Bulldozer Review! Legit?

[aigomorla]

i7-965 is beating up BD so hard in gaming that its not even funny.

at least that dutch site had some common sense unlike AMD's advertising department, to NOT pit it against a 990X. The i7 965 is probably because they had no 920 to throw in there for an old comparison.

Im still not over that yet you guys.... that was mad hilarious... welcome to the 21st century where pictures and bright letters > actual real comparisons.

Make you wonder how Bulldozer will do in Battlefield 3. Knowing it loves more cores.

The day cpu matters more then 5% of overall gaming performance... then we gamers will rejoice because overpowered gpu cards wont be required..

But until then, its more down to the board and how many pci-e lanes it has... how many gpu's your going to put on such lanes.. and how fast your bus speed is, more so then the CPU once u get @ 4 threads.

 

[classy]

Maybe even worse than that.

Take a look at Cinebench R10. They reported FX-8150 scores 4,074 in single threaded scenario. Under such a case, full 4.2ghz Turbo is enabled.

Even the older X6 1100T performs as well. That means 1 BD core is slower than 1 Phenom core and IPC didn't improve at all. It actually has gotten worse. As suspected all these months by Xbitlabs and many many websites, AMD needed higher Turbo because per core performance was too weak. Hence so many re-spins and delays to get those clocks higher. :hmm:

It looks like this will continue the legacy of the X6 of performing well in multi-threaded apps, but still not be enough to close the gap in per core performance. Problem is unlike X6 1090/1100T go for $170-190; and in light of those supposed benchmarks, BD at $230-250 seems way too expensive. Most programs don't use more than 4 threads and 2500k is still cheaper. Not sure how in the world AMD is trying to claim the FX legend is back. FX obliterated Pentium 4.

People need to give cinebench a rest. Cinebench has always used patches and updates to correct issues with updated architectures. Cinebench 11 took over for 10 for this very reason. Cinebench also uses a list of cpus it supports and I would imagine they would have to update it to support bulldozer.

 

[sangyup81]

You shouldn't expect too much out of half a module. Still, are there that many CPU-INTENSIVE single threaded applications anymore? I would expect most to run at least 2 threads so it could take advantage of a whole module.

 

[996GT2]

So it's basically like an 8-core Phenom...except worse.

 

[classy]

You shouldn't expect too much out of half a module. Still, are there that many CPU-INTENSIVE single threaded applications anymore? I would expect most to run at least 2 threads so it could take advantage of a whole module.

LOL

Its so funny to now read the word "module" when discussing a cpu. How many modules do you have?

 

[jacktesterson]

Make you wonder how Bulldozer will do in Battlefield 3. Knowing it loves more cores.

I think its going to love AMD

 

[sangyup81]

LOL

Its so funny to now read the word "module" when discussing a cpu. How many modules do you have?

We were able to avoid "threads" since 2 threads in HT is only 20% better than 1 core. If what I read is right, the BD module is supposed to be 80% better than a single true core.

So that would make an "8-core" BD more of a 7.2 core? (1.8 x 4)

 

[aigomorla]

I think its going to love AMD

errrr no..

the proper answer is its going to LOVE ATI / Nvidia /w a SSD... not Intel / AMD.

 

[drizek]

Of course, this is the area where patches help dramatically.

Right, and lets not read too far into minimums, especially from a website without much of a reputation. Any minor blip could have caused it to dip down to 25fps for a fraction of a second.

 

[frostedflakes]

You shouldn't expect too much out of half a module. Still, are there that many CPU-INTENSIVE single threaded applications anymore? I would expect most to run at least 2 threads so it could take advantage of a whole module.

There are still some applications. Console emulators come to mind immediately, stuff like PCSX2 is very CPU intensive and not easily threaded.

 

[aigomorla]

There are still some applications. Console emulators come to mind immediately, stuff like PCSX2 is very CPU intensive and not easily threaded.

and on fast cpu's u need to frame rate or the game goes at super speed.

U know how funny it is watching something zoom by b4 u can even react to it?

 

[AtenRa]

errrr no..

the proper answer is its going to LOVE ATI / Nvidia /w a SSD... not Intel / AMD.

I believe it has an affection for AMD CPUs as well

Battlefield 3 Beta Performance Test

 

[sangyup81]

Battlefield 3 says Moar Cores!!!

 

[classy]

I believe it has an affection for AMD CPUs as well

Battlefield 3 Beta Performance Test

Cores are the future.................

 

[aigomorla]

love how the big word BETA is on top... and u guys are taking it as real.

Talk about Irony in the thread....

 

[drizek]

WTF? Why don't they compare a Phenom II X4 @3.3GHz to even out the clockspeed advantage against the X6, or OC the X6 to 3.7GHz? It would be much more useful for seing the effects of the extra 2 cores.

 

[aigomorla]

WTF? Why don't they compare a Phenom II X4 @3.3GHz to even out the clockspeed advantage against the X6, or OC the X6 to 3.7GHz? It would be much more useful for seing the effects of the extra 2 cores.

cuz its BETA...

 

[sangyup81]

Chill out Intel people. Nothing was overclocked up there and we all know that the 2600k can hit a higher clock speed than the Phenom II X6 and will probably have a higher score especially since HT will give a boost now.

AMD folks are just happy that something is actually using a 6 core processor properly

 

[Madcatatlas]

Maybe even worse than that.

Take a look at Cinebench R10. They reported FX-8150 scores 4,074 in single threaded scenario. Under such a case, full 4.2ghz Turbo is enabled.

Even the older X6 1100T performs as well. That means 1 BD core is slower than 1 Phenom core and IPC didn't improve at all. It actually has gotten worse. As suspected all these months by Xbitlabs and many many websites, AMD needed higher Turbo because per core performance was too weak. Hence so many re-spins and delays to get those clocks higher. :hmm:

It looks like this will continue the legacy of the X6 of performing well in multi-threaded apps, but still not be enough to close the gap in per core performance. Problem is unlike X6 1090/1100T go for $170-190; and in light of those supposed benchmarks, BD at $230-250 seems way too expensive. Most programs don't use more than 4 threads and 2500k is still cheaper. Not sure how in the world AMD is trying to claim the FX legend is back. FX obliterated Pentium 4.

question for this graph RS, ignore my ignorance please , Why is the 870 doing better than the 975 at cinebench? its at a lower clock isnt it?

 

[aigomorla]

question for this graph RS, ignore my ignorance please , Why is the 870 doing better than the 975 at cinebench? its at a lower clock isnt it?

good point...

the 870 should score closer to the 950 anyway u look at it..

 

[AtenRa]

WTF? Why don't they compare a Phenom II X4 @3.3GHz to even out the clockspeed advantage against the X6, or OC the X6 to 3.7GHz? It would be much more useful for seing the effects of the extra 2 cores.

Shows you how each CPU will perform at default clocks

love how the big word BETA is on top... and u guys are taking it as real.

Talk about Irony in the thread....

Just because its BETA doesn’t make it unreal

 

[frostedflakes]

question for this graph RS, ignore my ignorance please , Why is the 870 doing better than the 975 at cinebench? its at a lower clock isnt it?

870 and 975 both have a 3.6GHz turbo frequency. Any difference between the two is probably just margin of error, looks like cache and other specs are the same.

 

[aigomorla]

Just because its BETA doesn’t make it unreal

*bangs head on steel wall*

OK im better..

 

[RussianSensation]

question for this graph RS, ignore my ignorance please , Why is the 870 doing better than the 975 at cinebench? its at a lower clock isnt it?

Both the Core i7-870 and Core i7-975 Turbo to the same 3.6ghz speeds.

The 25 or so points difference between them is likely attributable to difference board BIOSes, slight difference in memory latency performance (Lynnfield has a faster latency memory controller than Lynnfield). I mean that's within the margin of error at 3.6ghz each. Nothing unusual there.

Edit: looks like frostedflakes beat me to it!

 

[aigomorla]

i think the 870 has dynamic turbo on..

which means it only gets 3.6 on 2 cores.. and 3.2ghz on all 4.

I dont remember if they could do 3.6 on all 4 cores with turbo on without overclocking.

You guys been around sandy too long...


So its still not making sense..