1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jan 13, 2011.

  1. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    There are 4GB DDR2 sticks. Too pricey tho.

    The mhz makes no real difference in performance, but the amount possibly could, tho I don't know anyone that could benefit from 16GB of ram that is using an AM3 chip in an AM2+ board. That has to be one of the smallest niches out there. If they don't benefit from 16GB of ram, there is no point in upgrading.

    So, instead of AMD worrying about this small niche, what could they have done to make Dozer or it's platform any better?

    No matter how many scenarios I come up with, I just see no point in keeping AM3 support on the new platform. I just don't think there is really anyone out there that will see a real performance benefit from using an AM3 cpu on a dozer board, even if they only currently have DDR2. I just don't buy it.
     
  2. Goodman

    Goodman

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,519 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Location:
    Canada/Québec/Montreal
    I didn't know that about dirk but from what i read that is recent & not a year like you said or i miss read you?

    Article date from January 12 2011

    So you still have the Intel parts/system?
    Sorry! but i don't get you at all , it was already paid for & you went spending more money & buy an AMD system because all you do is gaming?
    Your already paid I7 would have done that better anyhow...:confused:

    As for Bulldozer it may be good as server chip but what we will be getting as desktop user , may not be all that good?
    my guess is it will probably be as good as I7 is right now & nothing more... maybe?
    Anyhow time will tell...
     
  3. pr0n Inspector

    pr0n Inspector

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,334 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    164
    No. It's rumored to use qualcomm's GSM/CDMA/UMTS chipset. it's rumored to use Cortex A9-based CPU and PowerVR SGX543 GPU. no one ever said it will use Scorpion CPU or Adreno GPU.
     
  4. wahdangun

    wahdangun New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,512 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    114
    Location:
    indonesia ku tercinta



    err, maybe why AMD still keeping AM3 support is to keep current AM3 CPU on the market, maybe they will lower the price on to move it to lower end market, its just like intel moving platform LGA 775 to lower end consumer, but without any compability problem
     
  5. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,123 (4.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,326
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    I said almost a year ago Dirk sold the mobile stuff off to qualcomm. Your quote says for almost a year they have been concerned...seems to fit.

    Yes. You are right. It is a rumour, but one that is near a year old as well:

    January 2010:

    http://mashable.com/2010/01/06/qualcomm-verizon-iphone-chip/

    July 2nd:

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...rizon-would-boost-qualcomm-hurt-infineon.html

    http://www.appleinsider.com/article...tor_qualcomm_seeks_iphone_developer_guru.html


    I mean, you always need to take the stuff I post like this with a grain of salt. But if Qualcomm is making the CDMA chips for Verizon's iphone, they've already get a foot, and a leg, and another leg, into the iphone hardware. :laugh:

    Point is that there is potential there, and Dirk sold it off. Profits are profits, no matter how large, and a lack of interest in Dirk's part is largely what lead to the situation @ AMD today. The "board" @ AMD has been reported as saying that this is specifically why Dirk was turfed, as Goodman's link shows.


    ;)

    Anyway, this is far off-topic. :laugh:
     
  6. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,290 (7.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,777
    I warned you guys not to question Cadaveca. Now look what you did! Reads and faps. I waned you. Have mercy on your tech soul.
     
    wolf says thanks.
  7. MikeX New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    125 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
  8. jtleon

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    210 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    Southern Arizona, USA
    Geez I hate to post off-topic...but Kudos to AMD! Its about time for some more Intel Pwnin'!
     
  9. swaaye

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    234 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    AMD says Barcelona 40% faster than Intel Quads.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_n3wvsfq4Y

    I suggest skepticism with this news. ;) It's not that he was lying, but 40% happened only in rare special circumstances that really leveraged the on-die communication. Otherwise Barcelona was no match for Kentsfield, especially with the bugs considered (TLB and XP Cool 'n Quiet). They will only say things that put their product in a positive light.

    From what I've read, Bulldozer is designed to be (hopefully) exceptional for multithreaded loads but in single/poorly threaded stuff it will have some problems up against more traditional CPU cores, especially Intel's extremely efficient modern cores. So their claims here are likely for some highly threaded apps, meaning that these results could be meaningless for most people. I just hope that their design is clearly superior overall to Phenom II in every way. It's a big architectural change and there's a lot of risk to it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2011
  10. JF-AMD AMD Rep (Server)

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    163 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    229
    And Intel said that Netburst would go to 10GHz (just to be fair.)

    This is why I am a strong proponent of benchmarks at launch and not before.

    The 40% number was a server-only number (Randy ran the server division) but too many people had tried to take that number and compare it on client. To the same degree I have told people not to try to draw client conclusions from any server estimates. We look at throughput, they look at speed and you just can't draw accurate conclusions.
     
  11. jtleon

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    210 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Location:
    Southern Arizona, USA
    Not to be a Debbie Downer here....but if AMD can match the perf of Intel's flagship CPU....I will be plenty happy!
     
  12. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,551 (11.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,824
    indeed. cause they're likely to do it at lower cost :D
     
  13. mackintire New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Bulldozer will match the i7 quad processors.

    So (4) i7 cores with hyperthreading = 8 cores seen by the OS

    Bulldozer with (8) interger cores = 8 cores seen by the OS


    Bulldozer will be 50% faster in applications that CAN use all 8 cores to their full potential.

    Now that I have said that. Bulldozer will be as fast at Nehalem, but not as fast as sandy-bridge clock for clock. Also Intel's processors will still be faster at the high end.

    All in all AMD has set themselves up to win back a fair share of the server market with bulldozer and offer a competitive midrange product.


    Don't compare this to AMDs current hex core as that processor can not even compete with Intel's i5 processor. Bulldozer is a big step up for AMD. If AMD can get bulldozer onto 28nm in early 2012 AMD has a good chance of maintaining competitiveness against Intel.
     
  14. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    *twiddles thumbs* I'm anxious to change my mobo already, will get something highend me thinks : ] ( may not change cpu right away, but watch for benchmarks and overclocking info)

    4 pci-e slots me thinks :p
     
  15. Thatguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    666 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Looking at some of the key design eement of bulldozer and how they are really trying to streamlin everything and balance the chip. It may actually end up with high IPC then comparable intel chips.
     
  16. alexsubri

    alexsubri New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,391 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    199
    [​IMG]

    Remember, AMD always has a trick up their sleeve...

    Remember, AMD 64 FX was king of the hill back in 2006. The FX lineup is rumored to be coming back. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they were released Q4 2011 or Q2 2012

    Sauce
     
  17. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    Don't see why that matters, back then the FX chips were so super expensive for the average person that it really didn't matter that they performed well. Just because the naming scheme is coming back doesn't mean they'll be cheap and beat out everything out there. We still have yet to see how a regular Bulldozer chip performs, so assuming that just because they are bringing back the top end FX chips that somehow it's going to magically turn the tables and make AMD the top performer again isn't right, but you may have your fantasy, but in the real world we'll just have to keep waiting.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2011
  18. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (8.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Both very true.
    No they aren't. You are deluded if you believe that. Their chips sold for just as much as Intel when they could compete at the top.

    The top tier will ALWAYS be in the >$800 range US retail, regardless of who makes the chip.
    Also very true.
     
    CDdude55 says thanks.
  19. magibeg

    magibeg

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,000 (0.64/day)
    Thanks Received:
    203
    I have to say, I think it would be truly amazing if AMD had performance competitive parts against Intel again. I have personally never owned an AMD CPU and would love to try it if they have a good product. If AMD released a chip that was 100% equal in performance and cost (including motherboard) I would honestly pick AMD just for something different. (I missed out of the AMD FX days because my parents bought a P4, needless to say quite a few years have gone by and things have changed)
     
  20. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,220 (6.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,260
    Not likely if you pay attention to history. When AMD was matching and outperforming Intel's flagship processors, AMD was also charging the same or more. AMD has only charged less in times when they couldn't compete with the high end.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  21. bear jesus

    bear jesus New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,535 (0.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Britland
    But winning market share won't happen so easily if they are priced the same as same performing Intel parts, i think AMD needs to try and carry on competing on value as well as performance.
     
  22. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,290 (7.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,777
    They didn't have market share when the did it the first time. As a matter of fact no one even heard of them before. I think we will be looking at paying through the nose again. Why? Because they can.
     
  23. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,684 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Yes, they had been heard of. They had the entire K7 architecture before the Athlon 64s (not to mention the K5s and K6s!) which put them ahead, and before those break away chips they manufactured intel clone chips for IBM. Its not a long read to get a history of AMD.

    I sure hope the prices end up being a reflection of the performance compared to competing products.
     
  24. bear jesus

    bear jesus New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,535 (0.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Britland
    But back then AMD was beating Intel on the top end, to be honest i still don't think an 8 core bulldozer with dual channel memory will beat a dual threaded 8 core quad channel sandy bridge CPU.

    If a single threaded quad core sandy bridge chip when overclocked can trade blows with the dual threaded 6 core gulftown core than what will double the cores and dual threading do?

    Yes i know it will cost at least $1000 but if Intel is still beating AMD on the high end i don't think AMD can start charging whatever they want just yet.
     
  25. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,244 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    Agreed, which is why i posted this:

    The prices only come down with competition and, let's face it, there has been no competition, which is why Intel can charge whatever they want. The same was true when AMD led in the FX days.

    I really want AMD to succeed but not by trading one overpricing CPU company for another.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page