You get more predictable performance across the board regardless of application type or workload mix, and you do get features like Quick Sync. If you're considering buying new, I feel like the 2500K is a better overall part. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. on separate modules with dedicated caches. 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. 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.ĪMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer. 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 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. 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. AMD clearly needed higher clocks to really make Bulldozer shine and for whatever reason it was unable to attain that. 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.īulldozer is an interesting architecture for sure, but I'm not sure it's quite ready for prime time. AMD has released a part that is generally more competitive than its predecessor, but not consistently so. 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. 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. We finally have a high-end AMD CPU with power gating as well as a very functional Turbo Core mode. Given the right workload, Bulldozer is actually able to hang with Intel's fastest Sandy Bridge parts. In many cases, AMD's FX-8150 is able to close the gap between the Phenom II X6 and Intel's Core i5 2500K.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |