AMD's Bulldozer architecture has just launched. Reviews from sites that I trust are at Techreport.com and Anandtech.com. Other sites exist, but I've found that those two are some of the more level-headed sites that don't turn into fanboys for one side or the other.
From the Techreport summary at the end of the article:
As you can see, the FX-8150 can't quite match the overall performance of the Core i5-2500K, and it costs $29 more, as well. That puts the FX-8150 in a difficult position purely from a value standpoint—without even considering that the Core i5-2500K fits into a smaller 95W power envelope.
I was personally hoping they'd be more competitive so that there'd be some pricing pressure on Intel. The Core i5-2500K/i7-2600K haven't really budged in price since January, which is a rarity in (non-Apple) technology.
Speaking of CPU prices, I recently looked at Intels Core 2 Duo E8400 (which is what I have) and it actually went up in price since I bought it. o.O CPU prices don't really change much apparently, or if anything.. go up in price after a while. Strange I guess.
AMD usually I think pushes out more cores before Intel does, but may not always be the case. I don't have a preference to AMD currently, as Intel hasn't done me any harm since I got this E8400 in my system. Hasn't let me down, so why switch what already works too well?
I've vaguely heard about AMD's Bulldozer architecture, but there isn't much I even know about it, so there isn't much I can say about it.
-APOCALYPSE- wrote:I've always wanted the AMD Bulldozer but it might mean i need to get a new computer and i not got any money to get one.
Start with the mobo and work up. How many times do I have to tell you a scratchbuild is cheaper?
I'm rocking one of AMD's recent processors in this, and it copes with anything I throw at it with ease, be it video games or Cubase (which is a monster when it's in full swing). I can't see this much power being truly necessary to even a demanding user for a bit.
GSH wrote:AMD's Bulldozer architecture has just launched. Reviews from sites that I trust are at Techreport.com and Anandtech.com. Other sites exist, but I've found that those two are some of the more level-headed sites that don't turn into fanboys for one side or the other.
From the Techreport summary at the end of the article:
As you can see, the FX-8150 can't quite match the overall performance of the Core i5-2500K, and it costs $29 more, as well. That puts the FX-8150 in a difficult position purely from a value standpoint—without even considering that the Core i5-2500K fits into a smaller 95W power envelope.
I was personally hoping they'd be more competitive so that there'd be some pricing pressure on Intel. The Core i5-2500K/i7-2600K haven't really budged in price since January, which is a rarity in (non-Apple) technology.
-- GSH
They failed again? Sigh. It's really difficult to tote AMD because it's like they aren't even trying anymore.
Analysis I've seen at this site notes that the number of transistors seems way high for the announced features. Only hope for AMD I can see right now is that it's like the Intel Prescott variant, which similarly bulked up transistors, and a while after launch, Intel said "oh, 64 bit support? Yeah we do that now. Here's a BIOS update that turns it all on." AMD might be hiding some shader cores in bulldozer, or something else that was about 95% ready when they needed to ship, and they'll fix it up and enable it for the next stepping. Not sure. If they aren't, they're in trouble.
Late reply to TwinShadow, CPU costs shoot back up when they stop making a specific socket compatible type and the one in question is on the higher end of those able to go into the socket. For example, a CPU that would fit into my current mobo that is better would cost nearly as much as my computer did in the first place even though a modern processor would kill it in any metrics.
