TheMailMan78I own a few games that utilize all 6 of my cores.

WrigleyvillainWhat else besides BF3?

nt300AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer. Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this,
LINK:
www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11

We can hope that Windows 8 and upgraded applications and utilities that use the new FX instructions will make it more competitive, and I'd expect these things right about the time Ivy Bridge become available.

Pros:
+ First consumer eight-core processor
+ Officially supports 4GHz-plus turbo speeds and DDR3-1866 memory
+ An FX system has 42 PCI-E lanes as opposed to the 24 lanes of a Sandy Bridge system
+ 990FX chipset supports NVIDIA SLI. Finally.
+ AMD finally has a 32nm processor with good overclocking

Cons:
- Requires a new Socket AM3+ motherboard
- Single core performance has remained static
- Full performance requires Windows 8 system and applications that use its new instructions
- Overall similar performance to Core i5 2500K, but at a higher price

Ratings:
•Performance: 8.00
•Construction: 9.00
•Overclock: 9.50
•Functionality: 8.50
• Value: 8.00
Final Score: 8.60 out of 10.

Musselsthe extra PCI-E lanes make me think it may be worth it for crossfire/SLI


edit: really, windows 8? thats an interesting comment

Musselsthe extra PCI-E lanes make me think it may be worth it for crossfire/SLI


edit: really, windows 8? thats an interesting comment

btarunrthe Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based.

cadavecaSure, but you must understand what started the conversation is that this bit of info that started this thread was some guerilla marketing, seemingly more aimed at creating disappointment when the actual product arrives. Alot of people are going to be screaming about how AMD lied about the 50% performance they indicated now, when the product launches. Of course, the info didn't come from AMD, seemingly, so one must wonder why it was even posted in the first place...and I don't mean psoted here on TPU...I mean posted on the orginal website/source.

that point alone, of course, leads to us discussing proper marketing practices. Logical way for the conversation to progess, it seems to me.

CDdude55We know you said that, you've mentioned how you've said that multiple times. Really the best strategy that i think most people should take is to not expect things will go a certain way no matter what people are saying, as the only people who were really mad or sad about the FX chips were people who saw ''new architecture'' written everywhere and hence proceeded to wet their pants and expect more then what they got.

When it comes to this thread though, even a blind man could of easily seen that this threads prediction was not going to come true, 50% faster then a Core i7 is significant and felt mroe like wishful thinking as opposed to anything factual.

erockerAren't you people tired of this conversation yet? Don't get me wrong, I find most of you amusing.

Total cache can be deceptive.
As I indicated in earlier speculation thread scrypt is VERY L1 cache dependent.

While the Bulldozer has more total cache (L1+L2+L3) it has less L1 data cache (L1 cahce is divided into discrete data & instruction caches).

Phenom II has 64KB of L1 data cache per core.
Bulldozer has 16KB of L1 data cache per integer core.

The hypothesis I proposed in the speculation thread was that Bulldozer would do better (8 cores vs 6 cores) if scrypt lookup table would fit in the L1 cache of Bulldozer. Your benchmark just answered that question.

The larger L2 & L3 cache of Bulldozer is immaterial. There is a 3 clock cycle latency to L2 cache and 20 (IIRC) clock cycle latency to L3 cache. It would appear that the scrypt lookup tables can't fit in 16KB thus the CPU is being idled thousands of times per hash waiting for data to SLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYY make it way from L2 -> L1. L3 cache is likely completely unused for the datasets used by scrypt.

The nice thing is you have shown 16KB of L1 cache is likely insufficient. We know 64KB is sufficient. That gives us an upper and lower bounds.


The i5 series CPU have 32KB of L1 cache. Clock for clock they tend to underperform the Phenom II but still do ok. My guess is that there may be some cache misses but not too many which allows decent performance.

On edit: looks like I was incorrect. Clock for clock i3/5/7 series outperforms Pheom II. Phenom II has higher overall performance but that is due to more cores & higher overclock. That would indicate 32KB is sufficient.

Do you guys think a revision or stepping will make any difference besides make the power consumption better?

If there's a L1 cache bug, absolutely; could be 10% right there. If other efficiencies altogether added another 10% (include BIOS revisions in there too), we could see a 20%-25% improvement, which pretty much puts this chip where it needed to be; if not a thriller, certainly no disappointment.

cadavecaI find it funny that I was warning about the poor marketing creating false expectations for months before the launch, as seen in the quote above, from back in January.

Nothing really changed over those months, per se...at least for myself. ;)


No need to hide this thread!:roll:

CDdude55We know you said that, you've mentioned how you've said that multiple times. Really the best strategy that i think most people should take is to not expect things will go a certain way no matter what people are saying, as the only people who were really mad or sad about the FX chips were people who saw ''new architecture'' written everywhere and hence proceeded to wet their pants and expect more then what they got.

When it comes to this thread though, even a blind man could of easily seen that this threads prediction was not going to come true, 50% faster then a Core i7 is significant and felt mroe like wishful thinking as opposed to anything factual.