Thursday, January 13th 2011
Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II
Here, take some salt. AMD reportedly gave out performance figures in a presentation to its partners, performance figures seen by DonanimHaber. It is reported that an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture is pitched by its makers to have 50% higher performance than existing processors such as the Core i7 950 (4 cores, 8 threads), and Phenom II X6 1100T (6 cores). Very little is known about the processor, including at what clock speed the processor was running at, much less what other components were driving the test machine.
Taking this information into account, the said Bulldozer based processor should synthetically even outperform Core i7 980X six-core, Intel's fastest desktop processor in the market. Built from ground-up, the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based. The processor is backed by new 9-series core logic, and a new AM3+ socket. AMD is expected to unveil this platform a little later this year.
Source:
DonanimHaber
Taking this information into account, the said Bulldozer based processor should synthetically even outperform Core i7 980X six-core, Intel's fastest desktop processor in the market. Built from ground-up, the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based. The processor is backed by new 9-series core logic, and a new AM3+ socket. AMD is expected to unveil this platform a little later this year.
424 Comments on Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II
back to this non official leak of info about bulldozer.
Both scenarios provide the same exact end results. Unchanging performance until you have the complete package.So, an AMD DDR2 platform deficiency forcing you to upgrade to new ram and a new mobo is somehow better than me keeping the same ram and upgrading my board and cpu? I can use my current ram to it's full advantage on the new Intel platforms. You can't use your new ram and mobo to their full advantage until you buy a new cpu as well. So, I have to buy mobo and cpu, and you have to buy mobo, ram and cpu.
How is that better?No, it isn't a huge upgrade, even for photoshop.
And even if AMD forcing you to buy a new socket for Bulldozer somehow translates into a positive feature (which it doesn't), you are still the smallest niche of the supposed market that benefits from it.
The fact is, to use Bulldozer, you must buy both a new board, and a new cpu. That is no different than Intel at all. So you can buy a new board and use the old cpu on AMD? Yep, but I can buy a new board on Intel and use an old cpu too. Just gotta wait to use the new board is all. Still teh same end results, no matter how you look at it.Nothing at all.
All we are saying is that the bottom line to use Bulldozer is no different than the bottom line if you want to use the new Intel cpus. New board + new cpu.
I hate to say it, but the bleeding edge of technology is not for those who are strapped for cash. I don't understand why people even complain about cost of entry into a completely new platform, except unless they can't afford it, and even then, jealousy and envy is hardly justification for an argument.
Well guess what...if you cannot afford it, your not part of the market it's intended for, plain and simple. If cost is a concern at this ponit, I think you belong in a niche that has no part in this conversation.
Nevermind that this whole conversation was started on pure outright lies from someone trying to get hits.
I would like to get an AM3+ board so i can get double my ram capacity while at the same time near doubling the speed while keeping my 965 for a while but if the major performance increase comes from more cores then most things i use right now wont show much of an improvement, if that is the case i will be considering Intel depending on the cost.
btw so we won't have desktop version of MC?
I think it natively supports core scaling even if the engine doesn't ( seems that way, I get better fps on my dx11 games just by switching cores on and off in my system :laugh:)
So more and more games will support extra cores.
+ applications are becoming more multi core compatible anyways.
It's like when motors started using petrol instead of coal/water( STEAAAM YEAH!!!!!!) and people going "most motors don't even support petrol!" :laugh:
Gota look to the future :D
Plus of course it's also about keeping me from buying Intel, i have been with AMD so long as i have used an AM2, AM2+ and AM3 CPU all on the same board so with buying a new board, CPU and ram at once it's easier for Intel to be an option for the upgrade so if bulldozer does not impress me in most areas for a good price Intel will be getting my money for the first time in several years.
As for the Photoshop stuff I am not going to debate it. The Mod said to stop and I don't need anymore trouble.
I'd have to agree with the sentiment that high end platforms are intended for people who have a large amount of money to spare, not for those looking for what they can get away with on a tight budget.
Now yes, people who are buying a 980x and 3x GTX 580's usually aren't the ones saving or on a tight budget. But it is possible if it's something you really need/want.
Does that mean, though, that for a while you had parts of an X58 build sitting around in your house that you couldn't use?
Regarding the "how much you need/want it" point, I don't think anyone should need the difference between a high end and and mid range PC so much that they should risk their financial stability for it. I realise that that is not what you mean, I'm just saying.
As you say and as I said above, it's about how much you can spare, and as such I don't think it should be about what you're willing to sacrifice for it.
I agree that if you are struggling financially your prioritizes shouldn't include a super high-end system. It's just the notion that if you don't have enough money right in your hands for what you need whether it be high end or not doesn't mean you shouldn't be in that market(you didn't say that though).
Arguing over if INtel of AMD is the right chioce, based on cost, doesn't make any sense, as Intel is that high-end platform. In reality, very few can afford it.
AMD is the "budget" alternative. They currently bring good performance...not the best, but good, for far lower cost of entry.
I don't think the majority of users in this forum applies to any of this, as we are definitely a minority. Most people buy a computer, as use it for three to five years, while many of us change our rigs out of boredom.
You're just taking this far too personally.
Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad?
Qualcomm.
The 65 million that that deal brought AMD falsely raised profit margins, at the sacrifice of huge potential income...how many units do you think the iPhone and iPad will sell? At least 65 million, no? and each Qualcomm chip in there is going to sell for more than one dollar, right?
Dirk screwed up big-time. He failed to see the market that already exists, and how to exploit it.
Likewise, I think many fail to see the market that Bulldozer is intended for, and JF-AMD is here trying to tell us to not get our expectations too high...andwith that in mind, although the competition is Intel, Bulldozer may not even be targeted at Intel's best...
Just like the 6-series, that so many are dissappointed by, due to falsely raised expectations.
I think somebody's marketing team is very well versed in the art of war, but noone understands that.
I am quite serious when I say I need to be AMD's next CEO.
AMD's financials for the year seem good, but we have many deals that took place, like the settlement from Intel, that are considered profit, but they are NOT profit based on sales.
I will never stop people from thinking my product will be great, but I will stop people from making untrue assumptions, like that this is somehow a master planned leak campaign.