AMD Bulldozer FX6100 vs Phenom II 1055T
 

What's everyone's thoughts on these CPU's? This will be my first AMD CPU so I want to be sure I get bang for the buck. I normally go for Intel but I have 32gb of ECC memory sitting around which doesn't seem to be supported by Intel short of an i7 and even then, motherboards that support it are in the $300+ range.

I'm not interested in gaming performance, this is replacing my current server which is powered by a 3.0ghz P4 which is fine but the motherboard is getting old and is having trouble supporting the bigger hard drives (I think 2TB was the limit). What I'm interested in is how well these CPU's do at virtualization. I will be running Server 2008 with Hyper-V. I will have at least 2 VM's running full time so I can get rid of some physical hardware (terminal server and torrent box). I will also have some machines to power up as needed like a dedicated VM for iTunes because I hate reconfiguring iTunes everytime I rebuild my computer so I'm going to have a VM that I will never have to format.

Thoughts?

I know MS is working on a fix for the Bulldozer CPUs and saw they just released another fix. Bulldozer should be faster for what you're looking for if the fix is working as intended.

+1. I have the 1055 and it handles everything that I throw at it (PS/LR, BF3). But in your case you might as well get the newer chip as it runs cooler iirc.

heres a cheap intel Mobo that supports ECC memory

But requires an Xeon processor E3 family.. but its $184.99
Intel Server Board S1200BTS at Memory Express

Newegg.ca has it for $179.00.

this board supports the core i3...
the socket type is an LGA1155, so not sure if the core i5 works, but intel website lists the i3..
Intel® Server Board S1200BTS
just go to "Compatible Products" then "Processor"

I went for the Bulldozer 6 core because Memory Express had it for sale at $149... that plus a motherboard was $250 which is a lot less than an i3 setup. Besides, I'm using it to host virtual machines... the more cores the better.

good buy..



BTW, are these true physical cores or the fake logical cores? AMD likes to make single cores they simulate multi-cores.. intel makes true physical cores w/o HT...

The way I understand it is Windows sees the physical cores as a single multithreaded core kind of like Hyperthreading. MS has put out a fix for this and Windows 8 doesn't have this issue at all.

if the cores support HT (intel)/SMT(AMD), then windows sees it as an extra core..

i believe all AMD cpus have SMT while intel makes some with and without HT...
so really the logical cores act as half a physical core.. even then, intels HT is still better then AMDs SMT...

I used this for another thread comparing two other processors, but I hope this helps
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13274547612481

lol wtf!

you got that the wrong way dude.

Not sure why the FX4100 is circled, was looking at the 6 core. I don't put a lot of faith in benchmarks because what I'm doing isn't what the average user does with this type of hardware. What I was looking for was some real world experience and real world results relevant to what I was looking to buy it for. All I know is that for $250, I currently have a server that's running 10 virtual machines and the CPU is barely breaking a sweat.

Cherry-picking a benchmark with an unquoted source, a benchmark that has zero relevance to his usage, highlighting a processor he's not even looking at, etc.

What was the point of posting that ? How do you think that would be remotely useful ?