AMD Bulldozer Finally!

[Owenb]

I'm most interested in the 25-35w laptop chips because to be able to have decent graphics in a laptop without paying a premium for discrete laptop gpu's will be a nice change,i hope they announce a 400sp gpu configuration for the laptop market

Afaik Llano will have ~400SP but I doubt it's possible to fit that chip into 25-35w envelope.

edit: Correction, the dual cores probably will.

 

[opethdisciple]

They will show of Buldozers capabilities at Cebit exhibition in March!

 

[drifting]

I'm quite keen looking forward to this. Especially the single-thread performance, such like super-pi, because most games only supports 2 CPU cores, with serious diminish returns from extra CPU cores, including many poor console ports.

 

[kmufc77]

Hi Havent read the whole thread.

Im unfamiliar with AMD chips and haven't owned one for around 10 years so excuse my ignorance with these questions,im sure i could find out the answers below on goggle but i would prefer to ask here and discuss.

What socket will Bulldozer use? Im i right in thinking it will be AM3+?

Will it be cheaper than a Sandybridge setup?

Will it be faster that an i7 920 DO?

 

[Gashman]

yes Bulldozer is socket AM3+ and not backward compatible with AM3, chances are it will come in at a lower price than Intel competition, though this is just speculation based on AMDs market strategy, etc. and nobody really knows whether its faster than the current Intels.

 

[Gashman]

I'm quite keen looking forward to this. Especially the single-thread performance, such like super-pi, because most games only supports 2 CPU cores, with serious diminish returns from extra CPU cores, including many poor console ports.

could very well be disappointed if your after killer single-threaded performance, since Bulldozer is pretty much designed to excel in multi-threaded applications more than anything, could be wrong mind but I wouldn't hold your breath! maybe that AMD fellow could offer some insight on this subject, without breaking NDA of course!

 

[HighlandeR]

could very well be disappointed if your after killer single-threaded performance, since Bulldozer is pretty much designed to excel in multi-threaded applications more than anything, could be wrong mind but I wouldn't hold your breath! maybe that AMD fellow could offer some insight on this subject, without breaking NDA of course!

hopefully AMD have learned they gotta push performance in single and multi threadeded apps...

I like the idea of having a 8 core cpu and having the potential power, but then energy saving is a big thing and it would have to also perform very good for day to day single threaded apps

Lets hope crysis 2 and DNF will see all 8 cpus and perform like a dry cat being thrown into a bath with cold water.

 

[Uriel]

That first motherboard from ASRock is due the end of Feb:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AM3-socket-Zambezi-890FX-Deluxe5-AMD-990FX-9-series,12191.html

Release coming end of Feb.

 

[AceTK]

Id just like to clarify some details about the Asrock AM3+ 890 mobo that is going to be released soon.

Yes supports AM3+ & AM3 CPU's
Only supports HT3.0 @ 2600Mhz (vs HT3.1 @ 3200Mhz) **
Only supports two 16x PCIe lanes and one physical 16x PCIe @ 4x speed

** The Asrock mobo only supports a HT link speed of 2600Mhz meaning it is not HT3.1 compliant. HT3.1 supports 3200Mhz. The effect that will have on the 8 core bulldozer is unknown but if running my quad core on my 1000Mhz HT1.0 is anything to go by the degregation will be noticable.....


I'm incredibly enthusiastic about getting fully AM3+tastic but i'm going to wait till the new 900 chipset is out before I splash out. But then thats just me.

 

[Final8y]

I'm quite keen looking forward to this. Especially the single-thread performance, such like super-pi, because most games only supports 2 CPU cores, with serious diminish returns from extra CPU cores, including many poor console ports.

More & more games are using more than 2 cores & the most popular games are already using 4 & the future is more so you don't buy just for now & poor console ports sometimes means you need more cores to make up for the lack of efficiency.
Consoles are 3 core.

Super-pi is useless because nothing uses such code besides super-pi.

 

[Gashman]

Ha! Highlander, loved that comment about the cat, made me laugh! but yeah i totally agree, they need a reasonable single-thread performance boost vs. Phenom II to avoid just being steamrolled by Sandy Bridge. supposidly K10.5 had quite a few un-needed resources, that weren't efficiently implimented, which is why Bulldozer is much more streamlined in that respect, just hope for the sake of competition and the market that AMD manage to get the best out of their resources.

 

[Final8y]

I have just upgraded from a Phenom II X4 965@4Ghz to a AMD Phenom II X6 1090@4Ghz & i could instantly see the difference & that was just the time it took to get to the BIOS.

Boot up time & loading windows is much quicker & i have plenty of background tasks to load but it was very fast indeed.

 

[EvilOne]

Lets be honest, most recent games are multi thread and the amount of cores used keeps going up. There are some beinfits for old single thread games, but any recent cpu nevermind SB or BD will eat those alive anyways so there's no real advantage.

The only reason i can see for single thread apps is benchmarking, with is a popular game these days, and SB as amazing at that. It gives an extra 30-40% boost due to benching optimizations
(about 10% boost to none benchmark cpu loads, compared to Nehalem)


My Q6600 OC'd still plows through anything i give it atm lol, so im in no rush to upgrade yet. Im guessing there is going to be a nice battle coming

 

[FoxEye]

I have just upgraded from a Phenom II X4 965@4Ghz to a AMD Phenom II X6 1090@4Ghz & i could instantly see the difference & that was just the time it took to get to the BIOS.

Is that a serious comment?

 

[jonneymendoza]

50% faster will be able to compete. Also, AMD are generally a lot cheaper

if it performs like a SB then intel are ****ed. SB will be in BIG trouble

why buy a SB when a bulldozer is cheaper and offers same performance and no sata port issues?

 

[DragonQ]

If it is faster than SB, it won't be cheaper.

 

[johny dolan]

AMD price their chips in relation to the performance against Intel chips so the only reason AMD are cheaper is because they are slower.

If bulldozer is as fast as Sandy bridge or faster the price will reflect that so anyone thinking they are going to get 50% performance over 2500k for 50% less price are kidding themselves.

 

[drunkenmaster]

AMD price their chips in relation to the performance against Intel chips so the only reason AMD are cheaper is because they are slower.

If bulldozer is as fast as Sandy bridge or faster the price will reflect that so anyone thinking they are going to get 50% performance over 2500k for 50% less price are kidding themselves.

Firstly, no they don't and secondly, theres nothing wrong with expecting a chip that is faster to be a similar price. Do you think if in best case scenario its 8 cores are 50% faster than 4 cores, it will cost 50% more? No, it wouldn't, and it won't.

Quad core vs Quad core, Bulldozer should be stupidly cheaper than Sandybridge, I'd expect basically Bulldozer 8 core priced against Sandy quad, Bulldozer quad against high end sandybridge dual's, and Bulldozer dual cores against the lower end dual core and older versions of chips.

AMD have shown time and again since publically announcing their general strategy of bringing good performance at great value a few years ago. Its mostly about GPU's but Bulldozer is really the first real architecture in years, one of the most important features is how little die size the extra cores take up, how small an octo core is, die size DIRECTLY relates to price/margins, the smaller the core the more profit you make at any given price. Small core, efficient, fast, sound like their gpu strategy?

Forcing the top end stuff artificially into the £600+ price bracket is daft, mainstream and high volume is where the money and volume is.

Theres very little point selling an octo core thats 50% faster than a 2600k in best case scenario, for £450, because 99.9% of people buying cpu's simply won't buy a £450 CPU. Most people buy sub £100, the majority of the rest won't break £200 maybe £250, almost no one goes above that. Theres literally no point AMD releasing octo cores priced from £250-500 even if the performance warranted it, people would not buy them, Dell would have 2 high end rigs they would sell them in, which would account for far less than 1% of their sales.

I'd be surprised if the top end octo core was more than £250 to be honest, yes ultimately performance will have AN effect on pricing, but only within the brackets that they can sell at volume at. If it sucks they might sell at £125-200 for various speed bins, if they are fantastic they might be £150-300, ultimately Intel pricing has little to do with it, what customers are willing to pay, and what computers Dell and the other OEM's will put them in determine pricing.

 

[johny dolan]

We will see when its out saying im right or wrong is just guesstimates i dont know and neither do you.Im sure the current gen would be priced higher if they matched or beat current Intels same with the gfx cards.My 5970 cost £500 when it was the fastest card now the new 6 series are slower they are cheaper so performance in comparison to your competitor does and will have a bearing on the price thats charged.

 

[morguk]

I hope bulldozer kicks @ss. It keeps the competition healthy and it's always nice to see the underdog win.