Monday, January 24th 2011
Bulldozer Shines in 3D Gaming and Rendering: AMD
Close to two weeks ago, reports surfaced about AMD claiming that its upcoming "Zambezi" 8-core desktop processor based on the company's new Bulldozer architecture is expected to perform 50% faster than Intel's Core i7 and its own Phenom II X6 processors. The slide forming the basis for the older report surfaced, and it's a little more than a cumulative performance estimate.
Slide #14 from AMD's Desktop Client Solutions presentation to its industry partners reveals that the company went ahead and provided a breakdown on which kinds of applications exactly does its new 8-core chip perform better compared to present-generation processors. The breakdown provides an interesting insight on the architecture itself. To begin with, AMD's 8-core Bulldozer "Zambezi" processor is 1.5X (50%) faster overall compared to Intel Core i7 "Bloomfield" 950, and AMD Phenom II X6 1100T. Breaking down that graph, the processor performs similar to the other chips in media applications, but features huge gains in gaming and 3D rendering, which is where most of its gains are coming from.To put this into perspective, games and 3D graphics applications, which still favour processors with higher clock speeds with lesser number of cores/threads to processors with lesser clock speeds and higher number of cores/threads, performing well on Bulldozer indicates that AMD is concentrating on higher performance per core, in other words, higher instructions per clock (IPC). The modular design of Bulldozer, perhaps, is contributing to high inter-core bandwidth, which helps 3D games that can do with lesser number of cores.
AMD described the Zambezi-powered "Scorpius" enthusiast desktop platform to have "the best graphics features and performance". A comparative table also reminds us that apart from the radical design, Bulldozer might benefit from a vastly upgraded SIMD instruction set compared to the previous generation. Bulldozer packs SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2, and AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions). With socket AM3+ motherboards already seeing the light of the day in pre-release photo shoots, AMD's new processor doesn't seem too far.
Source:
DonanimHaber
Slide #14 from AMD's Desktop Client Solutions presentation to its industry partners reveals that the company went ahead and provided a breakdown on which kinds of applications exactly does its new 8-core chip perform better compared to present-generation processors. The breakdown provides an interesting insight on the architecture itself. To begin with, AMD's 8-core Bulldozer "Zambezi" processor is 1.5X (50%) faster overall compared to Intel Core i7 "Bloomfield" 950, and AMD Phenom II X6 1100T. Breaking down that graph, the processor performs similar to the other chips in media applications, but features huge gains in gaming and 3D rendering, which is where most of its gains are coming from.To put this into perspective, games and 3D graphics applications, which still favour processors with higher clock speeds with lesser number of cores/threads to processors with lesser clock speeds and higher number of cores/threads, performing well on Bulldozer indicates that AMD is concentrating on higher performance per core, in other words, higher instructions per clock (IPC). The modular design of Bulldozer, perhaps, is contributing to high inter-core bandwidth, which helps 3D games that can do with lesser number of cores.
AMD described the Zambezi-powered "Scorpius" enthusiast desktop platform to have "the best graphics features and performance". A comparative table also reminds us that apart from the radical design, Bulldozer might benefit from a vastly upgraded SIMD instruction set compared to the previous generation. Bulldozer packs SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2, and AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions). With socket AM3+ motherboards already seeing the light of the day in pre-release photo shoots, AMD's new processor doesn't seem too far.
122 Comments on Bulldozer Shines in 3D Gaming and Rendering: AMD
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/204?vs=143
www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=143
Price/performance is AMD stomping ground because they price their processors according to their audience and Intel inflation. Who gave regular folks quad cores for less than $100? AMD Who gave gamers the first "sweet spot" of our current gen or offerings? AMD 720 comes to mind. Title now held by i5 750.
For me it has always been 3 groups:
* People who want to computer on a budge, AMD is your best friend.
* People who want to swing their e-penis in public and brag about how fast their processor is in applications they don't own or use, Intel to the rescue.
* People who try to mix budget with performance, I feel sorry for your because this middle ground's competition is ugly and confusing. This is my buying area and I am always torn for weeks before I make a final decision. And to be honest, I don't really think me picking one or the other ever really matters.
I think AMD should go after that middle ground more aggressively which is what they seem to be doing. I don't think the initial flagship will truly compete with Sandy's top end, but I expect it to go blow for blow with Sandy's mid-range processors in the same price range. I am just hoping this time AMD will take the mid-ranged crown so they can say, "We beat Intel overall in every price segment, unless you are spending $800+." And they can say, "And we offer better overall server processors in every price segment, unless your budget is unlimited. Then I think we can help you with our GPU based servers."
was some serious performance for your $$$
Especially for current am2/am2+ user, and even for new users it was the better choice.
It is however not that now, its more balanced in that area now...
But if bulldozer stomps intel this time and with 28/22nm or whatever it is next time amd will be the e-peen company.
Intel have never been the budget maker though, too great market position, and the lawsuits just tells the story of miss use of that position..
However the outcome could be diffrent.
Amd bringing in AMD FX name suggest it will perform, on par atleast. time will tell how it performs, if its just 3% below or 10% above or w/e.
I failed to find a quotable AMD source for the "FX to return" info, merely the same source as this info(DonanimHaber). Many sites suggest that this same info is just rumour as well, so I can only suggest you take that info with just as much salt as this info, as JF-AMD suggests.
It's quite interesting to me for an AMD rep to continually say "we did not make any such statement", time and time again. The more I see it, the more I suspect that someone is taking advantage of the "quiet period before launch" to get hits, a period that JF-AMD says is currently in effect.
So who ya gonna listen to...AMD themselves, or someone without a source they can quote? Personally, I choose AMD, and as such, ahve chosen to ignore any and all info relating to BullDozer, until the product hits the shelves, or AMD makes official announcements.
www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT082610181333&p=2
I think that sums up what AMD is going for with Bulldozer. A lot is depending on the clock speed they can pull off but I expect a CPU that beats Phenom II in every way but is behind i7s on per-core performance. It's supposed to be a multithreading monster but we'll see how that goes.
That said, I am dying to see some real numbers here.
An enthusiast is not someone who spends 1k on a processor, if you need to do that to define enthusiast, then 99.9% of this forum are not enthusiasts. If you got crossfire, SLI, Water cooling, even extreme air cooling, you done case mods, you tinker with flashing and in the bios. Thats enthusiast, spending 1k on a processor doesn't make oyu that, it means you got deep pockets and can afford it. My setup is a crusher, it costed a lot, no it's not the best stuff on the market.
What your saying is like saying, "your not a car enthusiast till you own a Veyron, go out and spend that 2.5 mil". Not true at all.
It seems easy to say just drop the price, but once the $300 price point becomes $275, it is really hard to get back there.
Sometimes it is easier to take the short term sales hit then drop price and lose those dollars on the revenue stream for the next several years.
Until I hear something official, or until it is released to review sites to review before being put on the market to be sold, then I won't believe anything about Bulldozer that even has a 1% chance of not being true.
With that being said, I'm fairly certain that everyone wants the new processors from AMD to be competitive, otherwise we as consumers will suffer the consequences of price hikes.
Alas, that may be unrealistic, but stranger things have happened. I am more than willing to wait for launch though.
Could use a cpu to do motherboard reviews with though. :laugh:
you know, what would be more scary is that if Bulldozer does deliver, and then Intel raises it's prices on the up and coming socket...that would not be in comsumer wallet's interests
Core i7 950 is 45nm, Core i7 2600K is 32nm. That's the reason why the 2600K can "support higher speeds." The LGA 2011 processors will be 32nm too (maybe 22nm if it takes too long).
LGA 2011 = 4 x DDR3-1600 = 51.2 GiB/s
LGA 1155 = 2 x DDR3-1333 = 21.2 GiB/s
Huge memory performance gap there. There's no memory in existance that can make up that gap with only 2 channels. LGA 2011 also doesn't have an integrated GPU which could substantially improve overclocking capability (less heat).
$10M
And that is only Q1. Most products live ~6 quarters. So that little price move cost you $60M in pure profit.
And worse yet, if you look at the typical processor market, new products come in at the price of the old products, so your $10 price cut carries on to the next generation.
Companies tend to not cut prices, but instead push new technology in at those established price points. Taking a price cut also disrupts the stack, so while you think you just need to change one price, the new price is too close to the one below. So you have to drop that.
It becomes a snowball that eats up profits. And the guy with the bigger share has more to lose in a price war, not the other way around.
Triple channel does appear to have a pretty significant impact so long as you aren't gaming:
www.tweaktown.com/articles/1665/intel_core_i7_memory_analysis_can_dual_channel_cut_it/index.html