New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Does AMD's BullDozer turn you on?
With the imminent release of BullDozer, I can't wait to see how it stacks up with Xeons and Sandy Bridge.
All indications are that it's more powerful than an i5 and faster than most of the lower end Xeon Nehalem's (e55xx series)
I'm a longtime AMD user but of late our servers have moved to Xeon Westmere EP's...even my home PC became a Xeon...I feel disgusted.
BullDozers also seem like they will be a great alternative to the E3's in VPS deployments and Dedicated Servers.
I have a feeling lowender's have an affinity for the little guy, AMD.
Anybody else tired of that Intel chip in their PC and in their servers and would like to see a powerful alternative?
Would you buy a VPS based on BullDozer cores?
Comments
I am excited TBH, I wouldn't mind a VPS with Bulldozer cores however they aren't specifically built for servers AFAIK.
"Zambezi"' CPUs are the Bulldozer Desktop parts. Highlighted by a top end 8 cores per CPU on the FX-8150.
"Valencia" (I think it was Valencia) CPU's are the BD mid-range server parts.
"Interlagos" CPU's are the High End Bulldozer Server CPU's. Highlighted by 12 cores per CPU
We see i7's and E3's being used for VPS servers so it seems reasonable that both the FX-8150 and Valencia chips could do well as a VPS node.
I've even seen Dual Core servers being used as a VPS node
@kiloserve: I've seen Atoms used in a VPS node
So have I. And lol, I have just noticed what the title says, no it doesn't turn me on in that way!
Magny-Cours was 12 cores per CPU, Interlagos is 16
If the best they can do is beat out the 55xx/56xx then they're doing it wrong.
old mitgib used to have a rager for AMD but I hooked him on the good stuff.
Francisco
@doc I've heard Atoms are pretty powerful little chips but I had never seen one actually being used as a VPS node.
@Infinity, lol, I get "excited" by technology.
It's the price points that could work out in AMD's favor. Since VPS nodes are more geared towards parallel processing, the price + added cores is pretty exciting.
An E5620 costs around $400 retail while an FX-8150 should cost ~$250 and provide 8 real cores as opposed to 4 +4HT.
On the high end, an Intel X5680 12 threads (6C+6HT) is roughly $1700...two of them would set you back $3400. Meanwhile, a 16 Core AMD Interlagos should price in around $1300 x 2 would be $2600 and provide 32 cores.
Getting a 32 core AMD Interlagos VPS node at a lower cost than a similar 12 Core + 12 HT Intel Xeon is pretty exciting.
You guys are spending all that money while my Pentium D's are chugging along nicely.
edit: chuga chuga chuga chuga
I'll always be a closet AMD fanboy at heart, so yes.
Little shrink, more cores, almost same performance than before... Not worth for high performance imho
stop im getting turned on
I do not expect much for performance since AMD has been failing to compete that with Intel for many years after K8, but a low price can be a killer. No one can refuse cheap good parts.
Yo'mama so cheap, she uses AMD?
LOOOOOOOL
Yeah, that is the idea
Alot of AMD's failings have been on the desktop.
AMD's high-end server solutions have actually been ahead of Intel.
Check out AMD vs Intel, AMD is the red dot
http://kiloserve.com/images/stories/48core-benchmark.png
I've never, ever, ever, ever used a AMD Processor.
But I've always wanted too.
same here, I wouldn't mind giving Fusion a try for a silent HTPC at some point...
I heard somewhere that AMDs are quite low power requirement, and are apparently 50% cheaper then Intel.
And lower power, means lower temperture, and lower temperture means no need for 10k Fans :P
I use them on my home computers and the Toshiba laptop. Only issue I had with their chips was the one in the laptop had some issue where the two sides wouldn't talk correctly to one another. At least that's how I understood the docs about it. Had some windows patch that I discovered on the Toshiba site when I went looking for updated drivers one day. Didn't seem to make much difference to me.
http://kiloserve.com/images/stories/48core-benchmark.png
Yes, because you can put 48 cores. But if you could put 48 Intel cores, then...
Also, in single threaded apps, is better a Intel than an Amd.
It really is the price point and performance, and right now, the E3-1200 spanks the 6100, hell it spanks anything Intel has out in dual socket, but has the huge drawback of 16gb of ram until 8gb sticks come into the channel in qty. The E5 doesn't look all that exciting to me, and my customers are starting to get used to thinking of me when they want that high clock rate.
The X6 is a close second, and if BullDozer has a board more reasonable then the server grade AM3 board, is it still using the G34 socket? I might flip right back to AMD, Intel is a little too proud of their chips for far too long.
When I look at gear it is what kind of revenue can I generate per U of rackspace and at what cost that usually wins out on my purchase choice. Power consumption is on my mind as well, but more as a socially conscious factor then anything. If I can build for $1500 per U then I am going to look at anything seriously, maybe not buy, but I will defiantly be looking.
That is true, Intel per core performance is considerably higher than AMD Barcelona style chips (Phenom/Opteron) and single threaded performance is higher as a result.
Intel rules the desktop and single threaded apps, even I had to give in and buy an Intel for my home PC. In lowend and mid-range servers, Intel also has the edge.
But at the same time, on the high-end server side, Intel doesn't provide an OEM 48 core solution, and on top of that an 8 core Xeon costs $3000....EACH. So even with a much higher core count, AMD is still considerably cheaper than Intel.
As a VPS provider, single-thread performance is not as vital as parallel computing performance so the higher core counts are crucial.
BullDozer's new architecture should put it neck and neck with Intel's latest i7 Sandy Bridge on the desktop.
With AMD bringing back the "FX" name, I wouldn't be surprised if BD takes over the high-end overclocking (you already saw BD take the world record for overclocking). On the server front BD Interlagos and Valencia will be a great alternative for servers...especially since Interlagos can do 64 cores in a 4P solution.
Yes, still G34.
Socket comparison between AMD BD and Intel's equivalent
In the least, if Bulldozer can compete, it will force chip prices down...($3,000 for 1 Intel CPU anybody?) That's great news for VPS providers and VPS users.
AMD/Intel remind me of the energy drink competition...
AMP vs. Monster. AMP is obviously the AMD and Monster is the Intel. Everyone (well, at least here in Ohio) always prefer the Monster over AMP, because it tastes better and works better (so they say, i dont generally drink them).
And Monster at the gas station costs USD 2.89 while AMP is USD 2.39, lol.
If the 16 core BD is around $500 then I can see success, but the 12 core are still tipping $700 so I don't see it happening and 8gb UDIMM will surely make it out in qty by then
@Blackstorm72 stuff distributed by the beer companies always costs more than what gets delivered by the soda companies. Monster is a Budweiser delivered product while AMP is a Pepsi product.
yes, I know that's not the point. I came up through supermarkets...
@drmike
Proves my point more actually. Intel and AMD are not the same, so is the same with the drinks.
It just fits the pieces even better!
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html
good night sweet prince
Yep, the double of cores, more frequency, and it can't achieve the performance of a 2600k, or the nehalem 920 in single thread tasks ¬_¬ fail
As I said, is just like before, just more cores