AMD Says Bulldozer Is 50% Faster than Core i7

paulc25 · 25 Jan 2011 at 00:09

MrElve said:
AM3+? Would that run on a standard AM3 board like my crosshair III Formula?

Nope.

Nemesis379 · 25 Jan 2011 at 00:11

Lol @ title gave me quite a giggle

Tigjaw · 26 Jan 2011 at 20:32

Will somebody give AMD a couple of years worth of tech-advancement please? I want cheaper Intel already.

MrElve · 26 Jan 2011 at 21:28

Tigjaw said:
Will somebody give AMD a couple of years worth of tech-advancement please? I want cheaper Intel already.

+1

Uriel · 26 Jan 2011 at 21:31

Cheaper Intel? Sandy Bridge i5 and i3 look like being the best value chips from Intel in years. From previews of i3-2100 I've seen AMD had better have some spectacular chips up its sleeve or Intel will have the gaming market sown up apart from the very cheapest options.

opethdisciple · 27 Jan 2011 at 00:28

Well a little bit of news regarding potential launch dates or at least hard performance benchmarks hopefully:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...Official-Debut-During-CeBIT-2011-180651.shtml

drunkenmaster · 28 Jan 2011 at 00:15

Uriel said:
Cheaper Intel? Sandy Bridge i5 and i3 look like being the best value chips from Intel in years. From previews of i3-2100 I've seen AMD had better have some spectacular chips up its sleeve or Intel will have the gaming market sown up apart from the very cheapest options.

People seem quite happy to ignore that its AMD's pricing on low end through their hex cores that is keeping Intel pricing in check already. If their hex core chip wasn't available for, not checked in a while, sub £150 for the slowest ones, a 2500/2600k wouldn't be as cheap as they were, and the older chips would be priced higher.

Remember that by keeping in check just SOME of the Intel range it keeps the rest in check. So Intel sell i3's silly cheap because AMD has stupidly cheap quad cores and hex cores available, that means i5 quads can't be "that" much more expensive because if a really good dual core costs £72 after a quick check, and will actually deal with most situations pretty damn well, then almost no one would buy a quad core if it was £400 because it just wouldn't be worth it.

Now if AMD weren't forcing Intel's hand at the low end, say a i3 dual core was £120, or heck, £150, then a £300 quad core doesn't look unreasonable.

Sure some people would by the £1000 hex core i7's anyway, but not many people.

AMD dual/quad/hex core pricing on current chips is keeping all but Intel's hex core pricing in check already.

zoomee · 28 Jan 2011 at 08:49

Exactly drunkenmaster - hence why I will always support AMD

ATIorNvidia · 28 Jan 2011 at 09:03

Tigjaw said:
Will somebody give AMD a couple of years worth of tech-advancement please? I want cheaper Intel already.

Be quiet. You have no clue how Bulldozer will perform.

EvilOne · 28 Jan 2011 at 13:28

opethdisciple said:
Well a little bit of news regarding potential launch dates or at least hard performance benchmarks hopefully:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...Official-Debut-During-CeBIT-2011-180651.shtml

Nice read

Tigjaw · 28 Jan 2011 at 13:53

ATIorNvidia said:
You have no clue how Bulldozer will perform.

*points to thread title*

*points to article*

Yes...yes I do.

Uriel · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:19

I'm not sure a 50% increase in 3DMark06 CPU test will translate to a significant real-world gaming advantage:

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/...-scorpius-and-vision-black-fx-benchmarks.html

Still - to see it running at 4-5FPS - radical!

johny dolan · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:20

My sandy hits 5 fps

MrElve · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:22

Google search 'AMD Future Processers'. More info on wikipedia.

8-core (Socket AM3+) "Zambezi" Architechture CPU

edscdk · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:27

Gashman said:
AFAIK they don't have any intention of doing so, think about it Intel are slamming the door in the faces of the enthusiast community with the whole crippling overclocking business, because they have no competition.

intel sell 100's of millions of CPU's I would not think they really care if a few 100,000 get overclocked...

MrElve · 28 Jan 2011 at 14:32

AMD are better than Intel in my opinion. Sure the quad-core i7's have 8 threads instead of six, sure the hex core 980X has 12 threads instead of 6. But you have to think about it, AMD give the best power for money versus competition, AMD were the first to market DX11 cards, They will be the first to release 8-core desktop cpu's. Thats my opinion anyway

but I will never, without a doubt, disagree that the 980x is a beast to be reckoned with. That cpu is a monster

its just its price..

opethdisciple · 28 Jan 2011 at 15:32

Well thats AMD's marketing ploy.

They try to make it so that you cant ignore there products because bang for buck they are good buys.

Its hard tho, becuase Nvidia and Intel go down the "You want the best"? Then you buy our product at inflated prices...

Both have their merits.

However I think the clue to the new AMD processors is in the codename. Bulldozer.

Literally means we will just plough through data, and chuck it around, to gain performance...

Where as SB sounds a bit more elegant, like a ballerina. (Sting like a bee float like a butterfly is what I mean)

Where as Bulldozer, is punch you in the face like mike Tyson, see if you can stand up.

djkav · 28 Jan 2011 at 16:58

I'd like to see the 16 core Bulldozers

MrElve · 28 Jan 2011 at 18:10

djkav said:
I'd like to see the 16 core Bulldozers

o.O I know they're doing 8 cores but I thought 12 core was the highest they were going to go? ^^ AMD ***

Invader675 · 28 Jan 2011 at 21:19

I have an overclocked i7 975 EE.

I see no reason to upgrade at all.
Maybe in 10 years, when microsoft word 2020 is out and video games are on holodecks.

Until then, my CPU is fine.