AMD's Bulldozer disappoints: Why that's good news
- 15 October, 2011 08:48
- Comments 1
AMD's latest-and-greatest chip may lag slightly behind Intel's competing Core i5, as initial PCWorld performance-testing indicates. But these disappointing results hide benefits that AMD's "Bulldozer" FX CPU will likely offer, especially for cost-conscious small businesses.
The issue is that most CPU-performance tests don't reflect the potential computational power offered by FX, which has up to eight cores, depending on the version. Sure, computationally-wise, preliminary synthetic tests, such as PCMark 7 and Cinebench, reflect real-world computing performance and indicate that the FX lags in comparison with Intel's Core i5. That's what PCWorld's tests showed after running the four-core FX-4100 through the paces.
Why can't the FX' multi-core design crank past Intel's Core i5 in these tests? Most of these tests are largely geared for CPUs with two or fewer cores. Software makers also have yet to bring to market applications that will take advantage of FX multi-core design for multi-threading tasks.
The server equivalent of the FX, code-named "Interlagos"--meant to launch in a few weeks--already takes advantage of the eight cores to a greater extent than the desktop equivalent of the FX does, AMD says.
"AMD FX and Bulldozer CPU technology was optimized for multi-processing and multi-threaded applications," Dina McKinney, corporate vice president, design engineering, for AMD said via email.
The eight cores also benefit from AMD's Turbo Core feature, which automatically boosts the clock speed of different cores when others are not in use above and beyond their normal speeds. When Turbo Core kicks in, the standard clock speed of the FX-8150, the highest-end version of the FX, can speed from 3.6GHz to 3.6GHz.
Turbo Core also does this while monitoring power consumption and will lower the processing speed if overheating occurs (Intel's Turbo Boost has a similar functionality).
So in the future, look out for potential video editing, engineering, and other software that might harness what eight cores and Turbo Boost can offer both in the desktop space. While it is has yet to be proven, the FX with its eight cores could very well be ahead of its time.
For now, the FX-8150--the highest-end variation of AMD's FX--retails for $245, compared with $220 for its direct competitor, the Intel Core i5-2500K. So, if you're buying a new motherboard for a workstation and want to scrutinize the best value for your money, the Intel part will offer slightly better performance for most office applications for $25 less.
But, in the larger scheme of things, expect to see versions of the FX show up in future PCs that will at least compete against machines with Intel inside performance- wise, and may still beat the in price as well.
In the worst case scenario, AMD's FX launch is disappointing in that the chip doesn't trounce competing Intel devices in performance. Regardless, as the two chip giants battle, they continue to attempt to outdo each other, which benefits consumers.
In the end, the fact that AMD has maintained market share in CPUs means that Intel has had to keep its prices in check to remain competitive. If Intel had a monopoly, as Microsoft has had with its PC operating system, then CPU prices would surely have been higher and Intel would have had less incentive to innovate. Without the competition, a pure Intel monopoly would have left the workstation and server computing would years behind what it is today.
Bruce covers tech trends in the United States and Europe. He can be reached through his Website at www.brucegain.com.
Join the CIO Australia group on LinkedIn. The group is open to CIOs, IT Directors, COOs, CTOs and senior IT managers.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email CIO
- Follow CIO on twitter
-
Apple aims iPads at High Schools
-
Face Time - Interview with John Brennan and Robert DiStefano
-
Google Jumps Into Social Bookmarks Game
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
Face Time - Interview with John Brennan and Robert DiStefano
-
Reconciling Datacenter consolidation and security: It starts with an integrated approach
There is no question that datacenter consolidation has gone mainstream. A recent IDG Research survey of IT managers found that three out of four organizations are in the midst of, or just completing, consolidation of multiple applications or systems onto a smaller number of servers. Improving performance and availability was the key driver of consolidation efforts for 85% of those surveyed. -
CISO Guide to Next Generation Threats - Combating Advanced Malware, Zero-Day and Targeted APT Attacks
Over 95% of businesses unknowingly host compromised endpoints, despite their use of firewalls, intrusion prevention systems (IPS), antivirus and Web gateways.1 Today’s attacks look new and unknown to signature-based tools because the attacks employ advanced malware and zero-day vulnerabilities. To regain the upper hand against next-generation attacks, enterprises must turn to true next-generation protection: signature-less, proactive and real time. Read on. -
NetScaler 2048-bit SSL performance advantage
Citrix® NetScaler® provides advanced layer 4-7 traffic management and load balancing. Like other leading Application Delivery Controllers (ADCs), NetScaler can offload computationally expensive SSL processing responsibilities from web and application servers to speed the delivery of SSL-protected applications. Learn more.
-
Latex
-
Information Systems
-
Monitoring Exchange Server 2007 with System Center Operations Manager
-
Social Media Marketing for Dummies®
-
Introduction to Object-oriented Analysis, Objects and UML in Plain English 2E
-
Autocad
-
Effective Project Management
-
Flash MX Savvy (Includes CD)
-
Managing and Maintaining a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Environment (70-290)
Get exclusive access to Invitation only events CIO, reports & analysis. 
Comments
Vapor
Haha, except for fake benchmark . AMD is much much more power yet can cost less than half as much, ooks it simple math
AMD fx-4170 is 4.2ghz(quad) 1866mhz RAM controller 12mb Cache total 1mb L2 cache per cpu costs $120
Intel 2600K is 3.6ghz(quad) 1333 RAM controller 9mb cache total 1mb L2 cache for all 4 CPU costs $330
Ok before some fanboy lies to you, IIntel has 1333mhz RAM and thats the maximum they have ever produced, If you overclock you can get to 1600mhz but AMD can overclock RAM to 2500 easy so lets compare fairly. Now imagine AMD double the Cores to 8 when its quad core already stomped Intel
The real reason that Bulldozer did not stack up in the benchmarks is the compiler used for for each of the benchmarks. All of these closed-source benchmarks are compiled on the standard Intel compiler with the Intel libraries. It is not optimized to support any instructions beyond SSE3 for any processor other than Intel chips. SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, and FMA4 significantly increase the floating point performance of AMD processors, but are not used by code compiled on an Intel compiler. Intel was sued by AMD and settled but chose not to fix the kill and Code, as Intel calls it in internal E-mails
If you look at the integer performance of the benchmarks, AMD almost always out-performs the intel chips and shows a 15-30% increase in performance over the Phenom II x6 processors. If the compiler used was completely optimized for both Intel and AMD, floating point performance would also show similar gains.
Lastly, under full load where all of the threads are being used, the Intel chip is not physically capable of beating the AMD chip. 4 cores that complete one instruction each per cycle cannot physically beat 8 cores completing 1 instruction each per cycle, when threads are continually running.
Post new comment