-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Bulldozer Finally!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Well its coming out on server straight off at 16 core versions, if AMD really want to I'm sure they can release a LGA 2011 style quad channel 16 core ultra high end desktop competitor, realistically almost any time.
All they have to do is have gigabyte/asus and the like release a few single slot server boards, and then release a cut price single cpu only version of the server chip rather than 2 cpu system versions that are aimed at server.
The main things we don't know are what Bulldozer enhanced and Bulldozer "next gen" are which are both on the road maps.
Enhanced could be anything from a 8 core with a IGP added, to a 16 core mainstream chip, next gen could be, its unclear when its supposed to be due, early 2013 maybe, it could be a 22nm part, potentially doubling up cores again.
My guess would be Enhanced will add 2-4 cores and an IGP, and next gen will be a process drop with added cores again.
If a 8 core Bulldozer is more than a match for a 2600k, infact if its significantly faster, then Ivybridge will have a hard time beating it, and if AMD move to say a 10 core chip, thats a 25% core boost, and its built to scale well with increased cores, which would give it a similar boost to Ivybridge over Sandy.
Too early to suggest if they are true, the Superpi looks most suspicious and surprising, the Vantage looks superb, 3.8Ghz Bulldozer comftably beating a Sandy clocked to 4.7Ghz.
All they have to do is have gigabyte/asus and the like release a few single slot server boards, and then release a cut price single cpu only version of the server chip rather than 2 cpu system versions that are aimed at server.
The main things we don't know are what Bulldozer enhanced and Bulldozer "next gen" are which are both on the road maps.
Enhanced could be anything from a 8 core with a IGP added, to a 16 core mainstream chip, next gen could be, its unclear when its supposed to be due, early 2013 maybe, it could be a 22nm part, potentially doubling up cores again.
My guess would be Enhanced will add 2-4 cores and an IGP, and next gen will be a process drop with added cores again.
If a 8 core Bulldozer is more than a match for a 2600k, infact if its significantly faster, then Ivybridge will have a hard time beating it, and if AMD move to say a 10 core chip, thats a 25% core boost, and its built to scale well with increased cores, which would give it a similar boost to Ivybridge over Sandy.
Too early to suggest if they are true, the Superpi looks most suspicious and surprising, the Vantage looks superb, 3.8Ghz Bulldozer comftably beating a Sandy clocked to 4.7Ghz.
Pffft...this is driving me nuts, i just want to know how the 'per core' performance is compared to a 2500k.
I know BD will be good for heavily multithreaded stuff like the latest games and apps, with 6 and 8 cores, how could it not be?.
But i want to know how a single BD core running at 4Ghz (and more) compares to a single 4Ghz (and more) SB core...is it the same, is it 10% (or more) faster or slower?...
My next CPU will be mainly used for emulation (MAME and Pcsx2) and single core performance is everything for these.....and SB performance @ 4Ghz+ for these emulators is truly epic, and i must say from what little i've seen so far, it dosent look too good for BD in this department, but i want official confirmation before i decide either way.
Sometimes, this BD launch seems to have been the longest, most drawn out launch in CPU history.
I know BD will be good for heavily multithreaded stuff like the latest games and apps, with 6 and 8 cores, how could it not be?.
But i want to know how a single BD core running at 4Ghz (and more) compares to a single 4Ghz (and more) SB core...is it the same, is it 10% (or more) faster or slower?...
My next CPU will be mainly used for emulation (MAME and Pcsx2) and single core performance is everything for these.....and SB performance @ 4Ghz+ for these emulators is truly epic, and i must say from what little i've seen so far, it dosent look too good for BD in this department, but i want official confirmation before i decide either way.
Sometimes, this BD launch seems to have been the longest, most drawn out launch in CPU history.
Any reason you want to use a cutting edge processor to play MAME when my PsP has been able to do that for years at 333Mhz?
-edit, re read this and it looks sarcastic, it is not ment to be taken that way.
Caporegime
I think it's more PCSX2.
I had a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.8GHZ and that was stupidly faster.
My GD65 died on me, and instead of changing board I went back to my 1055T and CH4.. And jesus, it's no where near as fast as my Intel set up was. PCSX2 is a hell of a lot slower on my 1055T.
I had a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.8GHZ and that was stupidly faster.
My GD65 died on me, and instead of changing board I went back to my 1055T and CH4.. And jesus, it's no where near as fast as my Intel set up was. PCSX2 is a hell of a lot slower on my 1055T.
No, we never said that.
Realistically? Nope.
the 2P desktop market is tiny and getting smaller every day. You won't see us there at all, there is no money to be made.
Ah PS2 emulater, never heard of that one. Yeah that would be a bit much for the PSP. Was supprised how well the PS1 emulation worked on that little machine though. Good job it had that, the official PSP games were and still are aweful.
Lol...SB is about 40% faster clock for clock over the Phenom II cores, so a SB running @4.8Ghz would need a Phenom II running in the 6-7Ghz!!!! range to equal it in PCSX2...
Crazy...
Caporegime
Caporegime
Two processor socket motherboards.
thanks
You'll get threaded emulators soon enough ....
Caporegime
Doesn't work that way
PCSX2 I think at the moment uses 3 threads as of 0.97, it's now 0.98.. But the third thread isn't really doing much at all..
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Hence NOT 2p, like I said
It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to instead of having £X priced 2p/4p versions, sell a cheaper 1p version, and have a couple of the silly guys, Asus/Gigabyte make a daft server/enthusiast quad channel board.
Thats assuming a 8 core Bulldozer is behind a LGA2011 Intel chip by a lot(its unclear, I was sure those were also going to be 8 core, but a lot of people are saying 6/4core now). If they really wanted to, more for marketing reasons, have a platform for desktop that really gave Intel a run for its money.
I honestly doubt that many people are running around buying £400 mobo's and 990x's, there certainly are some though.
A 2p 32 core total Bulldozer would rip a LGA2011 desktop Intel setup to pieces, easily, but cost more. A 16 core one chip, single slot mobo with quad channel memory just to keep LGA2011 in check. It doesn't have to sell in the millions, just be there so every single review doesn't always end up with
"while Intel is the undisputed king of the high end where AMD can't compete, Bulldozer is a great midrange chip".
Almost no one buys the high end, its such small volume it won't make a big difference profits wise to Intel or AMD, but having that kind of sentence in every review, when AMD really can quite easily release a couple mobo's and whack a chip in it with, essentially almost no cost to them.
Doesn't
"AMD have the quad channel 16 core that competes well with Intel's more expensive LGA2011 platform, Bulldozer is also fantastic against Intel's midrange, AMD have a chip for you in every range that more than holds its own against anything Intel can make".
Which makes AMD look better?
I mean, 6990's aren't selling by the millions, but AMD worked out how important it was to have a card that, in every review, has someone sum up the conclusion with "while this is a great card by Nvidia, it doesn't come close to AMD's single best card".
Intel have done this for years, sell their highest end server chips as desktop parts to appear miles ahead.
Simple thing is, AMD has 16 core chips, they'll have chipsets, not much else to do there. Intel and Nvidia make a killing selling the same things in two different segments with no or marginal changes to appeal to the different segments.
That could be what Bulldozer "enhanced" is, or it could be 16 core chips on mainstream boards, though you'd think keeping 16 cores topped up with data might take a bit more than dual channel memory.
Soldato
I agree with DM's sentiment re. AMD's marketing. Most people I know haven't heard of them or assume they aren't any good and that Intel = "computers". They aren't enthusiasts of course but brand awareness for AMD is low in the general population and most certainly have no idea that they are the "bang for buck" option.
Marketing whilst not cheap has got to be the way forward when R&D runs in the the billions and imo AMD have got products worth promoting...
Marketing whilst not cheap has got to be the way forward when R&D runs in the the billions and imo AMD have got products worth promoting...
Also comparing SLI vs none SLI
It's the CPU score I found interesting:
Bulldozer FX8110 - 81,917
i7 [email protected] - 73,592
Seems pretty impressive if true