat Intel in single thread for me to find it fit for my purposes.

 

[frozentundra123456]

In the computer enthusiast demographic I think there is some serious downplaying of the value proposition of a 6-8 core chip with acceptable performance. Reminds me of people who downplayed how useful a 4 core chip was up until big hit game titles started coming out that could take advantage of the core count. The gaming market is not the be all end all of the enthusiast arena.

I just recently changed motherboards and the x2 Phenom II I'd unlocked to 3 won't unlock on it. Three cores was tolerable for my use but I still had a second machine for some home server tasks. Now with two cores even highly clocked I'm feeling a bit frustrated whenever I run cpu heavy tasks while actually using the machine. A better per thread performing 2 core would get those tasks done faster, assuming they had a finite run time, but only by presenting more 'cores' to the OS will my use experience improve. A decent performing 8 core chip would let me consolidate down to one home machine and not feel held back just because it happens to be using 2-4 cores for server duties or long (indefinite) run time demanding programs.

The faster each individual BD core is the better but it doesn't have to beat Intel in single thread for me to find it fit for my purposes.

I am somewhat confused by your post. How would a faster dual core not improve your user experience compared to the Athlon X2 which you can no longer unlock? I would dare say that a i3 2100 would still be faster than an Athlon X2 unlocked to only 3 cores. And it could get one task done quicker and move on to another. Granted a 6 core might be better for your purposes, but I cant see anything to lose by having faster per core performance. Personally, I think it is time for AMD to make a competitive chip on a per core basis and quit getting buy on adding more cores to get midrange performance.

 

[Vesku]

I'm saying getting my third core back would be much better for me than running a faster dual core. The single thread hog program would still be using up a whole core of that i3-2100 and single available core, even a fast one, is so 1999. Consolidating to a single machine for 24/7 multi-use an 8 core acceptable single threaded performance appeals to me more than 4 core with faster (say around 20-30&#37 single threaded performance. All it takes is to run 1 or 2 tasks which are happy to gobble up a whole core to impact usability of a dual or quad core.

 

[Cogman]

In the computer enthusiast demographic I think there is some serious downplaying of the value proposition of a 6-8 core chip with acceptable performance. Reminds me of people who downplayed how useful a 4 core chip was up until big hit game titles started coming out that could take advantage of the core count. The gaming market is not the be all end all of the enthusiast arena.

I just recently changed motherboards and the x2 Phenom II I'd unlocked to 3 won't unlock on it. Three cores was tolerable for my use but I still had a second machine for some home server tasks. Now with two cores even highly clocked I'm feeling a bit frustrated whenever I run cpu heavy tasks while actually using the machine. A better per thread performing 2 core would get those tasks done faster, assuming they had a finite run time, but only by presenting more 'cores' to the OS will my use experience improve. A decent performing 8 core chip would let me consolidate down to one home machine and not feel held back just because it happens to be using 2-4 cores for server duties or long (indefinite) run time demanding programs.

The faster each individual BD core is the better but it doesn't have to beat Intel in single thread for me to find it fit for my purposes.

What "big hit game titles" are you referring to that take full advantage of 4 cores?

Even today, it is rare to see a game that takes full advantage of the CPU resources available. That, however, has to do more with the fact that the GPU plays a much strong role in game performance than the CPU does.

That isn't to say there aren't several places where 4+ cores are useful, just that games aren't really a shining example.

 

[Vesku]

BF:BC2 ran better with 3 cores over 2, so I think games implementing cpu runnable physics can benefit from at least a third core. Alpha testers of BF3 were saying they felt their quad cores were getting a proper workout.

I wasn't saying games are the forerunners of multi-core usage, in fact I said their are other enthusiast segments that have benefited sooner.

 

[Davidh373]

Second, you're kidding, right? Right, let's keep this brief. For starters, google " intel patent infringement" .

Google "Advanced Micro Devices Patent Infringement" then. It seems to happen with every company. Intel, AMD, Samsung, Verizon, Kodak. Lots of companies do it. Stop being unfair, and do your research for both sides before you make a claim like that. It makes you look ridiculous.

Just like that guy with the impressive 7z benchmarks lol

 

[Davidh373]

What "big hit game titles" are you referring to that take full advantage of 4 cores?

GTAIV, Brink, BF3, AvP, Metro 2033. All recommend a quad core CPU.

 

[soccerballtux]

BF:BC2 ran better with 3 cores over 2, so I think games implementing cpu runnable physics can benefit from at least a third core. Alpha testers of BF3 were saying they felt their quad cores were getting a proper workout.

I wasn't saying games are the forerunners of multi-core usage, in fact I said their are other enthusiast segments that have benefited sooner.

haven't you heard? non parallelized games are all the rage with Intel-Inside supported games!

 

[RussianSensation]

GTAIV, Brink, BF3, AvP, Metro 2033. All recommend a quad core CPU.

Quad is slowly becoming the new standard for games, but it isn't there just yet. It will probably take another 2-3 years before most games need a quad-core CPU, which brings us to the point: why buy a slower 6-core or 8-core CPU today for games that will only need 6 or more threads in 3 years when we'll have far faster CPU architectures?

The fact is for the foreseeable future, outside of ArmaII/III, there isn't a single game that will be bottlenecked by an overclocked quad-core SB processor. Even now a 2C/4T i3 smokes a Phenom II X4 in games - so not even 4 full-fledged cores can overcome a faster IPC advantage. If you look at i3, it's competitive in games vs. 1st generation i5-750/760.

I even "downgraded" from an 8 threaded CPU to a 4 threaded one since I wanted higher IPC performance. There isn't any reason to spend $300 on an 8-core BD for the sake of improved gaming performance or "future proofing" for games. There will be plenty of other reasons to buy a 6- and 8-core BD CPU, but better gaming performance over a 4-core SB isn't going to be one of them.

AMD's current strategy of throwing more cores at consumers didn't work at all with Phenom X6 vs. i5 and Phenom X4 vs. i3. Sure it captured some consumers, but barely enough to retain 19-20% market share (in fact most of the recent gains came from Fusion). I am pretty sure AMD knows this and did everything possible to make sure that BD has superior IPC and/or much higher clock speeds over Phenom II.

 

[nonameo]

Google "Advanced Micro Devices Patent Infringement" then. It seems to happen with every company. Intel, AMD, Samsung, Verizon, Kodak. Lots of companies do it. Stop being unfair, and do your research for both sides before you make a claim like that. It makes you look ridiculous.

Just like that guy with the impressive 7z benchmarks lol

right. You can't even write a "hello world" program without violating some sort of patent. It's ridiculous.

 

[Vesku]

My PC isn't just a supercharged console, 6-8 cores and I can run background stuff AND play games that use 4 cores. Personally I'm doing the other stuff a lot more in regards to % time on computer than games and it would be great if I didn't have to pause anything when I do game.

 

[OCGuy]

haven't you heard? non parallelized games are all the rage with Intel-Inside supported games!

Exactly...games that can use more than 4 cores are all the rage, duh.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I'm amazed that more people don't seem to understand that even if a game only uses say 2 cores, your OS will make use of as many cores as you have. I guess if you only do one thing at a time, you won't care, but if so then you should just buy a console anyway.

Don't some of you do several tasks on your system at once? The more cores the better IMO.

 

[OCGuy]

I'm amazed that more people don't seem to understand that even if a game only uses say 2 cores, your OS will make use of as many cores as you have. I guess if you only do one thing at a time, you won't care, but if so then you should just buy a console anyway.

Don't some of you do several tasks on your system at once? The more cores the better IMO.

Which is why 4 is going to slowly become the standard.....really no need for anything more for pretty much anyone. That is why a comparably priced AMD X6 isnt exactly selling like hotcakes compared to a much more advanced quad Intel lineup.

 

[3DVagabond]

Which is why 4 is going to slowly become the standard.....really no need for anything more for pretty much anyone. That is why a comparably priced AMD X6 isnt exactly selling like hotcakes compared to a much more advanced quad Intel lineup.

You are right. Most people don't need more than 4cores/threads. That's why the 2500k is such a great chip for most people. What gets me though, is if you are someone who can put more cores/threads to good use, those who don't need them still ridicule people buying CPU's with more cores/threads as unnecessary. There are other tasks, besides gaming, that for less than $200 the phenom II x6 is a great value. Especially when the mobo's are cheaper than 1155/1366 boards as well. 2 channel RAM will save you money over a 1366 build too.

People look at these CPU benches in reviews, the majority of which people have no clue what they are even measuring or if they even matter to their usage, and proclaim, processor X is suxor!!! When someone points out heavily threaded apps that the extra cores do perform better then the response is, who cares, nobody even uses those apps. Well, guess what? A lot of people use those apps. Just you (speaking to the unwashed masses here. Not you, OCGuy, in particular) don't because all they want to do with their computer is play games and watch pr()n.

 

[wuliheron]

How old are you guys?

A) Quad cores are now the new standard. They are even being incorporated into stupid cellphones. There is nothing "slow" about their adoption.

B) AMD's hex cores are their old cpu design and just aren't that fast making them not that great a deal for gaming.

C) AMD has 20% of the market and very little they offer "sells like hotcakes".

D) The entire industry has been working on making it easy to program games to use an arbitrary number of cpu cores and to do gpu compute functions. Since most of these tools have only come out this year and your average computer is still a dual core it shouldn't be too surprising that few games take advantage of more then two or three cores.... yet. You can bet the number of AAA games that do is about to go through the roof in the next couple of years.

 

[Abwx]

How old are you guys?

A) Quad cores are now the new standard. They are even being incorporated into stupid cellphones. There is nothing "slow" about their adoption.

B) AMD's hex cores are their old cpu design and just aren't that fast making them not that great a deal for gaming.

C) AMD has 20% of the market and very little they offer "sells like hotcakes".

D) The entire industry has been working on making it easy to program games to use an arbitrary number of cpu cores and to do gpu compute functions. Since most of these tools have only come out this year and your average computer is still a dual core it shouldn't be too surprising that few games take advantage of more then two or three cores.... yet. You can bet the number of AAA games that do is about to go through the roof in the next couple of years.

.

 

[lol123]

D) The entire industry has been working on making it easy to program games to use an arbitrary number of cpu cores and to do gpu compute functions.

As long as you're not talking about spawning new threads just for the fun of it, that's never going to happen. Thinking it will just shows how little you know about game development.