AMD Bulldozer is here, oops!

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Katana1000S

and the review we were all waiting for, Hitler is not a happy bunny with AMD Bulldozer

AWESOME! I could not stop laughing!!!!!


I prey that this guy will not make a new version of the COD video...


Pity, what Hitler said reminded me of the days my AMD 386DX40MHz was the fastest thing in the market (runing Falcon 4.0)

~S~

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

AWESOME! I could not stop laughing!!!!!

I cracked up when he said, all those who bought Sandy Bridge please get out

[mazex]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Pity, what Hitler said reminded me of the days my AMD 386DX40MHz was the fastest thing in the market (runing Falcon 4.0)

~S~

When Falcon 4.0 came out I remember having a Pentium II @ 400 Mhz so I guess you mean Falcon 3.0 I remember having a 386DX 33 back when 3.0 was released but upgraded to a 486DX 50 after it was released...

Ahh, chip nostalgia...

To not end up as a complete Intel FB I did run AMD:s from the 1.33 T-bird to the Athlon 64 3000. I was the Core 2 Duo that made walk the broad path again

[Codex]

I think that AMD have been too ambitious with Bulldozer, especially when there's not much in the way of software that is "truly" multi-threaded. I think the Bulldozer generation chips will go the way of the PhysX card … it’s a really good design in terms of thinking ahead, but there’s very little software out there to take full advantage it now and the current Intel line of CPUs can do more.

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by Codex

I think that AMD have been too ambitious with Bulldozer, especially when there's not much in the way of software that is "truly" multi-threaded. I think the Bulldozer generation chips will go the way of the PhysX card … it’s a really good design in terms of thinking ahead, but there’s very little software out there to take full advantage it now and the current Intel line of CPUs can do more.

Quite possible, could be that AMD took a gamble with multi threading taking off, but it hasn't, (hence the firing of a CEO of theirs recently?) not even in our flight sim gaming world, right now 4 cores are more than enough and it will take years for software developers (especially Flight Sim) to catch up.

I still feel sort of sick inside for all those that put their faith in AMD's outrageous claims for Bulldozer, including the guy in this thread who had "waiting for Bulldozer 8150 in his sig" AMD has really let not just them down but all of us ... they were the only competition and now they have played their ace, we now know they have been bluffing for a long time.

[Katana1000S]

Adding to this, some time back I read an article from a programmer about how difficult it was to make a program truly multi threaded, without going into detail you can make a one threaded program quite (in their skill levels) easily, going to two core was double the difficulty and dual threaded, but doable, after that it became extremely hard work in a sort of Universe expanding size to keep up.

I think there is a reason Intel have stayed at 4 cores for now (apart from the 6 core XEONS for a select small market) They know the market and knew AMD could not pull this off, even their projected market of Ivy Bridge will stretch to 6 cores as a max for 2012 as well.

AMD going for the first 8 core joe smuchk CPU dirt cheap seems like a bad idea in the long run ... IMHO.

Small steps AMD, not big lunges.

[adonys]

Originally Posted by Katana1000S

Adding to this, some time back I read an article from a programmer about how difficult it was to make a program truly multi threaded, without going into detail you can make a one threaded program quite (in their skill levels) easily, going to two core was double the difficulty and dual threaded, but doable, after that it became extremely hard work in a sort of Universe expanding size to keep up.

I think there is a reason Intel have stayed at 4 cores for now (apart from the 6 core XEONS for a select small market) They know the market and knew AMD could not pull this off, even their projected market of Ivy Bridge will stretch to 6 cores as a max for 2012 as well.

AMD going for the first 8 core joe smuchk CPU dirt cheap seems like a bad idea in the long run ... IMHO.

Small steps AMD, not big lunges.

it greatly depends on the kind of game and graphics needed.

For a game like IL2, a multithreaded/multicore approach is easily doable, as it is mainly about computing CEM, Physics and AI for a multitude of objects from game's world.

Have 4 cores? just divide the number of AI planes on three (to leave a core dedicated to main game's thread, and player's plane CEM/Pshysics computations needed), and compute each bunch on it's own core (with each airplane having it's own thread on the core doing its bunch of airplanes). And divide all render threads on all 4 cores.

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by adonys

it greatly depends on the kind of game and graphics needed.

For a game like IL2, a multithreaded/multicore approach is easily doable, as it is mainly about computing CEM, Physics and AI for a multitude of objects from game's world.

Have 4 cores? just divide the number of AI planes on three (to leave a core dedicated to main game's thread, and player's plane CEM/Pshysics computations needed), and compute each bunch on it's own core (with each airplane having it's own thread on the core doing its bunch of airplanes). And divide all render threads on all 4 cores.

Easy as that eh? please submit your CV to AMD ASAP.

[BaronBonBaron]

From the tomshardware.com review of the FX-8150.

"In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors."

"Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads."


And that's the biggest problem for BD, it falls on it's face when the workload isn't well-threaded.
Hopefully AMD gets this fixed for next years "Piledriver".

But until then, for gaming:
Intel i5/i7 = Intense/High-End level gaming.
AMD Phenom II = Medium/high level gaming.
AMD Athlon II = Budget/Medium level gaming.
AMD Llano = Entry-level gaming.


Post Edited to clarify that in my little chart, I'm only talking about how the CPU's gaming performance; if I was talking about multitasking or something else, then the Phenom II would be higher up.

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by mazex

When Falcon 4.0 came out I remember having a Pentium II @ 400 Mhz so I guess you mean Falcon 3.0 I remember having a 386DX 33 back when 3.0 was released but upgraded to a 486DX 50 after it was released...

Ahh, chip nostalgia...

To not end up as a complete Intel FB I did run AMD:s from the 1.33 T-bird to the Athlon 64 3000. I was the Core 2 Duo that made walk the broad path again

My first foray into flight sim was actually an Amiga 500 with half a meg of ram, it came with a basic Flight sim called Bob Dimmermans (I think) FA-18 Interceptor ... wow, all of a sudden I was defending the US and making carrier landings and shooting down Migs, I only wanted the Amiga to sort of do a data base for all my CD's an vinyl records.

This was unheard of.

After that I bought a PC from a guy in Aberdeen, Intel 33MHz with 2 MB (yes 2MB of ram) and a hard drive so small it would not hold a modern days OS swap file, but that got me into Falcon 3.0, Fleet Defender and lots of others.

Have been building my own ever since.