تاپیک جامع معرفی ، اخبار و بحث پیرامون AMD Bulldozer

[Rezasam1]

تو بعضی از تستها سندی بریج شکست خورده پس نمیشه گفت AMD کاری نکرده بنظر من AMD ضربه اولیش عالی بود

اگه سندی واقعا قوی بود نباید اینطوری تو برخی تستها عقب میموند

[Moein]

تو بعضی از تستها سندی بریج شکست خورده پس نمیشه گفت AMD کاری نکرده بنظر من AMD ضربه اولیش عالی بود

اگه سندی واقعا قوی بود نباید اینطوری تو برخی تستها عقب میموند

رضا جان حرف شما متین اما توی تست هایی که فقط تعداد هسته بالاتر فقط حساب میشه رو نمی تونید لحاظ بر اینکه اینتل ضربه خورده یا اینکه ای ام دی کاری انجام داده لحاظ بشه دلیل اون هم خیلی منطقی هست

ای ام دی چندین و چند سال تکنولوژی های سال های گذشته رو داره استفاده می کنه و انتظار می رفت بعد از این همه صدا تنها کمی پرفورمنس اون بیشتر از سری Tuban هست !!!

اما خوندن این مطلب خالی از لطف نیست از سایت Anand Tech

In many cases, AMD's FX-8150 is able to close the gap between the Phenom II X6 and Intel's Core i5 2500K. Given the right workload, Bulldozer is actually able to hang with Intel's fastest Sandy Bridge parts. We finally have a high-end AMD CPU with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform. To make matters worse, in some heavily threaded applications the improvement over the previous generation Phenom II X6 simply isn't enough to justify an upgrade for existing AM3+ platform owners. AMD has released a part that is generally more competitive than its predecessor, but not consistently so. AMD also makes you choose between good single or good multithreaded performance, a tradeoff that we honestly shouldn't have to make in the era of power gating and turbo cores.

Bulldozer is an interesting architecture for sure, but I'm not sure it's quite ready for prime time. AMD clearly needed higher clocks to really make Bulldozer shine and for whatever reason it was unable to attain that. With Piledriver due out next year, boasting at least 10-15% performance gains at the core level it seems to me that AMD plans to aggressively address the shortcomings of this architecture. My only concern is whether or not a 15% improvement at the core level will be enough to close some of the gaps we've seen here today. Single threaded performance is my biggest concern, and compared to Sandy Bridge there's a good 40-50% advantage the i5 2500K enjoys over the FX-8150. My hope is that future derivatives of the FX processor (perhaps based on Piledriver) will boast much more aggressive Turbo Core frequencies, which would do wonders at eating into that advantage.



AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer. Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this, however given the short lead time on Bulldozer reviews we weren't able to do much experimenting with Windows 8 performance on the platform. There's also the fact that Windows 8 isn't expected out until the end of next year, at which point we'll likely see an upgraded successor to Bulldozer.



So what do you do if you're buying today? If you have an existing high-end Phenom II system, particularly an X4 970 or above or an X6 of any sort, I honestly don't see much of a reason to upgrade. You're likely better off waiting for the next (and final) iteration of the AM3+ lineup if you want to stick with your current platform. If you're considering buying new, I feel like the 2500K is a better overall part. You get more predictable performance across the board regardless of application type or workload mix, and you do get features like Quick Sync. In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications. If you're predominantly running well threaded workloads, Bulldozer will typically give you performance somewhere around or above Intel's 2500K