September 22nd ETA for AMD FX processors

[BlueBlazer]

You do realize gaming is but a small fraction of the software world, right? You do realize that most apps used in business are either being rewritten or patched to take advantage of multiple cpu cores, right? You do realize that most games being written right now are being written to take advantage of multiple cpu cores, right?

One glance at these gaming benchmarks tells you a very different story. Just look at Core i3 2100 performance overall (versus its competitors). :hmm:

 

[Edrick]

If I see this one more time I think I'll scream. Single thread performance is quickly becoming a thing of the past. A person still talking about single thread performance today should still be using a modem. Its a dying horse that is getting closer to death.

So, for a game and/or applications that takes advantage of only 4 cores (or less), would a user want 4 fast cores or 8 slower ones? Most of us will take the 4 fast cores. But clearly you will take the 8 slower ones for whatever reason.

And sure there are some cases (servers/workstations) where 8 slower cores are preferable, but that is a smaller market.

 

[frostedflakes]

Guys, can't we all just get along?

 

[trollolo]

Guys, can't we all just get along?

most of use are. there's only a few guys who are trying to cause trouble

 

[ransomlist]

And you have a pathetic "4channer troll" tattooed in your forehead.

4channer talk isn't cool anymore, in fact is frigging old.

Name: trololol
Avatar: MYLP



Unfortunately for your valid points, he is about as erudite and mannered as the majority of people that post here.

(and is actually pursuing a valid POV)

 

[beginner99]

You do realize gaming is but a small fraction of the software world, right? You do realize that most apps used in business are either being rewritten or patched to take advantage of multiple cpu cores, right? You do realize that most games being written right now are being written to take advantage of multiple cpu cores, right?

When 3DFX believed in full screen AA, someone said it wasn't possible. They changed gaming forever. When AMD said they would bring out a true dual core cpu, someone said it wasn't needed or necessary. The changed the cpu market forever.

Hardware has always been the lead for software. I have run VMware in the workplace now for over 3 years now, virtulization needs multiple cores and threads.

But hey how's 9600 baud treating you.

Sure average user doesn't play games but has 5 VM's running...lol ridiculous.

If I had to choose, I would take the new single-core SB pentium all day over a dual core Atom with HT...
Have you ever owned a Netbook? Web site build time just sucks especially the more flash.

 

[Riek]

quoted for truth. more cores is not the answer.

How is comparing a dual core Atom with HT with an dual core i3 with HT a statement of truth that more cores is not the answer?
- same number of cores
- same number of threads
- low performance for any thread scenario.
If your example became:
4 core Atom clocked so high it performs the same on 3 threads compared to that i3.

How bad would the single thread performance be compared with eachother and how much would you need to give?

Comparing a slow low power design at low frequencies to make an analogy with a high ipc design with high frequencies... ungorgivable imo

I rather sacrifice single thread performance for faster >3 thread performance.

We don't play in doom anymore, we are not stuck with running one program at the time either. So if i get noticeable performance advantages in multitasked environment i really don't mind giving up 15% performance in single thread... that you already would loose if you run 2 applications. (heck even running basic programs like virusscanner, anti-spy ware, skype, msn, winamp would already give you a completely different single thread performance result).

So, for a game and/or applications that takes advantage of only 4 cores (or less), would a user want 4 fast cores or 8 slower ones? Most of us will take the 4 fast cores. But clearly you will take the 8 slower ones for whatever reason.

And sure there are some cases (servers/workstations) where 8 slower cores are preferable, but that is a smaller market.

Who knows if those 8cores would be slower when having a turboboost... where the 4core hasn't anymore.
1core running at 4GHz can be 30% faster then another core running at 4GHz. But if you only have 3.5GHz left on the 4core and the 8core is still running at 4GHz the difference became a whopping 13%

Wonder how typical desktop applications: virus-scanner, msn, skype/ventrillo/others/winamp would have on the performance of your quad core compared to the 8core. My guess you wont have much left of your 13% performance advantage...

 

[classy]

One glance at these gaming benchmarks tells you a very different story. Just look at Core i3 2100 performance overall (versus its competitors). :hmm:

No argument there. But here is the truth, no person runs a single task on a desktop even when gaming. I have played HL2 on one screen while I am watching netflix stream. I have been encoding a dvd for backup while having 15 different browser windows open with an RDP session or two going at the same time. That is how most people today run their desktops.

Now take that same I3 2100 and try those scenarios and see how quickly it will fall on its face while its competitors will keep on trucking.

Single thread performance is a dying horse. That is not an opinion, but a fact. People just don't run single tasks anymore.

 

[ransomlist]

Sure average user doesn't play games but has 5 VM's running...lol ridiculous.

If I had to choose, I would take the new single-core SB pentium all day over a dual core Atom with HT...
Have you ever owned a Netbook? Web site build time just sucks especially the more flash.

The first atom's, well, you have a point- slow, couldn't handle flash lets alone real HD video and slowed to a crawl if challenged with anything much.

I'm reading this using a netbook with an E-350 that plays flash at 760p flawlessly, operates the same whether i have one tab open of a dozen and is fast enough for any web related use i conceivably need it for.

You can keep you 2.2+ghz single core mobile CPU's, because zacate does the job at lower power use and handles media content like a boss. All hail the APU

 

[classy]

Sure average user doesn't play games but has 5 VM's running...lol ridiculous.

If I had to choose, I would take the new single-core SB pentium all day over a dual core Atom with HT...
Have you ever owned a Netbook? Web site build time just sucks especially the more flash.

I own two netbooks. Comparing a SB cpu with an Atom core is just stupid.

 

[Edrick]

Single thread performance is a dying horse. That is not an opinion, but a fact. People just don't run single tasks anymore.

No, its always going to be a balance. That is the fact. If not, then we would have had a 32 "Atom" core CPU out by now running @ 1.6Ghz.

 

[Ancalagon44]

No argument there. But here is the truth, no person runs a single task on a desktop even when gaming. I have played HL2 on one screen while I am watching netflix stream. I have been encoding a dvd for backup while having 15 different browser windows open with an RDP session or two going at the same time. That is how most people today run their desktops.

Now take that same I3 2100 and try those scenarios and see how quickly it will fall on its face while its competitors will keep on trucking.

Single thread performance is a dying horse. That is not an opinion, but a fact. People just don't run single tasks anymore.

Funnily enough, because the i3 is just faster, it will do that better. You clearly dont know enough about operating systems - read up on concurrent and parallel execution, and scheduling, and come back to us.

In any case, pretty much anyone who comments on these forums about BD is a gamer. So yes we know BD will be used in all sorts of applications, but I only care about games. I'll be happy for AMD if Interlagos dominates servers, but that wont make me buy it. I'll only buy if its price performance ratio is good.

What you keep missing about multi threading is that it doesnt somehow make each core irrelevant. Lets say I sandwiched 100 486 CPU's together. I now have a 100 core monster - surely that will dominate a measly Core i3? Even if you find software written for 100 threads, the sheer fact that those cores are just not fast on their own means that in a multi threaded scenario, they will still suck. Multi threading doesnt somehow negate the performance deficit of each core.

Which is to say, if BD sucks single threaded, it will still suck multithreaded. BD's only design goal is to make it cheaper to add more cores, not necessarily to add faster cores or to make them work better together in multi threaded scenarios.

 

[classy]

I didn't want to derail the thread. But all I am saying is the single thread argument is just flimsy at best today and is losing its luster for the future rather quickly. And now before anyone says anything, I am an Intel first. But I do own a 1055t as well.

 

[ransomlist]

One glance at these gaming benchmarks tells you a very different story. Just look at Core i3 2100 performance overall (versus its competitors). :hmm:

Here is a NEW game. Dual cores struggle, the game is touted to use up to 16 threads, audio gets its own thread and ther eis a marked difference between an i5 2500k and 2600k in other benchmarks thanks to HT.

 

[sm625]

Who doesnt believe that a dual core sandy bridge clocked to 4.5 GHz would perform extremely well in most games, and probably even better overall than a stock i5-2400?

 

[sangyup81]

Although these prices look very tempting, i'm still worried about their single thread performance.

seriously, this thread was going great until this post :\

 

[ransomlist]

Who doesnt believe that a dual core sandy bridge clocked to 4.5 GHz would perform extremely well in most games, and probably even better overall than a stock i5-2400?

In many games, YES! hOWEVER...

That said, don't you think that's a rather short termist statement?

Most people don't build a new system every 6-9 months and have to think ahead- and all signs point towards multicore/multi thread performance becoming more important.

At what point is single thread perf. GOOD ENOUGH?

 

[ransomlist]

seriously, this thread was going great until this post :\

Hey, whats wrong with this discussion? There is only so much to be said about OP's post and its already been said.

The current imbroglio is very relevant to the thread as its an important factor in whether people go with Intel or Buldozer depending on what features they place a premium on!

 

[deimos3428]

Here is a NEW game. Dual cores struggle, the game is touted to use up to 16 threads, audio gets its own thread and ther eis a marked difference between an i5 2500k and 2600k in other benchmarks thanks to HT.

As you said, dual-cores struggle in this heavily multi-threaded game. But comparing the AMD quad-cores, it looks like L3 cache also plays a factor. If you underclocked the Phenom II to 2.6Ghz, they'd still be hitting 90-100fps while the Athlon II is about half that.

 

[BlueBlazer]

Here is a NEW game. Dual cores struggle, the game is touted to use up to 16 threads, audio gets its own thread and ther eis a marked difference between an i5 2500k and 2600k in other benchmarks thanks to HT.

You can check out the Civilization V benchmark in that review by Anandtech, as it uses multi-threading. Even then, the Core i3 2100 comes on top of the quad cores from competitors. Often game coding are unlike those seen in server software, and are less likely to "parallelize" properly and have more data dependancies.

Taking into account Bulldozer's higher clock speeds, that reminds me of the time Pentium-III versus first Pentium4 CPUs, and Northwood/Gallatin versus Athlon 64 in gaming performance which are sometimes a very "mixed bag", depending on the game itself. When the proper AMD FX reviews are finally up, then we can evaluate more... :sneaky:

 

[ransomlist]

As you said, dual-cores struggle in this heavily multi-threaded game. But comparing the AMD quad-cores, it looks like L3 cache also plays a factor. If you underclocked the Phenom II to 2.6Ghz, they'd still be hitting 90-100fps while the Athlon II is about half that.

Good spot and you are probably right. One of the things i take from that image is comparison of the I7 and AMD Hex core, similar max, but Intel having a greater Min value.

In case of Bulldozer, i'll be interested to see how the 3 module 6 'core' version does with its 8mb L3 and potential for OC as its the same as the 4 module chip with one module disabled- in other words, is Bulldozer as a concept for a new arch. only really feasible with 4 modules and 8 'cores' due to the IPC?

 

[996GT2]

Back in August, that same site also had an ETA for Zambezi processors that was in August.

I wouldn't put too much faith into an ETA from that site...

 

[ransomlist]

You can check out the Civilization V benchmark in that review by Anandtech, as it uses multi-threads. Even then, the Core i3 2100 comes on top of the quad cores from competitors. Often game coding are unlike those seen in server software, and are less likely to "parallelize" properly and have more data dependancies.

Taking into account Bulldozer's higher clock speeds, that reminds me of the time Pentium-III versus first Pentium4 CPUs, and Northwood/Gallatin versus Athlon 64 in gaming performance which are sometimes a very "mixed bag", depending on the game itself. When the proper AMD FX reviews are finally up, then we can evaluate more... :sneaky:

I'd personally say an i3 and Phenom II 955BE are about similar at stock in CURRENT game performance. Forgive me if i am wrong, but doesn't an i32100 have HT?

Making a broad generalization, Intel has more efficient arch. and Phenom II was extending the lifetime of older existing tech. People tell me AMD is several years behind Intel, well i can understand that sentiment easily enough- but personally i think its not far short of a miracle they can even compete given the David vs' Goliath situation that has existed since Athlon.

My first ever build was a Pentium 4

 

[podspi]

Just to recap this...AMD may be holding on to them until inventories of those CPUs (Athlon II series) are almost cleared out, otherwise may cannibalize current CPU sales. Similar to Phenom-based Athlon X2 7750 timeline (speculation). :hmm:

Makes sense. Was hoping I'd be able to pick up a cheap FX-4xxx series for some (hopefully) heavy duty OCing...

Showing 90 on order for the 8150 and 60 for the 8120.

Anyway interesting if true, September launch would be a welcome surprise. I'd think we would have heard something more official from AMD by now if they were going to be available to end users by the 22nd, though.

I'm still hoping the 19th is the launch, paper or otherwise... If stock really is available by the 22nd, the 19th is a definitely possibility for NDA lift.

implying i'm not using a modem.
quoted for truth. more cores is not the answer.

They also aren't not the answer. both single and multithread performance is modern workloads, and adding more cores is an relatively easy and effective way at increasing multithread performance, as well as ensuring the interface maintains some acceptable level of responsiveness. While I agree that singlethread performance does matter (if latency wasn't important, AMD would have more marketshare in servers), increasingly so does multithread performance.


Ignoring EITHER type of performance is a mistake. Also, this entire conversation is theoretical, because actual performance in actual programs is what is important, regardless of how it is achieved.

 

[BlueBlazer]

I'd personally say an i3 and Phenom II 955BE are about similar at stock in CURRENT game performance. Forgive me if i am wrong, but doesn't an i32100 have HT?

Yes, Core i3 2100 had HyperThreading which creates 4 hardware threads. The issues was already mentioned in that post. If every thread in the game is fully utilized, a real quad core would be better. However threads in games are not like that, often there are one or two threads that are more heavily utilized than others, then the real quad core with slower cores will lag behind since the maximum performance of each core is "fixed". On the other hand, the same situation favors processors with faster cores.

My first ever build was a Pentium 4

My first PC was a clone (turbo'ed) PC/XT with those flimsy and noisy floppy drives. The processor was actually a clone of 8088 made by NEC (which is actually faster than Intel's own 8088).