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
Add your own comment

122 Comments on Bulldozer Shines in 3D Gaming and Rendering: AMD

#1
meirb111
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"
Posted on Reply
#2
KRONOSFX
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.
Posted on Reply
#3
KRONOSFX
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.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheMailMan78
Big Member
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)
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
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...
Posted on Reply
#6
trt740
are any of these going to be backwards compatible with current am3 boards?
Posted on Reply
#7
TheMailMan78
Big Member
trt740 said:
are any of these going to be backwards compatible with current am3 boards?
No.

newtekie1 said:
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...
Well having real cores do have its advantages.
Posted on Reply
#8
ROad86
newtekie1 said:
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.
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?
Posted on Reply
#9
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
trt740 said:
are any of these going to be backwards compatible with current am3 boards?
No, but AM3 processors are forwards-compatible with AM3+ socket.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheMailMan78
Big Member
ROad86 said:
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?
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.
Posted on Reply
#11
spynoodle
KRONOSFX said:
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.
Guess my info on the delay is outdated:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20110122110646_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.
Posted on Reply
#12
ROad86
TheMailMan78 said:
PLEASE guys don't turn this into a AMD vs Intel thread.
Ok I went a bit off topic :laugh: so I stop.
Posted on Reply
#13
blibba
ROad86 said:
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?
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.
Posted on Reply
#14
Fourstaff
blibba said:
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.
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.
Posted on Reply
#15
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
TheMailMan78 said:
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.
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.
Posted on Reply
#16
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
ROad86 said:
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?
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:
Posted on Reply
#17
TheMailMan78
Big Member
newtekie1 said:
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.
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.
Posted on Reply
#18
ROad86
newtekie1 said:
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
Anandtech very objective site...:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#19
jsfitz54
Do my eyes deceive me?

SlayerJC said:
Intel processor Core i7 950 but the package 1156? Mistake or fake?
Is AMD trying to pull a fast one on its customers?
Posted on Reply
#20
MicroUnC
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
Posted on Reply
#21
DigitalUK
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.
Posted on Reply
#22
lashton
TheMailMan78
I want to see two things....

1. Benches.
2. Price.
lol i want to se 1 thing Benches first
Posted on Reply
#23
JF-AMD
AMD Rep (Server)
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.
Posted on Reply
#24
TheMailMan78
Big Member
JF-AMD said:
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.
Knowlage......is dropped.
Posted on Reply
#25
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
ROad86 said:
Anandtech very objective site...:rolleyes:
Yeah you could make a useless post about the credibility of the site I linked to, despite it being one of the most respected tech sites on the net, or you could make a post with some numbers of your own that back up your point... Guess which one would have actually helped your point.:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment