It looks like AMD could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment by simply making the secondary cores in each module look like an Intel Hyperthreading thread rather than simply as another full core.
Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>It looks like AMD could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment
>by >simply making the secondary cores in each module look like an Intel
>Hyperthreading thread rather than simply as another full core.
There have been a million words uttered about how Windoze 7 fumbles with Bulldozer
(or vice versa). But what about the penguins? I imagine the latest versions
of say Ubuntu or Oracle linux might be kludged to multi-task on Bulldozer.
I doubt the Interlagos and Valencias will fly out the door if they have the
same problem.
> Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It looks like AMD could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment
>> by
>> simply making the secondary cores in each module look like an Intel
>> Hyperthreading thread rather than simply as another full core.
> There have been a million words uttered about how Windoze 7 fumbles with Bulldozer
> (or vice versa). But what about the penguins? I imagine the latest versions
> of say Ubuntu or Oracle linux might be kludged to multi-task on Bulldozer.
> I doubt the Interlagos and Valencias will fly out the door if they have the
> same problem.
Does slightly better in Linux than in Windows 7. Some support for BD built into the Linux 3.0/3.1 kernels, more coming in the 3.2 kernel.
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:14:03 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> It looks like AMD could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment by > simply making the secondary cores in each module look like an Intel > Hyperthreading thread rather than simply as another full core.
> Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:14:03 -0500, Yousuf Khan<bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It looks like AMD could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment by
>> simply making the secondary cores in each module look like an Intel
>> Hyperthreading thread rather than simply as another full core.
> What's your take on value of 4-core FX-4100 at $105?
Probably depends on what you're upgrading from. I just picked up a Phenom II X6 1100T BE to replace an X3 710. It was both an upgrade in GHz as well as cores. So that was a noticeable upgrade. But those are 6 real cores. A 4-core Bulldozer's cores would be more like 2 cores and 4 Hyperthreads. Bulldozers do start off with pretty high GHz though, which is nice.
> On 20/11/2011 12:17 PM, willbill wrote:
> > Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:14:03 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >> It looks like AMD could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment by
> >> simply making the secondary cores in each module look like an Intel
> >> Hyperthreading thread rather than simply as another full core.
> > What's your take on value of 4-core FX-4100 at $105?
> Probably depends on what you're upgrading from. I just picked up a > Phenom II X6 1100T BE to replace an X3 710. It was both an upgrade in > GHz as well as cores. So that was a noticeable upgrade. But those are 6 > real cores. A 4-core Bulldozer's cores would be more like 2 cores and 4 > Hyperthreads. Bulldozers do start off with pretty high GHz though, which > is nice.
Thanks for the response.
I'm running Phenom II X4 955 BE, so for me it's not likely to be much of an upgrade.
BTW I read your separate thread on your new Phenom II X6 1100T BE with interest. :)
re FX-4100, I wouldn't mind getting some 1st hand
experience as that's what really counts. I've also
already got a decent AM3+ mobo.
For the moment I'm waiting to see a detailed review of the FX-4100. So far the initial month of user reviews are positive, but it's easy to write that off as AMD "fan boy" stuff.
I'm also starting to look at Intel, but that'd take
both a cpu and mobo, and the Intel based mobo's cost more than the comparable AMD units.
If you hadn't noticed, the last time I bought
Intel was a very long time ago. :)
BTW I noticed that XMAS showed up two full weeks earlier this year than last. :)
Comment on PBS news a few days ago was that per person spending is likely to be slightly down this season, hence the earlier advertising.
Anyhow, It's not like I'm doing anything so demanding that I need to move to a more powerful PC setup. And as I've not seen
any great deals (I'm not really looking), I'll keep waiting.
> > I've 2 of the NH-U12P SE2, so count me as biased. :)
> I haven't ventured into the realm of aftermarket coolers yet. I'm trying > to find some headroom within my stock coolers right now.
FWIW, I only use the best of AMD's stock coolers with my least demanding cpu's.
They're inadequate and noisy with most
of AMD's faster cpu's.
While the Noctua coolers look expensive, they're in fact the cheapest of all of them as you get premium fans (*plural*) along with the premium heatsink. I also like that
Noctua provides convenient in-line resistors
that allow the fan speed to be lowered.
The NH-U12P SE2 does need a case that's a minimum of roughly 8" thick. amazon
tends to have best pricing, but not always.
And due to their use of 3rd party vendors,
pricing varies a lot there.
> Sat, 26 Nov 2011 00:19:40 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Probably depends on what you're upgrading from. I just picked up a
>> Phenom II X6 1100T BE to replace an X3 710. It was both an upgrade in
>> GHz as well as cores. So that was a noticeable upgrade. But those are 6
>> real cores. A 4-core Bulldozer's cores would be more like 2 cores and 4
>> Hyperthreads. Bulldozers do start off with pretty high GHz though, which
>> is nice.
> Thanks for the response.
> I'm running Phenom II X4 955 BE, so for me
> it's not likely to be much of an upgrade.
Also what I think. Perhaps, a Bulldozer 8xxx series would be much more noticeable too you: 4 modules/8 cores in AMD terminology, 4 cores/8 threads in generic terminology.
> I'm also starting to look at Intel, but that'd take
> both a cpu and mobo, and the Intel based mobo's
> cost more than the comparable AMD units.
> If you hadn't noticed, the last time I bought
> Intel was a very long time ago. :)
I don't see a problem with going Intel, if you really want a performance upgrade that's noticeable right now. But in order to do that, you'll need not just an expensive Intel mobo, but also an expensive Intel processor. The high-end Phenom II's, despite their pre-conceived sad-sack reputations are no slouches when compared to Intel's offerings. Only the highest end Intels would put them to shame, and only in some cases.
You might find that going with an FM1 motherboard with an upcoming Trinity core processor would be the better deal. The built-in *real* GPU alone would be worth it.
> Anyhow, It's not like I'm doing anything so
> demanding that I need to move to a more
> powerful PC setup. And as I've not seen
> any great deals (I'm not really looking),
> I'll keep waiting.
I waited 3-4 years for this particular upgrade, myself.
>>> I've 2 of the NH-U12P SE2, so count me as biased. :)
>> I haven't ventured into the realm of aftermarket coolers yet. I'm trying
>> to find some headroom within my stock coolers right now.
> FWIW, I only use the best of AMD's stock
> coolers with my least demanding cpu's.
> They're inadequate and noisy with most
> of AMD's faster cpu's.
I'm thinking that with the current processor that I have, if I do decide to replace the stock cooler, then I'll go with a water cooler right off the bat.
Actually, my priority is not a cooler for the next upgrade. It would either be an SSD, or an upgrade to my GPU. The GPU because I've waited even longer to upgrade my GPU than the CPU, currently a Geforce 8600GT. The SSD because I'm finding that really my biggest daily bottleneck is my OS boot disk speed. Based on Windows Experience Index, my biggest bottleneck is the GPU, rated at 4.8 out of 7.9; but my hard disks get 5.9 on the index. But of course, it's the hard disk that gets used constantly, the highest functions of the GPU is used infrequently.
Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:21:50 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 26/11/2011 4:59 PM, willbill wrote:
>> I'm running Phenom II X4 955 BE, so for me
>> it's not likely to be much of an upgrade.
> Also what I think. Perhaps, a Bulldozer 8xxx series would be much more > noticeable too you: 4 modules/8 cores in AMD terminology, 4 cores/8 > threads in generic terminology.
Interesting thought. I'm not likely to spend the money
for either of the 8 core FX cpus, but I'll start paying
some attention to pricing of the 6 core FX cpu.
Your buy of a 6 core Phenom II X6 1100T BE suggests
that you either run multi-threaded apps, or think that
this will pick up in the near future?
>... The high-end Phenom II's, despite their pre-conceived sad-sack
> reputations are no slouches when compared to Intel's offerings. > Only the highest end Intels would put them to shame,
> and only in some cases.
Agreed.
> You might find that going with an FM1 motherboard with an upcoming > Trinity core processor would be the better deal. The built-in *real* GPU > alone would be worth it.
The apu arena is another that I'll be paying
more attention to. Given the likely additional
complexity (both hardware and software),
I don't see going there any time soon.
> I'm thinking that with the current processor that I have, if I do decide > to replace the stock cooler, then I'll go with a water cooler right off > the bat.
Whoa! There's a jump into the deep end. :)
Given you've zero experience with after-market
air coolers, have you got a ref that makes a case for water cooling over air cooling? I'm mainly
talking money/performance/convenience ratio as that seems to be a key interest of yours.
> Actually, my priority is not a cooler for the next upgrade. It would > either be an SSD, or an upgrade to my GPU. The GPU because I've waited > even longer to upgrade my GPU than the CPU, currently a Geforce 8600GT. > The SSD because I'm finding that really my biggest daily bottleneck is > my OS boot disk speed. Based on Windows Experience Index, my biggest > bottleneck is the GPU, rated at 4.8 out of 7.9; but my hard disks get > 5.9 on the index. But of course, it's the hard disk that gets used > constantly, the highest functions of the GPU is used infrequently.
> Yousuf Khan
All three are clear upgrades. I'd tend to think more in
terms of time screwing around with getting it functional:
1. GPU = least time spent
2. SSD = some time spent, especially 1st time
3. cooler = most time spent; key side benefit = quieter
> Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:21:50 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 26/11/2011 4:59 PM, willbill wrote:
>>> I'm running Phenom II X4 955 BE, so for me
>>> it's not likely to be much of an upgrade.
>> Also what I think. Perhaps, a Bulldozer 8xxx series would be much more
>> noticeable too you: 4 modules/8 cores in AMD terminology, 4 cores/8
>> threads in generic terminology.
> Interesting thought. I'm not likely to spend the money
> for either of the 8 core FX cpus, but I'll start paying
> some attention to pricing of the 6 core FX cpu.
> Your buy of a 6 core Phenom II X6 1100T BE suggests
> that you either run multi-threaded apps, or think that
> this will pick up in the near future?
You don't need individual highly multi-threaded apps to take advantage of the threading. Just running Windows, you always have several things running simultaneously. I've gone from single-core to dual-core triple core, to currently hexa-core, and system responsiveness always gets smoother with the more cores/threads you have. I found double-core used to get heavily bogged down easily under Windows. Triple-core was much more tamed, but still it would've been nice to have at least one more core available. And now of course, I got 3 more cores. I expect I won't be maxing that out for a couple of years yet.
>> I'm thinking that with the current processor that I have, if I do decide
>> to replace the stock cooler, then I'll go with a water cooler right off
>> the bat.
> Whoa! There's a jump into the deep end. :)
> Given you've zero experience with after-market
> air coolers, have you got a ref that makes a case
> for water cooling over air cooling? I'm mainly
> talking money/performance/convenience ratio
> as that seems to be a key interest of yours.
No, but I'm also not in the market for any sort of aftermarket cooling system either. I figure by the time I'm ready to go there, I'll be able to really research it. Both AMD and Intel are now offering water-cooling on their next-gen processors. Also I got a pretty decent full-tower case, just upgraded last year, which already has holes drilled in for water-cooling pipes.
>No, but I'm also not in the market for any sort of aftermarket cooling
>system either. I figure by the time I'm ready to go there, I'll be
>able >to really research it. Both AMD and Intel are now offering water-cooling
>on their next-gen processors. Also I got a pretty decent full-tower
>case, just upgraded last year, which already has holes drilled in
>for >water-cooling pipes.
What took them so long? I recall years ago a Pentium D 3.4 GHz, that was amazingly
rated at 95 W TDP. Yet the Intel cooler was maximum RPM within 90 seconds of
booting. Surely they needed better cooling way back then.
>> No, but I'm also not in the market for any sort of aftermarket cooling
>> system either. I figure by the time I'm ready to go there, I'll be
>> able
>> to really research it. Both AMD and Intel are now offering water-cooling
>> on their next-gen processors. Also I got a pretty decent full-tower
>> case, just upgraded last year, which already has holes drilled in
>> for
>> water-cooling pipes.
> What took them so long? I recall years ago a Pentium D 3.4 GHz, that was amazingly
> rated at 95 W TDP. Yet the Intel cooler was maximum RPM within 90 seconds of
> booting. Surely they needed better cooling way back then.
I think they were able to hang onto the traditional cooling systems longer with the advance of internal CPU thermal control circuitry. The processors wouldn't get to high temperatures until they were really pushed for power.
