AMD Bulldozer CPU Vs, Intel Core i7 CPU?

[MADDOGGE]

Originally Posted by dosbox

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

Add a few percent to the i7-2600K results and you get the idea.

Just for laughs, I predict the following will occur in this thread:

a) statements about the i7-2700K not being worth the money
b) recommendation that you buy the i5-2500K as that is the sweet spot
c) comments about Bulldozer systems crashing/BSOD in various games, and that a BIOS update is required
d) how anandtech are intel shills
e) how you don't need that much CPU horsepower for gaming
f) how Windows 7 is holding Bulldozer back
g) how intel motherboards are more expensive than AMD motherboards
h) how intel/AMD chips run hotter than AMD/intel chips
i) how cpu X is a great overclocker - sometimes from the same people who make claim (e)
j) tell you to wait for Ivy Bridge/Piledriver

Damn spot on!

[dosbox]

Originally Posted by MADDOGGE

Damn spot on!

I wasn't expecting the Linux one, especially as the stated purpose is for gaming.

[XxaP]

the 2600k is better than the 2700k for gaming, it is the faster of the two. The 2700k is optimized for multithreading and more .. scientific.. applications, where the 4 cores of the 2600k are just starting to be tapped into by programmers
80% (approximately) of games benchmark better on the 2600k

[Overclocker_]

Originally Posted by dosbox

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=287

Add a few percent to the i7-2600K results and you get the idea.

Just for laughs, I predict the following will occur in this thread:

a) statements about the i7-2700K not being worth the money
b) recommendation that you buy the i5-2500K as that is the sweet spot
c) comments about Bulldozer systems crashing/BSOD in various games, and that a BIOS update is required
d) how anandtech are intel shills
e) how you don't need that much CPU horsepower for gaming
f) how Windows 7 is holding Bulldozer back
g) how intel motherboards are more expensive than AMD motherboards
h) how intel/AMD chips run hotter than AMD/intel chips
i) how cpu X is a great overclocker - sometimes from the same people who make claim (e)
j) tell you to wait for Ivy Bridge/Piledriver

a) It's not, compared to the 2500k and 2600k
b) It is the sweet spot
c) For some motherboard, yeah
d) No comment
e) That's just untrue. MOAR POWAH!
f) Windows 7 is blissfully ignorant of how Bulldozer works, it has no knowledge of the module based design
g) Most of them are
h) Intel chips run warmer, but they can handle the higher temperatures. AMD chips run cooler, but they can't handle as much head as intel ones.
i) Almost any CPU is a great overclocker these days
j) Or whatever AMD is going to fart out in a poor response to Intel

[madpistol]

Originally Posted by XxaP

the 2600k is better than the 2700k for gaming, it is the faster of the two. The 2700k is optimized for multithreading and more .. scientific.. applications, where the 4 cores of the 2600k are just starting to be tapped into by programmers
80% (approximately) of games benchmark better on the 2600k

You should probably check your facts on that statement. The 2600k and 2700k are identical chips except for the fact that the 2700k is clocked 100mhz higher. That makes the 2700k a tiny bit faster.

[wuliheron]

Just gotta add k) to the list:

k) AMD used automated design tools to create bulldozer making it less efficient then sandy bridge, but better suited for economically adapting it to their upcoming heterogeneous architectures and general push towards mobile computing.

[mmstick]

Originally Posted by wuliheron

Just gotta add k) to the list:

k) AMD used automated design tools to create bulldozer making it less efficient then sandy bridge, but better suited for economically adapting it to their upcoming heterogeneous architectures and general push towards mobile computing.

Um, both Intel and AMD use automated design tools... they both have for years...doesn't make them less efficient. Would you like to design a processor with 1.2 billion transistors by hand? Only difference is Intel can spend more time doing automatic design tweaks while AMD has a fixed tight budget because few people buy AMD. But on the budget that AMD has they do very good at keeping up with Intel, spending less than 1/6th the R&D.

And as for others, AMD Bulldozer doesnt have BSOD issues with any games, all motherboards shipped today as of December have the latest BIOS which makes BSOD a non-issue and all people with older motherboards just need latest BIOS. Don't try bringing up an issue that was fixed two months ago and is irrelevant to today's consumer.

Overall, I think the choice should be between FX-8120 and Core i7 2600k. Both are good, depends on what fits your needs at the moment and if your upgrade path suits your wallet, either way, you won't notice much, if any difference in gaming.

[wuliheron]

Originally Posted by mmstick

Um, both Intel and AMD use automated design tools... they both have for years...doesn't make them less efficient.

Check out this article if you don't believe me:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...er_Fiasco.html

"Cliff A. Maier, an AMD engineer who left the company several years ago, the chip designer decided to abandon practice of hand-crafting various performance-critical parts of its chips and rely completely on automatic tools....The management decided there should be such cross-engineering [between AMD and ATI teams within the company] ,which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style...Apparently, automatically-generated designs are 20% bigger and 20% slower than hand-crafted designs, which results in increased transistor count, die space, cost and power efficiency."

Also note that AMD later insisted Bulldozer only has 1.2 billion transistors rather then the 2 billion they originally said it has.

[mmstick]

Originally Posted by wuliheron

Check out this article if you don't believe me:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...er_Fiasco.html

"Cliff A. Maier, an AMD engineer who left the company several years ago, the chip designer decided to abandon practice of hand-crafting various performance-critical parts of its chips and rely completely on automatic tools....The management decided there should be such cross-engineering [between AMD and ATI teams within the company] ,which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style...Apparently, automatically-generated designs are 20% bigger and 20% slower than hand-crafted designs, which results in increased transistor count, die space, cost and power efficiency."

Also note that AMD later insisted Bulldozer only has 1.2 billion transistors rather then the 2 billion they originally said it has.

So? Do you not know how they make processors? You can't use hand-crafting anymore, that doesn't work anymore, both AMD and Intel abandoned it a long time ago. Yes, it's not as accurate as hand-crafting was, but it is getting better over time, the tradeoff is that now they can design very complex processors quickly with significantly less R&D costs.

That same article you put reads:

"Another positive, upbeat AMD commentary by Xbit's based on unknowns and one engineer's recollection of what was happening years ago when he left AMD. there's nothing like quality research and reporting to skew public opinion and spread FUD." -beenthere

"What the article does not mention is that Intel has been using mostly automated design tools to design their chips for a long time. Very little of Intel's designs nowadays are handcrafted." -quasi_accurate

Once again, do you think Intel really uses their own hands to craft a processor with over one billion transistors? Intel has been using automated designs since as early as the late 70s and early 80s.

And yes, of course, it stated 2 but changed to 1.2 billion, your point? We already knew it was 1.2 billion to begin with if you had any idea what it was based off, they wouldn't release a desktop processor that has more transistors than the server counter-part its made from.

[addz17]

At the end of the day you get for what you pay for.... However for specifically gaming on any single card solution a well clocked Phenom II quad will be more than adequate for any game at any setting up to 60fps for a couple of years.
Anything more more expensive is just a luxury and you wont see much benefit gaming unless you require 600fps at 800x600

[trek554]

Originally Posted by addz17

At the end of the day you get for what you pay for.... However for specifically gaming on any single card solution a well clocked Phenom II quad will be more than adequate for any game at any setting up to 60fps for a couple of years.
Anything more more expensive is just a luxury and you wont see much benefit gaming unless you require 600fps at 800x600

sorry but a Phenom 2 X4 cannot even average 60fps on highest settings for some games NOW.

[wuliheron]

Originally Posted by mmstick

So?

So, people have a right to know if there is even a hint that AMD is moving away from performance cpu designs and towards SoCs. This article hinted that they were and, sure enough, AMD fired a large number of employees including higher management, reorganized, and then announced they were moving away from performance designs toward a greater emphasis on SoCs and heterogeneous architecture.

Personally I'm an AMD fan and hope they kick Intel's butt with heterogeneous designs including PC gaming APUs capable of physics and AI. However, it will be another two years at least before they have integrated the cpu and gpu memory and the transition could be bumpy. Llano has been a huge success and I suspect Trinity will be a smash hit, but if piledriver turns out to be less then overwhelming for PC gaming I won't be horribly disappointed. The under dog has to think of long term strategy instead of competing point for point with the eight hundred pound gorilla.

[addz17]

Originally Posted by trek554

sorry but a Phenom 2 X4 cannot even average 60fps on highest settings for some games NOW.

I7 2600k with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 - 66fps minimum
Phenom 980 x4 with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 64fps minimum

When it comes to gaming throwing money at your CPU does very little lol

[trek554]

Originally Posted by addz17

I7 2600k with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 - 66fps minimum
Phenom 980 x4 with GTX580 - BF3 1680x1050 64fps minimum

When it comes to gaming throwing money at your CPU does very little lol

that is single player and that does not change the fact that a Phenom X4 could not provide 60 fps average much less minimums for years to come like you claim. again it cant even do that now for some games.

[Overclocker_]

Originally Posted by trek554

that is single player and that does not change the fact that a Phenom X4 could not provide 60 fps average much less minimums for years to come like you claim. again it cant even do that now for some games.

Proof, please. Surely you have evidence to back up your claims?