Bulldozer project

[DarkstaR]

I understand that AMD 8-Core processors would be faster compared to current / semi-old Intel processors, it's just not because so far only BF3 uses 4 cores and maybe Max Payne 3, applications still need to use more cores to use most of AMD potential. I used to be an AMD user for 6 years, I'm now with Intel i5-3570k @ 4.4 Ghz, just because I like to play Wii on my computer, otherwise I would be still using AMD.

You're making the assumption that everyone has the same uses as you. BF3 4 cores, Max Payne 3.. Google Chrome uses multiple threads per tab (each tab is its own process). If you MC bot, Tibia has 2 active threads plus bot threads (10 bot clients is easily 30 threads). If you are a programmer, your development and debugging environment easily requires 5+ threads (Debugger GUI, debugger back-end, application threads, IDE, compiler, test suites, etc). Not to mention that, in itself, Windows is a core hog with it's kernel. So, yes, while Intel may wipe the floor in raw core performance, I still prefer Bulldozer since the extra cores provide an overall better experience by isolating the different threaded components instead of making them rely on each others execution on a virtual level.

[Blaster_89]

[img]
http://static.techspot.com/articles-...ncoding_02.png
[/img]

Biased much?
http://i.imgur.com/GQdl4nX.png?1?2547
Complete benchmark here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rabdver2&num=1

[Pro-grammer]

Biased much?
http://i.imgur.com/GQdl4nX.png?1?2547
Complete benchmark here: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rabdver2&num=1

You are now leaving the main topic in here, we are talking about Faildozer not about Vishera the new brand name for the AMD 8 Core series.

[Blaster_89]

You are now leaving the main topic in here, we are talking about Faildozer not about Vishera the new brand name for the AMD 8 Core series.

8150 is included in the benches. 8350/8320 is a better choice regardless

[XtrmJash]

You are now leaving the main topic in here, we are talking about Faildozer not about Vishera the new brand name for the AMD 8 Core series.

The main topic is which CPU to choose. I can't say I object to seeing statistics on shit not yet mentioned! I mean, the real comparisong is between AMD and Intel, and 8 core against 4 core HT. I gotta admit, the limitations of HT make the 8 core CPU seem like a better deal, after all, the most common calculations can't be performed async over 4 HT cores, but they can over 8 natural cores. As DarkstaR also rightly pointed out, if you're running shit like I am (google chrome with 10~ tabs minmum, VS running constantly, building every 10 minutes, 2 clients botting, plus 2 copies of ibot on each - which I suspect isn't exactly delicate on resources, along side MSN, Skype, microsoft excel, word, and outlook, winamp, teamviewer, bittorrent, usually some PDF documents in adobe reader, usually some images in paint, constantly several tabs in ST2, often all of this with a screen recorder), you'll probably make good use of the extra async calculations made possible by having 8 cores as opposed to 4 HT cores. I can't say I'm a light computer user, after several hours I often also leave open a few IE tabs, and some FireFox (a few websites I use just operate better in other browsers, and I often find myself working on websites, which requires testing in numerous browsers).

[Stiju]

Isn't AMD's Bulldozer 8 cores actually just 4 cores with a HT like system?
AMD's CPU's have a higher power consumption but whatever, probably not you who pays the electricity bills anyway.
And you could disable some of your house heating systems since you are getting a new one.

AMD is cheap and good. Intel is expensive and good (top).
My guess is that whichever of the newer model CPU's you get, you won't be disappointed.

I have a simple AMD Phenom II 4 core CPU. If I was going to upgrade today I would go for an Intel i7 3770 or so.
But I'm not going to do that because I'm waiting for Haswell.

Furthermore I think Everyone should have a SSD.

[jo3bingham]

I've always been under the impression that Intel makes the best desktop CPUs while AMD makes better mobile ones.

I'm waiting for Haswell.

Same.

Furthermore I think Everyone should have a SSD.

Agree.

[DarkstaR]

Isn't AMD's Bulldozer 8 cores actually just 4 cores with a HT like system?
AMD's CPU's have a higher power consumption but whatever, probably not you who pays the electricity bills anyway.
And you could disable some of your house heating systems since you are getting a new one.

AMD is cheap and good. Intel is expensive and good (top).
My guess is that whichever of the newer model CPU's you get, you won't be disappointed.

I have a simple AMD Phenom II 4 core CPU. If I was going to upgrade today I would go for an Intel i7 3770 or so.
But I'm not going to do that because I'm waiting for Haswell.

Furthermore I think Everyone should have a SSD.

Heating system is very true. It will be 5 degrees hotter in my room than the living room when computer has been running, but I also have 2 video cards. Also, AFAIK, it is actually 8 physical cores. Could be wrong, though.

And SSD beats anything else anyone can possibly do for optimization. Seriously. Windows will boot in 6 seconds with a good SSD.

[Pro-grammer]

Heating system is very true. It will be 5 degrees hotter in my room than the living room when computer has been running, but I also have 2 video cards. Also, AFAIK, it is actually 8 physical cores. Could be wrong, though.

And SSD beats anything else anyone can possibly do for optimization. Seriously. Windows will boot in 6 seconds with a good SSD.

Indeed SSD is great, but I boot into Windows 7, 8, Mac OSX Mountain Lion in less than 8 seconds using a 5200 RPM hard drive.

Intel i5-3570k @ 4.4 Ghz
1600 Mhz 8 GB Corsair Vengeance
HD6670 GDDR5 1 GB
Asus 98Z77-V LK

[XtrmJash]

Gonna have to disagree on SSD. We've tried them at work and they just fail after a few thousand usage cycles. I know storing an OS on them and little more will not cause much if any damage, but they just aren't up to the job of being a full time hard drive yet.

I was pretty sure that AMDs use 8 seperate cores, and that the advantages of such a system were quite obvious, but beginning to doubt it. After doing a little research this morning it looks as if the AMD has 4 "integer cores", and 4 "floating point" cores. I almost know what that means, but I can't really elaborate on my understanding since it is so vague. Talking primarily about the 8120 here. The 8350 appears to have 8 physical cores, each with their own resources and all fully capable.