News
 

Bookmark and Share

(45) 

Advanced Micro Devices hopes that Microsoft Corp.'s next-generation Windows 8 operating system will work with multi-core central processing units (CPUs) more efficiently than Windows 7. As a result, the company's FX-series chips with up to eight cores will show higher performance than today. A big question is how AMD FX will show itself in comparison with Intel's chips.

According to a slide that AMD recently spread, the new chips show up to 10% performance advantage in Windows 8 compared to existing performance in Windows 7. The performance boost is observable in non-demanding video games and can be less noticeable in other applications as well as game titles that heavily rely on performance of central processing units. The chip giant attributes the advantage to the new scheduler of the next-gen operating system, which more efficiently manages microprocessors with numerous cores.

Based on independent tests by X-bit labs, the FX chips fail to become an  enthusiasts' choice as the top-of-the-range eight-core FX-8150 model can barely beat Intel's mainstream quad-core Core i5-2500 processor that even lacks the company's well-known Hyper-Threading technology.

While AMD demonstrates the advantages of its own eight-core microprocessor in the Windows 8 environment, but does not indicate whether other CPUs also benefit from the next-gen OS. It is widely believed that Microsoft's operating system due next year needs less compute resources than existing OS and will therefore work better on all systems.

 

Tags: AMD, Windows, Bulldozer, 32nm, Orochi, Zambezi

Discussion

Comments currently: 45
Discussion started: 10/15/11 08:48:26 AM
Latest comment: 11/12/12 01:54:07 AM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-20 | 21-22]

1. 
show the post
1 4 [Posted by: Pouria  | Date: 10/15/11 08:48:26 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Nope. about a 10 percent boost in performance is not really enough to justify how inefficient that the Bulldozer core processor is. Also relying on Windows 8 to boost an inefficient hardware like the Bulldozer is just throwing out excuses after excuses.

I will like to see at least 30% or my prefer choice is 40% boost of performance compared to previous processor models. What is sad is the Bulldozer core is competitive with i3 processors from Intel, so in this case AMD missed their mark completely.

I am an AMD fan and I will and suggest the people do not buy a Bulldozer core processor.
3 3 [Posted by: tecknurd  | Date: 10/15/11 03:59:22 PM]
Reply
 
Exactly. I mean that.
I wrote it as a joke.
I have a Ph II 955 and waited to come out Bulldozer, huge disappointment
At least they have to get into Compiler builders, making a lot contracts with software companies not just wait till technology comes behind their doors.
Or we have to see some Benchmarks from Websites like:
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_fx_8150/
To be stupidly happy.
2 1 [Posted by: Pouria  | Date: 10/15/11 05:19:46 PM]
Reply

2. 
Intel I5 2500K:

Battlefield 3: Windows 7 - 45fps
Deus Ex 3: Windows 7 - 85fps
Left 4 Dead 2: Windows 7 - 172fps
Call of Duty - Black Ops: Windows 7 - 125fps

So AMD, who cares??
5 5 [Posted by: TAViX  | Date: 10/15/11 09:09:45 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Absolutely true. Win8 isn't enough to rescue Bulldozer, maybe Win 10 or Win 11 )
4 3 [Posted by: veleciraptor  | Date: 10/15/11 01:32:30 PM]
Reply
 
Isn't it rather meaningless to post such comparisons when none of the test conditions are known (e.g., graphics card, game resolution and graphics settings, etc)?
0 2 [Posted by: psychobriggsy  | Date: 10/17/11 12:39:59 AM]
Reply
 
Stfu faggot... I have FX 8150 and play bf3 with 90fps on ultra so suck on that
0 0 [Posted by: Crippie  | Date: 11/12/12 01:54:07 AM]
Reply

3. 
AMD should go back in time and start cloning Intel parts again.
5 6 [Posted by: Filiprino  | Date: 10/15/11 10:46:52 AM]
Reply

4. 
AMD should stop and take about 30 - 40% of their R&D budget for the next year and put it into developing compiler optimizations that utilize their new architecture. Then get those optimizations as widely distributed as possible so that they are commonly available to everyone.
7 3 [Posted by: Divide Overflow  | Date: 10/15/11 11:14:32 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Agreed, I am always wondering why AMD creates their own processor enhancements and then at release time has very very little software support for them.
2 1 [Posted by: psychobriggsy  | Date: 10/17/11 12:41:57 AM]
Reply
 
show the post
1 5 [Posted by: madooo12  | Date: 10/24/11 06:18:32 AM]
Reply
 
AMD is, say, one of the majot GCC controbutors as is. That their CPU enhancements are often underutilised can be largely summed up to "because they are not Intel" - AMD doesn't have the clout to push things, other companies, the way Intel can.

Heck, Intel complier is one of the major ones, and they have been caught apparently nefariously compromising the performance of "alien" CPUs (and there's certainly lots of software, compiled that way, still floating around) - supposedly a greatly contributing factor in 1+ billion settlement Intel paid to AMD, one which Intel had to acknowledge in FTC settlement (yeah, while avoiding the full-blown "we're guilty" ...but seriously, who pays such amounts of money if they're not?)
1 0 [Posted by: zima  | Date: 11/08/11 07:33:05 AM]
Reply

5. 
i think that more than just processor, amd have to improve/update the mathematics used in the processor.

They got far behind at the tests that imply decoding, etc whre are heavely used mathematical theories of probability.
0 2 [Posted by: tbaracu  | Date: 10/15/11 11:52:23 AM]
Reply

6. 
Does this come directly from JF?
2 1 [Posted by: Marburg U  | Date: 10/15/11 02:28:20 PM]
Reply

7. 
AMD You can do it better, I am sure.BD is not bad,but you need to refine that architecture.Anton thanks to you and Ilya comprehensive test with BD.
2 0 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 10/15/11 03:56:12 PM]
Reply

8. 
Everything will be faster in Windows 8
3 2 [Posted by: campdude  | Date: 10/15/11 04:48:05 PM]
Reply

9. 
See AMD this is what happens when you allow Microsoft to get involved with your porducts to try to push Windows 8.

In all joking aside. No AMD you messed this up and no OS is going to bail you out of this one. this is what happeneds when you decided to go to SoC designs and stopped hand crafting your designs.
5 2 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 10/15/11 04:58:28 PM]
Reply

10. 
Amd just cut the crap you FAILED and admit it.
4 1 [Posted by: 3Dkiller  | Date: 10/15/11 10:43:25 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
its cpu didn't fail. its disappointing but amd is close to intel now whit a new architecture witch has tons of upgrades and ways to upgrade it. itels cpu is just an upgrade on the previous version. the cpu isn't that great for the desktop market but it a lot better for the server market. i would say bulldozer gen 2 will be better optimised.
1 3 [Posted by: massau  | Date: 10/16/11 06:29:45 AM]
Reply
 
how can you say its not failed since the phenom2 x6 1100T is even faster in most benchmarks ?. Amd had 5 years time to develop the Bulldozer and this is with what they came. Id Say yes they failed.
1 1 [Posted by: 3Dkiller  | Date: 10/16/11 02:24:06 PM]
Reply
 
he actually failed to read the benchmarks!
1 1 [Posted by: dudde  | Date: 10/17/11 05:34:44 AM]
Reply

11. 
How about releasing an updated Phenom II core with better single threaded performance on a smaller 32nm process and call it Phenom III. That will give you the processing power to beat intel.
2 1 [Posted by: Memristor  | Date: 10/16/11 06:24:36 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Phenom III Beat Intel? NO. What are you smoking?

What they could do though is shrink it to 32nm, lower the cache latency (would require reworking the cache) and add a 4th instruction decoder per core. It would certainly allow AMD to compete in the desktop market and leave bulldozer to the server market which can use the AVX instructions. Too bad they probably won't do that.
0 1 [Posted by: megamanx00  | Date: 10/17/11 12:43:30 PM]
Reply

12. 
AMD knows early on they could not compete....which is the reason for the huge core count. All they did was optimize the chip for 8 cores to fit it in a reasonable TDP and die size.

they hope to sell these parts for the server market where more cores could compete against intel parts.
1 1 [Posted by: zodiacfml  | Date: 10/16/11 07:00:58 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Actually the TDP and die size are not reasonable at all even though that was a major goal of Bulldozer. All around fail.
0 0 [Posted by: megamanx00  | Date: 10/17/11 12:44:28 PM]
Reply
 
show the post
0 4 [Posted by: madooo12  | Date: 10/24/11 06:20:02 AM]
Reply

13. 
Inexcusable for the fact that AMD utilized available die space inefficiently and fabricated the entire die synthetically. Bulldozer's new shared fetch and decode logic fails because it has LOWER decode rates in multi-core configurations compared to a Phenom II. SSE2, SSE3, and x87 floating point instructions execute 50% SLOWER than a Phenom II X6. The FX-8150 is not even true eight-core CPU, it's just a quad-core with certain resources duplicated to appear as to the operating system as eight cores (Hyper-Threading anyone?). These are architectural flaws and not even the tightest Windows 8 optimization can address them. 2 billion transistors is nothing to brag about if a lot of that die space has gone to waste
0 0 [Posted by: DirectXtreme  | Date: 10/16/11 09:37:03 AM]
Reply

14. 
I am looking at this article and thinking Amd engineers should quit, am i wrong?
2 2 [Posted by: george1976  | Date: 10/16/11 10:46:32 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Yes. What you should be thinking is consumers should be more PC technically literate and not duped by fanbois comments.

For the clueless Intel has been using almost complete synthetic die design for years.

Oh yeah, Bulldozer based Opterons not only perform well, demand exceeds supply as does demand for Llano. AMD can't supply FX-8150's fast enough and there are more speed steps of Zambezi in 95w on the way.
3 2 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 10/16/11 01:28:14 PM]
Reply
 
Well, but at least for sure AMD has to polish this new architecture. It's been a big disappointment.
Llano in the other hand rocks, it's the perfect balance between CPU-GPU performance and power consumption. Intel can't beat it. If AMD can get more powerful CPU cores Intel couldn't compete against AMD in the notebook area in whatever segment you come up with.
2 0 [Posted by: Filiprino  | Date: 10/16/11 04:36:43 PM]
Reply
 
I cant wait to see those new speed steps for Zambezi but i'm sure you can understand why i'm upset on Amd engineers when i tell you i have been waiting for a couple of months to build a new rig with the new processor and they turn up with this 386 like part. Common already,all those years on development and they come up with this? Read again,years. I dont know if i should wait a few revisions or to buy an 1100t....
1 0 [Posted by: george1976  | Date: 10/17/11 03:23:20 AM]
Reply

15. 
Another positive, upbeat, objective AMD commentary by Xbits. Nothing like actually testing Zambezi and Intel CPUs on Win 8 and THEN making an informed comment.Thankfully Microsucks and the software makers realize that multi-core CPUs are the future so they are finally getting off their collective arses and starting to write better O/Ss and software to take advantage of AMDs CPU power.
3 5 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 10/16/11 01:23:54 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
2 Bulldozer cores are almost half as slow as 2 Sandy Bridge cores. The problem is a poor architectural design, horrible IPC, etc. Blaming this on MSFT is just laughable when 1 BD core is only as fast as Core 2 Duo from 2006. Not to mention power consumption increases to absurd levels vs. 2500k/2600k CPUs that don't even break 200 Watts at 4.7-4.8ghz. Everything about BD is a fail - overclocking, power consumption, performance per core, performance per watt, performance per clock, multi-threaded performance that's barely faster than 1090T. Most laughable of all, FX-8120 and FX-8150 cost MORE in retail than 2500k. They should both be about $30-40 less since neither can beat a 2500k @ 4.5ghz.
2 4 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 10/16/11 06:01:17 PM]
Reply
 
AMD CPU power??? where??? Oh yeah..BD is the new Pentium 4 space heater
1 2 [Posted by: dudde  | Date: 10/17/11 05:37:45 AM]
Reply

16. 
If one recalls the Quad FX platform then it should be clear why the point about Bulldozer and Windows 8 is no point at all. Quad FX was underperforming, so someone came up with the great idea of calling the XP scheduler a crap and proclaiming victorious future for the platform once Windows Vista was out. Of course, this never happened, by the time Vista was out nobody even remembered about Quad FX. You can't come out with a ill-balanced CPU and blame the whole software world for writing lame code that doesn't use 8 threads (and most code need not, anyway). They may have released a 16-core CPU with 4 ALUs per module or no FPU as well, blaming IEEE 754 for the existence of floating-point numbers. It's not the best strategy if you want to make your shareholders happy.
0 1 [Posted by: npp  | Date: 10/16/11 03:30:22 PM]
Reply

17. 
As the start of a new CPU architecture and manufacturing process (32nm) there will hopefully be plenty of room for faster variants in the future that might bring the average performance up to 2600K (and then 2700K) performance from the current ~2500K performance. I am certain that the design is intended to clock higher than 4.2GHz turbo - and that it is the 32nm process that has partially let them down.

AMD would have been far better off releasing the CPU for servers only, and possibly making a 32nm X4, X6 and X8 Phenom II processor for desktops - if only to reduce the die size of these chips. However maybe they have a native quad-core Bulldozer chip coming out soon to reduce the die size and compete against Core i3s. In addition Trinity next year should have the Piledriver core enhancements - hopefully a complete bug-fix of this Bulldozer core.
0 0 [Posted by: psychobriggsy  | Date: 10/17/11 12:50:10 AM]
Reply

18. 
It appears to me that Thuban with 8 core and new instructions had a better performance than BD.
2 1 [Posted by: Blackcode  | Date: 10/17/11 01:40:34 AM]
Reply

19. 
AMD is company with stupid engineers and liars in mamnagement. They lied that Bulldozer will be 50% faster, then 35%, up to latest days before official premiere. They lied that new AM3+ is absolute required, just to force people to buy new mobo.
They are still spreading their Lies.
Do you still believe in their slides overloaded with lies ?
3 1 [Posted by: Tristan  | Date: 10/17/11 02:07:08 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
tell that to beenthere... he's on the management
0 2 [Posted by: dudde  | Date: 10/17/11 05:39:30 AM]
Reply
 
Guys, your technical ignorance does not make AMD a bad company. No one is forcing anyone to buy AMD products but demand far exceeds supply because people who are technically educated know that AMD products are excellent and they are voting with their wallet. If you want to continue bashing AMD because of your technical ignorance, go right ahead. It changes nothing. The reality is AMD continues to deliver the products that consumers desire and that is why their sales continue to grow. Whining does not change reality. Buy what makes you happy.
3 5 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 10/17/11 07:11:10 AM]
Reply
 
Some people are locked into platforms, and Amd takes advantage of them because changing the whole thing would be more expensive than upgrading. Amd messed up and the gaming community is not going to support this piece of shit. I love Amd but if i buy bulldozer i would be a laughing stock amongst my friends and with good reason. twice power consumption,twice transistor count,twice core, and is still slower. HAHAAHA what a piece of shit bulldozer is.
3 3 [Posted by: saneblane  | Date: 10/17/11 08:15:21 AM]
Reply
 
so how much do they pay you to pretend you got the technical know-how or to blindly praise their Phenominal product blunders??

quote:
"The reality is AMD continues to deliver the products that consumers desire.."

That reality was true almost a decade ago!

The biggest example of ignorance is clearly shown by people like you who can't accept the results of these benchmarks! BD sucks and get it thru your hollow skull!
2 2 [Posted by: dudde  | Date: 10/17/11 10:23:25 AM]
Reply

20. 
In other words we are back in '95-'96 where AMD 5x86 was trying to compete with the more expensive Intel Pentium P75 processor...
0 0 [Posted by: TAViX  | Date: 10/22/11 04:14:02 AM]
Reply

[1-20 | 21-22]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Monday, April 14, 2014

8:23 am | Microsoft Vows to Release Xbox 360 Emulator for Xbox One. Microsoft Xbox One May Gain Compatibility with Xbox 360 Games

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

10:39 am | Microsoft Reveals Kinect for Windows v2 Hardware. Launch of New Kinect for Windows Approaches

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

1:57 pm | Facebook to Acquire Virtual Reality Pioneer, Oculus VR. Facebook Considers Virtual Reality as Next-Gen Social Platform

1:35 pm | Intel Acquires Maker of Wearable Computing Devices. Basis Science Becomes Fully-Owned Subsidiary of Intel

Monday, March 24, 2014

10:53 pm | Global UHD TV Shipments Total 1.6 Million Units in 2013 – Analysts. China Ahead of the Whole World with 4K TV Adoption

10:40 pm | Crytek to Adopt AMD Mantle Mantle API for CryEngine. Leading Game Developer Adopts AMD Mantle

9:08 pm | Microsoft Unleashes DirectX 12: One API for PCs, Mobile Gadgets and Xbox One. Microsoft Promises Increased Performance, New Features with DirectX 12

3:33 pm | PowerVR Wizard: Imagination Reveals World’s First Ray-Tracing GPU IP for Mobile Devices. Imagination Technologies Brings Ray-Tracing, Hybrid Rendering Modes to Smartphones and Tablets

2:00 pm | Nokia Now Expects to Close Deal with Microsoft in Q2. Sale of Nokia’s Division to Close Next Month