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
That said, Intel's SandyBridge is very competively priced, wit hthe 3.4ghz 2600K costing a merely $329 locally. Amd needs to beat the same performance, with less cost, in order to increase market share, so that is what they MUST do.
Any failure to do so only means that those in control @ AMD are not the right people for the job...it's not the time to sit back and rake in the profits...
AMD needs hype. LOTS of hype. With hype comes market share.
Also, you cannot compare AMD and Intel as businesses, directly. They are completely different, with different goals, motives, and expectations.
Intel has priced Sandbridge so low in an effort to cut AMD's nuts off, plain and simple. To me, that sounds like a SCARED INTEL, not an over-confident AMD.
The "budget" market has been AMD's for some time now. Intel hasn't had "performance" or "mainstream" products in direct price competition with AMD for YEARS.
So why now? I do not believe you are looking at this very subjectively...you really have to put your own thoughts and beliefs aside and emphatically dissect AMD first.
What YOU want is NOT what AMD wants. So ignore YOUR wants, and think about AMD's goals.
i also remember that the FX Chips were actutally cheaper at the time than intels highest offering but were still way out of my price range.
Seems to me you are considering this from the perspective as a cpu buyer/system builder, rather than an OEM. AMD doesn't sell US chips..they sell them to retailers and OEMs. Both of those tend to push products that give them the best profit.
you are right, greed palys an important role, but not AMD's greed..the greed of the real AMD cpu buyers is what is important.
;)
i build systems to this day and i still get stupid things like, i recommend an AMD to customer and they say no because there friend said AMD's dont do internet, then have to explain its a complete load of rubbish but still want intel because they know the name.
It's not JUST AMD that needs to market thier products more...the OEMs need to as well. It's is impossible for anyone to achieve great levels of success on thier own, and the same applies to business as well.
I mean really, that's what they need to change...mindshare. How do you do that? Maybe put your products alongside those well recognized names? Make it so that with those names, you offer more value for the dollar, but the same performance/features?
This is the perfect example....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg
Plus Intel has that annoying DUN DUN DUN DURRRR chime at the end of every advert. Again what does AMD have?
AMD marketing really does suck.
And in regard to TV advertizing...I don't watch TV. MMA, F1, Rally racing is about the total of my TV consumption.
I mean really, us Canadians watch more youtube and such than anywhere else, as was reported recently, so marketing to me is not the same as marketing to you, etc...but again, marketing to the end user isn't the whole picture, just part of it. You can't, very specifically, market one way, and call it good enough. I think it's foolhardy to think that any single approach will be effective.
anyone got any firm release date info on the new 8 core bulldozer, and has anyone else noticed a clear strategy by ati THEIR making bulldozers for effin everything phones tellies lapys pads pcs and servers prob all similar but binned different.
thats implies to me that they are running the bejebus outa their fab plants and might yet yield even higher cored derivatives for us tech heads im not surgesting their growing spuds or summat but id be surprised if we had heard of all their surprises yet??!!
My point was not that one market is better than the other, but that they are very differnt, and as such, each needs it's own approach. Likewise, marketing to the consumer, and to the OEMs, is very different as well.
The big question is...does AMD have the financial brevity to successfully market thier products to each and every segment?