ArmA 3 & AMD FX

[carlostex 38]

Really?

http://imageshack.us/f/833/marketingbsbyamd.jpg/

FPDR

That slide only shows games relative performance vs a specific Intel processor, which is definately not the best Intel CPU. Plus it is out of the context. Better for you to stop posting irrelevant stuff here.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Not sure if trolling or stupid

This is not a way of expressing oneself here.

[Pyronick 21]

??

Are we talking about market share on the server side of things?

2010 Intel had a 92% market share....

Oh my, you are right. Things have changed apparently.

[Tonci87 163]

Seriously guys why is this Thread in Arma3 General?

[Mr_Tea 0]

With all the optimization needed, Hardware wise and Software wise, i`ll stay with my Phenom II X4 for some time to come. Maybe replace it by an X6 and add more RAM. But hell no, i won`t switch to an new Platform that fast.

Saves me Money, and my nerves.;)

[bangtail 0]

This doesnt belong here!

And JFYI, Bulldozer was a horrendous failure that basically forced AMD to quit the desktop CPU market altogether.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not-Competing-With-Intel-Anymore-Goes-Mobile-237103.shtml

They have since stated that they are still going to make desktop CPUs, but the company has (and continues to have) major problems at various level of management.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Still-Committed-to-x86-Whatever-That-Means-237441.shtml

Edited January 9, 2012 by BangTail

[frostwyrm333 1]

hmm, if I remember correctly AMD cant really quit making CPUs, there are some legal issues or smt like that, also, intel would become total monopoly.

Edited January 9, 2012 by frostwyrm333

[PuFu 4600]

intel would become total monopoly.

if true about AMD, it only means we (consumers) will have to suffer...

Edited January 10, 2012 by PuFu

[Tonci87 163]

This is true. Less competition=bad for the customers

[b101_uk 10]

On the other hand, less competition would mean longer between iterations of architecture and bigger jumps in performance between iterations because you don’t have the silly CPU wars to keep fan-boys happy spending money.

Is not spending $400 to $500 every 18 months on a new CPU and skt motherboard that are only marginally better just as costly as spending $800 to $1000 every 3 years on a new CPU and skt motherboard that is significantly better.

[PuFu 4600]

that is very optimistic of you, but doubt it will happen that way....

1. no one is forcing to upgrade. I only do when i need to and when the gain matters

2. it's not only about price, but also about technology...competition drives technology, even when sometimes it ends in a failure (AMD FX 8-core)

[carlostex 38]

hmm, if I remember correctly AMD cant really quit making CPUs, there are some legal issues or smt like that, also, intel would become total monopoly.

Basically the x86 license would transit to another company. I'm pretty sure Intel prefers AMD to survive than having IBM, Google or lest say Apple as competitors.

It's very complicated legally wise but not impossible.

[igneous01 19]

If AMD drops from the cpu market, whats stopping intel from pricing all new released cpu's at 1000$ ? This is why I favor AMD over intel, because while its not top of the line (i7) their T1090 is a very good cpu for its price range. I can run Arma 2 on max settings and do more stuff with a (back then 250$) cpu, I may not get the 40-60fps, but 30fps is enough for me.

[incontrovertible 13]

Hmm, that is really bad news about AMD not taking the desktop market seriously anymore, but thanks for your comments on the subject guys especially from those with bulldozers. Much appreciated!

I really hope that we can still have a competitive CPU market though, Intel will stick us with higher prices if they get the opportunity...

[someboy 0]

Hopefully Arma3 will have a solid multithread implementation which can squeeze the power of those bulldoers.

[frostwyrm333 1]

I'm not sure you can code in a way that enables you to select the cores. That's what scheduler is for.

[someboy 0]

No, you cannot select the cores. That's an operating system responsibility. You can however distribute the algorithms code in different threads in lesser or greater degree.

[Dwarden 1125]

http://blogs.amd.com/work/2012/01/11/an-update-for-your-2012-scheduler/

AMD's blog about 2 recent Microsoft OS(es) updates for FX / Buldozer cores

[someboy 0]

A 10% improvement is definitely important, if true:

http://www.techpowerup.com/158534/New-Windows-7-Bulldozer-Patches-Available..html

[frostwyrm333 1]

not sure if posted here before, here are linux benchmarks (may not be fully objective because firstly its linux, optimization varies and secondly the website is sometimes full of BS)

(benchmarks start on the 6th page)

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8150_bulldozer&num=6

you can clearly see that 8150 defeats 2500K in multithreaded tests but doesn't do that well in single

[ziiip 1]

So the AMD FX isnt a bad processor at all, its the softwares that are not using it. ^^

[bangtail 0]

So the AMD FX isnt a bad processor at all, its the softwares that are not using it. ^^

Better late than never, hopefully this will make Bulldozer a little more competitive.

[frostwyrm333 1]

@ziiip, well if you are rendering 3D graphics and encoding videos then definitely but the price is not justified. As with SW, that's a hard part, multithreading helps but only to some point, singlethread performance is probably more important for general stuff.

As for bad, its more expensive than 2500K, I wouldn't call that good.

[onlyrazor 11]

I'm fairly certain Bulldozer will be great for servers and stuff. I'm just gonna stick with the Ivy Bridge i7, myself :p