Bulldozer Information Thread.

[repman244]

Actually, I can play Dirt3 just fine with a single 6950 on three monitors. It's NOT 60 FPS, but it's more than playable. It's not realyl ug limited, but it IS such a res that it's possible a few things are at paly here. This bench is partially useless.


Encode numbers are 8 AMD BD cores VS. 4 cores of Intel, and I do not see BD doubling i5 performance.

Of course, the starting CODEC for the video file matters too.

1. Agree but it's ~2FPS difference which really doesn't tell anything.

2. It would be double if it had the same performance per core which probably does not, but I know what you meant.
What really bothers me for quite a long time is the way AMD chose to call it an 8 core CPU so everyone would assume it obliterates any 6 core CPU.
chew* himself made a lot of "rants" about AMD calling it an 8 core. This is the AMD's patent of a core:

Which I believe a BD core doesn't look like it. I'll also quote him:

Only reason I have tried to point this out many times so far is due to peoples expectations. Those expecting 100% native 8 core multithreaded performance have unrealistic expectations. Hopefully this gives them a better idea so they can have more realistic expectations.

I know we should all be just looking at it as an 8 core because AMD says so but then again people at this forum aren't really average computer users and should look at these things differently.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I just wanted to say everyone seems to be fixated on the fact it doesn't specify which i5 was used. It does specify which AMD FX 8-core was used either. This is more useless than you think.

 

[cadaveca]

This is more useless than you think.

Yes/NO.

I care not about clockspeed. It's not like any of us actually leave our CPUs at default. What I do know is that AMD likes to consider price/performance ratios, so we can safely assume that the assembled systems have roughly the same cost. Pretty sure that the article said this too, no?

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Yes/NO.

I care not about clockspeed. It's not like any of us actually leave our CPUs at default. What I do know is that AMD likes to consider price/performance ratios, so we can safely assume that the assembled systems have roughly the same cost. Pretty sure that the article said this too, no?

True. But if we are going that route, what is roughly the same cost? Does that include the cost of the motherboard being used as that can have a huge difference in price? If cost is limited to just the CPU cost, is the AMD chip slightly more or slightly less? How does AMD define "price range" in this case?

Its all just too vague for me. A $20 difference in price up or down can make a huge difference in comparison to me. There are 6 or 7 i5 processors in the $190 to $210 price point. This can be ignore as all of them are basically the same chip with difference default clock speeds.

 

[cadaveca]

I dunno, man, I pretty clearly read SYSTEM COST not CPU COST. $20 in system cost is peanuts, as we might be talking $769 vs $749. and at that rate, most "normal" people will snatch up what can be construed as the better deal.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

I dunno, man, I pretty clearly read SYSTEM COST not CPU COST.

Well that leaves too much breathing room for me as AMDs top of the line mobos top out at $260ish, which I can get an G1.Sniper2 for $375 or whatever it is now as the "top of the line". Then use a $200 Intel chip vs. a $320 AMD chip to claim "similar system cost." You know what I mean.

 

[cadaveca]

Yes, I very well do understand.

I dunno. I haz no CPUs for my boards(probably because as I have said many times, I don't sign NDAs, and I expect to be able to talk about stuff when it lands on my doorstep), and the way things are going, you'll have a review up with BD long before I do.

So you've gotta decide how you want to spin this. I already know what I'm going to do.

 

[de.das.dude]

looks like i missed a lot of stuff.

 

[repman244]

Not really actually, we know nothing more than we did

 

[ensabrenoir]

Not really actually, we know nothing more than we did

True. But big thumbs up to amd for all this quality online time were spending together

 

[naoan]

Who reports FPS on Handbrake? I've never seen a benchmark site use FPS on Handbrake as the measure, just time.

Like you said though Cadaveca, without the CODEC (and I'd add settings) it is impossible to know if that was good or bad result for BD compared to the i5.

Um, I'd rather have FPS than time for encoding benchmark since it's easier to relate.

And yeah, setting play a very BIG role (even the video is, i.e. static scene is faster to encode), preset placebo is about 90% slower than medium in x264 (the encoder handbrake used) for instance. But I doubt they change anything between BD and I5 benchmark as it would mean nothing otherwise.

That benchmark is a good news for me though.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Yes, I very well do understand.

I dunno. I haz no CPUs for my boards(probably because as I have said many times, I don't sign NDAs, and I expect to be able to talk about stuff when it lands on my doorstep), and the way things are going, you'll have a review up with BD long before I do.

So you've gotta decide how you want to spin this. I already know what I'm going to do.

I may get the review out first, but you will have better stuff to test with. I will compare it to the 1100T and an Intel i5 2500K and i7 2600K. lucky with the two AMD chips I can use the exact same setup, just swap the chips out right. So comparison of AMD to AMD should be easy. For the Intel comparison I am going just try to give people what they want to see in core vs. core, same clock speeds, and default settings.

Once I have the charts for performance and I know where the AMD chips are falling, we can speculate about total system cost.

 

[eidairaman1]

The i7 980x would murder the i5 Sandy Bridge in a proper multi-threaded application i.e. one which takes advantage of its 6 cores and 12 threads.

And before you say, "well the Dirt isnt a game that takes advantage of multi-threading".

The question is, is Dirt 3 multi threaded and can it take advantage of 8 cores. If it CANT take advantage of 8 cores then the Bulldozer is almost just as handicapped as the i5 and i7 980 yet still is faster core per core. Imagine the performance boost when a game that can utilise those 8 cores are used.

The real question is can dirt utilise 8 cores?

ya but not all software is multithreaded, so a CPU has to be excellent at doing both multi threaded and mono threaded applications

 

[Dent1]

Are you for real, 1core vs 1core @same clock, sandy bridge obliterates the i7 980. Wtf.

I said in an environment where the i7 980 extreme edition can take advantage of its 6 cores and 12 threads it will beat the Sandy Bridge - I never said core for core and clock for clock in a single threaded application.

And even if DIRT cant take advantage of 8 buldozer cores, sandy bridge still beats it, becouse it beats the i7 980 in gaming. i am not saying it sucks, but for so many years of developing its just weak, imo.

Exactly! Dirt 3 does not utilise all the cores of the i5, i7 or Bulldozer. If only 2 cores are being utilised on the bulldozer and i5, and the Bulldozer beats it (and it does beat if that article is correct), its fair to say the Bulldozer is possibly core for core, or near core for core to the i5 Sandy's performance.

 

[heky]

Exactly! Dirt 3 does not utilise all the cores of the i5, i7 or Bulldozer. If only 2 cores are being utilised on the bulldozer and i5, and the Bulldozer beats it (and it does beat if that article is correct), its fair to say the Bulldozer is possibly core for core, or near core for core to the i5 Sandy's performance.

No it didnt beat sandy bridge in the article, it beat the i7 980, which is slower for gaming than sandy. that was my point. Read it again.

 

[trickson]

I love the name of this thread . Not much Information at all on the BD lots of speculation no information . Change the name to the BD speculations thread . After all that is far more accurate .

 

[CDdude55]

As a side note i just installed my Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 board!

 

[erocker]

I love the name of this thread . Not much Information at all on the BD lots of speculation no information . Change the name to the BD speculations thread . After all that is far more accurate .

Okay, so if you have any relevant information, please post it. We don't need people posting speculation or commenting on it.

Have something to add? Post it.

Have something to add not relevant to the topic. Don't post.

This post can serve as a warning to all of you.

Thank you.

 

[trickson]

Okay, so if you have any relevant information, please post it. We don't need people posting speculation or commenting on it.

Have something to add? Post it.

Have something to add not relevant to the topic. Don't post.

This post can serve as a warning to all of you.

Thank you.

OK . BD has more IPC . How many ? I have no clue , How will it perform against the SB with the added IPC ? I do not know . But more is better .

 

[Dent1]

No it didnt beat sandy bridge in the article, it beat the i7 980, which is slower for gaming than sandy. that was my point. Read it again.

In gaming: considering that the i7 980 6 core, 12 thread monster isnt too far behind Sandy Bridge, we can use our own judgement to predict Bulldozer to be near to the Sandy's performance. Even if Bulldozer is slower it will be near.

My own judgement is reinforced by the fact the Bulldozer goes on to beat the i5 Sandy in Handbrake.

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Possibly, Nehalem is almost around Sandy Bridge performance at times and i do believe that AMD's Bulldozer chips will probably hit around SB performance but i still believe that the overall performance crown will remain at Intel with SB-E.

Then again, Bulldozer is expected to be more affordable then SB-E and more likely competitively priced toward the 1155 SB chips, and if performance is decent enough for your average gamer/enthusiast who doesn't work at Goldman Sachs, then BD might be one popular line of chips.

Competitively priced indeed. Was in the market for some used nehalems around that price range, might be getting this setup instead. My system's becoming unstable with the current OC. Its that time again

 

[Damn_Smooth]

As a side note i just installed my Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 board!

How did it go? Any issues?

 

[mastrdrver]

Since you clearly do not read my reviews:

UH, yeah, that's why I say those benches are for me, because guess what, I report FPS, as I found the time thing a bit suspect:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/G1_Sniper2/images/handbrake.gif

I was wondering why I couldn't find you doing any of the CPU reviews.

Though without knowing the settings of CODEC, how much can anyone compare those "leaked" results to anything else?

Up to how many threads is Handbrake able to take advantage of anyway (if you happen to know)?

 

[CDdude55]

How did it go? Any issues?

Nope everything is up and running great so far, haven't done any overclocking on the board yet though.

Very eager to get a Bulldozer chip running on this board.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Nope everything is up and running great so far, haven't done any overclocking on the board yet though.

Very eager to get a Bulldozer chip running on this board.

That's good to hear man. Congrats. I think Bulldozer might be here sooner than most people think.