Looks like AMD is going to keep the Phenom II name. Coming out with a cut down Zambezi FX with less L2/L3 and less Turbo or no Turbo and call it a Phenom II X8, name might change though.
Phenom II X8
- Thread starter StrangleHold
- Start date
claptonman
New Member
Any links about it? And slow L2/L3 cache was the problem with BD, right?
linkin
VIP Member
I hate parroting this information, but... Microsoft is set to release a patch in Q1 2012 for Bulldozer. The first part of said patch was mis-released and can actually degrade performance in some situations.
What that sounds like to me is that Windows is ignorant of CMT processing (which bulldozer uses) which leads to windows using resources inappropriately or inefficiently.
That said, AMD and Microsoft could have pulled their fingers out and actually worked something out before Bulldozer released and avoid all this negative press...
What that sounds like to me is that Windows is ignorant of CMT processing (which bulldozer uses) which leads to windows using resources inappropriately or inefficiently.
That said, AMD and Microsoft could have pulled their fingers out and actually worked something out before Bulldozer released and avoid all this negative press...
spynoodle
Active Member
I hate to agree with you, but it's true. BD just has too many basic flaws that prevent it from ever performing as well as it should have.
ScottALot
Active Member
Sad, but true... it's like Call of Duty, you just hope it'll be good, but it keeps getting worse :|
FuryRosewood
Active Member
Intel did the same thing...so...i expect this to be a learning experience, its not a total failure, the chip still does work, just not as much as people were expecting it to. I am kinda getting tired of people shoving AMD's face in the dirt over this...its annoying. If you had the expectation that AMD would jump 2 generations in one CPU release, your missing something. Because at this point that is what AMD is behind by, if they totally failed to release anything with any significant change, then they would have been 3.
(no this is not a fanboy rant, i am just tired of hearing it)
Also thinking about it, id simply wait till a second release of this chip, like with the phenom I's, they did stink when they were first released, however the second release was much better, it may not have been as good as intel, but it was something.
(no this is not a fanboy rant, i am just tired of hearing it)
Also thinking about it, id simply wait till a second release of this chip, like with the phenom I's, they did stink when they were first released, however the second release was much better, it may not have been as good as intel, but it was something.
Last edited:
jonnyp11
New Member
that would be the 8170 coming out q1 '12 last i heard, which idk if that is piledriver or just like bulldozer ii or something, i know the ast i saw it was supposed to be C1 whereas bulldozer is B3, so they should at least have something in the chip to address the l3 cache and any other performance hindering aspects, not a solution for them but something to help.
The 8150 was originally targeted and said to be better than a 2600k, so yeah EVERYONE (except me I guess) expected it to jump 2 generations.
The chip still works? Really? What significant change is there? In most tests it cannot beat a LOWER CLOCKED Phenom II x6, utterly sad. And in the tests it did beat it, I'd like to see the Phenom II clocked that high and run that cuz it'd probably do just as well if not better.
The other thing that grinds me is AMD calling them 8 cores. I guess that was the only way they were really going to get sales though. People thought they were going to get bragging rights of having an octocore. Whatever.
FuryRosewood
Active Member
All i guess i can say, is this is a similar release to the Phenom I's. As much as people want to bash the chip for not reaching expectations, it still computes, runs cooler than the previous chip and to me, performs as expected for a new architecture. (pentium 4 anyone?)
Wasnt really said to compete with the 2500/2600, but only in a few benchmarks. Mostly so in multithreaded ones. But at first the 8170 was suppost to be released with higher cock speed and lower wattage. Other then the slow L2 and L3, I think most of the scewups at were caused at Global Foundries, not delivering what they were suppost to. If they had come out with the 8170 with higher clocks speed and could overclock to 5gh. with low voltage easy, nobody would be raging them now.
Most of the problem with them I blame of Global Foundries, for the shear clock speed and wattage. Other then the fact they could have done better with the L2 and L3 cache and had worked out this scheduling problem with microsoft with before the release. Global Foundries screwed them. But still with clock speed they can still out do the Phenom II.
Most of the problem with them I blame of Global Foundries, for the shear clock speed and wattage. Other then the fact they could have done better with the L2 and L3 cache and had worked out this scheduling problem with microsoft with before the release. Global Foundries screwed them. But still with clock speed they can still out do the Phenom II.
Last edited:
linkin
VIP Member
Hey, come on, Intel markets their CPU's with hyperthreading as having more cores.
In fact, it would be the same situation if windows was ignorant of hyperthreading. Less than the best performance. And the chip still works
. Same deal in this situation: windows is ignorant of how a new AMD cpu does things... shock horror.Well actually the real horror is how AMD/Microsoft had done zero prior planning...
spynoodle
Active Member
http://www.techpowerup.com/157432/-...icon-Being-Branded-As-New-Phenom-II-Line.html
It's officially going to be branded as Phenom II. Something else in this article intrigued me, though: they mentioned some new cache tweaks. Maybe Bulldozer isn't dead after all.
It's officially going to be branded as Phenom II. Something else in this article intrigued me, though: they mentioned some new cache tweaks. Maybe Bulldozer isn't dead after all.
Intel never claimed them to be physical cores as AMD does. You search any intel chip such as the 920 and 2600k and they are under quad core category. Pentium 4 with HT was always single core. I3 is a dual core.
Search AMD bulldozer 8150 and you'll find octocore.
It kinda baffles me they are keeping the Phenom II name with new architecture. Very strange.
Seriously they are LOWERING clockspeeds to compete with the I3? Thats hilarious. The single threaded performance is bad enough at the 8150's 3.6ghz.
Last edited:
I do agree with that. They should have been called a 2/3/4 module with 4/6/8 threads. Plus should not be called a Phenom II. Maybe a Phenom III or just Zambezi with out the FX. Far as I know they will not be unlocked.