Intel has been dominating the market for a long time now, ever since multi-core processors. It's nice to see AMD catching up. $370 (with cooling) is small price to pay for 5.0 GHz 8 core speeds. That's wicked fast, and really questions the cost of Intel's flagship, the sandy bridge i7 3960, priced at $1000 (without cooling).
"Wicked fast" assuming per-clock performance is on par with intel's sandy bridge processors. At this point it looks like Bulldozer may very well not improve much per clock relative to the old Phenom IIs, which is disappointing news IMO.
Philosophically, Bulldozer seems to learn from the lessons of the past decade. AMD is stepping back from the pursuit of single threaded performance, to emphasize throughput. The cores are not lightweight, as with a GPU or with Niagara; the single threaded performance should actually be higher than the previous generation Magny-Cours and comparable to current Intel designs. However, in determining project goals for Bulldozer single threaded performance was consciously sacrificed to meet what the team determined was a more optimal overall design point. This stands in contrast to Intel, where single threaded performance is still the first and foremost design target for designs like Sandy Bridge. This is acknowledgement that AMD cannot beat Intel on single threaded performance, and it would be a repetition of the last 3 years to attempt such an endeavor. Instead, they are trying to change the rules of the game, by focusing on the core count and highly parallel server workloads.
Personally I think anybody can add more cores. Intel did an excellent cheap way of doing so with their first quad cores (which was gluing 2 dual cores together). There's a big difference between single threaded performance and more cores. As of right now, most programs are not built to utilize multiple cores, thus rendering the cores useless. The "idle cores" argument has been rare recently, but it's still sort of viable.
Perhaps when AMD develops a system which makes a virtual single thread from multiple CPUs we will see AMD's stats increasing. Just think of running 8 cores on a single thread...
It's important to note that bulldozer really IS much better than K10, and AMD still holds a major lead on intel and nVidia for onboard graphics in their new llano processors. We'll have to wait for the reviews to see how the $188 six core compares with the $220 i5 2500k. If it manages to come close or even beat it in multithreaded applications, I think bulldozer will be a great success, and hopefully provide a budget overclocking gaming computer solution. What really needs to happen is a $150 CPU which is excellent. Sandy bridge really ruined the processor market.
As far as 5 GHz is concerned, it's unlikely. 4 GHz is easy on a phenom II, but the max clock is around 7 GHz on helium. So if bulldozer is 8.5 GHz, I think it will be around 4.8 GHz on air. You MIGHT be lucky and get 5, but I think it's unlikely.
"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
Multi-core performance will be a big deal if you plan on entering video encoding or rendering of any nature. Speaking from experience, dual cores really cannot compete with quad cores in this area, especially those with hyperthreading like the i7. I can also tell you that OC'ing my i7 from 2.6 to 3.2 had almost no impact on said performance. While this is a niche subject and I doubt many people here would be interested in such a thing, it's something to consider if you plan on entering such production work.
Show them your butt, and when you do, slap it so it creates a sound akin to a chorus of screaming spider monkeys flogging a chime with cacti. Only then can you find your destiny at the tip of the shaft.
Just so everyone is aware: the OC was done on a chip with all but one module disabled. One module is two cores. So yeah. It can run 8.4. If you're only using two of it's cores. And a non-realistic short term cooling solution.
I know everyone is going 'Well if it can go this far in this setup then on air it should go..' and speculation is all fine and dandy I suppose, but no one should be inferring anything from this in my book given the circumstances. One module, extreme cooling, and only one sample that might've been cherry picked for all we know.
I think it's funny how people get all worked up about numbers on pieces of paper.
Oh noes, the AMD number for the very top-end part under extreme conditions that most people will never do, isn't as high as the intel number for the very top-end part under extreme conditions that most people will never do! AMD failed!
What matters, if anything, is how cheap you can build a mid-range system using that CPU, and that includes the price of memory and motherboard. Even then for the most part it won't matter if you pay $50 more and get something that performs 5% worse or not.
Oh noes, the AMD number for the very top-end part under extreme conditions that most people will never do, isn't as high as the intel number for the very top-end part under extreme conditions that most people will never do! AMD failed!
Well-selected benchmarks generally reflect responsiveness in real-world usage scenarios. And right now I can build a system with an i5-2500K for less money than a system with a FX-8150 and get generally better performance. Read up on Anandtech if you want more details, but as things are right now, I don't see myself buying a bulldozer processor any time soon.
I'm really curious how this would work with megui/3ds max/lightmass. I mean, that's what these are built for, right? Benchmarks don't really give me an idea what realworld results are like. Realworld results are like, 10 minutes into 1 minute from X2 3.0ghz to i7 920 @ default clock (2.6 or something). If I had the money I'd seriously consider building a render box with this stuff.
Show them your butt, and when you do, slap it so it creates a sound akin to a chorus of screaming spider monkeys flogging a chime with cacti. Only then can you find your destiny at the tip of the shaft.
Yeah. I'd really like to try those newer i7's too. Seems like my next cpu will be intel again anyways.
Show them your butt, and when you do, slap it so it creates a sound akin to a chorus of screaming spider monkeys flogging a chime with cacti. Only then can you find your destiny at the tip of the shaft.
HardOCP, Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, and HardwareCanucks all give Sandy Bridge one-up over Bulldozer in gaming and single-threaded performance. Multi-threaded performance is generally better than the i5-2500K, but not the i7-2600K.
So, all the hype for (almost) nothing. AMD loses again, ggnore.
I wouldn't upgrade for a bit Mesk. I'm keeping my i7 @ 4GHz until we go to DDR4 or 5 on ram (heard we might skip 4).
Well, I'm not upgrading for a while because I don't have the money. But seeing as I don't really game anymore, a system engineered for rendering is likely what I'll be looking to build for my next box.
Show them your butt, and when you do, slap it so it creates a sound akin to a chorus of screaming spider monkeys flogging a chime with cacti. Only then can you find your destiny at the tip of the shaft.
Yeah I'm not a big fan of Westernhagen either, Fanta vier much better! But they didn't drop the lyrics that fit the situation. Farty: Ich bin wieder hier; nobody: in meinem Revier; Me: war nie wirklich weg
