nsane.forums Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Advanced Micro Devices on Wednesday released the first eight-core desktop chips based on the new Bulldozer architecture, in which cores can run at clock speeds of up to 4.2GHz.The chips will belong to the re-launched FX series, which are targeted at enthusiasts like gamers. The chips are "unclocked and customizable," AMD said.The FX chips provide a speed boost of 50 percent or more compared to its predecessor, according to AMD. The chips started becoming available on retailer websites last week.The FX-8150 chip cores will run at a base speed of 3.6GHz, with the ability to stretch up to 4.2GHz in turbo mode. The chip is priced at US$245.The eight-core FX-8120 cores can run at speeds of up to 4GHz, with a base clock speed of 3.1GHz. The chip is priced at $205.Last month, AMD demonstrated a system running on an eight-core FX processor running at 8.429GHz, which the company claimed broke the world record. The system was cooled by tanks of liquid helium.More cores and higher clock speed bring more performance to PCs and are especially valued by enthusiasts like gamers, who are among the first to adopt cutting-edge technology. The eight-core chips are made using the 32-nanometer manufacturing process, and are available worldwide.AMD's FX chips will compete with Intel's six-core Core i7-990X Core Extreme Edition processor, currently based on the Westmere architecture and more expensive at $999. In a bid to gain the performance crown, Intel in the next few months will release an Extreme Edition chip based on its newer Sandy Bridge microarchitecture. View: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gex.The.Nazgul Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Wow 8 core Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manb Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 nice info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SacredCultivator Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Will have to wait till that price lowers since I do need all the CPU Power I can get with all the Video Encoding I do for Fansubbing.Happy with my 6-core AMD atm, but never hurts to have more in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcani Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 hahaha have you guys seen the benchmarks for this?it's pretty disappontingand no it can't compete with the i7-990Xit's even having a hard time competing with the i5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SacredCultivator Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Not Tech savvy in any way, just know that it's much cheaper, so you get what you paid for, which either way would beat out my current CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyo Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If you don't plan on using Winrar all day long, this chip is not too useful for now. Maybe their next gen. Better wait and buy an equivalently priced Ivy Bridge i5 in a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marke68 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I wondered how long it would take before the idiots turned it into an Amd vs Intel competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x3r0 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I've read that CPU today enables us to watch up to 7 simultaneous HD movie, but our brain and eyes can't (and looks like will not be able to) handle that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted October 13, 2011 Administrator Share Posted October 13, 2011 Bulldozer design compromises offer mixed bag for desktop useA massive Bulldozer die.AMD's first group of Bulldozer-based CPUs, the FX series, have been released and thoroughly benched. The approach behind Bulldozer is what AMD has termed a "third way" between traditional multicore and simultaneous multithreading, which should offer some performance advantages in highly threaded workflows that keep instructions pumping through its 26-bit wide FPUs and doubled-up integer units. But that third way doesn't seem to offer much of a performance or efficiency advantage for many common desktop tasks.We took a look at thorough testing done by AnandTech, Tech Report, and Tom's Hardware, and recommend giving those reviews a read if you're considering a Bulldozer CPU for your next machine. We'll give a high-level summary here, noting some areas where Bulldozer will shine best and where it falls flat.Each Bulldozer "core" consists of two dedicated integer ALUs, each having its own scheduler and L1 cache, and a single floating-point unit capable of executing two floating point threads. Each core has shared fetch, decode, and L2 cache hardware. According to AMD, the shared components help reduce power consumption and die space while the dedicated hardware helps increase performance and scalability. Unlike Intel, which made a trade-off to do more per clock cycle rather than pushing clock speeds, AMD intended Bulldozer to bump clock speeds to 4GHz and beyond.Unfortunately for AMD, Bulldozer appears to miss the mark in almost every way. Clock speeds are lower than anticipated, power consumption is high, and most importantly of all, performance in most benchmarks leaves a lot to be desired.The eight-thread 3.6GHz FX-8150 CPU, the current top-end processor in the line, has a base clock that tops previous Phenom II processors by 16 percent, far lower than the anticipated 30 percent boost. It can run half its cores at a much higher turbo frequency, as high as 4.2GHz, but only under certain workloads and only for short periods before hitting its thermal ceiling.In typical desktop scenarios—productivity, content creation, and gaming—the Bulldozer usually performs worse than Intel's slightly cheaper four-core, four-thread Core i5-2500K. Sometimes much worse, dropping behind the cheaper-still i5-2400. These workloads are increasingly becoming multithreaded, but only to a point; most of them still cannot fully exploit an eight-thread processor, and have a much greater dependence on single-threaded performance—at which Sandy Bridge excels.In benchmarks that could really take advantage of the FX-8150's eight threads, the AMD processor usually fared better, but for the most part, it still wasn't class-leading. It was competitive with the i5-2500K, but Intel's more expensive four-core, eight-thread i7-2600K still tended to have the edge.Worse still, in a number of benchmarks the new processor did not even beat AMD's previous top dog, the Phenom II.AMD's move to a 32nm process was also supposed to increase the performance-per-watt ratio, but the news is bad here, too. The FX-8150 has a thermal design power of 125 W (for short periods it can spike above 125W, but the long-term average is capped at that level), whereas the i5-2500K and i7-2600K are both rated at just 95W. With Intel's processors being as fast or faster than the Bulldozer, "performance per Watt" certainly isn't one of Bulldozer's strengths.Server-oriented workloads may fare better. Server workloads are typically mulithreaded and integer heavy; these should be a good match for Bulldozer's abundant dedicated integer hardware and eight-thread design. The processor die contains plenty of high-bandwidth HyperTransport hardware for multiprocessor setups (which is actually disabled on desktop parts). However, this is speculation at present; server parts are yet to be benchmarked, and for the time being have all been earmarked for supercomputer customers.On the desktop, the current incarnation merely provides ho-hum performance for many tasks and decent performance in certain highly threaded workloads. The processor costs more than a roughly equivalent Intel part, and thanks to the high power usage, the processor will cost more to run than a roughly equivalent Intel part. Anyone building or buying a new PC has little reason to even consider Bulldozer. Further, the inability to consistently beat Phenom II means that even existing AMD users with AM3 motherboards might be hesitant to upgrade by dropping in a new processor.AMD is planning to ramp the performance of successive Bulldozer-based processors up by 10-15 percent every year. But next year's Ivy Bridge update is set to bring significant power savings and performance improvements with Intel's move to 22nm tri-gate transistors. AMD may have been able to push Bulldozer to record breaking speeds, but it will have a much harder time keeping the platform competitive with Intel over the next few years without significantly improving the performance per watt or improving yields with Global Foundries enough to significantly drop its price. View: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toyo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 How could AMD work so many years on something that doesn't even match an i7? Are they planning to stay on i5 level for the next years? Are they insane? Why did they release this? I'm full of such questions when it comes to Bulldozer. So disappointed.EDIT: One more thing. This isn't officially confirmed by press, but I've heard that the 8.429 GHz record was achieved on just one active core... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.