|
|
| Page 1 of 6 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 08:06 Post subject: AMD Bulldozer |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 10:51 Post subject: |
|
|
At that price they'd better be able to compete with Intel on points other than gaming again, because even an 1100T has nothing on an i5-750. It's a few euros cheaper (165 vs 175 atm), but clock-for-clock it's a lot slower, and both can reach roughly the same clockspeed. Only difference is the 1100T having a higher stock clock, so when compared at stock it'll creep ahead a tiny bit in benchmarks where clockspeed matters (like games).
I've got good hopes though, they've been getting their shit together lately 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 12:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Phenom II x6 is pretty fast after 4Ghz, can compete with intel i7 920 (stock). Tbh, in heavily threaded apps, it wins i5 and i7 (gaming wise, intel always has been better), tho nothing against sandy bridge.
As for gaming, not a single hiccups on my 1055T @ 4.1ghz. In diagrams and shit intel is so ahead because they test so CPU bound resolutions (Also test is running already like 200fps, should not matter anymore if there is extra 50-100fps for intel  ) On games like Metro2033, Crysis 1 & 2 etc.. there is no difference at all tbh, if you are using resolutions 1080p and up (who the fuck games at 800x600 anyway?  ).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 12:46 Post subject: |
|
|
8 cores lulz. Waste of money for 99% of the users, yet uninformed people will buy them thinking they will somehow get a performance increase. Which is what AMD probably expects.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 12:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Waste of money? Lots of programs can use 8 cores (very nice performance in rendering etc..). Even The Witcher 2 can utilize all 8 cores.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 13:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Which is exactly what I said: 1% of the market use those programs. Average user just browses web and plays games, but they will still buy this CPU, because they don't know better.
And no game uses all cores 100%. Most games could easily run on 3 cores, even if technically they are running in 8 threads.
Last edited by BearishSun on Thu, 26th May 2011 13:01; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 13:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 8 cores lulz. Waste of money for 99% of the users, yet uninformed people will buy them thinking they will somehow get a performance increase. Which is what AMD probably expects. |
And then developers will grow and actually write engines capable of utilizing all of the cores, and everyone else will cry unoptimized 
| sabin1981 wrote: | | Fuck you troll. Fuck you and your entire aids-infested family. Get cancer and die. Slowly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 13:05 Post subject: |
|
|
yeah like Witcher 2, "FuuUuuuu wont work on my pentium 4? Uninstalled, unoptimized piece of shit!"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 13:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mussolinka wrote: | | Quote: | | 8 cores lulz. Waste of money for 99% of the users, yet uninformed people will buy them thinking they will somehow get a performance increase. Which is what AMD probably expects. |
And then developers will grow and actually write engines capable of utilizing all of the cores, and everyone else will cry unoptimized |
Won't happen in a very long time. Game engines have only so many systems they can split into separate threads, and all those systems usually use a small % of the core. Only rendering thread is the high CPU user in games.
When developers suddenly decide to switch to job/task model playstation 3 uses for threading, then 8 cores might come in handy. But even then you will probably end up with all 8 cores being utilized, but only at 30-40% each.
Breezer stop talking out of your ass, for me witcher uses 1 core 80%, other 60%, other two under 25%. This is on ultra settings (ubersampling disabled), with i7 860 @ 2.8Ghz.
And considering I've been developing game engines and their systems for the last 8 years I think I would know a little better of this topic than you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 13:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Who the fuck cares how much % usage is on cores, atleast it uses them? Yesterday i tested Witcher 2, and it was on all cores 20-40% expect core 2 was at 5% when Ubersampling was disabled (if on, core 2 was 90% ish usage).
EDIT: UE3 newest build can aswell take advantage of 8 cores.
Last edited by Breezer_ on Thu, 26th May 2011 13:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 13:16 Post subject: |
|
|
I care. Why would I want to spend extra money for 8 cores when all of them will be utilized 20%, when I can get a cheaper CPU that will run everything just as well, only all cores will be utilized 40%.
Once games start to utilize near 80% of the cores on my quad core, I will consider buying an 8 core CPU. But this will not happen any time soon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 13:57 Post subject: |
|
|
Woundering if we'll ever see a proper cpu/gpu combo solution where the cores are dynamically used for either cpu or gpu calculations. Perhaps then it'd make sense to have alot of cores. As is now I doubt you'll even need 4 cores for other than heavy gaming and video ripping, editing.
Dont mess with God, he can impregnate your girlfriend/wife without taking his pants off!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 14:01 Post subject: |
|
|
@ Frant/Breezer:
Unfortunately, a lot of this is not true. First of all, Intel have been dominating OUTSIDE of gaming since 2006, when the first Core 2's came out. With every iteration after that, Intel has been more efficient clock-for-clock. For gaming, AMD kept up with Intel because they're clocked higher, and priced lower. That also goes with what I've been saying on the hump: core count matters FUCK ALL for gaming, it's clockspeed that matters, and it's not going to push up max FPS by a lot, it'll fix minimum FPS. 3 or 4 cores is all you need right now (hopefully that'll change soon though ffs  ).
For rendering (or more accurately: any application that does multithreading properly and scales beyond 4 cores), yes, the 6 cores on a 1090/1100T will put it slightly ahead of the i5-750 and 760 for example - assuming stock speeds. Again though, at equal clocks (say, 4.0), an i7-930 (quad, meaning HT off) is faster than an 1100T (hexa) for rendering. Plenty of benchmarks to prove this, just pick any random 1100T review; note that at its release, it was priced equal to the 930, both were around 250 if I'm not mistaken, hence why I chose that for comparison. At equal clocks the 750/760 will also creep much closer to an 1100T than they are at stock speeds.
I can keep saying it over and over, but Intel's CPU are much more efficient per clock cycle. Given the same core count, same clock speed, Intel will always win, no doubt about that. When it comes to value, now that AMD have dropped their prices so much, you do get more multithreaded value out of AMD CPUs. That is *entirely* dependant on how well a piece of software is written though, if it only uses 4 cores you'll still get more leverage out of an i5-7xx (which is the same price as 1100T like I said).
It's this that AMD need to fix: their efficiency per clock cycle. If they manage that, then Intel will have to drop their CPU prices again. Only reason an i7 is so much more expensive, is because it just is that much faster when you do a fair comparison.
Last edited by Werelds on Thu, 26th May 2011 14:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 14:39 Post subject: |
|
|
@ BearishSun: You do know that in the future all you'll basically have is more and more cores, since there is a limit to the number of transistors on an integrated circuit... So increasing no of cores isn't that strange and lulz worthy imo...
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24636
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 15:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | @ Frant/Breezer:
Unfortunately, a lot of this is not true. First of all, Intel have been dominating OUTSIDE of gaming since 2006, when the first Core 2's came out. With every iteration after that, Intel has been more efficient clock-for-clock. For gaming, AMD kept up with Intel because they're clocked higher, and priced lower. That also goes with what I've been saying on the hump: core count matters FUCK ALL for gaming, it's clockspeed that matters, and it's not going to push up max FPS by a lot, it'll fix minimum FPS. 3 or 4 cores is all you need right now (hopefully that'll change soon though ffs ).
For rendering (or more accurately: any application that does multithreading properly and scales beyond 4 cores), yes, the 6 cores on a 1090/1100T will put it slightly ahead of the i5-750 and 760 for example - assuming stock speeds. Again though, at equal clocks (say, 4.0), an i7-930 (quad, meaning HT off) is faster than an 1100T (hexa) for rendering. Plenty of benchmarks to prove this, just pick any random 1100T review; note that at its release, it was priced equal to the 930, both were around 250 if I'm not mistaken, hence why I chose that for comparison. At equal clocks the 750/760 will also creep much closer to an 1100T than they are at stock speeds.
I can keep saying it over and over, but Intel's CPU are much more efficient per clock cycle. Given the same core count, same clock speed, Intel will always win, no doubt about that. When it comes to value, now that AMD have dropped their prices so much, you do get more multithreaded value out of AMD CPUs. That is *entirely* dependant on how well a piece of software is written though, if it only uses 4 cores you'll still get more leverage out of an i5-7xx (which is the same price as 1100T like I said).
It's this that AMD need to fix: their efficiency per clock cycle. If they manage that, then Intel will have to drop their CPU prices again. Only reason an i7 is so much more expensive, is because it just is that much faster when you do a fair comparison. |
Ahem... let me copy from my post:
"Nothing that will make a difference in gaming but ripping & encoding sure is faster with 6 cores afaik."
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 15:06 Post subject: |
|
|
transistors on an integrated circuit, as I've mentioned.
The soon they push it the soon it'll become a standard, so if it's a dilemma of sooner or later type, I'm always for sooner
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to it's reputation, unbeliveably simple, once you take the physics out."
Scott Aaronson | chiv wrote: | | thats true you know. newton didnt discover gravity. the apple told him about it, and then he killed it. the core was never found. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 15:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Is Bulldozer going to be anywhere near Sandy bridge for game performance? I like AMD CPU's but there seems no reason to stick with AMD when Sandy Bridges are so reasonably priced.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 26th May 2011 15:41 Post subject: |
|
|
I'd use those 8 cores Encoding and rendering hehe.. but on the other hand, intel always was faster in that regions... I'm sure that a new dual core from intel could easily beat my Athlon II X4 (4x3.0GHz)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51399
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Sat, 28th May 2011 14:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 1st Aug 2011 19:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | I can keep saying it over and over, but Intel's CPU are much more efficient per clock cycle. |
My 1366 i930 @ 4GHz w/ hyperthreading (we said no gaming, right?) will though current AMD 6 core CPUs, at similar clock speeds, with ease, and unless AMD did something to change that, which I doubt, it will still be true when comparing these to some of Intel's lineup.
This is not intended to start a flame war, just stating fact (i7 vs x6). Even some of the 1156 i7s would be better than the current lineup, but that's a limited platform (1156). The only reason to have such an AMD CPU, to me, is to QQ on forums how one has a true hex-core CPU machine. AMD is really lagging technology-wise in their CPU, and it's a shame.
But as always, I hope to be surprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b0se
Banned
Posts: 5901
Location: Rapture
|
| Posted: Tue, 2nd Aug 2011 02:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Fuck those bullcrap amd's, waited too much for them , im going for intel i5 2500k.
[spoiler][quote="SteamDRM"]i've bought mohw :derp: / FPS of the year! [/quote]
[quote="SteamDRM"][quote="b0se"]BLACK OPS GOTY[/quote]
No.[/quote][/spoiler]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeon
Posts: 8700
Location: Netherlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b0se
Banned
Posts: 5901
Location: Rapture
|
| Posted: Tue, 2nd Aug 2011 15:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 6 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
