AMD’s Bulldozer Disappoints: Why That’s Good News

AMD's latest-and-superlative chip may put behind bars slenderly behind Intel's competing Core i5, American Samoa initial PCWorld performance-testing indicates. But these dissatisfactory results hide benefits that AMD's "Bulldozer" FX CPU will likely offer, especially for cost-conscious wee businesses.

The issue is that most CPU-functioning tests don't reflect the potential computational power offered by FX, which has adequate eight cores, depending on the version. Sure, computationally-wise to, preliminary synthetic tests, such as PCMark 7 and Cinebench, speculat 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 and through the paces.

Why tin can't the FX' multi-core design crank past Intel's Core i5 in these tests? All but of these tests are largely geared for CPUs with two or fewer cores. Software makers also have yet to bestow to market applications that will take advantage of FX multi-core intent for multi-threading tasks.

The server equivalent of the FX, code-named "Interlagos"–meant to set up in a few weeks–already takes advantage of the eight cores more than the desktop equivalent of the FX does, AMD says.

"AMD FX and Dozer CPU engineering was optimized for multi-processing and multi-rib applications," Dina McKinney, house frailty president, design engineering, for AMD said via email.

The eight cores besides benefit from AMD's Turbo Core group feature, which mechanically boosts the time speed of different cores when others are not in use above and beyond their normal speeds. When Turbo Sum kicks in, the normal clock speed of the FX-8150, the highest-end version of the FX, can belt along from 3.6GHz to 3.6GHz.

Turbo Burden also does this spell monitoring power consumption and will lower the processing speed if overheating occurs (Intel's Turbo Cost increase has a similar functionality).

And then in the prospective, looking at out for potential video editing, engineering, and other software program that might rule what eight cores and Turbo Encouragement can offer some in the desktop space. While it is has one of these days to be proven, the FX with its eight cores could very well be ahead of its clip.

For now, the FX-8150–the highest-death pas seul of AMD's FX–retails for $245, compared with $220 for its unvarnished competitor, the Intel Core i5-2500K. Thusly, if you're buying a New motherboard for a workstation and deprivation to take stock the best value for your money, the Intel part volition pass slimly better carrying into action for most office applications for $25 fewer.

But, in the larger scheme of things, expect to see versions of the FX turn up in future PCs that leave leastways compete against machines with Intel inside performance- wise, and may still beat the in price as swell.

In the worst case scenario, AMD's FX launch is disappointing in this the micro chip doesn't trounce competing Intel devices in operation. Careless, as the deuce chip giants battle, they continue to attempt to outdo each past, which benefits consumers.

In the remainder, the fact that AMD has maintained securities industry share in CPUs means that Intel has had to keep its prices in impediment to stay on capitalistic. If Intel had a monopoly, Eastern Samoa Microsoft has had with its PC OS, 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 potty be reached through his Website at www.brucegain.com.

Source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/477402/amds_bulldozer_disappoints_why_thats_good_news.html

Posted by: cordeiroloores1981.blogspot.com

Share this post