1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD FX 8150 Looks Core i7-980X and Core i7 2600K in the Eye: AMD Benchmarks

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,123 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    BD have 8 cores.
    bleh...

    you need more cores AMD? to compete with 4core SB?
    fix your architecture and FAST
    Recus and heky say thanks.
  2. Volkszorn88

    Volkszorn88

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,191 (0.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Do you want AMD to fix their architecture fast because you're unhappy with your intel chip? Only reasoning I can think of over your distraught.
    Super XP says thanks.
  3. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,825 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,933
    And each module has 2 cores on it. Kind of like the Intel approach of duct taping two single-cores to get a dual-core, then AMD marketting their processors as "true dual-cores", then Intel duct taping two dual-cores together to get their quad-cores, and then AMD marketting their "true quad-cores". Except it is AMD doing it this time, so I don't think they will put that type of marketting spin on it...

    If sharing L2/L3 is enough for you to consider two or more cores a single core, then the Core 2 Duo was a single core, the Core 2 Quad was a dual core, and the i7's are single cores...:shadedshu
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  4. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    It's not core count that matters, it's performance.
    Super XP and [H]@RD5TUFF say thanks.
  5. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,123 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    im just stating that AMD's architecture is not as good as intel

    im happy with my SB now lol
    heky says thanks.
  6. Volkszorn88

    Volkszorn88

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,191 (0.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    312
    So why would Bulldozer be any concern to you if you're perfectly happy with your SB? No need to make a pointless fan-boy comment.
  7. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,123 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    as i say earlier, im just stating that AMD should fix their architecture.

    back like the old Athlon which trumps the P4's

    im not a fanboy or whatever you call it.
    heky says thanks.
  8. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    If these benchmarks and prices are true, there is definitely nothing wrong with the architecture.
  9. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,825 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,933
    So you don't think requiring 8 cores to trump 4 core processors in Multi-threaded apps doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the architecture?
    heky and AhokZYashA say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  10. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    Not if it works.
  11. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,123 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    requiring double amount of cores to trump 4 cores in multithreaded apps, definitely have something to do with its architecture.
  12. Jstn7477

    Jstn7477

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,827 (2.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,516
    Location:
    Sarasota, Florida, USA
    I don't really understand why everyone is shitting on BD because it can't beat an i7-2xxx. Did you forget about something called Phenom II? Phenom II has been out for 2+ years and SB has only been out for 9 months, yet just because AMD can barely match Intel means it's the end of the world for some reason.

    If it beats Phenom II (which is still quite adequate for me) then it's a winner to me. (Notice how all my systems are AMD by the way, so don't pull the fanboy crap with me.)

    Just because it's new doesn't mean it is 100% better than everything in existence. A 2011 Prius won't beat a 2010 Camaro unless you're talking fuel consumption.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  13. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    What you are saying doesn't mean a thing. It's the price/performance that matters. I don't care how many cores are in any CPU as long as it performs, and neither should anyone else, really.
  14. Goodman

    Goodman

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,519 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Location:
    Canada/Québec/Montreal
    4 cores 8 threads , 8 cores 8 threads where is the difference?

    Beside i view Bulldozer FX8150 more like a 4 cores with 8 hardware threads then a real 8 cores CPU...
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011
  15. KieranD

    KieranD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    8,013 (3.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Its like some car manufacturer brought out a nice car and it wiped the floor with the current Lamborghini models so Lamborghini decide hmmmmn lets make a slight redesign of the car stick on an extra 100bhp. Yeah well not exactly but its like AMD was getting its ass handed and needed to bring out this thing with "modular" fake cores threads whatever it is just to keep up. In the end i guess it comes down to price IF it truly can match a Sandybridge, i mean the i5 2500k is only about £160 right now which i dont find that expensive.
  16. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,123 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    i5 2500k is 4C/4T

    BD is designed and build to compete with the i5's

    and for AMD requiring 8 cores is something

    and for mussels at the bottom, i5 2500k is slightly cheaper from BD
  17. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,126 (11.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,461
    if it needs 8 cores to match an intel with 4 cores and 4 threads, but costs less... whats the problem?

    if it still performs just as good, who gives a shit about the performance crown? processors are just part of a tool (computers), its stupid to get to uppity about who has the best tools.
    Jonap_1st and Damn_Smooth say thanks.
  18. mastrdrver

    mastrdrver

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,124 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    575
    And where does 8 cores lose to the 4 core 2500k? The 2600k is not a 4 core since it can handle 8 threads unless your implying that the 2500k = 2600k in performance?

    Surely not though.

    The 4 core 2600k does not always trump the 4 core 2500k. The more threaded the program (usually) the better performance you get from the 2600k over the 2500k. Like wise, the better the program is at multi threading, the closer to 2600k performance you get out a 8 core BD.

    So where is the broken architecture? Is it with AMD or Intel?.......or in reality it depends on the program?
    Damn_Smooth says thanks.
  19. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,825 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,933
    Only in the short term. I would prefer that AMD get their asses in gear and actually start to compete with Intel on the high end, and that won't happen if they need 8 cores just to compete with 4. So if that trend continues they will need 16 cores to compete with Intel's planned 8. And with their much lower profit margins, they will have far less R&D funds, and will only continue to fall behind until they can't compete. I personally don't want to see that.

    I assume you also think the Core 2 Quads were only 2 cores with 4 hardware threads then?

    So... Your argument is the 2600K isn't a 4 core processor. If you believe that, you shouldn't be in a discussion about processors. Sorry, the 2600K is a 4 core. Just because each core can do two things at once doesn't mean they are magically considered 2 cores. I can type and chew gum at the same time, I'm not two people.
    heky says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  20. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    They already have 16 core server CPU's. It's not like they can't easily translate that to desktop.
  21. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,123 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    the 2600k IS a 4 core CPU, but it has HyperThreading which exists since the P4 era.
    that doubles the amount of thread in each core.

    that said 2600k have 4 physical cores.

    but the BD have 4 integer cores and 8 physical cores inside their hood
    heky says thanks.
  22. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,825 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,933
    Obviously they can't, or they already would have. And have you seen the cost on 12 core Opterons? Yeah, a pittiful 2.2GHz will cost you $1,300! Yeah, turns out when you start using all that silicon those prices start to skyrocket. Oh, and in desktop environments the 12 core gets it ass handed to it in pretty much everything by a SB processor.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  23. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    Show me an 8 core Intel CPU available today. The fact is that they don't need one right now.
  24. AhokZYashA

    AhokZYashA

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,123 (0.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    143
    i think they have from the Xeon 7xxx or something like that
    CMIIW

    intel doesnt need 8 core desktop CPU because 4 intel cores can trump 8 AMD cores.

    i dont see the point where intel should do that.
    4 cores is sufficient
  25. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,825 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,933
    Xeon X7560.

    But yeah, you are right, when Intel's 6 core processors are outperforming AMD's 12, an 8 core isn't really necessary. But it sure is nice they offer it. Now where is AMD's 16 core processor to compete with Intels 8 core w/ HT that is already out?
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page