-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
FRONTPAGE AMD FX-8150 - Bulldozer - Processor Review
- Thread starter Overclockers.com
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
BD can run at it's stock speed at a lower voltage with the auto volt turned off.
But a server processor is designed to be efficient period. The way it handles data streams and what not are unique when compared to a faster desktop CPU. Though how did the discussion land here?
But a server processor is designed to be efficient period. The way it handles data streams and what not are unique when compared to a faster desktop CPU. Though how did the discussion land here?
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
I remember when I used to work for Apple, and then Sun Microsystems, TCO, power saving and "going green" were BIG. It is a major benefit when chosing a server.
What counts the most for a customer buying a server is how much data per dollar it can handle during its lifetime.
Period.
What counts the most for a customer buying a server is how much data per dollar it can handle during its lifetime.
Period.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
Sixteen core Interlagos chips are composed of two BD eight cores interconnected via MCM similar to Mangy Cours, using the same G34 socket. It seems that only the 6272 2.1 GHz and 6276 2.3 GHz 16-core versions are currently available. Clock speeds are that low because AMD needed to limit thermal design power to maintain compatibility with current generation of G34 socket servers. IMO, they need to get up to 3.0 to 3.3 GHz to be competitive.
I don't think that is a fair assumption really. You don't need IPC to be on par with a desktop machine on a server. Your bottleneck is generally I/O and then compute threading.
There is nothing different about the I/O on the Opty BD platform, as you can just plug them into current Magny-Cours boxes if you get a bios update. And what type of workloads run on Servers? Well... VM's that house well threaded application servers is usually par for the course. J2ee servers. .Net web services... etc etc.
For stuff like PHP based sites the more OS's you can run the better your NginX server can distribute load. Magny-Cours don't run that fast and they are usually great option. Nothing has changed here for the worse. It's actually gotten better for AMD.
It is intel that has to hit higher clocks to compete, not the other way around.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- Frederick, MD
ok, that's you... however, I've seen several instances where others are looking at BD just for servers and my own office jumped on one.
true
BD is great for server class workloads which can often be easily distributed among cores. The BD server I just put together is actually for running VMs, but our web & sql servers also tax the processor pretty heavily among a boatload of threads. Even though BD has a high TDP, it's still a lot less costly per unit of work since it destroys single cpu systems and often dual cpu systems - and the dual cpu systems consume a LOT more energy.
the "green" movement really depends on the organization, but the last sentence is 100% true.
Im sure there are a few instances when its ok. But when you are talking about life cycle management and replacing hundreds of physical servers, most data center managers worth anything would turn and run from BD. In a lot of cases the extra power consumption and heat just are not worth it compared to a similarly performing, less power hungry, and cooler running chip.
There is a significant difference between typical IT guys buying a server, and a data-center.
Typical guy looks at what he can get for his current budget and that is usually about as far as it goes, sometimes there is a TCO convo but in my experience it doesn't happen often.
DC's are more concerned with operational expenses then others as such I think that is where EarthDog is coming from. To a point it makes total sense.
Till you realize that you can get 64+ cores in 1U of rack space. For virtualized environments this can mean higher consolidation ratio's per rack per watt then other platforms. Some workloads do fine with hyperthreading some require cores to be happy. In these cases BD makes sence. Although an 8 Core version of the previous generation would have been better.
Typical guy looks at what he can get for his current budget and that is usually about as far as it goes, sometimes there is a TCO convo but in my experience it doesn't happen often.
DC's are more concerned with operational expenses then others as such I think that is where EarthDog is coming from. To a point it makes total sense.
Till you realize that you can get 64+ cores in 1U of rack space. For virtualized environments this can mean higher consolidation ratio's per rack per watt then other platforms. Some workloads do fine with hyperthreading some require cores to be happy. In these cases BD makes sence. Although an 8 Core version of the previous generation would have been better.
And here is where that arguement falls short. I can get Hex's with the same performance from intel using less power and heat... I too can cram 48 threads in a box (4 Hex's with HT).
But unless its blade technology, no way are you cramming 64 cores (where did you get 64 cores) in a 1U unit.
But unless its blade technology, no way are you cramming 64 cores (where did you get 64 cores) in a 1U unit.
4 Socket * 16 Core CPU's = 64
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101317
Not only that but intel hex cpu's with ht aren't cheap. AMD's stuff is / was cheaper per core.
Like I said depends on workload. Some things don't like hyper-threaded cores especially when virtualized. If real core count matters and it does and will for some tasks then AMD's cpus are a good solution.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101317
Not only that but intel hex cpu's with ht aren't cheap. AMD's stuff is / was cheaper per core.
Like I said depends on workload. Some things don't like hyper-threaded cores especially when virtualized. If real core count matters and it does and will for some tasks then AMD's cpus are a good solution.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
Link says quad 8 or 12 core processors. 4x12=48
Either way, I would love to see the cooling solution used to keep those 4 cool. That alone would pay for a few more Intel's. I would imagine the price spent in cooling would negate the savings of the processor. I can't see the advantage of having 48 cores of super hot running, not as efficient cores over more expensive, cooler running, more efficient cores. But that's my opinion.
Either way, I would love to see the cooling solution used to keep those 4 cool. That alone would pay for a few more Intel's. I would imagine the price spent in cooling would negate the savings of the processor. I can't see the advantage of having 48 cores of super hot running, not as efficient cores over more expensive, cooler running, more efficient cores. But that's my opinion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Location
- Frederick, MD
FWIW, I've worked in an infrastructure group that both handled its own "datacenter" as well as was contracted to handle much larger, true datacenters. I currently work at a smaller firm that rents rackspace and we don't care about thermal output or power consumption as that is billed at a flat rate. What we do care about is raw processing horsepower per u and the cost of the server; BD is a clear winner here. Even in the case where we are directly responsible for power & a/c, the difference in TDP isn't large enough to warrant passing up BD as a solution.
BTW, from what I've seen, the BD server chips are supposed to be 16 core, so a quad CPU server will be 64 cores - and that is VERY much worth looking at in a server environment.
BTW, from what I've seen, the BD server chips are supposed to be 16 core, so a quad CPU server will be 64 cores - and that is VERY much worth looking at in a server environment.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2011
- Location
- Australia, Perth
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
Personally I'd spend a little more and get an 8120 or stick with what you have.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
It depends on what you do with your computer.
If gaming, an OC to 3.8/4GHz plus a nice gpu will do better than upgrading the CPU.
If using software as Photoshop, or doing heavy rendering or encoding, for sure a better cpu will help.
When my girlfriend needs to do heavy PS work, she uses the 2600k and I put the 6950 in the AMD rig. I see NO difference while gaming.
I would wait for march 2012 and grab an Ivy bridge or wait a little bit more and see what PileDriver got in the guts.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Location
- New York, NY
I love the logistics at AMD... :O
Similar threads
- Sticky
