amd piledriver looking better..4+ghz

[enaher]

Originally Posted by trickson

I disagree, The average Joe care more about how much some thing costs. The P4 was more widely used by HP, Compaq, Dell and rarely offered AMD in the store as an alternative, One main reason for AMD sewing Intel.
Oh and Not me I loved my Athlon XP it smoked the Intel P4!

Which is something I posted previously and thats my point people will see my god a 4.6 ghz quad core from amd or a 3.2 core i3 dual core from intel for about the same price or cheaper.

[trickson]

Originally Posted by enaher

Which is something I posted previously and thats my point people will see my god a 4.6 ghz quad core from amd or a 3.2 core i3 dual core from intel for about the same price or cheaper.

Intel will have to keep in the game by lowering prices for sure. AMD only has one advantage right now lower prices. They are just playing the same game Intel did with the P4, That being putting the MHz to them! They are no faster than Intel's offering or even slower at higher speeds but Average Joe is to stupid to see this. They see the #'s both price and speed of the CPU. So there is still room for AMD to make a good profit.

[enaher]

Originally Posted by trickson

Intel will have to keep in the game by lowering prices for sure. AMD only has one advantage right now lower prices. They are just playing the same game Intel did with the P4, That being putting the MHz to them! They are no faster than Intel's offering or even slower at higher speeds but Average Joe is to stupid to see this. They see the #'s both price and speed of the CPU. So there is still room for AMD to make a good profit.

Which would be good fo tpu'ers unlocked i3 or even cheaper i5 and if amd get a little more cash It might come with something more competitive against intel in the end I love the tech world as is right now CHEAP and getting cheaper even expensive hdd and rising ram prices don't rain on my parade xD

[trickson]

Originally Posted by enaher

Which would be good fo tpu'ers unlocked i3 or even cheaper i5 and if amd get a little more cash It might come with something more competitive against intel in the end I love the tech world as is right now CHEAP and getting cheaper even expensive hdd and rising ram prices don't rain on my parade xD

Yeah this is a good thing for sure. Just as long as average Joe doesn't catch on that is *Wink Wink* .

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by erocker

Bulldozers power consumption is not good. Bad for OEM's, bad for the normal joe.

Really? Can't tell at all. Even when clocked at 4.40GHz with all 8-Cores and all power saving options disabled via bios, in regards to power, its as if I am running my Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.60GHz all over again.

[ensabrenoir]

this dont sound familar?.......the ridiculus claims using girl math to summon un-earthly performance results.....here we go again

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Super XP

Really? Can't tell at all. Even when clocked at 4.40GHz with all 8-Cores and all power saving options disabled via bios, in regards to power, its as if I am running my Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.60GHz all over again.

You really mean in terms of performance right?

5000 Posts!!!

[Norton]

Originally Posted by trickson

You really mean in terms of performance right?

5000 Posts!!!

Congrats - hey AMD has piledriven all your stars away

[trickson]

Originally Posted by Norton

Congrats - hey AMD has piledriven all your stars away

Oh CRAP what happened to my stars?
AMD GIVE ME BACK MY STARS!

[erocker]

Originally Posted by trickson

Lets not forget the bad press. That thing was pumped up so high that when it fell flat on it's face I felt the ground shake!

Originally Posted by trickson

I disagree, The average Joe care more about how much some thing costs. The P4 was more widely used by HP, Compaq, Dell and rarely offered AMD in the store as an alternative, One main reason for AMD sewing Intel.
Oh and Not me I loved my Athlon XP it smoked the Intel P4!

Doesn't matter. The average joe doesn't buy the processor, they buy a prebuilt computer. Why would an OEM want to take away from their profits by having to use a beefier PSU in their systems?

[trickson]

Originally Posted by erocker

Doesn't matter. The average joe doesn't buy the processor, they buy a prebuilt computer. Why would an OEM want to take away from their profits by having to use a beefier PSU in their systems?

I did not think of that. Thank you.

[xenocide]

Originally Posted by trickson

I did not think of that. Thank you.

That was what people have been getting out when mentioning power consumption. It's the difference between an OEM using a junk 200-300w PSU and using a junk 300-400w PSU that costs twice as much.

[nt300]

Originally Posted by trickson

You really mean in terms of performance right?

5000 Posts!!!

Bulldozer is very power efficient. Piledriver will only be better.

[ensabrenoir]

[trickson]

Originally Posted by nt300

Bulldozer is very power efficient. Piledriver will only be better.

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by ensabrenoir

The FX-8150 uses approx: 1% to 10% more power, measured in watt-hours than AMD's Phenom II. Woopee, no big deal, the FX-8120 uses less and the FX-6100/4100 series uses even less.

Piledriver should easily resolve this minor issue along with boosting performance. And yes Bulldozer is power efficient when in IDLE. We all already know this. You make it sound as if you just heard it for the first time with your

[erocker]

Regardless, it is NOT power efficient. Please, there is no argument here.




Yeah, PII isn't "power efficient" either.

[trickson]

WOW 156w at idle! Good god you call that efficient? 248w at load even with PATCH?!
And the Core i7 wins!



Oh and I just love all the preconceptions about just how well it will perform too.

Originally Posted by Super XP

Piledriver should easily resolve this minor issue along with boosting performance.

You don't know this for sure. From the way BD was hyped up it took a more linear/Backwards form of an upgrade VS the Phenom II !

[Inceptor]

Don't forget that those numbers are system power consumption, not just cpu.
But the point still stands, the FX-x1xx series is not power efficient. One can only hope that some engineer TLC happens, in the form of some hand optimization of the unoptimized design, with Piledriver.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Inceptor

One can only hope that some engineer TLC happens, in the form of some hand optimization of the unoptimized design, with Piledriver.

That is what needs to happen. I think AMD has learned their lesson (heck they've even pretty much admitted it) and I don't expect Piledriver to be so bad. We will see.

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by erocker

That is what needs to happen. I think AMD has learned their lesson (heck they've even pretty much admitted it) and I don't expect Piledriver to be so bad. We will see.

That's actually kind of what I've been expecting all along. Bulldozer is the first chip, a rough design that is basically only made 100% functional, and had as many "bugs" as possible removed.

Piledriver will optimize the design, and garner higher performance because of it.

NO different than Athlon to Athlon II, and Phenom to Phenom II.

However, the question remains how much they can pull out of it. I've only been able to make some modest assessments with my FX-4100, but it still, to me, seems that the Bulldozer cache design is a big part of what needs to change. The fact that power consumption is so high, to me, can only be attributed to that large cache.

At the same time, the cache, in some areas, is quite slow.

The core design itself, seems to be fine...but clearly the L2 cache isn't quite capable of feeding both cores within a module(as seen using the CHV BIOS that only allows one core per module), and perhaps they purposefully slowed it down in order to keep thermals and power in check.

Clearly the design itself is quite flexible, as under the right conditions(ie, damn cold), the frequency scales incredibly...so the actual data pipeline itself has to be pretty good, or else it would not be as capable in the frequency department. That alone has me very positive that there is perhaps huge untapped possibilites for the Bulldozer design.

[ensabrenoir]

Originally Posted by Super XP

The FX-8150 uses approx: 1% to 10% more power, measured in watt-hours than AMD's Phenom II. Woopee, no big deal, the FX-8120 uses less and the FX-6100/4100 series uses even less.

Piledriver should easily resolve this minor issue along with boosting performance. And yes Bulldozer is power efficient when in IDLE. We all already know this. You make it sound as if you just heard it for the first time with your

As a doctor who fan good sir....i do protest his image with posts of inverse logic...... I honestly wish that amd never released bd and made us (hopefully) wait for a fully optimised pd. That on top of their recent contracts and gpu releases would have been epic.....instead of a recovery effort.