• 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 Says Bulldozer Is 50% Faster than Core i7

mothermachine said:
AMD have always had the best "value" bang-for-buck but Intel have always held the top spot in terms of raw speed. I hope that can be turned around, because shelling out for top spec Intel machines is a very expensive business. I'd move my whole business over to AMD in a snap if they managed it. (got 8 quad or hex core PCs here, all intel, plus intel laptops).
Click to expand...

Not always. Athlons were superior to Pentium IIIs and Athlon XPs were superior to Pentium 4s. I'm also pretty sure Athlon64s and Athlon64 X2s were a match for Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds.

I remember buying an XP 3200+ because it outperformed a Pentium 4 @ 3 GHz in most benchmarks but worked out a fair bit cheaper (including the motherboard).
 
djkav said:
I think you are forgetting that Bulldozer cores are not like intels cores. You simply cant compare them core for core, it wont work. Who knows, maybe Bulldozer can work a thread on multiple cores.

We wont know how bulldozer works until we get peoples experience using them.
Click to expand...

Splitting a thread over multiple cores is not going to happen on Bulldozer. If anyone ever figures out how to do it then it will be one of the biggest breakthroughs in computing ever.

These numbers have been around for a few months now. In heavily threaded apps BD should be fairly competitive but on an average app then it will only be marginal faster than K10.5(10-15% faster). Of course with an improved TurboCore it should be more than.
 
You also have to take in to account the fact that Intel put a lot more weight behind their marketing campaigns.....

That definetly contributes to the idea that AMD have always played second fiddle to Intel.

You see big billboards around where I live advertising the Core i series, but not a peep from AMD.

They position them selves are the market leaders simply through marketing.

I guess Intel have a lot more money than AMD.
 
opethdisciple said:
They position them selves are the market leaders simply through marketing..
Click to expand...

i think the quality and speed of their products is what ultimately positions them as leaders. no doubt their marketing campaigns help though. that can be evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of ocuk customers look past marketing and focus on performance and intel rules the roost here. unless someone who works here can say otherwise? :)
 
This is true but you must agree that the vast majority of the general public recognise the Intel brand name but have no idea who or what AMD is.

Their profit is nowhere near as high as Intel's (IIRC something like $200m vs $3bn) and I guess they need all of it for future product research and design whereas Intel can splash out on TV (and other media) advertising campaigns.
 
Just a theory of mine but if they do mean Bulldozer is 50% faster in games I wonder if they testing Bulldozer & Core i7 just using the CPU's own GPU engine? Given Bulldozer's GPU is meant to be pretty powerful GPU (like 5750 powerful) that would explain away why the % is so high.
 
An 8 core bulldozer is 50% faster than an i7 4 core with HT :(

Since HT tends to add 30% to the IPC that means that bulldozer is about 20% slower per core.
 
wish people would stop referring to bulldozer as an eight-core processor, sure there will be an eight core one, but these are quad-core, not eight, we at least for the sake of debate, i know they both are and they aren't. see how this is gonna cause some serious confusion upon release...!
 
Sarngate said:
And looking at the 980x just imagine how much it's going to cost. Intel always have the top performance but the price they charge for the relatively modest performance increase (in games) is crazy.
Click to expand...

True. I think high end intel cpus are mainly for those people who do extensive rendering, video editing, heavy multi-tasking etc and need all the cpu power they can get. Gaming really needs just a good processor such as Q6600, i5 750/760, Phenom II x4 etc and you are good to go:).
 
Gashman said:
wish people would stop referring to bulldozer as an eight-core processor, sure there will be an eight core one, but these are quad-core, not eight, we at least for the sake of debate, i know they both are and they aren't. see how this is gonna cause some serious confusion upon release...!
Click to expand...
1 module = 2 cores, this is what AMD are saying and it makes sense because they claim that 1 module has about 80% the performance of 2 totally separate cores.

It makes far less sense to call a 4-module Bulldozer a quad core.
 
Gashman said:
wish people would stop referring to bulldozer as an eight-core processor, sure there will be an eight core one, but these are quad-core, not eight, we at least for the sake of debate, i know they both are and they aren't. see how this is gonna cause some serious confusion upon release...!
Click to expand...
I don't know where you get that idea, but it's not correct. The first Bulldozer based chip, 'Zambezi', is an 8 core processor. There is no ambiguity about that whatsoever: forget about the cores being grouped into modules, that's purely an architectural detail. All 8 cores are the same and are capable of the same performance and functions as all the others.

Anyone who claims Bulldozer will only have 4 cores is just plain wrong.
 
Sarngate said:
And looking at the 980x just imagine how much it's going to cost.
Click to expand...

Between £800 and £1000, as always. Take a look back though the history of Intel processors and you'll see that their top-end models have pretty much always launched at this price point.

And to all those having a pop at AMD, remember that they've been doing most of the innovation of late. AMD64 instructions, Quickpath, on-die memory controller - all of these were invented by AMD and later copied by Intel.

Intel basically use their sheer might to copy AMD's good ideas, refine them and add some of their own, then throw millions at marketing.
 
As far as i'm concerned, if Bulldozer is within 10% of Sandybridge performance wise (overclocked) in Apps and games, but 20-25% cheaper, that will be enough for me to stick with AMD.

AMD will reserve Sandybridge beating performance for the reintroduced range of FX processors, otherwise whats the point of them?....so those will be more expensive and faster, to justify the price.
 
IMO, there has been far too much talk and too little evidence about Bulldozer, all we ever here is specuilation and rumours with little or no sign of when it is due to be released, Intel are way ahead of the game and personally it seems with the recent graphics card launches, AMD are falling behind bigstyle.

I think AMD need a serious product if they want to be considered a serious contender for the market.
 
I've not used AMD since the core 2 duo showed up but if the figures are legit then it could make me go back to the dark side.

Good on AMD in that case.
 
DrBombcrater said:
I don't know where you get that idea, but it's not correct. The first Bulldozer based chip, 'Zambezi', is an 8 core processor. There is no ambiguity about that whatsoever: forget about the cores being grouped into modules, that's purely an architectural detail. All 8 cores are the same and are capable of the same performance and functions as all the others.

Anyone who claims Bulldozer will only have 4 cores is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Im well aware Zambezi is an 'eight core' processor, ok fair enough, shall we call them eight-core...quad-module? but its been the intriguing thing about Bulldozer ever since we heard of them, each 'core' has two processing engines, yet they share other resources, including L1 and L2 cache, yet they both also have independant L1 cache, they also share FPUs as well so it can apparently act as either two 128-bit FPUs or a single 256-bit FPU. so Im still not convinced they can be called true 'eight core' processors, since there is a lot of shared innards in each of the modules, they both share fetch and decode as well, where normal 'cores' have their own dedicated. so can we really call them true 'cores'...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom