Over decade it's a serious exaggeration: Athlon 64 was very OK till July 2006 (Core 2), then in 2009-2011 various models of Phenom II were released and it was a decent architecture and finally in March 2017 Zen architecture was released by AMD.
RA Tech has a video about it. Watch and listen to the benchmarks running. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Ivy Bridge i5 had audio issues, and failed to render assets and NPCs. It will spit out good numbers at the end though.RA was playing games and using discord on windows 10 (you know how many gamers actually use their gaming PCs) and experiencing audio issues on those old similarly priced Intel CPUs, the FX was fine. That said, there were and still are games where the better single thread IPC of those i3 and i5 Intel CPUs makes a positive difference to playability vs FX, which IMO is all that matters, the gaming experience. Not bigger bar better on charts. Most test suites were automated and or unattended. And certainly not jumping in 64p MP and playing a few rounds then reporting back. Instead testing early in games which is usually less CPU taxing. In game test runs, when not using canned, were and often still are, under a minute each, often under 30 seconds.
Nobody's cheering for Bulldozer/Piledriver except those that still refuse to believe(tm). The thing was absolute garbage, AMD's version of Prescott.
But Intel *is* competitive in gaming. In fact they have a slight edge except for the purpose built vCache chips. Although Intel power consumption is definitely a drawback, it is far from the Bulldozer vs Intel situation.Nobody's cheering for Bulldozer/Piledriver except those that still refuse to believe(tm). The thing was absolute garbage, AMD's version of Prescott.
Now the pendulum's swung the other way and Intel's the one shipping furnaces specifically built for Cinebench. Suddenly gaming and power consumption doesn't matter, it's all about MOAR CORES!!! And you guessed it, certain people from the other camp are now defending this.
These things are revisited because some things never change. Indeed, in the video forum right now we have someone parading around claiming 8GB VRAM isn't an issue ("you're using the wrong settings!") despite piles of objective evidence already here to the contrary. Go back far enough and we had the same thing with 4GB vs 8GB, 2GB vs 4GB, etc. Look how those turned out.
And don't forget this forum also told us "Mantle was going to allow AMD to dominate the Android market", and "DX12 would provide automatic performance gains without any effort just by flipping a simple switch".
Yep, I also started threads "revisiting" those too, heh.
Because @BFG10K had some personal vendetta against Bulldozer, so he had to make a thread twelve years later, where he could finally vent his pent up frustration.
And you were one of those? If not, then I would rather hear that from someone who actually owned a Bulldozer system.
I went from Phenom II X6 to Ryzen 1700. Don't see a problem. The reason why I upgraded was because some games required SSE(3-4?) instructions the Phenom II X6 simply didn't have. I was still rocking most of the latest games on that Phenom II X6. Damn, what a fine chip that was.
There was a chart a few years ago that showed the jump from Bulldozer to the Zen architecture was a 60% improvement in IPC performance. That illustrates just how bad the AMD architecture was before Zen. The Ryzen CPU's really hit their stride when they switched from GloFlo to TSMC silicon with Zen 2.
No, definitely not. Netburst was a complete failure. The concept, the implementation, just everything. It was destined to fail. The biggest garbage in the x86 history. Bulldozer is a different story. The concept was actually really good. But it failed because of mainly two factors. First, the design goals were way too conservative. An AMD engineer back then talked about it. The goal was like +20% clock speed at similar IPC (or -5% maximum) compared to 10h family. But they should have gone for something like at least +10-20% clock speed and >=20% IPC. And second, the initial implementation was pretty miserable, also caused by wrong decisions. They achieved the clock speed improvement of 20%. Deneb started with 3 GHz, Zambezi started with 3.6 GHz base clock. And the MT scaling was quite good (which wasn't that impressive at all due to the low ST IPC). But that's it. The rest was more than underwhelming. They not only lost 5% IPC maximum, but more like 15% compared to Phenom II. Some decisions also were simply wrong. They should have implemented a WB cache, not WT. They should have implemented horizontal MT only, not this awkward mix of horizontal and vertical MT. They should have focused more on legacy code optimization, not on new extensions like SSE5 or XOP. Etc. Intel also had the process node advantage. Even their 32nm process was quite a bit better than Glofo's 32nm process. Let alone Intel's 22nm process, used with Ivy Bridge and Haswell. That also has a significant impact comparing power consumption. The only decent Bulldozer design was Excavator. But too little too late. Zen was just around the corner at that time.
Setting aside the technical discussion; AMD took a major L from that lawsuit. They were already hemorrhaging cash and in debt. Another 12 million+ and legal fees was like death by a thousand cuts. Getting to declare FX as 8 cores from then on is most certainly not a W either. In fact, it makes it seem somehow even worse as in the TYC comparison above. Had it not been for forming the semi-custom division to work with MS and Sony I don't think AMD exists anymore. The name might have survived, but the company would be vastly different, perhaps entirely irrelevant.
Except? You are funny. Take away Intel's cache advantage over non V-Cache Ryzens and compare at the same memory specs and AMD still at least trades blow with Intel's offerings on average. In fact we are not far from the Bulldozer situation. It's almost the same, just vice versa. If you want the best gaming experience then there is no other choice than AMD's V-Cache models at the moment. They are faster and use only half or even less energy to achieve this. You must be a die hard Intel fan to believe they are competitive in gaming. They are definitely NOT at the higher end of the scale. Just like Bulldozer was.
Precisely. His channel hasn't grown much in the last 5yrs. Meanwhile Dawid does tech is strictly for the LULZ and has already passed him by. Bryan's been click farming hard in an attempt to grow the channel. E.G. he and his buddy Greg Salazar claiming Ryzen 3600s are dying like flies. Or his attempt to make latency some kind of hot button issue in the community.
I wonder who is biased here.
chipsandcheese.com
It's more complicated than throwing up bar charts of what W1z tested. It's too easy to change a game suite and watch those bigger bar better change. For example: Ages of Empire IV is single thread heavy which helps Intel hide power issues and why the 14900K doesn't lose performance at 95W. It's such an outlier that including it is sus. Spiderman and CSGO also prefer Intel. Change those 3 out for Horizon Zero Dawn, Assetto Corsa, and MS Flight Sim and it'd tell a very different story. Conversely you could add even more titles that favor Intel and do the same. Even aggregate scores suck because not everyone test stock everything, equal ram speeds, boost clocks on GPUs, most have massive overlap on titles tested, etc.I wonder who is biased here.
Raptor is pretty competitive in performance even against V-cache models, actually only 7800X3D is faster. The only thing you can criticize is that horrible power consumption, but that's It.
Here is a chart to Min FPS at different power limits and power consumption for anyone who is interested. Link
I think what I posted more than enough shows that Raptor Lake is not another Bulldozer. Performance is there, It's just not power efficient.
I wasn't contending that point as I agree. I hope we never have that big of a difference between vendors again. It's the best CPU market in forever because AMD got their groove back. They need to sustain another 5yrs to really get us where we need to be though. Wintel is still most of the PC pie. I'd like to see AMD and Linux get a significantly bigger slice.
Facebook
Twitter