CPU/Mobo AMD Bulldozer Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Hades.
- Start date
chiragsthakur
Skilled
It feels good to dream about it and it stays a dream forever
princeoo7 said:if first gen can match the 2nd gen sandy bridge then there are good chances to have 2nd gen fx processors to be @ equal or better of next gen of intel
Hades.
Skilled
Ivybridge processors would be 20 to 35 percent faster than Sandybridge processors... Plus Intel is going to use Tri-Gate technology for the IB processors which would make them very less power hungry processors... intel said that at the same voltage IB processors would be able to give 38% more performance than SB processors... Plus IvyBridge platform would carry all the goodies for example the Z77 chipset would have USB3 and PCI-E 3.0... So IB platform is looking more promising than the upcoming AMD platform...
chetansha
Skilled
AMD FD8150FRW8KGU FX 8150 8C AM3 16MB 3600MHZ - Product and Price Information at NextDayPC
Currently out of Stock. Set Email Alert
Our part number: B140172
Manufacturer Part Number: FD8150FRW8KGU
$287.46
Currently out of Stock. Set Email Alert
Our part number: B140172
Manufacturer Part Number: FD8150FRW8KGU
$287.46
WC kit for the top of line FX processor pictured
AMD's Water Cooling Kit for FX-Bulldozer Processors Exposed
AMD's Water Cooling Kit for FX-Bulldozer Processors Exposed
muzux2
ex-Mod
AMD FX-8150 Preview
http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview
Google Translate
http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview
Google Translate
sasikanth8
Adept
so still sandybridges are way to go.
dr.sankhadeep
Adept
yupe...sb is the way to go...
comp@ddict
Skilled
disappointment, I was ready for this.
Lesser performance, shit weak in Pi and gaming, higher power consumption, clock-for-clock slower than SB.
This is a HUGE disappointment, as I was ready. And I guess the Core i7 2700k will just beat it by another few percentage of points.
I guess, next quarter or whenever, the 4GHz stock clocked BD 4 module/8core releases, even that won't change anything.
Gaming performance is a HUGE HUGE disappointment..
Lesser performance, shit weak in Pi and gaming, higher power consumption, clock-for-clock slower than SB.
This is a HUGE disappointment, as I was ready. And I guess the Core i7 2700k will just beat it by another few percentage of points.
I guess, next quarter or whenever, the 4GHz stock clocked BD 4 module/8core releases, even that won't change anything.
Gaming performance is a HUGE HUGE disappointment..
disappointment....but this wont be accepted unless they come out with proper screenies...
Well, total disappointment. Either way, my next laptop will be a IB, skipping SNB completely.
ch@ts
Skilled
That Bulldozer isn't a top performer isn't a surprise. It is surprising that it's so completely outclassed by Intel's current generation.
However, where Bulldozer will succeed is on AMD's balance sheet. They'll be able to sell 4 module (core) processors as 8 core ones, and with the sharing of resources, and 32nm process they should be able to reduce the die sizes significantly.
Phenom II quad cores are 258 mm², or 64.5 mm²/core, and a Bulldozer 8 core should be about 315 mm2 (according to And the Bulldozer die size is…….. | SemiAccurate), or ~40 mm²/core. Almost 40% smaller.
Maybe they'll use the difference to lower prices, and increase market share, or just be more profitable. Either way, AMD will benefit, even though Bulldozer turns out to be the failure it seems destined to be.
However, where Bulldozer will succeed is on AMD's balance sheet. They'll be able to sell 4 module (core) processors as 8 core ones, and with the sharing of resources, and 32nm process they should be able to reduce the die sizes significantly.
Phenom II quad cores are 258 mm², or 64.5 mm²/core, and a Bulldozer 8 core should be about 315 mm2 (according to And the Bulldozer die size is…….. | SemiAccurate), or ~40 mm²/core. Almost 40% smaller.
Maybe they'll use the difference to lower prices, and increase market share, or just be more profitable. Either way, AMD will benefit, even though Bulldozer turns out to be the failure it seems destined to be.
chiragsthakur
Skilled
Stick to it.. Let the chips get released, then check the performance and decide accordingly
thank god i bought an sandy brige z68 board + 2500k last 2 week ago and it has been oc 5 ghz, and i am total disspointment for bull dozer cause i am built for my friend rig but total Rip off due to lack of performance so let us check the proper review from anadtech and reilable site soon
The surprise for me is power consumption, and that they haven't been able to match the Intels on that front.
The fact that it is lower performance than the 2500/2600 was known, the question is how much lower (and no, I do not consider 100fps any less than 150fps, it's like debating whether 155mph is worse than 180mph for a car to be used in India).
The fact is that the 990FX is still a better chipset than the P/Z68 from features and connectivity point of view. The fact also is that serious gamers (not the 1920x gang - 3D, multimon or 4MP+ only pl) will be more concerned with graphics and PCI-E bandwidth and performance than absolute CPU horsepower. It is a far more relevant leveller, and far more crushing and difficult to overcome. If the gaming gap at those resolutions will be to the tune of about 20%, and the price difference is about 20 to 25% as projected, it's still a decent buy. Total ownership experience and individual requirements do contribute to the merits of any product and brand.
Pro users would be better advised to wait for SB-E, multi-core SB without the GPU, or opt for the current 26/2700k series. But that's not a whitewash by any standards. If Intel had a chipset that could do Sata 3 on all ports, PCI-E 3.0 on all lanes, at least 6 USB 3.0 ports plus a full 40 lanes of PCI-E connectivity, you could have a washout on your hands. The reason you don't is not because Intel can't do it, it's because the average joe is suckered into thinking that CPU horsepower is the only thing that matters. We are on a tech forum and should know different, but we're no different.
Personally, not a deal-breaker just yet, at least not for me.
The fact that it is lower performance than the 2500/2600 was known, the question is how much lower (and no, I do not consider 100fps any less than 150fps, it's like debating whether 155mph is worse than 180mph for a car to be used in India).
The fact is that the 990FX is still a better chipset than the P/Z68 from features and connectivity point of view. The fact also is that serious gamers (not the 1920x gang - 3D, multimon or 4MP+ only pl) will be more concerned with graphics and PCI-E bandwidth and performance than absolute CPU horsepower. It is a far more relevant leveller, and far more crushing and difficult to overcome. If the gaming gap at those resolutions will be to the tune of about 20%, and the price difference is about 20 to 25% as projected, it's still a decent buy. Total ownership experience and individual requirements do contribute to the merits of any product and brand.
Pro users would be better advised to wait for SB-E, multi-core SB without the GPU, or opt for the current 26/2700k series. But that's not a whitewash by any standards. If Intel had a chipset that could do Sata 3 on all ports, PCI-E 3.0 on all lanes, at least 6 USB 3.0 ports plus a full 40 lanes of PCI-E connectivity, you could have a washout on your hands. The reason you don't is not because Intel can't do it, it's because the average joe is suckered into thinking that CPU horsepower is the only thing that matters. We are on a tech forum and should know different, but we're no different.
Personally, not a deal-breaker just yet, at least not for me.