|
rscott posted:Isn't the whole point of the improved integrated graphics to make it not necessary to have a discrete graphics card unless you want to do high end gaming/CAD work or whatever? I know a fair (maybe 20% of my "nerdy" friends) amount of people who have pretty high end CPUs and poo poo GPUs because they don't really play games, they just run a lot of multithreaded applications. And regardless, why include the 3000 series GPU with the K series processors when, if you what you say is true they're rarely going to be used in the first place? The whole thing just doesn't make a lot of sense. I have a an i7, 8GB, and a $30 ATI 4650 
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
They just run hot and cold. Real strong for a few years, and then they get stomped for a while. Probably just a by-product of product cycles in their industry. They're due to get hot again soon.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Or if you are an irrational fanboy who doesn't understand that performance per core is more important than more cores. Except for very few workloads. I found a few systems where a much faster (in 90% of stuff) 2-core system was a bit slower than a 4-core system in parallelizable stuff, like compiling a big project.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:This thread is full of nostalgia All the techs at the Best Buy I worked at when the Athlon came out went to some meeting, I didn't go for some reason. They all came back with a CPU+MB that the AMD rep gave out for free! 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:I went to one of those when I worked for Staples. Was it the slot A Ahtlons that they got? Yes. Did you get one too, you son of a bitch?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:I know this is pretty Has AMD ever had a compelling laptop chipset? (Except for the current Zacate setups)
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 18:40
|
|
of me, but is BD going on laptops, or is it just Llano?
|
If they can offer 80% of the performance for 30% of the price (like the X6 compared to the i7) then that's good enough
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Intel's been doing that, too. The $1000 hexacore Nehalem i7 is matched by the quad-core Sandy Bridge i7 in most tasks (and that's just at stock clocks), and it costs $300. Granted, the top-end Phenom II x6 is down to ~$200 now, but still. Intel seriously closed the price gap and has monstrous performers for chips. Right, I was thinking of threaded stuff like Cinebench and compiling which the X6 seems to still be faster than the 4-core i5 at. There aren't many reasons to buy an X6.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Cell never took over the world...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
What if AMD is also waiting for Mac OS X Lion to come out, because Apple is going to offer a cheaper Mac Pro powered by AMD?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:Dumb people are everywhere; even within the PC enthusiast circles. I'm not even sure how can anyone think a $200 AM3+ board + $120 Phenom II can be remotely considered a good deal compared to a 2500K combo at the same price. "But it's upgradable to BD!" Yeah, as if AMD is gonna give BD when it hits for free to anyone who bought a AM3+ board beforehand. The only way I could see someone buying an AMD is if they did something like got the 1090T for $179 with a free motherboard like some retailers do. You're only saving $75 over the cost of i5 2500k + low-end MB, but hey it's $75. And it's going to be faster at things like compiling, encryption, compression, and lose out in almost all games and anything that is using < 4 cores, especially single-threaded stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Not by quite a way, and this is against Nehalem/Gulftown, not Sandy Bridge. I was looking at Anand's bench numbers for the 1090T (1100T actually) vs the i5 2500k, but the point was there's very few things the AMD is faster at.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
rexelation posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxlQLzOCxEc Video review? Really?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
It's bringing gaming to $500 laptops and desktops. That's huge, because you can't game for poo poo on a $500 laptop without Llano, and they sell millions of the drat things. Average people don't even buy computers over a couple hundred dollars, much less gaming PC's with video cards that a $200 alone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
Any day now, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 15:23
|
|
|
I bought NVIDIA and AMD stock during the crash two weeks ago, lets see how this pans out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
karoshi posted:Bulldozer Interesting, hope the benchmarks they show are accurate. Not sure if their top end part will be worth it, being priced over the i5 2500k. The slides showing the improvement against the Phenom X6 worry me, because there's not much performance there to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 18:56
|
|
marketing
|
Alereon posted:Their benchmarks are also against the i7 980X on the Intel side, and while that's a hex-core, it's not terribly competitive with the Sandy Bridge quad cores in most applications, especially gaming. I think Bulldozer is going to end up performing to expectations: unbeatable value in highly threaded applications, coming up short in most other applications. Turbo Core seems to be pretty effective, but performance-per-clock-per-core doesn't seem to be there, though I could be wrong. Bob Morales fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Sep 24, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
My AMD stock is down 12% right now. Ugh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Hog Butcher posted:Where's Llano being slow coming from? I'm on an A6-3400m which as I understand is the exact midpoint of the series, and it's a 1.4ghz quadcore. If it's fast enough for you, then that is good enough. But if you compare it to other CPU's it's obvious how weak it is.  Most people aren't using a Llano to render video or do intense calculations, so for day to day use and gaming (where the built-in GPU gives a huge boost) it's fine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
According to Steam, AMD has a hair over 25% of the 'gamer' CPU market: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey It also shows Firefox as being installed on 60% of computers, compared to Chrome's 11%. Interesting because I just read an article that claims Chrome is closing in on FireFox's marketshare http://www.businessinsider.com/google-chrome-market-share-2011-9
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Let's not forget Sandy Bridge wasn't the smoothest launch either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Didn't we already know BD would be behind the highest-end of the last-gen i7's in gaming and single-thread stuff? I'd like to see the #'s for Cinebench, single CPU
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:The 2700k will replace the 2600k so the 2600k will get a natural price cut. I'd guess they'll lower the price of the rest of the chips to compensate as well but there's a chance Intel wont do it cause lack of competition etc. Why would they? If the 2500k still beats Bulldozer in 90% of stuff, why sell them at N - $50 when they can keep selling them at N ? Plus they can keep selling the 2600k at N + $100 and the 2700k at N + $200 or whatever. Current prices (pulling out of my rear end) + sales (also being pulled from my rear end): code:code:
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
I wonder if it's similar to the memory node interleaving issue with the Opterons: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4486/server-rendering-hpc-benchmark-session/6
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I don't want to get hopes up too much, but some sort of terrible and correctable cache problem like that would at least explain how it ended up even behind the existing generation. I wondered if something like that was possible. There was a software patch called FASTVID for the Pentium Pro that fixed an issue where it ran DOS games slower than the plain Pentium chips.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
It's a 6% increase so it's not exactly an equalizer but it is a sizable improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
At first I saw this and was like "Oh cool!" Then I saw this:  I hope everyone at AMD that worked on this project gets fired today.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It looks like a problem with their test selection. If I was in a charitable mood I'd say they didn't use a adequate variety of tests, if I wasn't I'd say they only published tests where Bulldozer did reasonably well. It's almost like the cherry-picked the games so it wouldn't look so bad. With the gratuitous amount of AMD logos on the page... They still show it far behind the i7 on the other tasks like encoding/playback. They used the faster RAM but it's only a few % improvement according to some other sites. Plus they don't show the 2500k in the ratings which wouldn't help. Any chance that it Bulldozer works a little better with AMD GPU's instead of NVIDIA?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Anand used a 5870. Hrm. Tom's used a Nvidia GeForce GTX 580 1.5 GB Interestingly enough, Windows 8 shows measurable improvements over 7 in performance and power consumption http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html The F1 2011 numbers are hugely in Intels favor on Tom's site but on Hardware Heaven they have AMD edging Intel out 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Alereon posted:gave it a 9/10 I'd honestly give it 5/10 if it weren't for beating Intel on the highly-threaded stuff that the X6 wasn't too bad at in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
Any reviews of the lower-end models?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
Galler posted:I was really hoping this would provide the basis for a cheap and efficient but beefy diy esxi/xen/whatever platform but it's looking like the extra cores probably don't make up for the extra price/heat/weak single core performance when compared to the Phenom II X6 or 2600. Nothing wrong with an X6 or i5 with 16GB for a pretty solid ESX box.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
So Bulldozer is AMD's Merced?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
Setzer Gabbiani posted:Given all the bad press, I'm surprised the 8120 and 8150 are both sold out on Newegg They were only shipped 10 of each.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
DNova posted:Really? No, I have no clue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Buying a lesser product just to keep it in the marketplace doesn't really sound good for anyone. Especially when AMD isn't even really getting good margins out of it. Maybe the government will fund them like solar energy companies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-processor-release-22nm-3d-transistor,13753.html Ivy Bridge is coming early. In production now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I hate to ask, but... How's that stock looking? It's actually up almost 4% today. I need it to get back to 6 dollars (up another buck?) to break even, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Intel 6-core, 12 thread processors are stomping BD. They are going to be so hosed when Intel comes out with the next generation, 8-core 16-thread chips.HalloKitty posted:Those benchmarks are interesting, because they show it being competitive a fair few times. It looks like the other benchmarks did, gets smoked in the single/lightly threaded stuff but can be competetive or even a tick faster than Intel in a few things. The X6 wasn't all that bad in certain tasks. 7-zip, compiling, POVray, Cinema r3D or whatever it's called... Longinus00 posted:Phoronix isn't big enough to get sent production samples or anything, same reason why the review is so late. I think he might have purchased this 8150 out of pocket so it doesn't surprise me he doesn't have a very comprehensive field to test against (notice the lack of hexcore k10). He said he received the standard 'press kit' from AMD so I don't think he bought it on NewEgg.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 15:13
|
|