AMD Says Bulldozer Is 50% Faster than Core i7

opethdisciple · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:20

Article below:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Says-Bulldozer-is-50-Faster-Than-Core-i7-CPUs-177958.shtml

bro306 · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:29

lets hope this is true better cpu cheaper prices! CPU price war lets hope!

crackerman · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:29

Sounds good, its about time AMD are competitive again (on performance and not just value.) It will make a decent upgrade for when BF3 is released.

mmj_uk · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:33

They're comparing an 8-core Bulldozer to an i7 950 quad core, so by my reckoning that would mean an 8 core Bulldozer performs roughly the same as an i7 970 Gulftown.

opethdisciple · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:34

mmj_uk said:
They're comparing an 8-core Bulldozer to an i7 950 quad core, so by my reckoning that would mean an 8 core Bulldozer performs roughly the same as an i7 970 Gulftown.

Is that good or bad? Or is it dependant on price?

I take it, the Sandy Bridge chips are still going to be the enthusiasts chip of choice?

With the enthusiast SB chips still to come out later this year, and or a possible 6 core SB, Bulldozer better delever in terms of price/performance....

d_brennen · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:35

mmj_uk said:
They're comparing an 8-core Bulldozer to an i7 950 quad core, so by my reckoning that would mean an 8 core Bulldozer performs roughly the same as an i7 970 Gulftown.

Price dependent that isn't such a bad thing

mmj_uk · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:42

It's a good thing in that they'll force Intel to bring their 6 core prices down, but they're still likely to be one step behind as Intel will probably have their own 8 cores out by then (albeit £800).

It appears that Bulldozer will still be no match for Intel core for core.

JonJ678 · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:44

Their unreleased 8 core beats intels last generation quad core by 50%? That isn't something to boast about

MumboJumbo · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:51

Can't see AMD even denting intel till the next gen after. They just seem to be 6 months behind every time which means that by the time AMD cpu's come out intel are usually on their "refined" versions of their cpu's they released 6 months earlier which likely beat AMD's offerings anyway.

Plus, why do we need 8 cores yet? Bring a quad that can compete!

Secondly, these are no doubt synthetic benchmarks. Not at all relevant to real world performance. It's fairly obvious 8 cores on a synthetic benchmark will beat 4.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:54

JonJ678 said:
Their unreleased 8 core beats intels last generation quad core by 50%? That isn't something to boast about

A quad core with HT.

People are forgetting that this is an 4 module CPU which has two processing units.

Each Bulldozer module is much smaller than a pair of normal normal core and probably means that the processor is smaller than the current Phenom II X6.

This means AMD can price these CPUs quite competitively.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Jan 2011 at 12:56

8igdave said:
Can't see AMD even denting intel till the next gen after. They just seem to be 6 months behind every time which means that by the time AMD cpu's come out intel are usually on their "refined" versions of their cpu's they released 6 months earlier which likely beat AMD's offerings anyway.

Plus, why do we need 8 cores yet? Bring a quad that can compete!

Secondly, these are no doubt synthetic benchmarks. Not at all relevant to real world performance. It's fairly obvious 8 cores on a synthetic benchmark will beat 4.

From the article:
"The document cited compared an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture with a 4-core, 8-thread, Intel Core i7 950 and with a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T CPU, in three different usage scenarios (media, rendering and games)."

Semple · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:00

I don't see why we need 8 cores yet either. The CPU market seems to be going to quick for everything else to catch up. It's gonna be years before there's anything my i7 can't run.

opethdisciple · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:01

The key difference imo between AMD and Intel, is:

1. Price - Generally AMD deliver comparible performance but at a cheaper price to Intel.
2. True Cores - We 'MAY' see AMD's core design pay dividens once multicore technologies and software mature..... for instance at present its understood that HT isnt as good as true cores.... etc etc ect... well at least thats AMD marketing line...

Wucked · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:01

I'm only really interested in core for core performance. Saying that multithread performance of an 8 core cpu is better than a 4 core cpu isnt really anything to get excited about, especially when most apps barely take advantage of 4 atm.

Ezyryder · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:01

Interesting but a lot of FUD still, when are these supposed to hit home? I want to see the real deal.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:04

Wucked said:
I'm only really interested in core for core performance. Saying that multithread performance of an 8 core cpu is better than a 4 core cpu isnt really anything to get excited about, especially when most apps barely take advantage of 4 atm.

4 cores with HT.

Again from the article:

"The document cited compared an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture with a 4-core, 8-thread, Intel Core i7 950 and with a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T CPU, in three different usage scenarios (media, rendering and games)."

Most games only use upto 4 cores AFAIK.

MumboJumbo · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:04

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
From the article:
"The document cited compared an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture with a 4-core, 8-thread, Intel Core i7 950 and with a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T CPU, in three different usage scenarios (media, rendering and games)."

I know what it says but it is still 4 cores vs 8. Further more it doesn't state anything more about the benchmarks and I find it hard to believe there are any games capable of showing a 50% difference between a I7 950 and a bulldozer.

Freddie1980 · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:05

mmj_uk said:
It's a good thing in that they'll force Intel to bring their 6 core prices down, but they're still likely to be one step behind as Intel will probably have their own 8 cores out by then (albeit £800).

It appears that Bulldozer will still be no match for Intel core for core.

Core for core - that's a new one but does it matter how AMD get the job done? What counts is performance, price and maybe power usage surely if the performance of Bulldozer is 50% better (according to the article) and prices and power usage is comparable to Core i7 then who cares how many cores Bulldozer uses?

8igdave said:
I know what it says but it is still 4 cores vs 8.

So what? Why does it matter how many cores AMD puts in its CPU's? So long as they comparing chips that will be priced at a smiler price point Bulldozer can have 100 cores for all I care.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:06

Freddie1980 said:
Core for core - that's a new one but does it matter how AMD get the job done? What counts is performance, price and maybe power surely if the performance is better and prices and power usage is comparable to Core i7 then who cares how many cores Bulldozer uses?

Exactly.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 13 Jan 2011 at 13:09

8igdave said:
I know what it says but it is still 4 cores vs 8. Further more it doesn't state anything more about the benchmarks and I find it hard to believe there are any games capable of showing a 50% difference between a I7 950 and a bulldozer.

They also tested the Phenom II X6 1100T too. This would mean that it is competing with Sandy Bridge in situations which use less than 4 cores.

Of course the benchmarks have to be confirmed first so I am officially confused at how well or how badly Bulldozer will perform TBH.