Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II

[TheMailMan78]

Ok, so rather than buying the future proof board now, wait until you need the upgrade that you want it for, and buy it then? It'll even be cheaper, and it may support things that a board bought now would not. What's the issue here?

Please don't take me as criticising AMD's backwards and forwards compatibility, I love it. I just don't see why it is cheaper to buy upgrades before you need them.

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.

 

[Kantastic]

No difference between DDR2 and DDR3?

Nothing drastic.

 

[blibba]

Indeed it is not something you can do with an Intel platform. This kind of thing used to be possible under LGA775, which is why I bought Intel at the time. If I were to build a new system for myself now, it would definitley be AMD.

However I would have to disagree that you NEED more than 4GB of RAM, and DDR3, at this stage. Those are very high end features with relativley minimal impact on performance, and if you're on a tight budget they don't make sense.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Nothing drastic.

Oh? Ever tried running A large Photoshop on 800mhz of RAM? Yes there is a huge difference.

Indeed it is not something you can do with an Intel platform. This kind of thing used to be possible under LGA775, which is why I bought Intel at the time. If I were to build a new system for myself now, it would definitley be AMD.

However I would have to disagree that you NEED more than 4GB of RAM, and DDR3, at this stage. Those are very high end features with relativley minimal impact on performance, and if you're on a tight budget they don't make sense.

Again I need more then 8 gigs for what I do. However if I run 8gigs at 800mhz vs 8gigs at 1333mhz+ which do you think is going to be faster?

A tight budget means I cannot "dump" money at one time. It means I can dump money over a period of time as I need it.

 

[blibba]

Bank the money, put up with the performance of your 1067mhz low latency DDR2 for now, get something far more awesome in a year's time. Having limited income makes it even more irresponsible to be daft with the money that you do have.

Or, if you have lots of disposable income, buy an AM3 board now. If this is the case, however, my comments were not aimed at you.

 

[JF-AMD]

so its true that bulldozer will be faster than magny cours ?

and btw is it true that AMD bring back FX line ? because if its true then i can't wait to buy it

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.

I like how because this news is from AMD its Fud, but If intel made the exact same claims then everyone on this forum would bend over backwards to Suck praise intel.

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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Bank the money, put up with the performance of your 1067mhz low latency DDR2 for now, get something far more awesome in a year's time. Having limited income makes it even more irresponsible to be daft with the money that you do have.

Or, if you have lots of disposable income, buy an AM3 board now. If this is the case, however, my comments were not aimed at you.

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.

 

[blibba]

Excellent, and thank you for proving mine!

 

[TheMailMan78]

Excellent, and thank you for proving mine!

No your point was...

If you're too poor to ever have the money for a high end system, don't ever buy one. Not hard. That's what I do.

If you've enough income to buy part of it now and part of it later, then keep the part that you would spend now in a savings account (it'll even gain interest ffs) and then get a complete upgrade when you would have bought the second part. Still not hard.

There is no reason at all, not one, why it would be cheaper to buy part of a system now and part later.

Which is the same idea as dumping a massive amount of income in one shot (Intel). Mine was to piece it over time which is the exact opposite of what you posted.

 

[blibba]

As you can see my post starts with the word "you".

It was addressed at the guy I was quoting, who was complaining of a lack of money. You would do well to notice this. He wanted to buy a part that was in no significant way an upgrade to his current PC, then buy a part that was later, by which time the first part would have been cheaper. I think that you would agree that this is inadvisable.

Furthermore, I don't think that, if you have a large amount of money to splurge, doing so on an AMD system would be a bad idea right now.

If you're someone who continuously upgrades your system as you run into performance issues, which it sounds like you are, then you are in a different situation to the guy I was originally insulting, and as such my advise is not relavent. I do this also, although it sounds like I am willing to put up with a much slower system and have much less disposable income.

 

[newtekie1]

by free, i meant available/leftover. bad choice of a multi purpose word.

"freed up" would be a better choice.

you get improvements in the interim, and a second machine when you're done - and if you had a use for that second machine, awesome.

Ok, that does make sense in your situation, if you are wanting a second machine at the same time. However, the original idea was that the person was strapped for cash and worried about money and wanted the "cheapest" solution. Paying for extra parts that isn't needed isn't cheaper.

Oh? Ever tried running A large Photoshop on 800mhz of RAM? Yes there is a huge difference.

Yes I have, Photoshop doesn't really care if the ram is running at 533MHz or 1600MHz, it make no difference. Photoshop wants more RAM, it doesn't really care how fast it is.

Again I need more then 8 gigs for what I do. However if I run 8gigs at 800mhz vs 8gigs at 1333mhz+ which do you think is going to be faster?

When I switched my Xeon X3370 machine from 8GB of 533Hz DDR2 to 8GB of 1333MHz DDR3 there was no difference in performance in Photoshop, and from my understanding AMD rigs are even less effected by DDR3...

 

[TheMailMan78]

Ok, that does make sense in your situation, if you are wanting a second machine at the same time. However, the original idea was that the person was strapped for cash and worried about money and wanted the "cheapest" solution. Paying for extra parts that isn't needed isn't cheaper.



Yes I have, Photoshop doesn't really care if the ram is running at 533MHz or 1600MHz, it make no difference. Photoshop wants more RAM, it doesn't really care how fast it is.





When I switched my Xeon X3370 machine from 8GB of 533Hz DDR2 to 8GB of 1333MHz DDR3 there was no difference in performance in Photoshop, and from my understanding AMD rigs are even less effected by DDR3...

I doubt very seriously you use Photoshop to the level I do. You get a large enough file with enough data involved (tiff with layers and such) you WILL see a large difference.

As you can see my post starts with the word "you".

It was addressed at the guy I was quoting, who was complaining of a lack of money. You would do well to notice this. He wanted to buy a part that was in no significant way an upgrade to his current PC, then buy a part that was later, by which time the first part would have been cheaper. I think that you would agree that this is inadvisable.

Furthermore, I don't think that, if you have a large amount of money to splurge, doing so on an AMD system would be a bad idea right now.

If you're someone who continuously upgrades your system as you run into performance issues, which it sounds like you are, then you are in a different situation to the guy I was originally insulting, and as such my advise is not relavent. I do this also, although it sounds like I am willing to put up with a much slower system and have much less disposable income.

Which he would be doing pretty much what I stated. He is piecing together a new rig slowly. His circumstances are different but the principal is the same.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Nothing drastic.

The board I have in my HTPC (Measly Cow) uses DDR2 or DDR3 I currently have DDR3 1333 in it the only diff I noticed from DDR2 1066 was the time between programs I have yet to really notice a diff in any other program other than the OS

 

[Thatguy]

Everybody needs to STFU about motherboard upgrades, some of us hand down parts to other people. for intsnace I will sell my am2+ board to a friend of mine for like $40 along with a phenom 9550 and my ddr2 ram for a total of $200, I will by a new am3+ board and 8 gb of ddr3 ram to replace my current stuff.

Then I will by a bulldozer after that.

BTW its no ones bussiness about how or why I or anyone else plans there upgrades, keep your stupid fucking opinions to your self.

Its not a matter of money in my case, more a issue of wanting more chipset capability. I may not upgrade to BD until the FX line is out anyways.

So everybody, STFU about it already, enough is enough.

 

[newtekie1]

I doubt very seriously you use Photoshop to the level I do. You get a large enough file with enough data involved (tiff with layers and such) you WILL see a large difference.

1.) I bet I do.
2.) A 109MB 7000x5443 Tiff. + Main Rig + Script applying 15 filters that takes roughly 3 minutes total to apply. DDR3-1600=179.9s to Complete. DDR3-800=185.7s to Complete. So doubling the memory speed yeilds a ~3% improvement in Photoshop. Of course there is also the fact that DDR2 goes up to 1200MHz, making the transition to DDR3 even smaller than what I've tested... Yeah, you WILL NOT see a large difference. And I didn't even adjust the timings when I switched to DDR3-800, I probably could have tightened them and got the difference down even smaller.
3.) I've done the transition and actually seen the difference, or lack there of. Why are you arguing like you know this for a fact and you are still using DDR2. You've never even tested with DDR3, so how can you argue that it makes a difference like you know it is fact and you've never even tested it?

Everybody needs to STFU about motherboard upgrades, some of us hand down parts to other people. for intsnace I will sell my am2+ board to a friend of mine for like $40 along with a phenom 9550 and my ddr2 ram for a total of $200, I will by a new am3+ board and 8 gb of ddr3 ram to replace my current stuff.

Then I will by a bulldozer after that.

BTW its no ones bussiness about how or why I or anyone else plans there upgrades, keep your stupid fucking opinions to your self.

Its not a matter of money in my case, more a issue of wanting more chipset capability. I may not upgrade to BD until the FX line is out anyways.

So everybody, STFU about it already, enough is enough.

If you don't want to hear our opinion about why your opinion is faulty and wrong, don't post your opinion. Don't bitch about us responding to your opinions, you can take your own advice and keep your opinions to yourself if you don't want others to respond.

 

[acperience7]

Isn't it easier to just say that everyone likes to upgrade differently? I've seen this argument before in this forum and it always ends up right back where it started. None of you is going to convince each other to change, so can we please continue the speculation.

I may not post here alot, but threads like these are learning opportunities for me, and bickering about upgrade preferences isn't helping anyone or adding anything. To each his own, leave it at that.

 

[btarunr]

Everybody needs to keep their tempers down when making points. This isn't that grave a topic that you start calling eachother names (it's not allowed in any case).

 

[blibba]

I don't think there was any name calling, just a bit of informing those requiring such information of their incompetence

Everyone does like to upgrade differently, and that's fine, different people have different priorities. However there are some methods that are not sensible for anyone.

Other than that, I think everything's covered above

 

[TheMailMan78]

1.) I bet I do.
2.) A 109MB 7000x5443 Tiff. + Main Rig + Script applying 15 filters that takes roughly 3 minutes total to apply. DDR3-1600=179.9s to Complete. DDR3-800=185.7s to Complete. So doubling the memory speed yeilds a ~3% improvement in Photoshop. Of course there is also the fact that DDR2 goes up to 1200MHz, making the transition to DDR3 even smaller than what I've tested... Yeah, you WILL NOT see a large difference. And I didn't even adjust the timings when I switched to DDR3-800, I probably could have tightened them and got the difference down even smaller.
3.) I've done the transition and actually seen the difference, or lack there of. Why are you arguing like you know this for a fact and you are still using DDR2. You've never even tested with DDR3, so how can you argue that it makes a difference like you know it is fact and you've never even tested it?



If you don't want to hear our opinion about why your opinion is faulty and wrong, don't post your opinion. Don't bitch about us responding to your opinions, you can take your own advice and keep your opinions to yourself if you don't want others to respond.

1. 109mb file is a joke. Try running a file thats damn near a gig and get back with me.
2. You have no idea what I have used. I was an art director in charge of 15+ artists in the past. I've used MANY configurations. Also the Phenom II does not support over 800mhz when using more then 4gigs of RAM. At 4 gigs you are fine. Anything above that is hit and miss. (8+ gigs anyone) Its a well known issue with the memory controller and as you said Photoshop loves RAM.

NT I may not know much but don't argue Photoshop with me. Thats my Dojo. I can send you .psd files that will bring a 980x to its knees.

 

[newtekie1]

1. 109mb file is a joke. Try running a file thats damn near a gig and get back with me.
2. You have no idea what I have used. I was an art director in charge of 15+ artists in the past. I've used MANY configurations. Also the Phenom II does not support over 800mhz when using more then 4gigs of RAM. At 4 gigs you are fine. Anything above that is hit and miss. (8+ gigs anyone) Its a well known issue with the memory controller and as you said Photoshop loves RAM.

NT I may not know much but don't argue Photoshop with me. Thats my Dojo. I can send you .psd files that will bring a 980x to its knees.

I have, the only problem is that to get much bigger you have to add layers, and the filters and editting only affects the single selected layer in Photoshop, so it doesn't make a difference. That is a single 109MB layer, I could add 10 of them and get over 1GB, but any work done would still only be effecting the single 109MB layer so the amount of data being processed would be the same, and when I ran the test on it the time required was the same. Furthermore, adding more layers increases the amount of memory in use, but the speed that memory operates goes rather unnoticed, because as I said Photoshop almost always deals with a single layer at a time.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I have, the only problem is that to get much bigger you have to add layers, and the filters and editting only affects the single selected layer in Photoshop, so it doesn't make a difference. That is a single 109MB layer, I could add 10 of them and get over 1GB, but any work done would still only be effecting the single 109MB layer so the amount of data being processed would be the same.

Add overlays, hard lights, layer effects ect. and my files would be larger also. I have jpgs that are bigger then 109mb man. Artificial gradients and even the amount of channels and paths make a huge difference. You know that simple little skull I did a while back for TPU? That thing was 500mb before I downsized it. Now imagine doing a full car body wrap with that much detail in every inch? Just zooming in can be a mission on a lesser rig.

My point is you cannot judge RAM performance on filter actions. Hell I don't even use filters. They are for armatures. (That wasn't a dig at you. I'm just saying)

 

[BeepBeep2]

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.

 

[newtekie1]

Add overlays, hard lights, layer effects ect. and my files would be larger also. I have jpgs that are bigger then 109mb man. Artificial gradients and even the amount of channels and paths make a huge difference. You know that simple little skull I did a while back for TPU? That thing was 500mb before I downsized it. Now imagine doing a full car body wrap with that much detail in every inch? Just zooming in can be a mission on a lesser rig.

My point is you cannot judge RAM performance on filter actions. Hell I don't even use filters. They are for armatures. (That wasn't a dig at you. I'm just saying)

I don't doubt it, but again the size of the layer is the important part, and having a layer that is larger than 109MB isn't common, even for professional photoshop users. I bet you couldn't send me a single file with a layer that is over 100MB.

 

[GSG-9]

I don't doubt it, but again the size of the layer is the important part, and having a layer that is larger than 109MB isn't common, even for professional photoshop users. I bet you couldn't send me a single file with a layer that is over 100MB.

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.

 

[newtekie1]

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.

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