
AMD's 8-core cpu for desktops arrives - ck2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8150.html
======
rkalla
XBit did a good calling out what AMD is doing here that is different (and in
its infancy, disappointing with traditional benchmarks).

AMD has decided to step back from the brink of maximum-speed per core, to
maximum-cores-per-chip.

If you look at the Anand benchmarks: [http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-
bulldozer-review-amd-...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-
review-amd-fx8150-tested/7)

you'll see in very multi-threaded applications (like compression or encoding)
the AMD CPU actually keeps pace with the 2600k; in other applications where it
is more important to have faster single threads of execution, the Intel 2600k
pulls ahead by a drastic amount though.

These are the early days, but if AMD gets this down to 22nm next year and puts
16 cores on a desktop PC -- each core may be only running at 4Ghz, but in a
scientific computing or server environment where you have 16, 4Ghz cores as
opposed to 4, 6Ghz cores on some equivalent Intel can make a big difference.

The new Bulldozer platform looks to be a strategic company gamble on all
fronts (more cores, less speed per core) that could win AMD big in the server
space (which is exploding) and in scientific computing environments.

I'm not saying the numbers aren't disappointing, I was hoping to see some big
ones in there to. I'm only pointing out that this isn't quite apples to
apples, and when it is (e.g. straight multithreaded benchmarking) the
comparisons look OK.

All that said, I'm sure Intel has something waiting in the wings (e.g. 2800k)
to shit all over this party and beyond that we have tri-gate IvyBridge CPUs
next year that will hopefully bring a much-needed* leap to CPU performance.

* "needed" as defined by "my impatient ass likes fast things.

~~~
sp332
_in very multi-threaded applications (like compression or encoding) the AMD
CPU actually keeps pace with the 2600k_

What is the difference in price between these CPUs?

~~~
Symmetry
The 2600k is about $75 more expensive. The 2500k, which is closer to the
FX8150 most of the time, is about $25 cheaper.

------
ck2
It's kinda sad to see AMD slipping behind even with their best effort. I was a
huge fan for years and this i3 I am using now is my first Intel cpu since the
80386.

I was thinking maybe it's just that the OS and software is not parallel enough
yet but the benchmarks show that's not the only issue.

~~~
felipemnoa
Could you elaborate a bit more as to why AMD is slipping?

~~~
wmf
It looks like Bulldozer is a "speed racer" design that was intended to run at
4-5 GHz. It's hard to tell the cause from the outside, but either due to 32 nm
fab problems or design problems they're shipping it at 3.6 GHz. Given the
fates of NetBurst and POWER6, I cannot imagine why AMD chose such a design.

Another way to look at it is that the market will bear ~$1,000 pricing for
Intel's flagship processors but <$300 for AMD's. That's sad. (I remember
paying $700 for the first Athlon FX.)

~~~
Symmetry
I've heard that the main problem is that they don't really have the expertise
and manpower anymore to do a full custom design, but are using a more ASIC
style process - influenced by the ATI folks. Also, this is an all-new
architecture and so you'd expect that it would be unpolished and untuned.
Intel hasn't done anything as drastic as what AMD has done here since the
introduction of the Pentium Pro. Well, there was the Atom but Bobcat (also an
all new design) is able to beat that the same way that Intel is beating AMD at
the high end.

In theory, this will let AMD mix and match components easily, and quickly
synthesize new designs with the right mix of Bulldozer cores, Bobcat cores,
GPU cores, memeory controllers, etc to meet market demand. I haven't seen any
evidence that this is actually happening, though, or that its worth the price.
By contrast, Intel has huge design teams that can afford to hand tune a range
of designs to changing circumstances.

Its also true that though GF has a more tolerant set of design rules in its
32nm process, it pays for it in lower overall performance compared to Intel's
process at the same node.

I'm not sure the high frequency design was a kiss of death. In terms of
pipelining it doesn't seem any more aggressive than the Power7, which has been
very successful. The Power7 benefits from 4-way SMT, though, and that probably
helps hide the cache latency that is hurting Bulldozer so much.

EDIT: See example here:
[http://realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&...](http://realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=123141&threadid=123055&roomid=2)

------
steve8918
Am I the only one that would prefer cooler, quieter CPUs rather than 8-way
monstrosities with big fans and creating lots of heat?

I have 2 systems running in my room, a 2-core desktop, and a 2 CPU quad-core
system that I run virtualization on. This system replaced about 4 other towers
that I had running, each doing various things like running web server, dns,
etc, but basically just sitting idle and sucking up electricity.

I want to upgrade to a newer desktop, but I really don't want this thing to
generate more heat, use more electricity and have a loud fan. Before, I wanted
to upgrade my video card but couldn't find a reasonable graphics card that
didn't have a fan.

~~~
rdtsc
Hmm, maybe instead of 2 system you can now have one 8 core system that runs
virtualization and your desktop? Now you have one power supply, less fans, ...

There is nothing inherently loud or power consuming about 8-way monstrosities.
Do you remember Pentium IV or even Alpha (One of those things could heat up a
room plenty well in the winter).

~~~
ori_b
Unfortunately, you can't hide the loud, hot running monstrosity that you use
for the heavy work under a staircase in the basement if you use it as a
desktop.

------
evandena
The benchmarks are pretty disappointing.

------
alperakgun
"The great revolution that AMD has been talking about... an eight-core desktop
processor", is it really a revolution? an 8-core smartphone would be next..

~~~
pjscott
Let's be more precise about what they've done. It's a processor designed for
high single-core performance -- much higher than smartphone processors -- with
good power-efficiency, on a much smaller die than would ordinarily be required
for that.

And 8-core smartphone processor is very different from an 8-core
desktop/server processor, and much simpler.

~~~
latch
Are you saying bulldozer is "designed for high single-core performance"?
Because that's exactly where it's failing to deliver, and what will continue
to lead to market share.

~~~
pjscott
It delivers very high single-core performance compared to smartphone
processors, which was the subject under discussion. How it stacks up against
other desktop/server processors is important within that market, but a
distinguishing feature of desktop and server processors is that they _all_
have high single-core performance.

------
osivertsson
Has anybody seen any benchmarks of this CPU in Linux?

I'm wondering how it would fare in a build server...

~~~
fleitz
How many build servers are actually constrained by CPU and not IO?

If your build times are in excess of a few minutes it's probably better to
distribute the build across many machines rather than trying to build one
server to rule them all.

As for benchmarks there are extensive reviews online of the bulldozer branded
as "Opteron".

[http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_b...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_bulldozer_linux&num=2)

~~~
unsigner
In my experience (game development, hundreds of thousands of LOCs of C++),
compiling is purely CPU limited if your HDD isn't utterly braindead (e.g. at
or above normal desktop 7200 rpm levels).

