pantherx12Well isn't it like a 25% die increase for 80% of the performance ?

( something like that) Bound to save some pennies.

I recall reading that the Intel hyperthreading feature accounted for only 5% of the die. Impressive stuff.

I imagine AMD's implementation should be north of 5%.

AhokZYashABD have 8 cores.
bleh...

you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
fix your architecture and FAST

This is an argument I don't understand, that argument makes sense only in 3 possibilities. 1 possibility would be double the power consumption, yet BD's supposed power consumption will be no worse than SB. 2nd possibility would be mass heat, considering the world record run I doubt that is going to be a problem.

3rd would be the only realistic possibility, that the per core performance is not strong. We have many unknown factors there. Will software treat it like 8 cores, or 4? We know most software only uses 2 cores......

jpierce553rd would be the only realistic possibility, that the per core performance is not strong. We have many unknown factors there. Will software treat it like 8 cores, or 4? We know most software only uses 2 cores......

Software will "see" 8 cores:
tof.canardpc.com/view/4f1778db-1460-465e-8136-e88852809258.jpg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp2XGoL9JaI&feature=player_detailpage#t=61s

Speaking of, could someone explain why HT does anything at all? How does segregating tasks increase performance? You'd think the effort expended doing so would waste power and give no benefit, yet it seems to benefit in some circumstances... though there's also some instances where it really is wasteful and the 2500k beats the 2600k, which is what I'd expect. Seriously couldn't they just give us more clock speed or better ipc if they took out hyperthreading? I know just disabling it tends to get you a higher OC. I'd imagine the gain would be better if it wasn't part the design from the get go.

NC37Mac users. :rolleyes:

But who here? And I guess it performs better than desktop chips in gaming? And that is why everyone here is gaming on a Mac?:rolleyes:

FordGT90ConceptTwo Xeon 5310, in my server. :p

Exactly, server, what it was meant for and where you can get a 16 core Interlagos. :toast:

ensabrenoirWow they got u pretty worked up there....
:confused: isn't what inside a cpu what gives it its performance?

You're missing my point. Of course it's what is in the CPU that gives performance. It just doesn't matter how someone builds a chip to get that performance.

LAN_deRf_HASpeaking of, could someone explain why HT does anything at all? How does segregating tasks increase performance? You'd think the effort expended doing so would waste power and give no benefit, yet it seems to benefit in some circumstances... though there's also some instances where it really is wasteful and the 2500k beats the 2600k, which is what I'd expect. Seriously couldn't they just give us more clock speed or better ipc if they took out hyperthreading? I know just disabling it tends to get you a higher OC. I'd imagine the gain would be better if it wasn't part the design from the get go.

because processes arent magic, they have limitations. they have to wait until they're done before another process can begin. with HT, a process that is idling waiting on another process/ram/hard drive, whatever - while it waits, the processing power is shunted over to the HT thread, which then uses the hardware thats idling.


its really just more efficient multi tasking.

this thread will be endless.. :shadedshu

whoever b*tching about cores, threads, TDP, architectures, designs, and bla..bla..bla.. should remember the REAL cost..

its like comparing two cars, both have different approach. but in the end, these two cars have the same exact time when they reach the finish. the only things that make it different is the way you can make all the cost to use it goes as efficients as possible..

i'm not defending either AMD or Intel, both are awesome. but i will pick whoever side that can get along nicely with my pocket..

Goodman4 cores 8 threads , 8 cores 8 threads where is the difference?

Beside i view Bulldozer FX8150 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...

Exactly. It is not a 'true' 8 core, it's essentially hardware-hyperthreading as opposed to virtual hyperthreading. Eight cores grouped into 4 modules, each module sharing a floating point unit; 'integer cores'.
It's too early in the morning for me to remember the technical terms for it, but there it is.

Stop arguing semantics.

Wow, you guys are still going....12 pages? And still on the core, module, thread thing.

There is no rigid, defined term for what is and is not a "core" when it comes to technology. Its a word and nothing more. It is mainly just used for categorization and distinguishing the difference between the architecture of a CPU and other components.

AMD's use of term 8 core is not just about the architecture. It is about marketing, general public limited technical understanding, legal deals with Intel to not use Hyper-Threading-like technology, etc. If the creates of the chip want to call the FX-8XXX series 8 core processors, that is what they are.

And if you ever wonder why they used the term "core" instead of cluster, node, processing zones, and 20 other terms that would fit, go try to explain to your mother why is not a "real" core and see how that turns out.

InceptorExactly. It is not a 'true' 8 core, it's essentially hardware-hyperthreading as opposed to virtual hyperthreading. Eight cores grouped into 4 modules, each module sharing a floating point unit; 'integer cores'.
It's too early in the morning for me to remember the technical terms for it, but there it is.

Stop arguing semantics.

I agree. We can call it what we want, what matters is that there are 8 hardware threads, so when using multi threaded software there will be benefit even when CPU is heavily loaded - WIN!

entropy13And Bulldozer was released more than 6 months ago? :rolleyes:



Although Nvidia wasn't quick as well with the 400 and 500 series, the "time-delay" between their and AMD's respective "current-gens" aren't as far apart as Bulldozer is to Sandy Bridge.


And as an additional point, with AMD comparing the FX 8150 to the Core i7-980X would be akin to Nvidia comparing the GTX 480 to the HD 4870X2, which they didn't do, unless you considering "HD 5870" as corresponding to "HD 4870X2"...

lol well........if you wanna go down that road I got some bad news for ya. The Phenom architecture is almost 10 years old and look how well its scaled. Just NOW Sandy Bridge has made it truly inferior. Took almost ten years for Intel to beat AMD if I go by your logic. Again......lets keep this in perspective.

wheels on the bus go round & round

:)Until tpu d oes some benches this will never end. Till then everyone should realize we've been here Before. If bd is the truth, two days later intel will release a monster...again and the cycle continues until ivy bridge and pile driver. Then raindow bridge and atomic elbow:rolleyes:

ensabrenoir:)Until tpu d oes some benches this will never end. Till then everyone should realize we've been here Before. If bd is the truth, two days later intel will release a monster...again and the cycle continues until ivy bridge and pile driver. Then raindow bridge and atomic elbow:rolleyes:

Be careful. Mods have already given out points for calling BS on people in this thread. Just a heads up.

TheMailMan78lol well........if you wanna go down that road I got some bad news for ya. The Phenom architecture is almost 10 years old and look how well its scaled. Just NOW Sandy Bridge has made it truly inferior. Took almost ten years for Intel to beat AMD if I go by your logic. Again......lets keep this in perspective.

:confused:

What does anything you have just said have anything to do with anything that I have just said?


If I go by YOUR "logic", you're saying as if I'm saying that the "next-gen" only happens when there's a new architecture? So why didn't I say anything else about the GTX 400 and GTX 500 series then, as well as the HD 5000 and HD 6000 series?


What you just did is reinterpret my points and construe it into a perspective that would fit your own. And then you call it keeping things "in perspective"...

TheLaughingManWow, you guys are still going....12 pages? And still on the core, module, thread thing.

.....

And if you ever wonder why they used the term "core" instead of cluster, node, processing zones, and 20 other terms that would fit, go try to explain to your mother why is not a "real" core and see how that turns out.

Thank you very much for this comment. 12 pages on and still going strong with the back and forth.

I have a couple of simple questions for all, that go back to my post on page 7:

1.) How many "average" consumers use their rig for anything more than gaming/general usage...better yet, how many here at TPU use their rig for anything more that gaming/general usage/benching for epeen?

2.) Does anyone know of a game/general program that will bring an Athlon II/Core 2 quad with a decent video card to the point of slow motion video? If so, please PM me the prog/game because I have been searching for one to make my rig break a sweat, and still haven't found it.

I say this because, as much as I enjoy the back and forth commenting, both arguments are an exercise in futility. Until software/game developers start to give us something that will push hardware that is 2 generations old to it's limit, the power we are all purchasing with new SB/BD hardware is pointless to the general consumer, as they will concur that what ever processor they own is awesome and does everything they want with room to spare.

That being said...I hope the FX8150 benchies I get to run on October 12th will help my epeen grow to ENORMOUS SIZE!!!! 8=========}

Thanks for entertaining me for the last 36 hours or so. It has been an interesting read.

JATownes

JATownesThank you very much for this comment. 12 pages on and still going strong with the back and forth.

I have a couple of simple questions for all, that go back to my post on page 7:

1.) How many "average" consumers use their rig for anything more than gaming/general usage...better yet, how many here at TPU use their rig for anything more that gaming/general usage/benching for epeen?

2.) Does anyone know of a game/general program that will bring an Athlon II/Core 2 quad with a decent video card to the point of slow motion video? If so, please PM me the prog/game because I have been searching for one to make my rig break a sweat, and still haven't found it.

I say this because, as much as I enjoy the back and forth commenting, both arguments are an exercise in futility. Until software/game developers start to give us something that will push hardware that is 2 generations old to it's limit, the power we are all purchasing with new SB/BD hardware is pointless to the general consumer, as they will concur that what ever processor they own is awesome and does everything they want with room to spare.

That being said...I hope the FX8150 benchies I get to run on October 12th will help my epeen grow to ENORMOUS SIZE!!!! 8=========}

Thanks for entertaining me for the last 36 hours or so. It has been an interesting read.

JATownes

Someone played the tardcard and we all must follow the rules.

JATownes1.) How many "average" consumers use their rig for anything more than gaming/general usage...better yet, how many here at TPU use their rig for anything more that gaming/general usage/benching for epeen?

2.) Does anyone know of a game/general program that will bring an Athlon II/Core 2 quad with a decent video card to the point of slow motion video?

JATownes

1) I benchmark for reviews, play games, video encoding, general use, and often have my system doing 4 or 5 CPU intensive tasks at once. I don't just run a virus scan. I run the virus scanner in tandem with Spybot, CCleaner, while watching a video on Netflix.

2) Assuming all settings on their highest with AA on at least 2x and AF on at least 8x and decent being say a 6850 or better, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Shogun Total War 2, battlefield 3, and Rage off the top of my head.

JATownesDoes anyone know of a game/general program that will bring an Athlon II/Core 2 quad with a decent video card to the point of slow motion video?

Rendering :D

repman244Rendering :D

I didn't say that. :confused:

Edit: You fixed it.

Damn_SmoothI didn't say that. :confused:

Yea I know, sorry about that used the wrong post for quoting, fixed it now :ohwell:

Rendering I can agree with, but for gaming/general usage...I find a Athlon II quad/C2Q is more than enough...and as far as 2x AA & 8x AF, wouldn't that be video card issues and CPU would have little to do with it? No matter what CPU you have, a limited video card is limited.

JATownesRendering I can agree with, but for gaming/general usage...I find a 965 quad/C2Q is more than enough...and as far as 2x AA & 8x AF, wouldn't that be video card issues and CPU would have little to do with it? No matter what CPU you have, a limited video card is limited.

Yes I agree, that's why I said a few pages back that an FX-4170 should be a nice CPU for game (or maybe even the 6 "core" version) because of it's high clock and large L3 cache.

I don't 100% trust these benchmarks since it's from AMD so I'm still waiting for reviews...

cdawallNO, NOT all multithreaded apps are the same, SB will not be faster in the vast majority which cap out at 4 cores. It will not be faster in any of those same games, etc. You are also assuming multithreading is linear. It is not take cinebench a "normal HT-less" quad will often score 3.79X when multithreaded vs a single core. thats not 100% scaling just incase your math needs help.

Yeah, maybe 2 years ago. Gulftown changed that. The only multithreaded apps that don't max out all 12 of my threads these days are those that suffer a bottleneck somewhere else, like mpeg2/DVD encoding (it goes so fast, my hard drive setup is the bottleneck), or games.

I can't comment for sure on who will be overall faster in multithreading, BD vs SB, but if I was forced to bet, I'd put my money on Intel pulling ahead in most of them. I would also put my money on SB-E decimating everything. Of course, it will come at a large premium, but that doesn't much bother me.

TheMailMan78Honestly I don't get all this bickering. These are MARKETING SLIDES. You know meant to SELL SOMETHING?! These are not a biased review by a third party like TPU. These slides are by AMD. They are garbage. Why fight?

Second keep things in perspective. Most people do not run multi GPU setups. So what advantage will SB have over BD other then that? If even that?! Will your E-mail open in 3 nano seconds with Sandy rather then 4 nano seconds with BD? BD will give you 150 FPS in Bad Company 2 when Sandy will give you 200 FPS? I mean really? Most console games run at 30 FPS! Is Sandy faster? Who knows. Probably. But how much faster is really needed at this point and is worth the price? I mean in a real world scenario. Is it worth the extra money. I mean you guys are arguing over a Shelby Super Snake with a super charger vs a Shelby Super Snake without a super charger. WTF does it matter?! They are both SUPER SNAKES.

The amount of audio encoders and 3D animators are like .5% of the market. So for you I say buy the fastest. Get the super charger. For everyone else buy the cheapest. The regular old Super Snake with its pissy 500hp.

Its about perspective. Lets not lose it.

Faster = better, period. I don't believe in "good enough".

Damn_SmoothThey already have 16 core server CPU's. It's not like they can't easily translate that to desktop.

Exactly, therefore BD will never compete on the top end. I want some competition up here too, dammit.

btarunr

• FX 8150 vs. i7-990X, FX 8150 performs well: Boohoo, 980X is slower than SB

Only in gaming, not in heavy multitasking/multithreading.

btarunr{list][*]FX 8150 vs. i7-2600K (SB), FX 8150 performs well: Boohoo, that's an unfair 8 core vs. 4 core comparison
[/LIST]

Only in multitasking/multithreading, not gaming. The 2500k will preform on par with BD at a lower price point.

All in all, if true, this is not a big enough improvement for me to switch back to AMD.

TheLaughingMan1) I benchmark for reviews, play games, video encoding, general use, and often have my system doing 4 or 5 CPU intensive tasks at once. I don't just run a virus scan. I run the virus scanner in tandem with Spybot, CCleaner, while watching a video on Netflix.

2) Assuming all settings on their highest with AA on at least 2x and AF on at least 8x and decent being say a 6850 or better, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, Shogun Total War 2, battlefield 3, and Rage off the top of my head.

i can easily do them all with my x4 945.


in the end it was laggin because of FRAPS! its a son of a bitch. and my HDD is a 3yr old 80gb crap. the OS and the fraps are installed on the same. so when fraps was maxing out the write at 23MBps, os had very little to do :p

de.das.dudei can easily do them all with my x4 945.

He can do them all, plus more, and do it faster.