Awhile back I wrote about AMD’s Bulldozer after release. Now, AMD’s newest offering proved to be disappointing in the benchmarks. This is one of the main reasons why AMD’s processors never appear in my recommended lists – though I’m still considering putting together a separate AMD build. I do conceptually like AMD, and have built AMD system’s in the past – I just see higher value with Intel right now. That being said, here is a pretty cool article that gets into the technical nitty gritty of how Bulldozer functions, what their goals were in creating it, and why the 8 core Bulldozer just doesn’t cut it in Windows 7.
They don’t say it here (as this article is from October), but recent rumblings about Windows 8 suggest these problems are fixed – which could push Bulldozer into a competative position.
Analyzing Bulldozer: Why AMD’s chip is so disappointing … – AMD’s Bulldozer is finally here, after years of development — and its performance is significantly worse than anyone expected. The situation is ugly enough that it may explain why so many executives left AMD over the past …
This isn’t necessarily an analysis of AMD platforms so much as it is a look at the new AMD Bulldozer CPU offerings and seeing how they stands up vs the Intel Sandy Bridge offerings. This is with respect to my general approach of ‘value’ building – which tends to land within the mid-range build.
One of the questions most people ask who are getting into computer building is: Do I go AMD or Intel? I can understand a certain appeal for either. AMD makes some very good quality processors at the lower prices ranges, and there is a fair argument for going AMD when building a budget system. For me, it simply comes down to performance and value. How much am I spending now and how long will this system likely last? Right now Intel’s Sandy Bridge CPU systems score very high in the charts and on top of that, the i5-2500k can be overclocked an impressive amount (increasing the long-term value of the system).
AMD’s philosophy is geared towards making multi-core CPUs. Of their offerings, they have 4 core, 6 core, and 8 core CPUs – the Bulldozer FX-8150 is AMD’s 8 core offering which looks to stand against Intel’s impressive 4 core i5-2500k. Intel does not have an 8 core processor – instead they have the i7-2600k, which is a 4 core processor that uses hyper-threading to virtually duplicate the 4 cores creating what is effectively 8.
Here’s the deal though: 8 cores are technically better than 4 cores with hyper-threading used to create an effective 8. The problem that is being experienced right now is that the way Windows is constructed, and the way most games are made, they won’t take advantage of more than 4 cores. This is a rather simplistic explanation – the way AMD constructed Bulldozer is rather complex on the technical level, but in the end it’s all about real world performance.
The short of it is that when put the FX-8150 up against the i5-2500k Sandy Bridge Intel CPU, the Bulldozer offering just doesn’t cut the cake. One would need a game to take advantage of 8 cores (or conceivably at least more than 4 cores) in order to see a benefit over the i5. Considering the i5 is cheaper and performs better, that still keeps us with the Intel based I5-2500k system. The AMD systems generally are more well suited to a budget build approach. I have yet to write up a budget suggestion, but I suspect that I will be looking into AMD’s Phenom II X4 955 CPU, as it performs well next to Intel’s i3-2100 with the right setup.
If you want to read up on the more detailed technical analysis of AMD Bulldozer cpu look here, and for testing on the Bulldozer FX-8150 look here.
