What if BD turns out to be FASTER than 2600K?

[utahraptor]

That is not true. Most (if not all) games support more than four cores, if you force the affinity. Some games are even optimized for more than four cores, but not many.

Which games support more than four? This is the best multicore support game list I could find:

=================Quad Core=====================================

Bioshock (Unreal Engine 3) - Quad core support.
Call Of Duty 4 - Ground up quad core support.
Company of Heroes - Ground up quad core support
Crysis - MP Beta Dual Core support, full game ground up Quad Core support.
DiRT - Ground up quad core support (up to 8 cores reported).
Flight Simulator X - Quad core support with patch.
Lost Planet - Ground up quad core support. (octa core support as well).
MOH: Airborn (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.
Supreme Commander - Ground up quad core support.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Quad core ground up, can use 5 threads.
World in Conflict - Ground up quad core support.
Unreal Tournament 3 (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...ores/Practice/

==================Dual Core=====================================

Age of Empires 3 - Dual core support.
Call of Duty 2 with 1.01 smp patch - Dual Core support
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - Native dual core support (possible quad, need confirmation).
EVE online - Dual core (possible quad core, need confirmation)
Falcon 4.0 - Some Support, extent unknown.
Galactic Civilizations II - Dual core support.
Gothic 3 - Dual core support.
HL2: Orangebox - Dual core support
Stalker - Dual core support with 1.0004 patch.
Quake 4 - Dual Core with patch.
Titan quest + Titan quest Immortal Throne - Dual core with patch.
World of Warcraft - Dual Core with patch.

Old list taken from http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=213165


More official list http://www.grandtheftpc.com/2010/03/...zed-games.html

 

[Edrick]

That is not true. Most (if not all) games support more than four cores, if you force the affinity. Some games are even optimized for more than four cores, but not many.

Since "most" would imply more than 50%, please share your list of games that support more than 4 cores. I am hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Since "most" would imply more than 50%, please share your list of games that support more than 4 cores. I am hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2.

That is true.

On the other hand which games that support 2 cores or less actually really need a CPU (as in without it 60 FPS aren't achievable regardless of GPU power) with higher IPC/ higher overall performance?

I'm sure there are a few, like SC2, but the list will probably be a tiny list as well.

 

[Genx87]

If it were faster than the 2600K that would be awesome! Not only for competition but because it would give me an excuse to buy one

 

[Arkaign]

On the issue of games that take advantage of more than 2 cores, I seem to have noticed that usually there still remains a 'dominant' core for lack of a better word, and that load balancing across the remaining cores varies pretty widely. In essence, maybe this is why it seems that 4-core i5-2500k seems to run games not only just as good as 4-core 8-thread 2600k, but against 990x 6-core 12-thread when the clock speeds are the same. For this reason I'm pretty certain that if BD isn't as fast clock for clock as SB, that almost all games for now will still be faster on SB.

Down the line a good ways, this should change, but with engines now taking years to develop, and with developers not seeing much benefit from targeting 8-core users when many of their customers are still using dual-cores, BD will probably not be a great gaming bargain. Encoding/professional applications? Possibly.

 

[AtenRa]

BD will probably not be a great gaming bargain. Encoding/professional applications? Possibly.

There will be a dual Module four(4) core unlocked BD at lower price (i expected at close to $150-170) than Core i5 2500K, that IF it can be OCed at or more that 4.5GHz will be great for gaming

 

[kami]

Competition is good. Would love to see Intel and AMD at each other's throats.

 

[AdamK47]

Hello! Very interesting name by the forum forums.anandtech.com Yes, thanks Everything takes longer than you think. Good night!

There's a hidden message in here. I just know it.

 

[dma0991]

There's a hidden message in here. I just know it.

AMD Zoners coming here to spread conspiracy? :hmm:

 

[Arkaign]

There will be a dual Module four(4) core unlocked BD at lower price (i expected at close to $150-170) than Core i5 2500K, that IF it can be OCed at or more that 4.5GHz will be great for gaming

Yeah, that's a good point. If the unlocked ~$150~$170 product performs as you think it might (with the possible IPC discrepency meaning a 4.5ghz BD quad ~ 3.8ghz 2500?), then that would be a great price and a good choice for gamers. Even more so when you consider that most gamers are GPU limited with any recent quality quad.

 

[RussianSensation]

The thing is, the delays itself is the problem.

Exactly. It would have been great if they were able to launch before back to school but it obviously didn't happen. Huge missed opportunity.

 

[wlee15]

I imagine that getting Llano out for laptops is more important for the back to school season than BD.

 

[ctbaars]

Will all of the die-hard Intel fanbois consider switching to the industry's first native consumer 8-core chip?
Will people stand up and applaud AMD for pulling off what some had deemed "impossible" - beating Intel in R&D, with far less R&D budget?

Or is this just a nice dream of mine?

#1. All? No. Lots? Yes
#2 Absolutely, Yes
#3 Dreams do come true
I hope this answers your questions. (From my point of view)

 

[Edrick]

Will people stand up and applaud AMD for pulling off what some had deemed "impossible" - beating Intel in R&D, with far less R&D budget?

I, for one, would applaud AMD for making a great CPU.

However, beating Intel is hardly the case. Creating a CPU with a larger die size, much higher TDP, and lower profit margins is not "beating" anyone. Intel could just as easily slap 8 cores on to a CPU and raise the TDP and lower their prices.

On the other hand, BD beating SB in IPC would constitute "kicking Intel's arse".

 

[CHADBOGA]

If Intel cobbled together the appalling single core performing Atom and made a native 16 core processor, would anyone get excited?

 

[Edrick]

If Intel cobbled together the appalling single core performing Atom and made a native 16 core processor, would anyone get excited?

Sadly, some people would.

 

[LoneNinja]

Sadly, some people would.

I might in the right situation, but it wouldn't be for typical desktop use.

 

[exar333]

If Intel cobbled together the appalling single core performing Atom and made a native 16 core processor, would anyone get excited?

There would be some great uses for a processor like that, if it was <10w....mainstream, no. But lots of uses, definitely.

 

[exar333]

Exactly. It would have been great if they were able to launch before back to school but it obviously didn't happen. Huge missed opportunity.

This means SB will have been around for almost a year by the time BD is released, and maybe even MORE than a year based on actual availability. Ouch...

 

[darkxshade]

If BD turns out to be faster, then the 2600k will instantly turn out to be the best bang for the buck. AMD dropped the ball with delays and being all hush hush assuming it is better. The 2600k has been out for over half a year, at this point, Intel can afford to give up the performance crown and still make bank with a hefty price cut.

It would be a different story if this was back in Feb and BD was ready for launch but that ship has sailed.

The only game changer left is if BD is substantially better than 2600k AND on par with Ivy in 2012. That would be the game changer that would trigger a red alert for Intel.

 

[Ferazel]

There are a lot of high-profile PC games coming out this fall with both Battlefield 3, SW:TOR, Call of Duty:MW3. If AMD could get some buzz with higher benchmarks in those games I think they would really capitalize on it. I know I'm considering buying a gaming PC for those titles.

 

[RussianSensation]

The only game changer left is if BD is substantially better than 2600k AND on par with Ivy in 2012. That would be the game changer that would trigger a red alert for Intel.

Truthfully, I'd rather see AMD release a far more power efficient CPU in the mobile space and far more competitive one for server space. Those 2 markets are crazy profitable and are growing. Once AMD starts getting more cash flow from both of those market segments, in 3-4 years they could finally release a desktop CPU to surpass Intel's. Right now, it might be a losing game to focus on the desktop performance crown since its the least important market segment from a profitability or growth perspective.

 

[BladeVenom]

There are a lot of high-profile PC games coming out this fall with both Battlefield 3....

If Bulldozer's benchmarks for BF3 are higher in the same price ranges, AMD CPUs will have my support.

 

[exar333]

Yeah, that's a good point. If the unlocked ~$150~$170 product performs as you think it might (with the possible IPC discrepency meaning a 4.5ghz BD quad ~ 3.8ghz 2500?), then that would be a great price and a good choice for gamers. Even more so when you consider that most gamers are GPU limited with any recent quality quad.

I can already get the 2500k for around the price. Why get something slower, that uses more power, instead?

If you already have a AM3+ board and a dual/triple core, a high-clocked PhII would be pretty much as good and it's already out.

Just doesn't make any sense, unless it's $120 or less.

 

[guskline]

If Bulldozer's benchmarks for BF3 are higher in the same price ranges, AMD CPUs will have my support.

How can they be? The 2600k is $314 at newegg. The 8150FX will be somewhere in the $300-$350 range if you can get one. Follow me here. The 8150FX is 3.6Ghz Turbo 4.2Ghz and the 2600k is 3.4Ghz and Turbo 3.8Ghz. I'll bet all the tea in China that at stock the 2600k will win most standard bench marks. Both CPU multipliers are unlocked but how high will the 8150FX really go? We know that almost all 2600ks go to 4.4 (I'm being conservative). I bet the 8150FX doesn't have as much head room. Let's talk about the next step down. The 2500k is only $219 at newegg. I have mine at 4.4 all the time and have booted into Windows at 4.8 for a chip stock at 3.3, turbo 3.7 . What price point will the 4 and 6 core FX chips be? Will they be competitive with the 2500k?

I have watched this show way too long. I have been an AMD fan a LONG time but I bought a 2500k because it is a FAR superior chip to what AMD has out now, and unfortunately for AMD, will probably be a superior chip to the Bulldozer. Of course we don't know because the Sandy Bridge is out but where is the Bulldozer?