AMD's Bulldozer CPU. Ouch.

[Initech]

Any computer experts in the lounge care to weigh in? I only hope these numbers are preliminary, but still, even for a review CPU - ouch.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=352045

Although I am surprised it comes with a liquid cooler and not a regular fan. That's interesting.

[kentauros]

1. Not a computer expert but I can read a spec sheet

88.5 Ghz after 21x over-clocking?!?!?! Yeah, it better use a liquid cooler! :o

[eppur_se_muova]

2. 88.5 GHz ?? Screen cap says 5.067 GHz w/ 25x multiplier.

This is shown as a 21x chip (about 4.2 GHz)in the first screencap.

[kentauros]

4. I don't see those numbers on their screencap.

What I do see is

Clocks (Core #0)
Core Speed - 4213.8 MHz
Multiplier - 21x

Again, I did say I'm not an expert, but doesn't that work out to be just under 88.5 GHz when you do the multiplier?

Here's the screenshot they give:

[EOTE]

5. The multiplier provides the final clock speed.

Multiplier times bus speed is equal to core speed.

[EOTE]

6. edited: wrong space.

[kentauros]

8. Okay, so by their information above with eight cores

that's still 33.7104 GHz! Still pretty fucking fast for a single CPU and/or desktop :)

So, what are the Home Computing applications for that? I can see plenty of industry/business applications, but very little for home-use.

[EOTE]

10. Unfortunately, that's not how multi-core CPUs work.

The reason the move was made to multi-core CPUs is that we had reached the apex (for the time) of raw CPU speed we could get with the 65nm process. So rather than creating ever faster cores, they just crammed in 2 or more cores onto a single processor die. Intel had been doing something similar with their hyperthreading technology which allowed two simultaneous threads from a single core of a CPU and they're doing it to this day with their Core iX line (many of their dual core chips have 2 virtual threads for a total of 4 and a number of their quad cores have 4 real and 4 virtual cores). But the issue is that the real, scaled speed is nothing what the number of cores would suggest. Many applications still don't support multi-core processing and many of the ones that do don't experience anything close to 100% scaling. Generally, multicore processing simply offers a smoother, faster computing experience. When one core is completely occupied, another core or more will kick in for use. 8 cores at 4+ghz should certainly be very quick, but for typical applications (especially ones which aren't specifically coded for multiple cores), performance won't come anywhere close to a single core running at 30+ghz.

[kentauros]

12. So, if there aern't any applications that support 8 cores,

what's the point of selling it? The only thing that comes to mind is they want to say "Look what we designed! Nevermind it won't work with any OS or existing applications. It's just cool!!"

Thanks for the explanation about the speeds. Still doesn't mean much, but it does make me wonder why it wouldn't be an even better selling point to state exactly how fast it's supposed to be after all the other numbers are calculated. Why confuse the average customer with information they don't need?

[EOTE]

13. The goal is to create an ever smoother multi-tasking experience.

In today's computing, people are typically running several programs at once, even if the bulk are background processes. Creating processors with more cores allows those programs to often have an entire core dedicated to running it. Often times this is overkill, but it's better than the alternative. Today's operating systems do load balancing which ensures you'll have the smoothest computing experience. You're right though, it seems like manufacturers are adding cores faster than programs can really take advantage of them. I think Intel has gone a smarter route with their virtual cores, but AMD has at least kept the prices of their processors very low. You can get a hex-core AMD for a good deal cheaper than the bulk of Intel quad cores.

And unfortunately, you really can't peg down exactly how fast a CPU is supposed to be because they perform vastly differently depending upon what type of application you're running and how many of those applications you're running. Synthetic benchmarks rarely provide all the information you need to know. What it boils down to is this though. If you're a casual computer user, any processor made within the past 5 years should be more than enough for your needs. If you have a somewhat recent computer and it appears to be acting slowly, I can pretty much guarantee it's NOT because of your CPU.

[Bake]

3. I have no idea what the numbers mean ...

But BULLDOZER??? I assume that means this is a powerful chip?

:hi:

Bake
Not exactly a geek

[EOTE]

7. I'm not terribly concerned with those numbers.

You can bet that the first bulldozers will be quite a bit cheaper than the 2600k which is currently around $300. Also, AMD's motherboards are always a good deal cheaper than Intel's. I was a huge AMD fanboy from the late 90s to around 2005 or so when Intel came out with the Core2Duo architecture. That was when Intel caught up with AMD in terms of providing value overclocking CPUs. Since then, I've mostly had Intel chips, but Microcenter has brought me back to AMD with their awesome CPU/Motherboard deals. I can get a pretty damned fast AMD processor (Phenom II X2 560) along with a pretty full featured motherboard for around $110 before rebate. Until Intel can offer me a similar value, I intend to stick with AMD.

[Initech]

9. I had the 1055 and loved it but I've never had good luck with AMD motherboards.

When my Asus EVO died after about a month of trying to revive it, I finally gave up and went back to Intel, getting the SB architecture. It's been really excellent so far, I've been running it off a Gigabyte Z68 based board using a Crucial 64GB SSD as my primary drive and it's been amazing so far.

[EOTE]

11. Yeah, but keep in mind the Z68 is a top of the line chipset.

I'd expect and hope that any Z68 motherboard would perform well for a good long time. My last AMD motherboard and CPU purchase was most likely cheaper than your motherboard alone ($110). That purchase provided the foundation for a really great HTPC that's running perfectly 5 months later. Even though 4 cores hardly seems necessary for an HTPC, I was able to unlock my 560 to 4 cores with no problem and they're all running at 4ghz. I do get to do a bit of gaming on it, so it's not entirely overkill. For the price I paid, I'm very happy with my purchase.

[Initech]

15. Now that Bulldozer's out and nowhere near what I expected...

I think I'm gonna concentrate on updating my desktop to Z68 and converting my old X58 system to an HTPC. All I really need is a case and PSU for that, Ive got everything else I really need for it. But yeah Z68 is amazing so far. I was running AMD 870 with a 1055 but that build died and I don't think I'm going back anytime soon. I'll still use AMD/ATI video cards though.

[EOTE]

16. Is the CPU really the bottleneck in your systems?

I've got a couple of X58 systems and they're blazingly fast. I got a i7 920 around the time they came out and it's been in my primary system for almost 3 years at 4ghz without a hiccup. However, for all intents and purposes, my Phenom II 560 is pretty much as quick for a small fraction of the price (it also keeps up with a new 950 I have). I've been working on getting the remainder of my systems upgraded with SSDs, that's been far more of a performance upgrade than any CPU I could get.

As for GPUs, I'd like to give AMD/ATI more support, but I've fell in love with all the cool things I can do with CUDA on newer NVidia GPUs. Also, 3D support is important and ATI has been dragging on that end.

[Initech]

19. It's a thought I had.

I really like my X58 system right now - I just upgraded to an Intel SSD and it's sweet. But I also want an HTPC and my X58 motherboard is lacking a lot of the newer techs like USB 3.0 and SATA/6. I might just get a new X58 motherboard from someone like Gigabyte or EVGA and be done with it.

[EOTE]

20. I've got a Asus Sabretooth X58.

You can probably find one for around $170 or so now. It's got USB 3.0 and SATA III and it's been rock solid so far. But if it's just USB 3.0 and SATA III that you're looking for, why not just got a couple of PCI-E upgrade cards? You should be able to pick up both of them for around $60 combined.

[hobbit709]

17. I've had the opposite.

Had way too many Intel boards and cpus go.

Currently running a Black Edition 1090T OC'd to 4 GHz with 8Gb RAM. It screams with my folding@home

[EOTE]

18. I too have had good luck with AMDs as of late.

Most recently I picked up a Phenom II X2 560 with an MSI 880G-E45 motherboard. Price for both? $110, $100 after rebate. The cheapest Sandy Bridge dual core goes for around that amount. I was able to "upgrade" my dual core X2 to a quad core literally with the flip of a switch. Right now it's running perfectly smoothly at 4.2ghz. When I can get a smoking fast quad core and motherboard from Intel for around $100, I'll buy their products again.

[ChromeFoundry]

14. Bulldozers move stuff slowly...excellent name for this turd. n/t