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

AMD Gives Bulldozer 6-core a Speed-Bump with FX-6200

Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
867 (0.27/day)
Likes
207
Location
London, UK
System Name The one under the desk / Media Centre
Processor Xeon X3730@3.6GHZ / Phenom II X4 805E
Motherboard Gigabyte P55M-UD4 / Asus Crosshair III
Cooling Corsair H70 + 2*PWM fan / Arctic Alpine 11
Memory 16GB DRR3-1333 9-9-9-27 / 4GB Crucial DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) Asus DirectCU GTX 680 / Gigabyte 560TI
Storage Kingston V200 128GB, WD6400AAKS, 1TB Seagate 7.2kRPM SSHD / Kingston V200 128GB
Display(s) Samsung 2343BW + Dell Ultrasharp 1600*1200 / 32" TV
Case C'M' Silencio 550 / Some ancient SilverStone brushed aluminium media centre
Audio Device(s) No.
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675W / EVGA 430W
Mouse Mionix Naos 3200 / Generic PS2
Keyboard Roccat Ryos TKL Pro / Evoluent Mouse Friendly Keyboard (Logitech OEM)
Software Windows 7 Ult x64
Benchmark Scores Nah.
#76
You have input the Intel CPU has a longer pipeline and wins most of the time... pushing it even more towards 2x
Either a CPU gives performance results 2x faster, or it doesn't. Contrary to your earlier suggestion, in the examples that you give, it doesn't.

Most applications don't care about ISAs but most benchmarks do

In most cases in the native environment some of these applications won't exist
(x87, MMX, 3dnow!, SSE(64bit) can't exist in x86-64, in x86-64 you have to use SSE2,SSE3,SSE4,SSE5(AVX+FMA+AVX2+Gather+XOP)

In most music conversion you see MMX and SSE being most used...while in 64bit applications of music conversions you see SSE4 being used the 64bit music converter is faster than the 32bit music converter but the 32bit version is still being more used...

Consumers = Relatively Stupid....in these cases

Smart Consumers like myself know to wait for applications to use the new ISAs before jumping boat or listening to non-important reviewers trying to persuade unsmart consumers in making dumb decisions
Most of the most demanding programs I use (and will use I would think for at least another few years) are represented (by themselves or very similar programs) in that table.
 

dezz

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
20 (0.01/day)
Likes
3
#78
Yes, Bulldozer has 8 "cores", but it shares a lot of resources between them. So, in workloads reliant on those shared resources, it'll perform like a quad.
The second sentence here is not true! Yes, the 81xx has only 4 FPU's (one per module), but those FPU's has the double of resources than the old FPU's in PhII's. And the new one is more clever, as well.

This is why you see Phenom x6 beating it in some threaded applications.
What applications are you talking about?

It's simple: BD's single core performance is worse than that of PhII's, but it has more cores. So, it performs worse in less-threaded applications and better in well-threaded ones. (In case the clocks are similar.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
867 (0.27/day)
Likes
207
Location
London, UK
System Name The one under the desk / Media Centre
Processor Xeon X3730@3.6GHZ / Phenom II X4 805E
Motherboard Gigabyte P55M-UD4 / Asus Crosshair III
Cooling Corsair H70 + 2*PWM fan / Arctic Alpine 11
Memory 16GB DRR3-1333 9-9-9-27 / 4GB Crucial DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) Asus DirectCU GTX 680 / Gigabyte 560TI
Storage Kingston V200 128GB, WD6400AAKS, 1TB Seagate 7.2kRPM SSHD / Kingston V200 128GB
Display(s) Samsung 2343BW + Dell Ultrasharp 1600*1200 / 32" TV
Case C'M' Silencio 550 / Some ancient SilverStone brushed aluminium media centre
Audio Device(s) No.
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower XT 675W / EVGA 430W
Mouse Mionix Naos 3200 / Generic PS2
Keyboard Roccat Ryos TKL Pro / Evoluent Mouse Friendly Keyboard (Logitech OEM)
Software Windows 7 Ult x64
Benchmark Scores Nah.
#79
What applications are you talking about?

It's simple: BD's single core performance is worse than that of PhII's, but it has more cores. So, it performs worse in less-threaded applications and better in well-threaded ones. (In case the clocks are similar.)
With clock speeds the same, there are quite a lot of multithreaded applications where BD suffers vs. Phenom x6. Even with it's clockspeed advantage, however:



Notice that this application can clearly make good use of 8 threads - the HT enabled i7 thrashes the otherwise near-identical i5.

Another example is F@H. Also, notice that Microsoft's Windows 7 patch today acknowledges this point - it makes sure that tasks are spread between BD modules to avoid bottlenecks.
 

dezz

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
20 (0.01/day)
Likes
3
#80
Notice that this application can clearly make good use of 8 threads - the HT enabled i7 thrashes the otherwise near-identical i5.
Hmm, surprising. But I don't think it is because of shared resources, as compiling is an integer task. Of course, there is only one front-end per module, but that's not an issue in other cases. I think the cause must be the relatively slow caches.

Another example is F@H.
Hmm, even more surprising, as F@H is floating-point intensive, where the BD is not bad at, otherways. Probably it's the caches, again.

Also, notice that Microsoft's Windows 7 patch today acknowledges this point - it makes sure that tasks are spread between BD modules to avoid bottlenecks.
We don't yet know what that patch does. Some say it's indeed packs the threads on as lesser the number of modules as it can to allow Max. Turbo Core to kick in more frequently. (Which would be a bad idea, I think, as there is more to gain with utilizing only one core per module, in case of only a few active threads.)
 
Top