I agree with the performance per watt comparisons, I just would like to see if AMDs bet on heavy multi-threading did pay of or not, and testing with one and two threads just won't show that off at all.
#AMD 8150 QUICKSYNC WINDOWS#
Also any chance of some of these run under linux as well(like handbrake) just to see if windows is affecting the results? I have been hearing rumors that windows may be un intentionally scheduling threads on cores on bulldozer in a way that harms performance. Or at least list the benchmarks thread count along with the results. Unfortunately AMD always seems to be a generation or two behind these days.Īny shot of getting some heavy multi-threading benches in there? time to complete 4/6/8/10/12 parallel Photoshop benches for example. Of course by then Intel will have Ivy Bridge, which is supposed to offer some pretty significant gains in performance per watt.
#AMD 8150 QUICKSYNC SOFTWARE#
But in 6-12 months when hardware and software support has improved I think Bulldozer will be a much better option. Currently, though, Bulldozer is pretty underwhelming, if you want an affordable CPU that performs very well *right now*, 2500K is the obvious choice. Win 8 is supposed to have scheduler optimizations that improve single/lightly threaded performance up to 10-12% from what I've seen. Although Sandy Bridge sees similarly huge gains from AVX, so relative to it BD doesn't necessarily gain much, but it does give BD a big leg up over old Phenom II chips that don't support these instruction sets. Programs compiled with AVX, FMA4, and XOP can see some pretty huge gains with BD.
Future steppings (the earliest is due out in Q1 2011 from what I've read) will hopefully reign in on power consumption a bit and allow them to hit higher clocks, which BD desperately needs to be competitive. I have hope that AMD can still salvage BD. Thanks for the review, nice to see SPCR's take on BD. There are some niches where Bulldozer might make sense (maybe some loads do run better on a Bulldozer which can run 8 threads than on a Sandy Bridge which can only run 4 threads? maybe Bulldozer supports ECC? maybe it's got the VM I/O extension which is disabled in Intel's affordable CPUs?) but for most people it doesn't.Ĭonsidering the poor performance per watt compared to SB, I wasn't even sure if AMD had bothered sending you guys an FX-8150 to review. That's the comparison which makes Bulldozer a non-starter for most users. The 8-core Bulldozer should not be compared to the 2100 but the 2500K. The typical desktop user or gamer isn't going to see that performance but it's there. There's many jobs at which 8-core Bulldozers are about twice as fast (if not stock then certainly overclocked). But this idea according to which you can put a single number on a chip's performance is a mental affliction. The 2100 is faster at many things alright. Your math is not at issue but the numbers you're using as input. Core i3-2100 is 81 % cheaper to buy and is 8 % faster overall
0 kommentar(er)
