• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would AMD be better off if they had not developed Bulldozer?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ExarKun333 said:
Here are some links, since you are trolling the boat for AMD so much in this thread.
Click to expand...

This can't be accidental, you must be trolling.

"If you do have a link, please share- because I'm pretty sure all the outrageous power usage overclocking tests are done with ALL cores pegged at 100%."

Read the part in bold and please try again. A power usage test while gaming. Hint: bulldozer uses less power when it is only using 2 cores as opposed to 8.

I imagine it'll be a bit harder to find. Most of the review sites just like to post the outrageous examples of situation which never actually occur in general usage.
 
mmm....didn't the bulldozer patch corrected the core parking?

is there any review abou the new power comsumption?
 
AtenRa said:
Although i dont say that FX doesn't use more power than SB, THAT is not a Game measurement, that is x264 second pass with 8 cores at 100%. 😉
Click to expand...

With a great score for the 2500K....

41697.png
 
Chiropteran said:
This can't be accidental, you must be trolling.

"If you do have a link, please share- because I'm pretty sure all the outrageous power usage overclocking tests are done with ALL cores pegged at 100%."

Read the part in bold and please try again. A power usage test while gaming. Hint: bulldozer uses less power when it is only using 2 cores as opposed to 8.

I imagine it'll be a bit harder to find. Most of the review sites just like to post the outrageous examples of situation which never actually occur in general usage.
Click to expand...

Thats right. They should have a warning on the BD box stating 'using all 8 cores could cause sever power use; please limit to 4-6 cores max'???

Not getting your point here. The CPU sucks power like no tommorow compared to other CPUs that offer similar performance. Are you this dense you cannot understand?

You know what they say about arguing with a fool...
 
For everyone interested about Bulldozers Thread Scaling i have just finished my review, link bellow in my sig 😉
 
Last edited:
According to some new info, Piledriver offers 5-8% performance/clk improvement, and the rest of the gains are due to power management, clock, and Turbo.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
According to some new info, Piledriver offers 5-8% performance/clk improvement, and the rest of the gains are due to power management, clock, and Turbo.
Click to expand...

If that's true IPC could be much closer to Thuban, and that would be an excellent development. I say that because it seems like BD needs a ~10% clock advantage on Thuban to provide a similar level of performance in well threaded applications. At least.

AtenRa, I found your review pretty informative. Thank you for putting it together.

What I think is missing, and I don't believe this was done in bad faith due to the scope of the article as stated, is power consumption/performance. If only the 8150 matched the 2600k there 🙂
 
Last edited:
They could certainly spend less of their budget on ::cough:: marketing, and more of it on development if they had a competitive product that would sell on its merits.
 
Ferzerp said:
They could certainly spend less of their budget on ::cough:: marketing, and more of it on development if they had a competitive product that would sell on its merits.
Click to expand...

Hah, I am guessing at some point late in the game the BD project went through the "throw money and engineers at it" and when that showed ridiculously low returns, marketing was seen as a much better investment.
 
We havent really heard if from the horses mouth have we? Answer to the question ; "What the hell went wrong?" from AMD / staff / ex staff / ?

?

- Surely in whatever incarnation BD is now, it has got to be some kind of hack!
 
With IPC numbers in hand its possible to calculate clocks on Trinity:

AMD claims:
15% faster desktops
25% faster same W laptops
Parity at less than half(35W) of mainstream TDP

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011110702_More_details_on_Trinity_core_leaked.html

It looks like 3.8GHz is the top part that will be compared against Llano. That means ~3.3GHz going against 3GHz Llano for equivalency.

Desktop: 3.8GHz
Laptop same W: 1.6GHz x 1.1x(clock needed to be parity) x 1.25 = 2.2GHz
Laptop Parity: 1.8GHz
 
blckgrffn said:
If that's true IPC could be much closer to Thuban, and that would be an excellent development. I say that because it seems like BD needs a ~10% clock advantage on Thuban to provide a similar level of performance in well threaded applications. At least.

AtenRa, I found your review pretty informative. Thank you for putting it together.

What I think is missing, and I don't believe this was done in bad faith due to the scope of the article as stated, is power consumption/performance. If only the 8150 matched the 2600k there 🙂
Click to expand...

Thx,

im planing on doing that 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top