AMD tapes out its Bulldozer CPU architecture

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

Since intel has the performance crown they can sell a chip that only cost a few dollars to make for $1000 because it's the fastest. If AMD did the same no-one would buy it so they sell it for much less because more people would buy it.

This is true, but to a larger extent the performance crown plays a very little part in whether people will buy a $1,000 Intel CPU. The larger part is brand awareness, Intel has a bigger brand identity due to their larger marketing budget. Even if Intel’s performance crown was dethroned they'll still have the larger market share and marketing budget so they'll price their CPUs at $1,000 regardless and customers will still buy it.

To a large extent Intel’s guerrilla marketing is so effective that when Intel doesn’t have the performance crown their fan base will still be just as strong if not stronger because the general public will always assume AMD is inferior due to its smaller market presence, the general public do not read reviews or obsess about benchmarks like us enthusiasts do and will opt to a slower $1,000 Intel over a faster $500 almost every time.

[Melvis]

Originally Posted by Dent1

This is true, but to a larger extent the performance crown plays a very little part in whether people will buy a $1,000 Intel CPU. The larger part is brand awareness, Intel has a bigger brand identity due to their larger marketing budget. Even if Intel’s performance crown was dethroned they'll still have the larger market share and marketing budget so they'll price their CPUs at $1,000 regardless and customers will still buy it.

This is so true, just look at the Pentium 4 /Athlon days, this is when AMD was far superior then intel, but did anyone know this? Nope because know one new what the hell AMD was. Intel continued to out sell AMD even though they had a CPU that was very much behind AMD at the time. Marketing your product is the key to success.

[mdm7923]

And this is exactly why Sandy Bridge 8 Core EE will be $1000 while AMD Bulldozer is $3-500 (to start).

Also, does anyone know what is going on with the multi-threading. I know it is hardware based unlike Intel HT but does that mean the Bulldozer 8 core is 8 physical cores, 16 logical or 4 physical and 8 logical (like the current i7). because an 8 core that performs almost as good as a 16 core (due to the hardware based multi-threading) would kick the crap out of the Intel.

Heck even a 6 physical 12 logical would probably still be better than the current 980X if it is using hardware based hyper-threading.

If they could also figure out a way to do the "thread fusion" to combine all the cores into one for single threaded apps, well that would just be unspeakably awesome, and would be something like having a 24 GHz CPU core on the 8 core model!

[Super XP]

I heard AMD’s Bulldozer is going to be at the very least 40% faster than Intel’s Sandy Bridge or if you like to call it Nehalem II. Obviously Bulldozer is above and beyond what is currently out today. Only time will tell. Can’t wait for some leaked scores.

[mdm7923]

well, that is great news for the competitive market then, as well as us consumers.
The performance of bulldozer combined with the recent news that Apple may be switching to AMD processors for it's macs will surely stir up some competition, and should bring high end parts from both chip-makers down to affordable levels.

If this 40% performance benefit proves true, I think that this future generation of CPUs will end up much like the recent ATI/Nvidia graphics wars, in which ATI can offer higher performing GPUs at the same, or a lower price than a comparable Nvidia. It will also spark lower prices, which may push hex and octocores into the mid-range or mainstream segment. This will be very good for Personal Computers in general. This might finally be the push that is needed to get the highly multi-threaded apps that we need to take advantage of the additional processing power. It just makes sense at that point for software developers to deliver high performance apps that use ALL of the cores.

Also, if this proves true, this would mean that we could see a HUGE performance boost in personal computing power over the next couple of years,with DDR3 becoming cheaper, octo core CPUs, PCIE 3.0, mainstream USB 3.0, and larger, cheaper solid state drives coming into the picture all in the 2011-2012 time-frame. I do however believe that SATA 6 gb/s is doomed, as these solid state drives will hit 600 MB/s quickly. In the future, I believe that our disks will be PCIE Based. this allows for a theoretical 8GB/s read/write speeds (using PCIE 3.0)

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by Melvis

This is so true, just look at the Pentium 4 /Athlon days, this is when AMD was far superior then intel, but did anyone know this? Nope because know one new what the hell AMD was. Intel continued to out sell AMD even though they had a CPU that was very much behind AMD at the time. Marketing your product is the key to success.

Most definitely true.

I remember at that time the Pentium 4's were all over the place, i saw commercials on the Pentium 4's all the time and i actually had no clue AMD even existed until i really starting getting into the computer hardware scene, that's where i realized most gamers were using the Athlon's and i was like wtf. Good times.

[Super XP]

Great post.
I look forward to Intel's Lite Peak technology where it can hit between 10GB/s upto 100GB/s. Though I do believe LPTech won't be ready until later in 2011 and so this may be the reason why Intel has yet to support USB 3.0.

Why don't companies play nice For the past several years, AMD lead the way. Such as they kept DDR2 alive for a long time where as Intel screwed themselves with expensive DDR3. The industry stuck with AMD and it's strong DDR2 support. Anyway, I admire Intel's innovations, but for some reason AMD's Bulldozer design may very well be something phenomenally crazy and awesome at the same time, they may actually steer the PC gaming & multi-media industry with Bulldozer.

Remember the Opteron & the Athlon 64 when they took the industry by storm? Well I believe Bulldozer is going to be 10X more potent and AMD’s stock may go way high.

Remember this? It's an old article, but it hits the nail on the head. Thank you AMD for being a super strong UnderDOG
Where AMD leads, Intel follows.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-intel-follows

Role reversal: How it might have been!
If there had been a role reversal between Intel and AMD - that is, Intel had developed what AMD had brought to market and AMD had done the same with Intel's technology - AMD would have failed as a going concern long before this day.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by Super XP

Great post.
I look forward to Intel's Lite Peak technology where it can hit between 10GB/s upto 100GB/s. Though I do believe LPTech won't be ready until later in 2011 and so this may be the reason why Intel has yet to support USB 3.0.

Why don't companies play nice For the past several years, AMD lead the way. Such as they kept DDR2 alive for a long time where as Intel screwed themselves with expensive DDR3. The industry stuck with AMD and it's strong DDR2 support.

How did Intel screw themselves in moving technology forward?, Because DDR3 was expensive? i don't see how they screwed themselves, its not like they forced everyone to move to DDR3. Of course is going to be expensive, it's new tech, that's just how they get priced like every other new tech when released. How are you ''leading the way'' by staying with old technology?

Remember the Opteron & the Athlon 64 when they took the industry by storm? Well I believe Bulldozer is going to be 10X more potent and AMD’s stock may go way high.

Remember this? It's an old article, but it hits the nail on the head. Thank you AMD for being a super strong UnderDOG
Where AMD leads, Intel follows.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-intel-follows

Quote:
Role reversal: How it might have been!
If there had been a role reversal between Intel and AMD - that is, Intel had developed what AMD had brought to market and AMD had done the same with Intel's technology - AMD would have failed as a going concern long before this day.

Don't jizz your pants over something that we still have yet to get full concrete information on, what are you basing your opinions on besides the obvious fanboy love for AMD.(no offense lol).

[mdm7923]

Don't jizz your pants over something that we still have yet to get full concrete information on, what are you basing your opinions on besides the obvious fanboy love for AMD.(no offense).

You are exactly right, there is no real way to tell without benchmarks. Yes, in theory the architecture seems to be revolutionary in a way that Intel's new architecture is not. This does not however prove that it will run 10x better than the Intel chip. I will be going with whoever can provide me bleeding edge performance for a reasonable price. This generation it was the Core i7 920 that got my attention. We will see when the benchmarks come out. I'm pulling for AMD simply because, as I said I want the best, but at an affordable price, and I know the Intel octocore is going to cost $1000 given their recent pricing scheme, that much is predictable.

That being said, it would seem foolish to even think about replacing an i7 system at this point but my lust for
a 7.9 is insatiable, even though the WEI, in most cases is a really crappy benchmark and, unfortunatley Due to Intel changing sockets
every 3 seconds, I pretty much HAVE to buy a new rig...

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by mdm7923

You are exactly right, there is no real way to tell without benchmarks. Yes, in theory the architecture seems to be revolutionary in a way that Intel's new architecture is not. This does not however prove that it will run 10x better than the Intel chip. I will be going with whoever can provide me bleeding edge performance for a reasonable price. This generation it was the Core i7 920 that got my attention. We will see when the benchmarks come out. I'm pulling for AMD simply because, as I said I want the best, but at an affordable price, and I know the Intel octocore is going to cost $1000 given their recent pricing scheme, that much is predictable.

That being said, it would seem foolish to even think about replacing an i7 system at this point but my lust for
a 7.9 is insatiable, even though the WEI, in most cases is a really crappy benchmark and, unfortunatley Due to Intel changing sockets
every 3 seconds, I pretty much HAVE to buy a new rig...

I agree.

Really, until i see something concrete, evaluated, tested etc, im not buying the hype.

[nt300]

Originally Posted by CDdude55

How did Intel screw themselves in moving technology forward?, Because DDR3 was expensive? i don't see how they screwed themselves, its not like they forced everyone to move to DDR3. Of course is going to be expensive, it's new tech, that's just how they get priced like every other new tech when released. How are you ''leading the way'' by staying with old technology?

You misunderstand the point super is trying to make or I think what he is trying to say. If AMD and Intel roles were reversed, AMD would have failed long ago. Intel can afford to screw up which thy did many times in the past.

With DDR2 and DDR3, if you read up on past, Intel suffered very slow adoption because DDR3 was too much money. Many bought DDR2 based computers because it costs cheaper and the performance gap was none existent. Ony after AMD went full bore with DDR3 did it become rapidly popular.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by nt300

You misunderstand the point super is trying to make or I think what he is trying to say. If AMD and Intel roles were reversed, AMD would have failed long ago. Intel can afford to screw up which thy did many times in the past.

With DDR2 and DDR3, if you read up on past, Intel suffered very slow adoption because DDR3 was too much money. Many bought DDR2 based computers because it costs cheaper and the performance gap was none existent. Ony after AMD went full bore with DDR3 did it become rapidly popular.

No ones saying Intel's not rich there's no mystery that they have a lot of cash(as does AMD), but in what way did they screw up, Intel pushed DDR3 out the doors and yet it's not like they themselves abandoned DDR2 altogether i don't understand how that's a screw up. no ones holding a gun to your head saying you have to buy new tech, Intel at the time was still pushing out support for DDR2, which of course as you said was cheaper and of course the performance gap wasn't to large, but im trying to address his point in the whole ''Intel keeps screwing up'' comment, i don't see how they did at all.Even if DDR3 adoption rate was slow, which wasn't a surprise, they still had a plethora of DDR2 support. Considering AMD is generally cheaper is no surprise it got pushed more into the mainstream when they included DDR3 with there PII's back in '09, but it's actually pushing technology forward, which is what Intel did in that case, it's not about omg poor little underdog AMD, Intel is so rich and yet AMD gives us what we want with such little incentives. No they're both companies and some times companies try and make wise business decisions that account the consumers which i thought Intel was doing by not only pushing out a new standard for memory, but also keeping DDR2 in check...but apparently not, according to your logic.

[wahdangun]

i think why intel rush out DDR3, is because they don't implement OMC yet, and they need all available bandwidth they can get

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by wahdangun

i think why intel rush out DDR3, is because they don't implement OMC yet, and they need all available bandwidth they can get

What's an OMC ?

Onboard Memory Controller ?

If that's it I believe they have.

[p_o_s_pc]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

What's an OMC ?

Onboard Memory Controller ?

If that's it I believe they have.

They have now with the i7 but it they started wheb the c2d was out and when i7 wasnt released only on the map

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by p_o_s_pc

They have now with the i7 but it they started wheb the c2d was out and when i7 wasnt released only on the map

Oh yeah forgot about x48.

[Super XP]

CDdude55 you make a great point. Yes I think you misunderstood my point, but at the same time I didn't explain it well enough either
Anyway, I always liked the underdog (AMD). Anyway I like fair competition this is why I have a AMD based PC and a Intel based laptop.
My main point is in the quote bellow.

Role reversal: How it might have been!
If there had been a role reversal between Intel and AMD - that is, Intel had developed what AMD had brought to market and AMD had done the same with Intel's technology - AMD would have failed as a going concern long before this day.

As for DDR2 & DDR3, well my point in all of this was DDR3 was very slow to pick up popularity, but once AMD got support for DDR3, it became the popular DDR format.

[crazyeyesreaper]

why re quote what was misunderstood just put it in plain english

If AMD and Intel switched roles with AMD going along with things like rambus and BTX AMD as a company would have kicked the damn bucket ages ago

[Super XP]

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

why re quote what was misunderstood just put it in plain english

If AMD and Intel switched roles with AMD going along with things like rambus and BTX AMD as a company would have kicked the damn bucket ages ago

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

What's an OMC ?

Onboard Memory Controller ?

If that's it I believe they have.

yep OMC(Onboard Memory Controller)

and i mean pre core i7 era,

Originally Posted by crazyeyesreaper

why re quote what was misunderstood just put it in plain english

If AMD and Intel switched roles with AMD going along with things like rambus and BTX AMD as a company would have kicked the damn bucket ages ago

btw, i think why DDR3 is picking up is because the production have been increased and ramped up so it make the price lower hence it was adopted faster.

and i think why the BTX didn't take off is because AMD refuse to support it and its hard to change all the chase manufacture to support BTX format because it will need a huge money to invest in it.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by Super XP

CDdude55 you make a great point. Yes I think you misunderstood my point, but at the same time I didn't explain it well enough either
Anyway, I always liked the underdog (AMD). Anyway I like fair competition this is why I have a AMD based PC and a Intel based laptop.
My main point is in the quote bellow.


As for DDR2 & DDR3, well my point in all of this was DDR3 was very slow to pick up popularity, but once AMD got support for DDR3, it became the popular DDR format.

I see what your saying and i agree to a certain degree(that AMD brought DDR3 to the masses).
I don't see AMD as the underdog at all(maybe to a certain extent),they just chose not to spend there billions of dollars on things like marketing and advertising as apposed to Intel. Does Intel have more money?, probably so. But AMD definitely isn't struggling. It is all fair competition, if AMD wants to one up Intel, they can. It just a matter of pushing out great architectures and trying to one up there competitors by doing so, just because they can't do that doesn't make them the underdog. It's not like they're operating outside there grandma's basement... they have loads of cash backed behind them. It's just a matter of picking where to spend it and whats more beneficial to the company. Just because you see an Intel sticker on every computer in the room, doesn't mean the other companies aren't doing well.

It all depends want the company whats to gamble on. and just because one has more money to do so, doesn't mean the others would have died out.

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by CDdude55

I see what your saying and i agree to a certain degree(that AMD brought DDR3 to the masses).
I don't see AMD as the underdog at all(maybe to a certain extent),they just chose not to spend there billions of dollars on things like marketing and advertising as apposed to Intel. Does Intel have more money?, probably so. But AMD definitely isn't struggling. It is all fair competition, if AMD wants to one up Intel, they can. It just a matter of pushing out great architectures and trying to one up there competitors by doing so, just because they can't do that doesn't make them the underdog. It's not like they're operating outside there grandma's basement... they have loads of cash backed behind them. It's just a matter of picking where to spend it and whats more beneficial to the company. Just because you see an Intel sticker on every computer in the room, doesn't mean the other isn't doing well.

It all depends want the company whats to gamble on. and just because one has more money to do so, doesn't mean the others would have died out.

what are you saying, AMD already in red for several years, and they have to sell their fab, so intel sure have a lot more money than AMD, and its just this years amd can gain profit after their huge success with HD 5XXX, and btw i never seeing AMD commercial in my country but I'm seeing a bucket loat of intel. and when their Athalon 64 annihilated P4, intel sales still going strong and while AMD don't gain enough market share, and didn't you know what intel did with AMD back then, when hey use anti competitive practice and make their asses handed out to europe

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by wahdangun

yep OMC(Onboard Memory Controller)

and i mean pre core i7 era,

Yeah I had a complete brain failure when I wrote that lol.

[CDdude55]

Originally Posted by wahdangun

what are you saying, AMD already in red for several years, and they have to sell their fab, so intel sure have a lot more money than AMD, and its just this years amd can gain profit after their huge success with HD 5XXX, and btw i never seeing AMD commercial in my country but I'm seeing a bucket loat of intel. and when their Athalon 64 annihilated P4, intel sales still going strong and while AMD don't gain enough market share, and didn't you know what intel did with AMD back then, when hey use anti competitive practice and make their asses handed out to europe

What are you talking about?, AMD hasn't been in the red for ''several years'', hell if you look right know Intel is in the red to lol. They had enough to buy ATI in '06, that's for damn sure, and that has contributed to a lot of there success. And yes, as i just said, yes Intel has more money and yes even i haven't see an AMD commercial over here. And as i just said in my previous post, that's because Intel focuses heavily on commercials and advertising to get there product across. So just because AMD doesn't, they're the poor underdog with little money?. Though the Athlon 64 was in fact a fantastic CPU, as again, i have just stated before, no one knew who the hell AMD was because they didn't advertise the shit out of it like Intel did with the P4, so what do you expect?. Every company is different and uses different strategies.

To move back on topic, im really hoping Bulldozer is a great architecture, because if it is and it can steamroll my i7 rig, then i shall be moving to it.

CD: I love AMD - 2 of 3 rigs now and the Intel one is getting ditched.

But AMD has lost money for a very long time - several years at least. This past year was different because of that $1-2B (???) settlement with Intel - which they more than deserved so it should still count, but that's not how the bean counters look at it.