Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Well guys, today I want to talk to you about BUlldozer, the new AMD Processor.
We get a new processor with a new architecture, that have a superior performance than Phenom II processors in most cases,
with some exceptions in some programs.
Well, my point is that this AMD processor is not a failure, because we can see the performance that it have in a lot of benchmarks is superior
to intel i5 2500k and sometimes better than i7 2600k.
In Tom's Hardware we can watch some benchmarks. Im going to read you an extract of what I have translated about some cpu benchmarks as
I show you the graphs and talk to you about it. I'm going to read you. It says:
"For me Bulldozer is not a failure, it overcomes the previous amd processor generation, the only mess was to share resources between 2 cores on one module
which reduces the performance per core even to 50% as it share the output per module, but for sure with Vishera it will be fixed and AMD will take
the lead again. Anyway I don't like at all bad publicity that some people have launched, even being the AMD FX-8120 cheaper than intel i5 2500 and being
the FX 8120 better in some test. We can see here the Graph os Sisoft Sandra 2011 in Arithmetics"
"Integer and floating-point math are both improved in the Bulldozer architecture, allowing the FX-8150 to place second behind Intel’s Core i7-2600K.
This is notable because, even though Zambezi only proffers four floating-point units between its eight cores, it’s still able to outpace
Phenom II X6’s six using SSE3."
Ok. Another graph Sisoft Sandra 2011 Integer x16 and floating point x8:
"Exceptional integer SSE2 performance catapults FX-8150 ahead of Intel’s lineup in Sandra’s Multimedia metric. Shared floating-point units aren’t able
to achieve the same results, though FX-8150 nearly matches Intel’s Core i7-2600K."
Ok. Now there is a graph that show a huge difference: Memory Bandwidth. It says:
"An updated dual-channel DDR3 memory controller officially supports data rates of up to 1866 MT/s, and AMD gets more bandwidth out of it than before.
I’m using DDR3-1600 here for comparison, since that’s as far as my high-density 8 GB modules go. Still, it’s impressive to see AMD’s controller
readily competing with Intel’s (especially compared to the Phenom’s throughput)."
Ok? We have another graph: Sisoft Sandra 2011 .NET Multimedia, Integer x1 and Float x1:
"FX's FPU does well here, pushing 20.66 GFLOPS compared to Core i7-2600K's 18.14. More curious is Zambezi's integer performance, which trails
Sandy Bridge by a sizable margin. According to Sandra's author, this could be a threading- or function-oriented issue that gets worked out in a
future build, once he gets his hands on an FX processor. We'll have to keep an eye on this one."
We can see that FX-8120 is the best AMD performance/price choice with a good price and it doesn't lack of overclock capacity and it is a sure future buy
in our favorite seller in the coming months... It have 8 cores with the disable/change core feature that give us different performance options as we can
have four super cores each one with a floating point unit with the setup talked by Lordkageryu in the next few seconds or to have a exceptional performance
in multicore/multithread applications for less money than buying an intel plattform such as intel 2600k or 2500k that are overpriced.
The post of Lordkageryu speaks about a core setup, and here, in Madboxpc.com, the best computer site in spanish, we can read the following:
"Hi, I want to share something about the overwhelming bad publicity that have almost the 95% of years-long awaited processor, AMD FX, known as Bulldozer,
I give you guys this tips:" He says that he analized some reviews and he realized that AMD revealed that using cores 0, 2, 4 and 6 increased performance
of the AMD FX processors, reviewers said". Then, this means that the OS when the programs uses the half of the CPU cores, with WINRAR as exception, it put
down all the multi core processors, ok? Maybe it's a bug of the Module architecture of Bulldozer.
Then we have to use the cores 0, 2, 4 and 6 to really know the performance per core...
There is a review here that says using those cores we will have better performance.
Basically, to be brief, with this analisys, I wanted to give you guys NEW information that came in overclock.net, a serious site, in the forums there is
a post that tells us that the motherboards ASUS CROSSHAIR V FORMULA may have hampered Bulldozer. I will read it for you:
"And hampered it bad : It turns out that the fx testing kits amd sent to every site, had asus crosshair v formula boards. apparently asus had an agreement
with amd in order to make asus board the 'default' board for reviews. and all sites reviewed the chip by shoving it in that board.
when some sites benched the *** with that board, but other boards, results came up more in favor of the amd cpu"
For example, it have a link, that show us when you benchmark the FX-8150 with a board ASROCK 990FX Extreme4, the Total War: Shogun 2 game AMD FX-8150
scores 63 MAX FPS over 60 of intel Core i7 2600k...