Candlepally
New Member
not quite, Intel was first to market with Dual Core, The Xeon Dual core then PEntiumD followed about a month later. AMD had Athlon 64 X2 ready 3 days after PEntiumD though.
Your Opinion: Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge
- Thread starter spynoodle
- Start date
not quite, Intel was first to market with Dual Core, The Xeon Dual core then PEntiumD followed about a month later. AMD had Athlon 64 X2 ready 3 days after PEntiumD though.
Method9
Member
I'm using Wikipedia as a source, but for what that is worth the first dual core Opteron was in May 2005, whereas the first dual core Xeon was in October 2005.
JackMcHale
New Member
.
Last edited:
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
I would say 5GHz on air by putting in the number 50 in the bios is pretty significant and not altogether tedious
I would say 5GHz on air by putting in the number 50 in the bios is pretty significant and not altogether tedious
lol, yeah when I had sandy bridge with an ASRock P67 board they had a setting in the bios where all you had to do was select 4.0/4.2/4.4/4.6/4.8 overclocks. I selected 4.6, manually set the Vcore as it gave it too much on auto and then it was rock stable. Not very hard at all.
BurningSkyline
New Member
Just quoting my original post in this thread just to say......I told you so.
How much of a performance increase would you expect if they upped the pin count to lets say... 1155.
Pins = performance guys, come on, didn't all know that
First of all, I never said that straight out like that....I just said that BD needs more pins (because I was comparing Intel, they moved on from 775 pins for a reason) and AMD has only killed the performance of BD by keeping it backwards compatable. They need to move on and create a new socket that will no longer keep their hands tied.
linkin
VIP Member
Most people buy new motherboards anyway, so it can't really be a bad thing. I mean, how long has AM2/AM2/AM3 been around? You're right, it's time to move on and drop the compatibility.
AMD should have never called the module a 2 core. Dont think AMD would have been taking just a big hit in the reviews if they had them as a 2/3/4 module. Should have called it what is, a module. People look at a core as a full core and these are not.
Instead like this. Never even use the word CORE.
FX 8150 4 module, 8 thread
FX 6100 3 module, 6 thread
FX 4100 2 module, 4 thread
Instead like this. Never even use the word CORE.
FX 8150 4 module, 8 thread
FX 6100 3 module, 6 thread
FX 4100 2 module, 4 thread
Last edited:
I was surprised too by the IPC performance. I kinda thought it would not match 2500/2600 in single thread, but hell it should have been faster the the Phenom II. AMD went to far with long pipelines trying to get clock speed out of it. Then still could not get enough to over take Intels IPC.
In the long run all they accomplished was to over take Phenom II by shear clock speed. I would still recommend them over Phenom II if the price gets right. Like a 8120 or 6100 over a Phenom II X4/6, just for the fact that they overclock so much better. But its sad they have to use clock speed just to beat a older generation.
In the long run all they accomplished was to over take Phenom II by shear clock speed. I would still recommend them over Phenom II if the price gets right. Like a 8120 or 6100 over a Phenom II X4/6, just for the fact that they overclock so much better. But its sad they have to use clock speed just to beat a older generation.
Last edited:
2048Megabytes
Active Member
I was sad to find the Phenom II 1090T Six-Core beats the FX-6100 Six-Core in processing power. And the Phenom II series only use DDR3 1333 versus DDR3 1866 memory with Socket AM3+. I hope software updates can fix these problems. It makes you wonder why AMD did not see these problems coming before release?
If I were doing a new build now I would pick a Phenom II 960T Quad-Core or a Phenom II 1035T Six-Core Processor over the Socket AM3+ for now. Hopefully fixes can be made within 40 days.
If I were doing a new build now I would pick a Phenom II 960T Quad-Core or a Phenom II 1035T Six-Core Processor over the Socket AM3+ for now. Hopefully fixes can be made within 40 days.
The 960T is not a bad deal. I would probably still get the FX 6100 or 8120 at its price over a Phenom II X4/6. The only reason is how well they overclock.
960t and try to unlock to a hex is a decent gamble cuz you still have a thuban quad then...maybe even atleast a 5 core cpu if only 1 core will unlock. Still better than 4, and it was free.
The problem with BD is they are not really ''cores''. It's so deceiving the way the designed bulldozer to be able to call each module 2 ''cores''.
The problem with BD is they are not really ''cores''. It's so deceiving the way the designed bulldozer to be able to call each module 2 ''cores''.
Last edited:
kennebell347
Member
I am glad I didn't wait for bulldozer. Bit the bullet on the 2500k setup and couldn't be happier. Got it all up and running today and it absolutely destroys my old 955 be. In every way. Intel also seems to have better build quality from look and feel.
But I do hope everything gets straightened out for the people who are waiting on fixes.
But I do hope everything gets straightened out for the people who are waiting on fixes.
One problem the AMD/Microsoft patch/driver is suppost to help with is, windows has no idea what a module is. It just looks like a 8 core. If something has 2 or 4 threads it will double it up on a module. Better performance would be to spread it out with one thread on each module. But from what I heard it only jumps performance to around 4-10% on multi threaded. Thats ok, but not a game changer.
AMD should have built it to where a single thread could be run on both sets of pipelines on a single module. Would have really (in my opinion) bumped up single threaded performance. They could have had 4 threads being run on 8 sets of pipelines, damn. Windows thread scheduler would have to shift threads around if you started hitting more then 4 threads. But considering AMD have been designing this thing for 4 years, I'm sure they could have worked it out with microsoft.
But I dont know, since they are already having a problem with the scheduler. What were they thinking at AMD, I mean in 4 years nobody in AMD though, you guess we might ought to contact microsoft about a new processor driver. Your fired, your fired and your fired.
AMD should have built it to where a single thread could be run on both sets of pipelines on a single module. Would have really (in my opinion) bumped up single threaded performance. They could have had 4 threads being run on 8 sets of pipelines, damn. Windows thread scheduler would have to shift threads around if you started hitting more then 4 threads. But considering AMD have been designing this thing for 4 years, I'm sure they could have worked it out with microsoft.
But I dont know, since they are already having a problem with the scheduler. What were they thinking at AMD, I mean in 4 years nobody in AMD though, you guess we might ought to contact microsoft about a new processor driver. Your fired, your fired and your fired.
Last edited: