AMD Says Bulldozer Is 50% Faster than Core i7

Final8y · 30 Jan 2011 at 20:49

pswfps said:
1)Yes, and therefore the notion of a "core" is somewhat blurred now shall we at least say? I don't know why you concern yourself with arguing about it. Probably because AMD themselves aren't quite sure how to market the new architecture to the mediocre masses of DIY computing.

2)All that matters is power consumption, threads, IPC and thread swapping efficiency.

1)The notion was blurred with Intels definition of HT & im no more concerned about it than you are as it takes 2 to tango unless you think no one should be debating the subject.

2) indeed.

cameraheaven · 31 Jan 2011 at 01:41

Focus people!! ....50% is only double figures !!! There's a whisper Intel just bought into a Artificial diamond manufacturing business in south Africa that specializes in diamond coating on metal substrates,...Now why would Intel be interested in that for ??? Diamond conducts heat 5 times better then copper....how does a 12ghz 8-core beast sound like by 2014 ?

kristmace · 31 Jan 2011 at 09:10

Just part of the the preambled hype I guess, but it would be brilliant if it turns out to be true.

buttkinz · 31 Jan 2011 at 13:38

Nocky24 said:
Does anyone know if bulldozer will use dual channel memory?

yes, it will use dual channel mem, jf-amd confirmed it a while back

Gashman · 31 Jan 2011 at 15:22

cameraheaven said:
Focus people!! ....50% is only double figures !!! There's a whisper Intel just bought into a Artificial diamond manufacturing business in south Africa that specializes in diamond coating on metal substrates,...Now why would Intel be interested in that for ??? Diamond conducts heat 5 times better then copper....how does a 12ghz 8-core beast sound like by 2014 ?

erm...sounds unlikely.

Ezyryder · 31 Jan 2011 at 19:47

well, today's news about recalls on the 6 series chipsets must mean good news for AMD. Intel are not expected to enter full production of the chipset until April!

PapaLazaru · 31 Jan 2011 at 20:05

Ezyryder said:
well, today's news about recalls on the 6 series chipsets must mean good news for AMD. Intel are not expected to enter full production of the chipset until April!

I expect the top brass at AMD are out celebrating right now!

kppanic · 31 Jan 2011 at 20:45

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 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?

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.

Exactly. Who cares if it's a Turbocharged 3.6L V6 or a NA 5.0 V8 as long as they do the job at similar price points?

cameraheaven · 31 Jan 2011 at 22:04

Gashman said:
erm...sounds unlikely.

That's what people said about quad-cores by 2007 !!!

DSN · 31 Jan 2011 at 22:44

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 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?

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.

Because no applications use them ?

The Halk · 31 Jan 2011 at 22:48

DSN said:
Because no applications use them ?

Did you post that from 2006?

ng93 · 31 Jan 2011 at 23:03

opethdisciple said:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Bulldozer-Performance-Detailed-180197.shtml

regarding the leaked slide i thought i7 950 was 1366?

Gashman · 1 Feb 2011 at 21:06

cameraheaven said:
That's what people said about quad-cores by 2007 !!!

don't get me wrong, its more than possible, i just don't think intel are in a position to do it at the moment, with the sandy bridge troubles, were talking three years to totally do a total swap to artificial diamond (assume you mean graphene?), not saying its impossible just saying i don't see it likely happening given the current state of things. technology usually only advances quickly when it needs to, currently silicon is doing the job fine, though i could see in the not to distant future a change to graphene based CPUs going ahead. heres a question, does anything really challange the current top-end processors? like the i7 and what not, barring benchmarking tools, does anything trouble them?

wannabedamned · 1 Feb 2011 at 21:11

DSN said:
Because no applications use them ?

You do realise that technology generally becomes available THEN applications use that technology? Why would anyone code an application to use 100 cores when the max on the market is a lot less. You say "no one would use that many cores!" Well people said the same about quad not that long ago, and no doubt a lot of people are saying the same about 8-12 cores now. Well you'll be suprised the use they actually do get in the future.

Gashman · 1 Feb 2011 at 21:18

wannabedamned said:
You do realise that technology generally becomes available THEN applications use that technology? Why would anyone code an application to use 100 cores when the max on the market is a lot less. You say "no one would use that many cores!" Well people said the same about quad not that long ago, and no doubt a lot of people are saying the same about 8-12 cores now. Well you'll be suprised the use they actually do get in the future.

+1 to this, applications are only coded to run on current hardware, not future hardware, what would be the point?

Uriel · 1 Feb 2011 at 21:19

Gashman said:
+1 to this, applications are only coded to run on current hardware, not future hardware, what would be the point?

You're forgetting Crysis!

Gashman · 1 Feb 2011 at 21:21

Uriel said:
You're forgetting Crysis!

maybe an exception, only crytek could possibly be that mad, they did it back with far cry as well, most stuff didn't like running that maxed out in the day either! problem for me is im inclined to perhaps think dodgy coding, since unreal engine 3 looks brilliant, yet runs about ten times as well...! :confused:

olivier renault · 2 Feb 2011 at 00:05

Gashman said:
technology usually only advances quickly when it needs to, currently silicon is doing the job fine, though i could see in the not to distant future a change to graphene based CPUs going ahead. heres a question, does anything really challange the current top-end processors? like the i7 and what not, barring benchmarking tools, does anything trouble them?

Who knows. If it is technology viable for some part of the high-tech industry (military, research, NASA, supercomputers) but not mainstream, then that's where it will be, and hopefully the manufacturing process will improve and it can be manufactured at high volume at competitive costs.

There is a whole world outside consumer processors.

DSN said:
Because no applications use them ?

Plus, multi-threaded code is a must have nowadays. All console games are heavily multi-threaded for starters, and you'd be a fool not to take advantage of multi-cores on PCs. Besides, multitasking...

TrojanWhore · 2 Feb 2011 at 03:13

if you look at the slide from the press presentation here
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/AMD-Bulldozer-Performance-Detailed-3.jpg/
look at the table, and for the i7 950, it states the package as 1156, not 1366, which would mean one of three things
1. it was actually a 950 and someone made a mistake
2. it was actually a 860/870 and someone made a mistake
3. FAKE!!!!!!!!!!

Uriel · 2 Feb 2011 at 08:58

Or

4) AMD have cheek CPUs that Intel haven't actually released...