thank you, this is the best review I've seen of the 1100T, great transparency with the readers, it shows the processors from all the angles
AMD made a bad decision switching to bulldozer architecture, now they are deep in the ass. Bulldozer/Vishera/Steamroller all of them loosing to Core I* in multi-core performance. Also seems like Vishera (FX-8350) is their last 8-core CPU, as they stated there will be no Steamroller for AM3+ socket, they lost this fight. And soon they'll loose discrete video card market to Nvidia.
Better was to improve Phenom II memory controller, move to 28/32 nm, and increase core count to 8/12 - that could be a Win strategy.
I think that the biggest enemy of AMD is not Intel, but is ARM: is lowcost, is fairly fast (aka 3x-5x slower than the AMD counterpart) and they have decent graphics with 1080p output, sometimes 4K output. Also they consume less and there is wide industry adoption. Also the single missing part of ARM: 64 bit is here, at least in GCC, LLVM and in Android. I will expect that ARM will replace many low end hardware of AMD.
The AMD GCC patches I've seen usually appeared a year before the hw was for sale. Late ;)Quote:
they optimize late for example Java or GCC runtimes
Kaveri GCC, Oct 2012: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIwNDY
Kaveri for sale: Feb 2014
Trinity GCC, Jul 2011: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg00842.html
Trinity for sale: Oct 2012
So once again, you're right, I stand corrected.
In Kdenlive, processor loads come frokm Libx264 encoding and decoding when source and destination files are H264 video. On my FX-8120 overclocked to 4.4 GHZ I can do two simultanious renders from the same project, one to 1080p for archiving and one to 720p for publicaton, in just over 2x realtime. A single rendering out to 1080p takes about 1.4x realtime,
and does not fully load the CPU. On the Phenom II x4 overclocked to just under 3.8 GHZ, it takes barely under 2x realtime to render out a single 1080p video from a Kdenlive project and almost fully loads the CPU. I forgot exactly how long a double render took on the Phenom, but it was close to 4x realtime, which makes sense as a single render that fully loads the CPUI gives about 2x realtime.
A lot of this comes from clock speed, I tested the FX 8120 in in "one core per module" 4 thread mode and also with two modules disabled. From the difference in results it appears that for Kdenlive rendering to H264, the 2 core per module "hyperthreading" is about 35% faster that those same modules at one core per module. Also got 15% + higher clock speed overclocked to add to that.
It's hard to fully load Bulldozer, which is why it can't do a single rendering job in real time. Full load to full load with all threads in use, it seems almost twice as fast as my Phenom II x4. Theoretical if the 8 cores were as good as 8 true discrete cores plus the higher clock speed would be 2.3x as fast, but either beats the just over 1.5x as fast as a Phenom II x4 that I would expect from a Phenom II x6. This is very different from the Windows results posted.
Keep in mind video rendering (my most demanding use) is one of the applications Bulldozer and Piledriver are really good at. They are claimed to suck for gaming, but the newest Intel I have for comparison is a Pentium 4 so I cannot evaluate that.
Anyway, FX cpus not as good as Phenom II was. Just imagine the performance that could have 32nm 8-core Phenom with FX's memory controller?
Check out review on THG: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ew,3328-3.html
The old Phenom II beats FX-8350 and I7-3770K in 3D Studio Max rendering test.
Intel had made a mistake with NetBurst arch. in past, but they dropped it in favor of Core 2 CPUs. May be AMD will do the same, time will tell.