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
Add your own comment

424 Comments on Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II

#1
Yukikaze
by: Zubasa

On the other hand, we have yet to see how Intel's LGA2011 chips performs.
All I will say on this matter is that they're pretty damned fast :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#2
HalfAHertz
by: Yukikaze
This really depends on what they call a core:
1. A real core.
2. One half of their SMT arrangement.

In the case of 1, I agree. In the case of 2, their octa-core processor is not a "true" octa-core. According to what I know about bulldozer every pair of cores is a hybrid between Intel's SMT approach (HyperThreading) and a true pair of separate cores. It is getting hard to define this architecture by the number of cores in the way previous generations could be, but on strict terms, this is a 4-core processor with AMD's flavor of SMT.

In case 1, we're talking about nothing special. In the case of 2, we're talking about some serious processing power.
No it is an octa core - every core in the module has a dedicated SP but they share a "fat" FP which can either do 1 FP calc for each or an advanced 256-bit calc (which we probably won't se for a while because nobody will have ready code...)
Posted on Reply
#3
Zubasa
by: Bo$$
i personally dont think it will cost as much as the i7 980X more like i7 950 price range. the mobos are gonna cost an arm and a leg
AMD tends to offer lower prices on their chipsets than Intel.
So in the end AMD boards are still likely be significantly cheaper than Intel boards.
Posted on Reply
#4



I'll believe it when I've see the REAL bechies! ;)
#5
Yukikaze
by: HalfAHertz
No it is an octa core - every core in the module has a dedicated SP but they share a "fat" FP which can either do 1 FP calc for each or an advanced 256-bit calc (which we probably won't se for a while because nobody will have ready code...)
Not quite. There are additional things there which are shared, such as instruction decoders. Again, at least as far as I know. These are closer to real cores than Intel's HyperThreading, but they're not quite separate cores.
Posted on Reply
#6
kisuke
by: Yukikaze
This really depends on what they call a core:
1. A real core.
2. One half of their SMT arrangement.

In the case of 1, I agree. In the case of 2, their octa-core processor is not a "true" octa-core. According to what I know about bulldozer every pair of cores is a hybrid between Intel's SMT approach (HyperThreading) and a true pair of separate cores. It is getting hard to define this architecture by the number of cores in the way previous generations could be, but on strict terms, this is a 4-core processor with AMD's flavor of SMT.

In case 1, we're talking about nothing special. In the case of 2, we're talking about some serious processing power.
stop doing that you're getting all of our hopes up :( . How likely is it that they deliver a Quad Core that is 50% faster than the 950? When was a new cpu generation _ever_ 50% faster than the previous one clock per clock? The only thing that comes to mind is conroe compared to NetBurst :/
Posted on Reply
#8
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
Interesting~

Until I see numbers...
Posted on Reply
#9
Dave65
I hope this is true,will be nice to have some real competition with Intel for a change..But we all know hype when we see it...:)
Posted on Reply
#10
Over_Lord
News Editor
well, if AMD's 1 and half year late 32nm Bulldozer 4 module 8 core processor beats a 2008 core i7 4 core 8 thread processor, we've really got a lot to cheer about.
Posted on Reply
#11
DriedFrogPills
by: Yukikaze
This really depends on what they call a core:
1. A real core.
2. One half of their SMT arrangement.

In the case of 1, I agree. In the case of 2, their octa-core processor is not a "true" octa-core. According to what I know about bulldozer every pair of cores is a hybrid between Intel's SMT approach (HyperThreading) and a true pair of separate cores. It is getting hard to define this architecture by the number of cores in the way previous generations could be, but on strict terms, this is a 4-core processor with AMD's flavor of SMT.

In case 1, we're talking about nothing special. In the case of 2, we're talking about some serious processing power.
I think it's more likely to be scenario 2 as I remember an article on anandtech midway through last year, that stated each core is one half of a bulldozer module. What we really need is for JF-AMD to clarify the module versus core thing
Posted on Reply
#12
Imperceptible
50%.....yeah in what, a Cinebench R10 Multi-Threaded benchmark maybe. But still, as anyone would want, I'm hoping it will bring some tough competition to the market.
Posted on Reply
#13
Aleksander
I am pretty sure these numbers have never lied
Anyway, taking the phenom and core i7 as references is not the same thing and bulldozer should end up 20-30% faster than i7 processors. The 8-core does not mean anything against a 6-core from intel. The only thing that is needed is the performance.
Posted on Reply
#14
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
by: bear jesus
When overclocked the i5 2600k can beat the i7 980x in some cases, what will the hyper threaded 6/8 core sandy bridge i7's do?

To be honest this release is far from specific enough, 50% core for core would be amazing but I'm doubting that, an 8 core CPU that's 50% faster than a 6 core CPU does not exactly sound amazing unless the 8 core is clocked much lower but no details.

I want to be impressed but until i see something more specific it's hard to be :(
You can't throw overclocking into the equation vs non-oc'd chips. Theres lots of upsets when you do that. Got to be oc vs oc. We all know it's possible to take something cheaper and weaker, then oc it to beat something faster and more expensive, thats why we oc.
Posted on Reply
#15
Tiltentei
Its not 50% faster, Its 50% increased performance
Posted on Reply
#16
ivicagmc
As much as I love AMD, because of pricing, I must say that even if this is true AMD is a year late with bulldozer... This time, next year Intel will have 22nm CPU, and AMD, probably, a year behind Intel, again... Good thing is that we will se some good bang for our buck...
Posted on Reply
#17
HXL492
Woohoo :rockout:
AMD is finally ahead of Intel
'bout time too...:respect:
Posted on Reply
#18
Googoo24
by: ivicagmc
As much as I love AMD, because of pricing, I must say that even if this is true AMD is a year late with bulldozer... This time, next year Intel will have 22nm CPU, and AMD, probably, a year behind Intel, again... Good thing is that we will se some good bang for our buck...
Uh..What? The CPU' are rumored to come out the 2nd and 3rd quarter of this year. If it's 50% it'll be faster/equivalent (apparently) than the the newer Intel CPU'. Can't recall if server or client products arrive first.

edit: I kinda misread what you posted originally.
Posted on Reply
#19
Xaser04
50% faster than both the i7 950 and P2 X6 1100T is a bit too open ended.

For a start the i7 950 is already faster than the 1100T in all but the most heavily thread situations so 50% faster number starts to lose its meaning.

My assumption is that these new AMD chips will fall in line with the performance of the current Sandybridge range (excellent) and will compete accordingly on price.

Intel will still hold the CPU performance crown with the LGA2011 chips.
Posted on Reply
#20
bear jesus
by: 1Kurgan1
You can't throw overclocking into the equation vs non-oc'd chips. Theres lots of upsets when you do that. Got to be oc vs oc. We all know it's possible to take something cheaper and weaker, then oc it to beat something faster and more expensive, thats why we oc.
Very true but i just meant as in the i5 sandy bridge cpu's are close enough to the 980x that a speed bump lets them compete so what do people think will happen with the sandy bridge i7's come out.

If there is a dual threaded 8 core sandy bridge CPU (I'm unsure what will be available 6 or 8?) i would expect bulldozer to be left in it's dust... although knowing Intel they will cost way too much for me so i will probably end up buying a bulldozer core anyway :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#21
kisuke
by: DriedFrogPills
I think it's more likely to be scenario 2 as I remember an article on anandtech midway through last year, that stated each core is one half of a bulldozer module. What we really need is for JF-AMD to clarify the module versus core thing
by: Wikipedia

Two tightly coupled, "conventional" x86 out-of-order processing engines which AMD internally named module
(Single-Module ==> Dual-Core, Dual-Module ==> Quad-Core, Quad-Module ==> Octa-Core etc...) Bulldozer family will lay emphasis on multithreading and multiple cores too

Two dedicated integer cores
Wheres your need for clarification? 4 modules = 8 cores, 8 modules = 16 cores and so on.

This is a Octo-Core we're talking about or are you immplying that they used a 16 Core wich would make the 50 % statement much less impressive :/
Posted on Reply
#22
Mussels
Moderprator
the way i see it, is thus.

33% more cores (6 to 8 for the AMD comparison) + 17% faster per clock = 50% faster (in 8 threaded synthetic apps/encoding programs etc)
Posted on Reply
#23
Googoo24
You guys are also forgetting there is supposed to be a 12 core Bulldozer as well.
Posted on Reply
#24
Mussels
Moderprator
by: Googoo24
You guys are also forgetting there is supposed to be a 12 core Bulldozer as well.
that one should well crap over a 50% boost.


doubling the cores should make it 100% faster, and then some (based on IPC improvements)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment