Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II

[ROad86]

And the speed of the RAM still probably wouldn't make a difference.

For God sake enough. Let me explain his (TheMailMan78) thought; I had an old AM2+ platform , I need an upgrade BUT i dont want to buy a whole new pc so I buy a phenom II x6 which is a very good processor. I learn that AM3+ is compatible with Bulldozer and my recently bought phenom and I need/ want to make an upgrade on the mobo to get the most out from the processor so I buy one (for DDR3, sata 6gb, usb3 and whatever new you get). And if I have the money and see that bulldozer worth the upgrade I take one without the need to buy everything again and I keep my machine for another 3 years as it is.
Now what's wrong with that?

 

[TheMailMan78]

Why did this thread turn in to a "I'm more beast at photoshop at you, look at my epeen" contest?

Photoshop wants more ram, not faster ram.

DDR2-800 can transfer 6.4GB/s. I'm pretty sure your files aren't much over 1GB (because you would need well over 32GB of RAM to open them correctly).

Maybe you don't understand how much ram a file takes up when it is opened compared to the actual size on disk. A simple 100MB JPEG can use 3GB+ of ram. I believe your problem here is that you have mistaken that DDR2-800 is too slow when in reality windows is using up all of it's available physical memory and resorting to the page file.

You also must not understand how latency works.

The difference between DDR2-800 CAS 4 or 5 and DDR3-1600 CAS 9 is ...nothing. 1066 and 1200 CAS 5 vs 1600 CAS 7-8 is negligible as well.

Buy an AM3 CPU and you should be able to do 1200 with 16GB fine. AM2+'s will have problems with that, yes.

I guess all the rigs I work with didnt get your memo. I work on 1gig files all the time.

If you are screen printing a 4ft by 2ft banner before starting anything its a 444mb file, and that is grayscale/single layer (900dpi).

I understand most people don't use Photoshop to make screenprints but I do.

Same here but for T-Shirts currently. Do you know how to separate?

 

[Mussels]

alright... lets stop with the photoshop stuff now.

back to this non official leak of info about bulldozer.

 

[TheMailMan78]

alright... lets stop with the photoshop stuff now.

back to this non official leak of info about bulldozer.

I wonder how much faster Bulldozer will be in Photoshop. I kid, I kid. Moving on.

 

[newtekie1]

TheMailMan78's situation is one of the very few where I would say upgrading to an AM3+ motherboard first then moving to the processor later would be a reasonable move. But only because I think it isn't worth it to buy more DDR2 RAM at this point, so if he wants to move to 8GB he might as well do it with DDR3, which would require a new motherboard.

 

[Wile E]

Wile E its like this man. Its simple.

I have a 1090T running on a DDR2 board. Now I want to upgrade to a DDR3 board. SO all I have to do it buy the 990FX board and I am future proof without the need of a new CPU.

If I were on an Intel platform not only would I have to buy a new board but also a new CPU. Now do you understand? Its not about a massive performance benefit. Its about the flexibility of the platform that allows it to work with a tight budget. If I wanted the 133t's system I wouldn't even be running AMD.

So? Just keep running what you have until you can afford it all. That new board and DDR3 isn't going to help your performance enough to justify the price. Your performance will be the same whether you buy the board now or later. I was on s775 and DDR2, and bought 1 piece of my X58 setup at a time until I had a working system.

Both scenarios provide the same exact end results. Unchanging performance until you have the complete package.

Well I do need to upgrade. I need more RAM at a higher speed. If I go 8 gigs on DDR2 I am limited to 800mhz. Thats not the case with DDR3. So the money I saved by skipping the last gen. of mobos is now open to the new gen. which happens to use the new socket. This is not something you can do with an Intel platform.

So, an AMD DDR2 platform deficiency forcing you to upgrade to new ram and a new mobo is somehow better than me keeping the same ram and upgrading my board and cpu? I can use my current ram to it's full advantage on the new Intel platforms. You can't use your new ram and mobo to their full advantage until you buy a new cpu as well. So, I have to buy mobo and cpu, and you have to buy mobo, ram and cpu.

How is that better?

Bank the money? I did. Thats why I can now afford the new board and RAM which in fact is a huge upgrade. However I don't have to buy bulldozer but can upgrade to it when it hits second generation. So thank you for proving my point.

No, it isn't a huge upgrade, even for photoshop.

And even if AMD forcing you to buy a new socket for Bulldozer somehow translates into a positive feature (which it doesn't), you are still the smallest niche of the supposed market that benefits from it.

The fact is, to use Bulldozer, you must buy both a new board, and a new cpu. That is no different than Intel at all. So you can buy a new board and use the old cpu on AMD? Yep, but I can buy a new board on Intel and use an old cpu too. Just gotta wait to use the new board is all. Still teh same end results, no matter how you look at it.

For God sake enough. Let me explain his (TheMailMan78) thought; I had an old AM2+ platform , I need an upgrade BUT i dont want to buy a whole new pc so I buy a phenom II x6 which is a very good processor. I learn that AM3+ is compatible with Bulldozer and my recently bought phenom and I need/ want to make an upgrade on the mobo to get the most out from the processor so I buy one (for DDR3, sata 6gb, usb3 and whatever new you get). And if I have the money and see that bulldozer worth the upgrade I take one without the need to buy everything again and I keep my machine for another 3 years as it is.
Now what's wrong with that?

Nothing at all.

All we are saying is that the bottom line to use Bulldozer is no different than the bottom line if you want to use the new Intel cpus. New board + new cpu.

 

[cadaveca]

So? How is that even slightly important?


I hate to say it, but the bleeding edge of technology is not for those who are strapped for cash. I don't understand why people even complain about cost of entry into a completely new platform, except unless they can't afford it, and even then, jealousy and envy is hardly justification for an argument.

Well guess what...if you cannot afford it, your not part of the market it's intended for, plain and simple. If cost is a concern at this ponit, I think you belong in a niche that has no part in this conversation.

Nevermind that this whole conversation was started on pure outright lies from someone trying to get hits.

 

[bear jesus]

Really with so many games and programs only using one or two cores my biggest hope for bulldozer is that the IPC has been improved enough to give a big boost per core over the phenom II's at the same speed MHz wise.

I would like to get an AM3+ board so i can get double my ram capacity while at the same time near doubling the speed while keeping my 965 for a while but if the major performance increase comes from more cores then most things i use right now wont show much of an improvement, if that is the case i will be considering Intel depending on the cost.

 

[wahdangun]

1. Yes, we have already said that BD will be ~50% faster than MC.

2. I am not a client guy, I don't know about that.



This is not from AMD. I don't approve leaks before launch and we also happen to be in our quiet period so this would be a major no-no.

If AMD was to let any performance information go prior to launch, it would come directly from my blog. Any other source is suspect.

wow, thats great. i can't wait for BD to come out,

btw so we won't have desktop version of MC?

 

[pantherx12]

Really with so many games and programs only using one or two cores my biggest hope for bulldozer is that the IPC has been improved enough to give a big boost per core over the phenom II's at the same speed MHz wise.

I would like to get an AM3+ board so i can get double my ram capacity while at the same time near doubling the speed while keeping my 965 for a while but if the major performance increase comes from more cores then most things i use right now wont show much of an improvement, if that is the case i will be considering Intel depending on the cost.

Protip : dx11 loves cores.
I think it natively supports core scaling even if the engine doesn't ( seems that way, I get better fps on my dx11 games just by switching cores on and off in my system )

So more and more games will support extra cores.

+ applications are becoming more multi core compatible anyways.

 

[Mussels]

Protip : dx11 loves cores.
I think it natively supports core scaling even if the engine doesn't ( seems that way, I get better fps on my dx11 games just by switching cores on and off in my system )

So more and more games will support extra cores.

+ applications are becoming more multi core compatible anyways.

the graphics segment of DX11 is multi threaded, DX9 and 10 arent. I repeat that all time in various threads, its the main benefit of DX11.

 

[bear jesus]

Protip : dx11 loves cores.
I think it natively supports core scaling even if the engine doesn't ( seems that way, I get better fps on my dx11 games just by switching cores on and off in my system )

So more and more games will support extra cores.

+ applications are becoming more multi core compatible anyways.

I know DX11 does better with more cores but at least 85%+ of the games i play are DX9, so far i have played 3 games that support DX11

 

[pantherx12]

I know DX11 does better with more cores but at least 85%+ of the games i play are DX9, so far i have played 3 games that support DX11

Aye but that's my point( although not one i've made here ) lots of people are like " most things don't support x" but those people are using older stuff to make that statement.

It's like when motors started using petrol instead of coal/water( STEAAAM YEAH!!!!!!) and people going "most motors don't even support petrol!"

Gota look to the future

 

[bear jesus]

Aye but that's my point( although not one i've made here ) lots of people are like " most things don't support x" but those people are using older stuff to make that statement.

It's like when motors started using petrol instead of coal/water( STEAAAM YEAH!!!!!!) and people going "most motors don't even support petrol!"

Gota look to the future

Very true, But i meant as in i already have 4 cores (if i had less then then adding more for DX11 would be a must) but for the moment DX11 would be helping games catch up with what i already have but speeding up games that i still play and will play for quite a while that are DX9 faster performance per core is very important for me.

Plus of course it's also about keeping me from buying Intel, i have been with AMD so long as i have used an AM2, AM2+ and AM3 CPU all on the same board so with buying a new board, CPU and ram at once it's easier for Intel to be an option for the upgrade so if bulldozer does not impress me in most areas for a good price Intel will be getting my money for the first time in several years.

 

[Wile E]

So? How is that even slightly important?


I hate to say it, but the bleeding edge of technology is not for those who are strapped for cash. I don't understand why people even complain about cost of entry into a completely new platform, except unless they can't afford it, and even then, jealousy and envy is hardly justification for an argument.

Well guess what...if you cannot afford it, your not part of the market it's intended for, plain and simple. If cost is a concern at this ponit, I think you belong in a niche that has no part in this conversation.

Nevermind that this whole conversation was started on pure outright lies from someone trying to get hits.

Who is this aimed at? And what are you referring to? If this is aimed at me in any way, you obviously have read my comments in the wrong context.

 

[JF-AMD]

wow, thats great. i can't wait for BD to come out,

btw so we won't have desktop version of MC?

No, you will not get that.

 

[CDdude55]

So? How is that even slightly important?


I hate to say it, but the bleeding edge of technology is not for those who are strapped for cash. I don't understand why people even complain about cost of entry into a completely new platform, except unless they can't afford it, and even then, jealousy and envy is hardly justification for an argument.

Well guess what...if you cannot afford it, your not part of the market it's intended for, plain and simple. If cost is a concern at this ponit, I think you belong in a niche that has no part in this conversation.

Nevermind that this whole conversation was started on pure outright lies from someone trying to get hits.

Money doesn't determine what market you should be in, not everyone who buys parts in the high end category has money like you do, so depending on the circumstance, swapping platforms and upgrading may take more saving or determining ''best bangs for bucks'' at the moment for what is needed. You can't just say ''well if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in that market in the first place'', that makes no sense except from a standpoint of someone who can afford anything they want when they want and at the time they want, where in which the large majority aren't people who can, yet still mange to scrounge up money for amazing rigs.

 

[TheMailMan78]

So? Just keep running what you have until you can afford it all. That new board and DDR3 isn't going to help your performance enough to justify the price. Your performance will be the same whether you buy the board now or later. I was on s775 and DDR2, and bought 1 piece of my X58 setup at a time until I had a working system.

Both scenarios provide the same exact end results. Unchanging performance until you have the complete package.

The difference is I can use the system with the new parts were you couldn't. AMD=Working computer. Intel=Takes up closet space until done.

As for the Photoshop stuff I am not going to debate it. The Mod said to stop and I don't need anymore trouble.

 

[blibba]

Money doesn't determine what market you should be in, not everyone who buys parts in the high end category has money like you do, so depending on the circumstance, swapping platforms and upgrading may take more saving or determining ''best bangs for bucks'' at the moment for what is needed. You can't just say ''well if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in that market in the first place'', that makes no sense except from a standpoint of someone who can afford anything they want when they want and at the time they want, where in which the large majority aren't people who can, yet still mange to scrounge up money for amazing rigs.

I don't want to cause offense, but if you have to "scrounge up money" for an "amazing rig", then perhaps your priorities are a little out.

I'd have to agree with the sentiment that high end platforms are intended for people who have a large amount of money to spare, not for those looking for what they can get away with on a tight budget.

 

[CDdude55]

I don't want to cause offense, but if you have to "scrounge up money" for an "amazing rig", then perhaps your priorities are a little out.

I'd have to agree with the sentiment that high end platforms are intended for people who have a large amount of money to spare, not for those looking for what they can get away with on a tight budget.

That's untrue in my mind really, my system before my current rig was an i7 920 on the X58 platform and i bought it through incrementally buying each part and saving. You don't need to have all the money in the world to have the best of the best it all depends on how much you can spare and how good of a system you want to push for and what you yourself need in a system.

Now yes, people who are buying a 980x and 3x GTX 580's usually aren't the ones saving or on a tight budget. But it is possible if it's something you really need/want.

 

[blibba]

I do see your point there.

Does that mean, though, that for a while you had parts of an X58 build sitting around in your house that you couldn't use?

Regarding the "how much you need/want it" point, I don't think anyone should need the difference between a high end and and mid range PC so much that they should risk their financial stability for it. I realise that that is not what you mean, I'm just saying.

As you say and as I said above, it's about how much you can spare, and as such I don't think it should be about what you're willing to sacrifice for it.

 

[CDdude55]

I do see your point there.

Does that mean, though, that for a while you had parts of an X58 build sitting around in your house that you couldn't use?

Regarding the "how much you need/want it" point, I don't think anyone should need the difference between a high end and and mid range PC so much that they should risk their financial stability for it. I realise that that is not what you mean, I'm just saying.

As you say and as I said above, it's about how much you can spare, and as such I don't think it should be about what you're willing to sacrifice for it.

Ya i bought the X58 board first and then in a couple weeks, maybe a month i picked up the i7 CPU, and then a couple weeks later i picked up the triple channel memory and then finally i got it all out and made a monstrous system.

I agree that if you are struggling financially your prioritizes shouldn't include a super high-end system. It's just the notion that if you don't have enough money right in your hands for what you need whether it be high end or not doesn't mean you shouldn't be in that market(you didn't say that though).

 

[cadaveca]

Money doesn't determine what market you should be in, not everyone who buys parts in the high end category has money like you do, so depending on the circumstance, swapping platforms and upgrading may take more saving or determining ''best bangs for bucks'' at the moment for what is needed. You can't just say ''well if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in that market in the first place'', that makes no sense except from a standpoint of someone who can afford anything they want when they want and at the time they want, where in which the large majority aren't people who can, yet still mange to scrounge up money for amazing rigs.

Dude, I don't know why you think I have money. :shadedshu

Arguing over if INtel of AMD is the right chioce, based on cost, doesn't make any sense, as Intel is that high-end platform. In reality, very few can afford it.

AMD is the "budget" alternative. They currently bring good performance...not the best, but good, for far lower cost of entry.

I don't think the majority of users in this forum applies to any of this, as we are definitely a minority. Most people buy a computer, as use it for three to five years, while many of us change our rigs out of boredom.

You're just taking this far too personally.


Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad?

Qualcomm.

The 65 million that that deal brought AMD falsely raised profit margins, at the sacrifice of huge potential income...how many units do you think the iPhone and iPad will sell? At least 65 million, no? and each Qualcomm chip in there is going to sell for more than one dollar, right?


Dirk screwed up big-time. He failed to see the market that already exists, and how to exploit it.


Likewise, I think many fail to see the market that Bulldozer is intended for, and JF-AMD is here trying to tell us to not get our expectations too high...andwith that in mind, although the competition is Intel, Bulldozer may not even be targeted at Intel's best...

Just like the 6-series, that so many are dissappointed by, due to falsely raised expectations.

I think somebody's marketing team is very well versed in the art of war, but noone understands that.

I am quite serious when I say I need to be AMD's next CEO.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Dude, I don't know why you think I have money. :shadedshu

Arguing over if INtel of AMD is the right chioce, based on cost, doesn't make any sense, as Intel is that high-end platform. In reality, very few can afford it.

AMD is the "budget" alternative. They currently bring good performance...not the best, but good, for far lower cost of entry.

I don't think the majority of users in this forum applies to any of this, as we are definitely a minority. Most people buy a computer, as use it for three to five years, while many of us change our rigs out of boredom.

You're just taking this far too personally.


Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad?

Qualcomm.

The 65 million that that deal brought AMD falsely raised profit margins, at the sacrifice of huge potential income...how many units do you think the iPhone and iPad will sell? At least 65 million, no? and each Qualcomm chip in there is going to sell for more than one dollar, right?


Dirk screwed up big-time. He failed to see the market that already exists, and how to exploit it.


Likewise, I think many fail to see the market that Bulldozer is intended for, and JF-AMD is here trying to tell us to not get our expectations too high...andwith that in mind, although the competition is Intel, Bulldozer may not even be targeted at Intel's best...

Just like the 6-series, that so many are dissappointed by, due to falsely raised expectations.

I think somebody's marketing team is very well versed in the art of war, but noone understands that.

I am quite serious when I say I need to be AMD's next CEO.

I didn't know that about Qualcomm. I thought they were merged out. I now understand what happen to Dirk. However in playing devil advocate he may have HAD to sell Qualcomm to keep AMD afloat. Remember a year ago is when banks stopped handing out money willy nilly.

 

[cadaveca]

Yeah, I hear ya on the timing issue, however, I do not think 65 Million would have had that large of an impact. It merely made Dirk appear to be doing good at the helm, when really, he only looks good to doing the same as what Hector did..sell off assets. I'm not sure why everyone doesn't see it like that, but I definitely do

AMD's financials for the year seem good, but we have many deals that took place, like the settlement from Intel, that are considered profit, but they are NOT profit based on sales.