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

Bulldozer Shines in 3D Gaming and Rendering: AMD

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jan 24, 2011.

  1. spynoodle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    27 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Agreed. It'll probably only just barely edge out the 2600k, though, and LGA2011 will probably come out only a short while after BD, considering the delays that AMD's going through.

    Also, we still don't know how biased AMD's benches are. They don't seem very detailed as of yet.
     
  2. meirb111 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    184 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
    this is the second time the 50% subject headline raise a discussion about
    Bulldozer looks like what amd is saying to people :"dont buy intel yet please we have something better wait for us pretty please"
     
  3. KRONOSFX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    25 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    FordGT90Concept:

    LGA 2011 will be in 4 quarter and even a delay may happen.
    Maybe I am wrong but triple channel didn't have much of a effect when you compared socket 1366 CPU versus socket 1156. On average it will be no more that 2-3 % at best my guess.
     
  4. KRONOSFX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    25 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    spynoodle: still 4-5 months or possibly more difference is enough and LGA 2011 will be just 6 cores at first then you can forget about competitive prices more like extreme edition will be released. It seems there won't be a delay for BD.
     
  5. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,154 (7.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,680
    My guess is Bulldozer will only be about 20% faster in over all performance then the current generation of AMD processors. (waits for cadaveca to correct me)
     
  6. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,065 (6.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,123
    I'm going to guess there is a very specific reason that AMD didn't put a 6-core processor in the slight, and that reason is probably because Intel's current 6-core processors match AMD's upcoming 8-core. And Intel 8-Core processors will probably destroy Bulldozer.

    I like how AMD is going back to its own marketting ways. "First true 8-Core Processor"... Remember when they had the first "True Quad-Core Processor"? Everyone pretty much added "that still gets it ass kicked by Intels fake Quad-Core Processors" to the end and laughed at the line...
     
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  7. trt740

    trt740

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    10,935 (3.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,113
    are any of these going to be backwards compatible with current am3 boards?
     
  8. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,154 (7.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,680
    No.

    Well having real cores do have its advantages.
     
  9. ROad86 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    21 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    And then Amd will make 16 core cpu's...etc,etc. Are the current model's of amd and intel so far between them in terms of perfomance? I think no! Only the 980x which cost $1000 and the brand new 2600K are clearly ahead( and not at all the programms). The point is in a certain price range which will preform better?
    As for 2011 plattform if P67 costs $150 at least and i72600K $330 how much the mobo and the 6 core, 8 core from intel will cost?
     
  10. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,750 (11.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,683
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    No, but AM3 processors are forwards-compatible with AM3+ socket.
     
    CDdude55 says thanks.
  11. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,154 (7.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,680
    The argument of price/performance will be won by AMD. However raw performance is what enthusiasts want and thats what Intel provides. PLEASE guys don't turn this into a AMD vs Intel thread.
     
    HammerON and Mindweaver say thanks.
  12. spynoodle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    27 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Guess my info on the delay is outdated:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...6_AMD_Bulldozer_Not_Delayed_Says_Company.html
    I remember hearing about this a few months ago, and I guess the source was wrong.
    I'm guessing that 6 core LGA2011 will be superior to Zamezi 8 core, due to the whole module vs. core thing. When Zambezi 16 core comes out, we'll probably see some more high-end competition.
     
  13. ROad86 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    21 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5

    Ok I went a bit off topic :laugh: so I stop.
     
  14. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    829 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    Already the majority of users don't really benefit from more than a dual core. I would argue that even most enthusiasts really have little need for a 16 core CPU.
     
  15. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,199 (5.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,982
    Location:
    Home
    Yeah, but by the same argument we really don't need more than 1 core back in early 2000s. Most of the tasks we do normally can be done efficiently with 2 cores, hence Intel still have 2 core 4 thread as their low end. But that said, games are starting to utilise 4 cores (Frostbite engine etc), and you get a massive improvement by using 4 cores instead of 2. Also, development goes the other way round: if you have 16 cores, people will develop apps to use all 16 of them, instead of developing 16 thread apps and wait for 16 core processors. I still believe 4 thread is still the way to go for the next couple of years though. If you study and work in engineering (and the likes), you will quickly notice how slow i7 980x is.
     
  16. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,325 (4.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    I do agree. But it also matters your price range, I personally will probably never spend over $300 on a processor, under that line is pretty blurry between both companys, so in my market, it isn't the same.
     
    ROad86 says thanks.
  17. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,065 (6.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,123
    Yeah, and it will perform worse than Intels 12 core.

    Intel's prices are high because they have no competition in those high price segments. So to answer your question in certain price ranges Intel will perform better because Intel is the only one in those price and performance ranges.

    If you go lower, AMD competes nicesly, but enthusiasts want high end, and will pay Intel's prices for it until AMD can offer something competitive. And 50% faster with 100% more cores than a 2 year old product doesn't point to AMD being competitive at the current high end to me.

    You can say, oh AMD wins price/performance at the lower end, but I don't see that all that often either. You can look at the $125 segment and see an i3-540 beating the x2 565BE or the i3-540 beating an x4 920 if you prefer the idea that "real men use real cores"-and still get their asses handed to them by a dual core...:laugh:
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2011
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  18. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,154 (7.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,680
    The question is now will AMD market Bulldozer as being an "Intel destroyer" or a better deal then Intel. That is what will make or break the Bulldozer.
     
  19. ROad86 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    21 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Anandtech very objective site...:rolleyes:
     
  20. jsfitz54

    jsfitz54

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    903 (0.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    242
    Do my eyes deceive me?

    Is AMD trying to pull a fast one on its customers?
     
  21. MicroUnC

    MicroUnC New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    Messages:
    250 (0.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Location:
    Israel
    Can't wait anymore! I found a great deal on i7 980 X for $500 couldn't let it go. Anyway i'am intrested in how the bulldozers will perform.

    Waiting for benches :D
     
  22. DigitalUK

    DigitalUK New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    503 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    68
    Location:
    UK South
    this slide proves nothing not enough information there for anyone to guess anything, could even be completely faked. funny thing is if the title was intel to release new i7 50% more powerful this thread would have a different vibe.
     
  23. lashton New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    63 (0.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    lol i want to se 1 thing Benches first
     
  24. JF-AMD AMD Rep (Server)

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    163 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    229
    I can't say whether this data is real or not. It might be, but it is not my department, I am in server.

    However, someone should kill the [AMD] from the title of the thread because we are not making these claims, some third party is.
     
  25. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,154 (7.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,680
    Knowlage......is dropped.
     

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

Share This Page