Rumour: Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II.

[drizek]

if you compair at say... around 150$ mark.

phenom II x4 965 vs i3 560

The Phenom II x4 at stock vs stock i3 560, the Phenom II x4 is the better buy (performance wise). So I wouldnt nessarly say you cant buy amd above 100$ and get good value still.


cpu bench's 1cpu vs other:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/769/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_%28140W__BE%29_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-560.html

No. I got a $150 i5 2300. Easily far superior to the 965. If I was building for myself, at $180 a 4Ghz+ overclocked 2500K is an even better value.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I would take a Yorkfield over that still. And you can get one for $150.

Yorkfield? Not a good call. The platform is outdated, lacking SATA6 and USB3, and it doesn't have any distinct performance advantage - if at all.

Yorkfield just isn't an option when building from scratch. You'd have to be a fanboy to build a rig with Yorkfield at this point in time.

 

[maddie]

Why do we still compare one program running at a time to say you hardly use more than 2-4 cores?

Don't we have several open running programs? How many of us only have one program in use at a time?

In fact, for the computer illiterate, I would argue that they need more cores urgently as they allow much superfluous stuff to steal cycles in the background.

Reviews have not evolved with the changes in user patterns and behavior.

 

[drizek]

Because we only use one program at a time, and we only need one program at a time to run quickly. Two virtual cores is necessary for modern multitasking. Everything beyond that has diminishing returns, especially when you are talking about 8 cores.

For enthusiasts and servers, we can utilize all that we can get, and this is part of why I am going to buy Bulldozer regardless. I just don't think it is a very easy CPU to recommend to other people, unless the 4-core version comes in at comfortably less than $150 .

I think Llano is interesting though, assuming they can sell it with a motherboard for less than they currently charge for an Athlon II and a motherboard with an IGP. Is Llano going to ge 32nm or 28nm?

 

[Accord99]

equal the performance

That's why I highlighted this.

But at this current time you can't really have equal performance across the board; if the 2 core CPU matches the throughput of the 16 core CPU, then it will be far faster with anything less than 16 threads. Conversely if the 16 core CPU matches the 2 core CPU in low thread counts, then the 16 core CPU is going to have far more throughput.

 

[Voo]

Why do we still compare one program running at a time to say you hardly use more than 2-4 cores?

Don't we have several open running programs? How many of us only have one program in use at a time?

What you're actively using several CPU-intense programs at the same time? I'd love to hear your common usage scenarios for that. The only one I can think of would be something like encoding + playing a game at the same time, but then the number of people encoding larger vids is quite low (and that's one of the few, few applications where you really profit from more cores).

And for the large majority of "computer illiterates" that use their PCs to surf the web, hear music and read mail even two cores are more than enough. All that "superfluous stuff" needs maybe some RAM, but hardly lots of CPU power.

 

[Arkadrel]

I would take a Yorkfield over that still. And you can get one for $150.

The only yorkfield quad you can get for 150$ mark is the intel core 2 quad Q8300.

check out this site, compaire the ph II x4 965 vs the Q8300 (their each others competitors in price):

http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/766/

The Q8300 seems to get its booty handed by the 965, I dont think even one of those benchmarks from that site the Q8300 came out of top vs the 955 let alone the 965. Stock to stock that is, but I read the Q8300 have trouble overclocking that well so... Yorkfield doesnt look like a good buy at 150$ mark to me.

I still think a i3 or phenom II x4 is the way to go if you have around 150$ to spend, you simply get more performance.

Or you could buy a sandy bridge for abit more $, but you ll have a hard time finding a place willing to sell you a motherboard atm.

 

[maddie]

What you're actively using several CPU-intense programs at the same time? I'd love to hear your common usage scenarios for that. The only one I can think of would be something like encoding + playing a game at the same time, but then the number of people encoding larger vids is quite low (and that's one of the few, few applications where you really profit from more cores).

And for the large majority of "computer illiterates" that use their PCs to surf the web, hear music and read mail even two cores are more than enough. All that "superfluous stuff" needs maybe some RAM, but hardly lots of CPU power.

I guess that's why so many pc users complain about how slow their machines have become for no reason.

 

[ShadowVVL]

slow machines are usualy the result of to much crap on the hard drive or to many programs where installed and uninstalled ect.My computer gets sluggish after a wile so i throw anything i wanna keep on my portable hdd and reinstall the os and it fixes the problem.

 

[taltamir]

slow machines are usualy the result of to much crap on the hard drive or to many programs where installed and uninstalled ect.My computer gets sluggish after a wile so i throw anything i wanna keep on my portable hdd and reinstall the os and it fixes the problem.

a lot of companies claim that "leftovers in registry" cause the slowdowns, and you just need their registry cleaners...
In practice I find this to be insignificant.
I believe the majority of slowdown over time that most people see is due to collecting a lot of programs which are running all the time and never get uninstalled... In severe slowdown cases (which are surprisingly common) they usually also have a lot of viruses/spyware and other malware.

 

[ShadowVVL]

i agree.I also dont believe in using registry cleaners or os boost programs.

I think 2 cores is enouogh for most people since browsing the net watching videos ect can be done with varry little cpu usage.

 

[Voo]

I believe the majority of slowdown over time that most people see is due to collecting a lot of programs which are running all the time and never get uninstalled... In severe slowdown cases (which are surprisingly common) they usually also have a lot of viruses/spyware and other malware.

Yeah but usually the problem there isn't the CPU, but the HDD or memory. So far I've yet to see any installation where the problem was a CPU utilization near 100%

And yeah the registry stuff is just funny - I've yet to see a database where storing some additional information leads to major performance losses (well in theory it could lead to longer startup times).

 

[maddie]

slow machines are usualy the result of to much crap on the hard drive or to many programs where installed and uninstalled ect.My computer gets sluggish after a wile so i throw anything i wanna keep on my portable hdd and reinstall the os and it fixes the problem.

You are not a computer illiterate.

 

[maddie]

a lot of companies claim that "leftovers in registry" cause the slowdowns, and you just need their registry cleaners...
In practice I find this to be insignificant.
I believe the majority of slowdown over time that most people see is due to collecting a lot of programs which are running all the time and never get uninstalled... In severe slowdown cases (which are surprisingly common) they usually also have a lot of viruses/spyware and other malware.

Yes, I see this often.

 

[wahdangun]

What you're actively using several CPU-intense programs at the same time? I'd love to hear your common usage scenarios for that. The only one I can think of would be something like encoding + playing a game at the same time, but then the number of people encoding larger vids is quite low (and that's one of the few, few applications where you really profit from more cores).

And for the large majority of "computer illiterates" that use their PCs to surf the web, hear music and read mail even two cores are more than enough. All that "superfluous stuff" needs maybe some RAM, but hardly lots of CPU power.

the problem is its quite hard to judge performance from really different architecture and different methodology between SB and BD from just one perspective (like core count, or IPC) . its just like modern GPU, like amd stream and nvdia cuda, do you think people who buy GPU count how many cuda/stream core between nvdia and amd? so with your logic its really didn't fair for nvdia, because they have fewer core ? beside AMD have more efficient design and have lower TDP and price??

and the large majority of "computer illiterates" won't really care about SB or BD so why we talk about it ? its all about performance and price ratio

 

[Arkadrel]

"I think 2 cores is enouogh for most people..."

Not when alot of games are useing 4+ cores, and you might have something running in the background ect, like alt+tab and a webpage, msn/skype/ect.

For gameing, you should atleast get a quad, or your missing out on alot of performance.

 

[wahdangun]

yup even the original supcom demand quad core and that game was from 2008,

 

[AtenRa]

"I think 2 cores is enouogh for most people..."

Not when alot of games are useing 4+ cores, and you might have something running in the background ect, like alt+tab and a webpage, msn/skype/ect.

For gameing, you should atleast get a quad, or your missing out on alot of performance.

Until now you dont miss anything with a dual core in most of current games

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=144

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have quad core CPUs

 

[maddie]

Until now you dont miss anything with a dual core in most of current games

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=144

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have quad core CPUs

Only when you have solely the game running.

 

[AtenRa]

well i don't do anything else in the PC when i game and i believe most of the users too.

Modern DX-11 games will change that, they will use more than 2 cores.

 

[maddie]

well i don't do anything else in the PC when i game and i believe most of the users too.

Modern DX-11 games will change that, they will use more than 2 cores.

As a general principle, I never assume my use is the only one. Pc tech breeds individualism.

 

[AtenRa]

When i play online FPS games nothing else runs in my PC even if i have a 16 core CPU.

 

[Voo]

Not when alot of games are useing 4+ cores, and you might have something running in the background ect, like alt+tab and a webpage, msn/skype/ect.

Great example of things that don't use CPU power at all. Why should a webpage in a minimized browser need CPU power? Yeah sure you can let flash vids run in the background, but uh what exactly would be the use in that? (except having an annoying background noise all the time)

Oh and if you're able to enumerate a dozen games that profit noticeable from more than 4 cores, I'd be extremely surprised - you'd be lucky if you find that many games that need a quad core.

As a general principle, I never assume my use is the only one. Pc tech breeds individualism.

Ok, then please tell us some realistic examples where people will run several CPU intense tasks at the same time. Oh and please don't forget that encoding larger videos is something only a small minority is doing. I mean we'd be hard pressed to find 10% in this forum doing that regularly which speaks for itself.


@wahdangun: No idea what you're reading into my post, but I sure as hell didn't even say a tenth of what you claim in there xX

 

[grimpr]

Craps, here we go again, back in 2006 topics in the age of manycore.

 

[Skurge]

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/

Thought I would leave this here.