You are here

AMD Bulldozer

For anything relating to music-making on Windows computers, with lots of FAQs. Moderated by Martin Walker.

AMD Bulldozer

Postby munichlondon » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:45 pm

Hello,

AMD has released it's new CPU line. The architecture is very different to everything before and is called Bulldozer. All the reviews I have seen so far say that the top of the line chip is with most applications merely on par with a fast Intel i5, but usually the i7 2600k beats it hands down.
Some exceptions exist though and those usually are of the creative app kind.

Unfortunately though I haven't found any review yet that puts it though its paces using professional music production software.

Does anyone know about such a benchmark?

munichlondon
munichlondon
New here
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby TAFKAT » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:14 pm

Some results Here

Its not pretty.

V:
TAFKAT
Regular
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Australia

AAVIM Technology

DAWbench.com


Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby munichlondon » Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:43 am

Thank you very much, but unfortunately this is not about the FX-8150 but a lower spec'd chip. On the other hand it led me to this review:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1

...where part of the conclusion goes like this:
"For the guys that use their PC for content creation and video transcoding, well this processor kicks in very nicely, and for a reasonable price you get impressive multi-threaded performance."

What I am wondering now is how much current DAWs benefit from "impressive multi-threaded performance". Do 8 AMD integer cores outperform 4 Intel ones? At a lower price? Or does one have to bite the bullet and wait for Sandy Bridge - E and have 6 cores plus the benefit of more and faster RAM?
munichlondon
New here
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Pete Kaine » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:39 am

munichlondon wrote:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1

...where part of the conclusion goes like this:
"For the guys that use their PC for content creation and video transcoding, well this processor kicks in very nicely, and for a reasonable price you get impressive multi-threaded performance."

What I am wondering now is how much current DAWs benefit from "impressive multi-threaded performance". Do 8 AMD integer cores outperform 4 Intel ones? At a lower price? Or does one have to bite the bullet and wait for Sandy Bridge - E and have 6 cores plus the benefit of more and faster RAM?

We saw the same thing with Phanoms where in they did great at transcoding, and video media in all of the published benchmarks, but in audio testing they came up very, very short. Seeing as AMD & ATI are the same firm I can't help but feel they do some interesting weighting for video in the driver sets than make these look better than they are (both ATI and Nvidia have a history of this...).

I'm going to bench one at some point soon and do a spec around one, but I'm not holding my breath for even a second. Far more intrested in finally pulling the SB Ex from under the bench finally and kicking the hell out of that for a few days at this point.

In answer to the 8 cores to 4 cores question, the AMD's are being crippled by the shared cache betweens cores (from the feedback I've had) which seems quite daft in all honestly.... but once you start to look at it in that light, it's no different from hyperthreading even if the cores themselves are physical rather than virtual.
User avatar
Pete Kaine
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Dishpan » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:58 pm

> In answer to the 8 cores to 4 cores question, the AMD's are being crippled by the shared cache betweens cores (from the feedback I've had).

That's minor in the grand scheme of things and the least of AMD's worries!

How about horribly high cache latency, massively long CPU pipeline, horrible AVX performance, shared FPUs and ineffective Windows scheduling. The worst thing is how far AMD really are behind.

And the future was looking so bright...
Dishpan
Regular
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Pete Kaine » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:19 pm

Well if we're lucky, it'll turn into AMD's "Prescott" and it'll force them into finally investing in a new chipset and way of doing things on the die.
User avatar
Pete Kaine
Frequent Poster
Posts: 2476
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby munichlondon » Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:16 am

I see, thank you very much for contributing to this Pete.

Luckily my system update is not due until Spring/Summer 2012. I hope that at that time I can chose between SB-E (more cores, more RAM), Ivy Bridge (22nm -> higher clocks, native USB 3) and Piledriver (better efficiency, more single threat power, maybe more optimized software).

I am really looking forward to that!

munichlondon
munichlondon
New here
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Dishpan » Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 am

> Well if we're lucky, it'll turn into AMD's "Prescott" and it'll force them into finally investing in a new chipset and way of doing things on the die.

Well, the problem isn't just that they're slower, but that they're SO much slower than Intel. They've predicting a 10-15% performance increase per year, not good when you're already so far behind.
Dishpan
Regular
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:10 pm

I think the P4 got the award for the longest pipelines in a CPU - and everyone danced around them - The BD pipelines are not 'massively long' were on earth did you see that, would like to see that link
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:27 pm

Well, the problem isn't just that they're slower, but that they're SO much slower than Intel.


Not really... look at the Guru 3D link in reply 3 - Some people have been taking chances with their testing, for example doing tests that exclude GPU results, which is done under the guise of getting to see what the CPU is really doing... ahh yes but the Intel they are test is not really a CPU is it, its a APU - it has a graphics engine on-board and you can see that this is the case because it (Intel) scores in DX 10.1 but falls flat on DX 11, that is because the HD Graphics 2000 and 3000 does not have DX 11 support

I'll agree with the lack of AVX handling
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby johnny h » Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:57 pm

DragonLogos wrote:
Well, the problem isn't just that they're slower, but that they're SO much slower than Intel.


Not really... look at the Guru 3D link in reply 3 - Some people have been taking chances with their testing, for example doing tests that exclude GPU results, which is done under the guise of getting to see what the CPU is really doing... ahh yes but the Intel they are test is not really a CPU is it, its a APU - it has a graphics engine on-board and you can see that this is the case because it (Intel) scores in DX 10.1 but falls flat on DX 11, that is because the HD Graphics 2000 and 3000 does not have DX 11 support

I'll agree with the lack of AVX handling


Ok well you can talk about APUs, DX 10.1, DX 11, AVX handling etc etc, but we're on the soundonsound forum, and currently AMD are offering extremely poor audio performance relative to Intel. Very disappointing. Bulldozer is a total flop.
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:31 pm

AVX is needed for Audio BTW - seems some people are upset that Bulldozer is the fastest CPU in the World and has eight real cores rather than four cores and four imaginary friends
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby munichlondon » Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:07 pm

Due to the shared overhead AMD says one modul with two integer cores performs like 1.8 tradional integer cores compared to Intels Hyper Threading technology's 1.2 cores.

I once read somewhere that music applications are far more dependent on floating point performance than on integer. In that regards AMD also only features four cores (like i7 Intels), arguing that GPUs are far better at floating point calculation than CPUs anyway.

It seems to me that Bulldozer comes a little to early a little to slow. It expects developers to code their software not only as multi-threaded as possible on CPUs but also to make heavy use of GPGPU. Given that they produce a big chunk of todays GPUs this move is not surprising, but I still think a lot of applications aren't there yet.
munichlondon
New here
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:41 pm

The way I see it is that Multi core is the only thing to play for, CPU speeds are not going anywhere and even Intel have 24 Core Chips on the cards - it makes sense, MS and everyone else get to sell you a whole lot of new software... Maybe they can even do a Vista & ME with Windows 8 and do it all over with Win 9 - The last thing that they want is for people to hang onto XP, so something has to give

The New BD seems to be more bent in the Video /Photoshop /Server end of life, which suits me fine as Videos are more of what I do these days... as some people have noted the need to tweak your PC to get the last drop out of it is not that important because of the extra power that is there now, so if they are sitting with all this top end that never gets used why are they beating a stick on poor old AMD - then you get the word Future proof hissed at you, which often causes the younger ones to giggle cause they know that there ain't no such thing - a lot of the time its about sales, you never get chance to sit down and be comfortable, Records are out CDs are in, CDs out sell you MP3s - VCRs are out sell you DVDs, DVDs are out buy Bluray and so it goes
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby johnny h » Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:43 am

DragonLogos wrote:The way I see it is that Multi core is the only thing to play for, CPU speeds are not going anywhere and even Intel have 24 Core Chips on the cards - it makes sense, MS and everyone else get to sell you a whole lot of new software... Maybe they can even do a Vista & ME with Windows 8 and do it all over with Win 9 - The last thing that they want is for people to hang onto XP, so something has to give

The New BD seems to be more bent in the Video /Photoshop /Server end of life, which suits me fine as Videos are more of what I do these days... as some people have noted the need to tweak your PC to get the last drop out of it is not that important because of the extra power that is there now, so if they are sitting with all this top end that never gets used why are they beating a stick on poor old AMD - then you get the word Future proof hissed at you, which often causes the younger ones to giggle cause they know that there ain't no such thing - a lot of the time its about sales, you never get chance to sit down and be comfortable, Records are out CDs are in, CDs out sell you MP3s - VCRs are out sell you DVDs, DVDs are out buy Bluray and so it goes

You are going to quite extraordinary leaps of logic and reason to justify AMDs total failure. Their much hyped new cpu performs worse than Intel's old ones. And use more power, runs hotter and needs more noisy fans to control.
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:22 am

You are going to quite extraordinary leaps of logic and reason to justify AMDs total failure. Their much hyped new cpu performs worse than Intel's old ones. And use more power, runs hotter and needs more noisy fans to control.


LOL - Nice try. Maybe try putting hard facts to your claims. Intel got jumped by AMD putting out the first desktop eight core, they also have the fastest CPU (Bulldozer) on the planet, so it looks very much like some people are putting the boot in - as explained above some of the benchmarks that Intel have scored so well on are because of its Graphics unit, this has been discussed and people that do tests know about it... or do they, either way by not even mentioning the fact it makes them look bad

A lot of the time (in Guru 3D) the AMD is only beaten by the Extreme (and Very Expensive) 980x while in some tests the AMD beats it - The AMD performs well when over clocked and maybe they should take a page out of Intels book and start listing Benchmarks of the CPU clocked a 8 Gig


AMD Fusion vs i7 Demo

The latest dust-up in the AMD-versus-Intel never-ending conflict concerns BAPCo, a consortium of tech companies that releases a set of benchmarks, including, most importantly, SYSmark. This week, AMD quit the BAPCo board


SYSmark be gone

AMD runs hot... where have I heard that before, you clearly did not read the Guru 3D review because then you would know you were wrong, as I know when someone is trying to provoke a response. You want to see hot try the P4 3.2 or its evil twin in socket 775 that needs a casing funnel and a system fan - If you want to debate issues its better to do so in a professional and factual manner
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Jez Corbett » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:16 am

I used to be a bit of an AMD supporter, fanboy almost. Not as big as Dragonlogos clearly is.

AMD have fallen behind badly and are just chasing graphics. For a good time they had a clear lead in floating point performance which is what matters to us and they have lost that lead.

Having said that, the tables were the other way round back in the old Athlon Thunderbird vs Pentium 4 days - the P4 was getting hotter and less efficient and the Thunderbird was outperforming it in every test. But most people were still defending the lame duck Pentium with FUD like "software won't run on AMD chips!" and "they run too hot!" (they ran hotter idle but cooler under load where it counts) and "the motherboards are all sh*t and will cause lots of issues!" (true to an extent, but everyone knew what the good boards were, just some people kept deciding they wanted to go cheap and chance it).
User avatar
Jez Corbett
Regular
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:00 am

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:28 pm

I think I have said it a good few times, but perhaps its worth bringing it up again... as a person that fixes things and works on PCs for a living I am more interested on technical issues as apposed to those of manufacturers. However the advantage of having two (or more) players in any field is well known and there is little need to go there, however it seems to me that the tables have been stacked - Its not fair, where as a good few souls in the music industry will get up and shout out about the injustices in the world and call for boycotts and such, here you have a situation were a lot of people are just doing nothing

It does seem a bit suspect that this thread (AMD vs Intel) gets started as a first post - and would be unfair for me to carry on about the State of the CPU / APU nation - but it is something that needs to be addressed
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby johnny h » Fri Oct 28, 2011 6:37 am

DragonLogos wrote:
You are going to quite extraordinary leaps of logic and reason to justify AMDs total failure. Their much hyped new cpu performs worse than Intel's old ones. And use more power, runs hotter and needs more noisy fans to control.


LOL - Nice try. Maybe try putting hard facts to your claims. Intel got jumped by AMD putting out the first desktop eight core, they also have the fastest CPU (Bulldozer) on the planet, so it looks very much like some people are putting the boot in - as explained above some of the benchmarks that Intel have scored so well on are because of its Graphics unit, this has been discussed and people that do tests know about it... or do they, either way by not even mentioning the fact it makes them look bad
Haha, so what if its got 8 cores? 8 dog slow cores? No thanks, I'll stick with Intel because its well over twice as fast and uses less power and heat. Hard facts you say? Perhaps try reading up the thread ... DAW benchmarks

Fanboy your way out of those numbers ...
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Dishpan » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:31 am

> Intel got jumped by AMD putting out the first desktop eight core

With 4 floating point units (that perform worse than Intel)... Which applications need 8-core integer performance and only 4-core float performance?


> they also have the fastest CPU (Bulldozer) on the planet

So why didn't they release that Bulldozer instead of the one they did launch?


> some of the benchmarks that Intel have scored so well on are because of its Graphics unit

What about the the other ones?


> A lot of the time (in Guru 3D) the AMD is only beaten by the Extreme (and Very Expensive) 980x while in some tests the AMD beats it.

Of the 20 benchmarks on Guru3d, and the AMD was ahead of the 2600k TWICE, once by less than 1% in Handbrake, and the other in cryptography.

The rest of the time, Intel are ahead, and it's sometimes embarrassing (look at the double precision FPU test where a 2600k is over 50% faster).



> The AMD performs well when over clocked

Just not compared to an over clocked 2600k.


> and maybe they should take a page out of Intels book and start listing Benchmarks of the CPU clocked a 8 Gig

The can't list benchmarks at 8ghz because it couldn't run benchmarks at 8ghz.


> AMD runs hot... where have I heard that before, you clearly did not read the Guru 3D review because then you would know you were wrong, as I know when someone is trying to provoke a response. You want to see hot try the P4 3.2

The hottest 3.2ghz P4 had a TDP of 84 watts, the FX-8150 has a TDP of 125 watts. What this means is that under load an 8150 will generate about 50% more heat than the P4.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/power-consumption-fx-8150-v-i5-2500k-v-i7-2600k/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10

Read one of these, then come back and claim AMD are competitive in terms of energy draw. The FX-8150 is much hotter than that 3.2ghz P4 you referred to.
Dishpan
Regular
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:06 pm

The hottest 3.2ghz P4 had a TDP of 84 watts, the FX-8150 has a TDP of 125 watts. What this means is that under load an 8150 will generate about 50% more heat than the P4.


You cannot seriously compare a old P4 TDP with that a FX 8150 - that would be like me trying to do the same with a 386 DX 40 - to even try and draw a comparison you would need to at least take the cores into account, so lets be generous and only x4 that gives your P4 a equivalent TDP of at least 340 - They also had a fan unit with 175 gram Copper core and 180 grams Aluminum... and they still ran HOT - BTW the first P4 referred to was Soc 478 - the same goes for the P4 640 (Soc 775) in fact that is the one that needed a case fan and funnel or else... but what did people hear, AMD chips run hot
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:18 pm

Perhaps try reading up the thread ... DAW benchmarks


That thread has already been posted, and replied to (it does not refer to the 8150)

If there is to be debate and maybe a bit of learning, then it would be a good idea to read what others have posted, including links they have made before commenting on them

If the 8150 is so bad on floating point were did this come from - In fact if you over clocked to 5 or 6 it might well beat the 980x

AMD 8150 vs Intel FPU
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:22 pm

So why didn't they release that Bulldozer instead of the one they did launch?


It is the Bulldozer that is the fastest CPU in the World... google Guinness Book of records fastest CPU - makes you think, maybe someone is up to their old tricks
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Dishpan » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:24 pm

> You cannot seriously compare a old P4 TDP with that a FX 8150

Errr, that's exactly what you just did. You specifically compared them and said that the P4 was the definition of hot. I put you straight and told you that the AMD is much hotter. You didn't compare cores, architecture,process or anything like that, just that if you wanted a definition of hot, it was the 3.2ghz P4, which actually consumes vastly less power than the AMD.


> - that would be like me trying to do the same with a 386 DX 40 - to even try and draw a comparison you would need to at least take the cores into account

Yeah, stupid comparison, but you were the one making them.


> They also had a fan unit with 175 gram Copper core and 180 grams Aluminum... and they still ran HOT

How much metal you have is no indicator of the ability to dissipate heat to the air, especially a core which isn't even intended to dissipate heat to the air. The P4 stock cooler didn't use heat pipes or any of the other modern techniques. It has no relevance to this discussion.

The FACT (despite your claims) is that the FX-8150 consumes VASTLY more heat under load than a 2600k despite offering abysmal performance. Actually look at that link Johnny (possibly the only time we'll ever see eye-to-eye) posted; the new AMD 6 core is performing WORSE than their previous generation in DAW code.
Dishpan
Regular
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Dishpan » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:39 pm

> It is the Bulldozer that is the fastest CPU in the World... google Guinness Book of records fastest CPU - makes you think, maybe someone is up to their old tricks

I try not to just google things as you often find inaccurate information, as you have just proven.

The Bulldozer does not have the Guinness record for world's fastest CPU, it has the record for "Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor".

And this was a CPU with only 2 cores enabled. In other words, less multi-threaded performance than the now shipping FX-8150.
Dishpan
Regular
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:47 pm

My words were

You want to see hot try the P4 3.2 or its evil twin in socket 775 that needs a casing funnel and a system fan


Where am I comparing this with an 8150 - Any chip without its heatsink will run hot, but these two beauty's were into heavy metal and still crawled to their max cut-off temperature - this was at a time when people would come up with the argument that AMD runs hot - in fact people still find the need to bring this up - The AMD has more cores and longer pipeline (not massively long BTW)
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby johnny h » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:06 pm

DragonLogos wrote:
Perhaps try reading up the thread ... DAW benchmarks


That thread has already been posted, and replied to (it does not refer to the 8150)

If there is to be debate and maybe a bit of learning, then it would be a good idea to read what others have posted, including links they have made before commenting on them

If the 8150 is so bad on floating point were did this come from - In fact if you over clocked to 5 or 6 it might well beat the 980x

AMD 8150 vs Intel FPU

Hmm, strange - doesn't look like a DAW test to me. Perhaps you got the wrong forum? Bulldozer is a no go for a DAW on current evidence. Seriously, less than HALF the performance of the 2600k? Embarrassing...
johnny h
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby TAFKAT » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:21 pm

Wow,

I always wondered what happened to Apples Reality Distortion Field once they went Intel, you know those forces are way too powerful to just dissipate, well I know now, it shifted to the AMDian lobby... LOL

No matter what evidence is presented , people will find their own truth , one obvious example on this thread is the mantra of AMD having the Worlds fastest CPU. How does simply managing to overclock an architecture under extreme cooling conditions, to a point where they couldn't even execute any basic code , constitute anything is beyond me. We won't mention the architecture takes a leaf out of Netburst and the Megahurtz Myth by using longer instruction pipelines and therefore is needing higher clocks to execute instructions in the first place.

Fastest clock doesn't mean "fastest" in anything past hand down the pants bragging rights.

I also love the whole "AMD were first to market with a real 8 core " rant, pricelesss , pity those real 8 cores, well actually 4 x Dualcore modules strung together with some shared resources that are crippling them for the most part , can barely compete with Intels 3 year old Quadcore sans HT in audio application , and that is all that really matters for the immediate community.

I digress,

Carry On... :-)

V.C
TAFKAT
Regular
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Australia

AAVIM Technology

DAWbench.com


Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby Hugh Robjohns » Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:42 pm

Seems to be getting a little heated in here chaps. It's the weekend... take a chill

hugh
User avatar
Hugh Robjohns
Moderator
Posts: 17069
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:00 pm
Location: Worcestershire, UK

Technical Editor, Sound On Sound


Re: AMD Bulldozer

Postby DragonLogos » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:43 pm

Hmm, strange - doesn't look like a DAW test to me. Perhaps you got the wrong forum? Bulldozer is a no go for a DAW on current evidence. Seriously, less than HALF the performance of the 2600k? Embarrassing...


1. The post I made was clearly in relation to the 8150 and FPU
2. DAW stands for Digital Audio Workstation - are you seriously suggesting that AMD cannot do so in any manner or form?
3. For the last time the review that you are refering to does not cover the 8150

Point two raises an important issue, most of which needs to be done in another topic, but for now the question needs to be asked can AMD based systems be used as DAWs and what can people expect from them. From the black and White response you get here (this thread) one would be excused for thinking that a AMD system would battle to get out of bed, much less than to record music. And one must also wonder why there are Two Sticky threads in this forum refering to results obtained by Intel systems, but in a hotly debated issue, nothing about AMD systems
User avatar
DragonLogos
Regular
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 11:00 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest