Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II

[btarunr]

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

[jmcslob]

To say the least if true Holy Shit!!!

[Melvis]

Wow if this is true, AMD will take the performance crown once again.

Im sure these wont even be the FX version's ether?

[Lionheart]

My have a big smile on my face now after reading this

[erocker]

This is suprising news if true. A 50% increase in speed over what I currently have is finally an acutal worthy upgrade.

[RejZoR]

They just have to ship the stuff fast. AMD had bright ideas all along, but the time is what has drove them over each time. And Intel was "sitting" in it. I mean what good is it to have 50% better performance now when you suck on the actual hardware release day...

So good luck to AMD and i hope they'll get the stuff out in time.

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Let's not start the selective memory loss crap. We know how this goes. These things are always hand picked numbers from very specific instances, if not totally bs from some performance "simulation". Give a real chip to a bad asian plumber and maybe we'll see something to get excited about.

[Yellow&Nerdy?]

This is from AMD, so it might not be 100% legit. But it should be very close to the 980X, if not on par or better. Performance is surprisingly good, but this probably means that they won't be very cheap either. We'll see.

[FordGT90Concept]

I bet a hexa-core Sandy Bridge would beat the octo-core Bulldozer, not to mention handling 50% more threads. At least it is a significant improvement from Phenom II.

The one thing AMD, for sure, has going for them is not drastically changing sockets like Intel has, yet again, made a habit of doing.

[blu3flannel]

This will hopefully be a worthy upgrade from my i5 750, I want some new hardware to play with.

[random]

I hope this is true, not to keen on staying with intel for too long since I'm really tired of having to switch platforms every so often.

[Volkszorn88]

This will be an instant success. I can't even wrap my mind around 50% faster.

[gumpty]

Crikey doodle dandy. It would be cool if this is true.

Hopefully they compete well in the price/performance & performance/watt stakes.

[T3RM1N4L D0GM4]

Do want REAL bench....

NOW!

[1Kurgan1]

Lets hope it's true. Though if it is, I expect it to be too expensive for my blood for a while, sadly.

[unknwn]

They need to be as fast or faster than intel at not fully threaded applications too (games, desktop apps) otherwise it won't be that good for casual users.

[Yukikaze]

This needs to be taken with a mountain of salt, not just a grain of it. While I am all for AMD making a decisive comeback to drive prices in the high-end lower and lower (and make Intel drive forward faster), this reminds me of the pre-release nVidia slides for Fermi. After all the NV-hype was done, we were left with good cards, but nothing truly as revolutionary as nVidia would have us believe.

Until I see a TPU review, this is all manuFUD.

[mcloughj]

Looks like I'll hold off on my new system for a little while longer... just in case!

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by Yukikaze

This needs to be taken with a mountain of salt, not just a grain of it. While I am all for AMD making a decisive comeback to drive prices in the high-end lower and lower (and make Intel drive forward faster), this reminds me of the pre-release nVidia slides for Fermi. After all the NV-hype was done, we were left with good cards, but nothing truly as revolutionary as nVidia would have us believe.

Until I see a TPU review, this is all manuFUD.

Actually this is not far fetched at all.
Notice they say their Octa-Core (8) proc is 50% faster than the i7 950 Quad-Core (4).
If both chips are running at the same clocks, that just means the Bulldozer isn't any/much faster IPC than a Nehalem.

[arroyo]

Zubasa, you made a point!

That's true. They comparing 4 cylinder Intel engine with new V8 from AMD. Of course it would be faster than Intel!

[Yukikaze]

Originally Posted by Zubasa

Actually this is not far fetched at all.
Notice they say their Octa-Core (8) proc is 50% faster than the i7 950 Quad-Core (4).
If both chips are running at the same clocks, that just means the Bulldozer isn't any faster IPC than a Nehalem.

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.

[Zubasa]

In case 2, Intel will finally have some serious competition I have been waiting for.
On the other hand, we have yet to see how Intel's LGA2011 chips performs.
Also remember that these are PR figures likely done with cherry picked applications in the second case.

[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

[Bo$$]

this brought a tear to my eye, lets hope prices are decent around june/july time, so i can build an amazing PC

[bear jesus]

Using Google translate the one line i notice most is this "125 watts running at 3GHz + with 8-core"

So if it were 50% faster core for core than previous 3ghz cpu's that would very much impress me as long it did not cost an arm and a leg.