CPU/Mobo AMD Bulldozer Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
a 970 board - 6k - check

FX 8120 ~ 11k - check

This platform is turning out to be quite good. Hope stock performance is good too...
 
This platform is turning out to be quite good. Hope stock performance is good too...

We dont have details on its OC performance too, AMD smartly avoided all epenis benchmark suites. Imagine the dismay if a 8.4Ghz BD chip under-performs a 5ghz SB chip :P
 
Dark Star said:
NO IGP with bulldozer :P For that AMD has released A series APU.
dam... so i will have to wait for 7 series launch before getting my hands on BD

waiting for some performance results @ stock as i dont overclock
 
kartikoli said:
dam... so i will have to wait for 7 series launch before getting my hands on BD

waiting for some performance results @ stock as i dont overclock
They'll launch within 1-2 months of each other, aka this year itself.
 
AMD Benches FX-Series Bulldozer Against Intel CPUs

Source : AMD Benches FX-Series Bulldozer Against Intel CPUs - Softpedia

At the same time with Intel's IDF, AMD is hosting its own press event meant to showcase the company's latest technologies and chips, and one of the most interesting demonstrations to take place over there is a comparison between a yet-unreleased FX-Series processor and some Intel Core CPUs.

AMD hasn't disclosed the specs of the Bulldozer processor that is used for this comparison, but two different scenarios are being shown to demonstrate the power of its chips.

The first one of these pits an eight-core AMD FX processor against an unspecified Intel Core i5 Sandy Bridge CPU, both systems running Handbrake to convert a 5-minute H.264 video in SD resolution.

According to Hardware Info, the Bulldozer chip performs this task with an average of 223 frames per second, while the Core i5 machine gets 188 fps.

Both systems will be comparable in price according to AMD, but one can't help but notice that Bulldozer requires twice the numbers of cores of Intel to surpass a Core i5 by just 20% in a multi-threaded benchmark like Handbrake.

The second scenario has the same FX-Series processor fighting against a Core i7 980X in Dirt 3 at a 2560x1600 resolution, both systems featuring two Radeon HD 6790 cards setup in CrossFire.

The Intel machine finishes this benchmark with an average frame rate of 80.9 fps, while the much cheaper AMD desktop averaged 82.8 fps.

Despite the good result achieved by AMD, the selection of the graphics cards, the high resolution and the small difference between the two systems cast a shadow of a doubt over AMD's win, as the 2fps gain could also be caused by other factors, such as better CrossFire scaling on the 990FX board.

AMD hasn't made any official statements over the launch date of the first FX-Series processors other than saying these will arrive in Q4 of 2011. However, most rumors seem to point out to an October release.
 
Both systems will be comparable in price according to AMD, but one can't help but notice that Bulldozer requires twice the numbers of cores of Intel to surpass a Core i5 by just 20% in a multi-threaded benchmark like Handbrake.
who cares for cores if price are comparable ... 20% still is good
 
Well everybody there is applauding the AMD Bulldozer.

However due to delays and misc other performance reports I still doubt the bulldozer's bulldozing ability against Intel SB / IB Platform.
 
kartikoli said:
who cares for cores if price are comparable ... 20% still is good

Exactly, who cares about the number of cores if the prices and power requirements are comparable. I just don't understand these comparisons. Both processors have their own way of attaining a particular performance.
 
Well, even power requirements are not that big of an issue to me, if it stays in a 125W envelope and can kick Intel's similar priced CPU's, its BD all the way......
 
the only thing that i am disappointed about is that AMD hasn't been able to improve per clock performance even after using an architecture which has been under development from last 5 to 6 years (or maybe more)... its very disappointing to see that AMD requires an 8 core processor to beat a quadcore processor by just 20% more performance... And take the above benchmark with a grain of salt coz i dont think that 8150 would be able to outperform i5 2500k/2600k in all the benchmarks... And as they haven't been able to improve per clock performance i dont think that even after overclocking the 8150 past 5GHz one would get to see huge improvement in performance... the way intel is improving per clock performance with every new architecture i think next year AMD would require to build a 10core processor to beat intel's quadcore...
 
Exactly, who cares about the number of cores if the prices and power requirements are comparable. I just don't understand these comparisons. Both processors have their own way of attaining a particular performance.

I very much doubt power requirements are comparable, but I maybe wrong. Lets wait for official non biased comparison. The gaming test was a joke, you cant gauge CPU performance at 1440P resolution, not to mention 2fps can very well be margin of error.

I am crossing my fingers, that BD atleast matches upto current SB at acceptable thermal envelopes. Desktop is a dying market, and SB's thermal envelope makes it the only choice in the notebook market. Ultra-book would be the next growing market, and Ivy bridge will entail $600 ultrabook. If AMD is able to lower thermal requirements to tend the ultra-book market, it can make enough money to have a sustained R&D development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.