AMD Bulldozer Finally!

bulldog147 · 18 Feb 2011 at 16:37

I want 8 core Bulldozers next! Wave goodbye expensive intel.

JF-AMD · 18 Feb 2011 at 16:37

I am in server, not desktop. That is like showing DaVinci a Rembrandant and asking him if it is a real or a fake. Sure, he has an opinion, but he will never know for sure.

And don't ask for my "opinion" because whatever I say will become fact. the interwebs work like that.

rypt · 18 Feb 2011 at 17:03

all this BS of "we aren't saying is they are real or fake" just bores me

zoomee · 18 Feb 2011 at 17:16

get a grip rypt and leave the man alone.

He's taking a neutral stance as he can't be seen to be giving out information which would cost him his job - would you? no didnt think so

take a chill pill man - 1st of March is not far away from the official benchies being released.

rypt · 18 Feb 2011 at 17:25

Not so much just him, the whole official AMD line as well.

If they have a CPU that is good enough to compete with Intel stuff then it is just pure corporate BS to not show it off and say "it took us some time, but we now have an architecture that destroys Intel again"

I dislike when stuff is not released for BS reasons.

I have pointed it out before, giving us BD info will not affect AM3 sales anyway as everyone knows BD is better than current AM3 stuff, and everyone knows AM3+ is going to be out for BD.
All I have heard in return is the BS "OEM" line, which does not apply in this case as the choice is not between AMD old tech and AMD new tech but between Intel awesome-for-past-several-years tech and AMD new tech

zoomee · 18 Feb 2011 at 18:17

as far back as I can remember - AMD have always done this m8. Leaks we get are usual from china first lol

Uriel · 18 Feb 2011 at 19:36

Rypt, you've seen the Grolsh adverts right?

Final8y · 18 Feb 2011 at 19:43

iBSOD said:
What games be they?

I don't know any games yet that makes use of 6 cores.

BFBC2 & there are others.

But my point was not about how many cores a games uses, the point is that most things loading faster.

There is at least 7 tasks at start-up & 75 processes running in the back ground & they all take a slice.

Final8y · 18 Feb 2011 at 19:56

FoxEye said:
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic

Because I'm 99.9% certain that there will be no difference in BIOS load time between a single core CPU and a 16-core CPU.

Well i did update the BIOS at the same time & is instead of it taking 10-15 steps to read my 5 Raided Raid-5 drives it now does it in 2-3 steps & the only feature in the BIOS update was 6 core CPU support & nothing about a change to the Raid & none of the beta testers have said anything about any Raid changes either.

When i have the next build done & with less hassle with changing out the CPU i will put the quad back in & re time it.

JF-AMD · 19 Feb 2011 at 02:55

rypt said:
all this BS of "we aren't saying is they are real or fake" just bores me

I'm not saying it is fake because I do not know if it is fake.

zoomee said:
get a grip rypt and leave the man alone.

He's taking a neutral stance as he can't be seen to be giving out information which would cost him his job - would you? no didnt think so

take a chill pill man - 1st of March is not far away from the official benchies being released.

You will see benchmarks at launch, not march first.

rypt said:
I dislike when stuff is not released for BS reasons.

Here, let me give you a scenario. Take Dixon's or Curry's. They were probably expecting to make millions of pounds selling SB product. Then eveything goes all pear shaped and that revenue disappears. Oops, does not look good for the bottom line. Well, we can always sell the AMD systems, right? Doh! AMD just released some benchmarks on a product that won't be available until Q2. Everyone decided that it was worth the wait, so they aren't buying this quarter.

There is so much more at stake here than people in a forum getting upset because they can't argue actual performnce numbers. This is a business. I am not aware of a single OEM that wants any vendor to release benchmarks prior to the product being available. That is why Intel did not release official benchmarks prior to the SB launch.

Sorry, this is just how business is done.

Liquid · 19 Feb 2011 at 02:59

Final8y said:
BFBC2 & there are others.

But my point was not about how many cores a games uses, the point is that most things loading faster.

There is at least 7 tasks at start-up & 75 processes running in the back ground & they all take a slice.

Sadly thats it, as for performance in the game cpu wise, well thats another matter.

I looked at getting a 1090T but I was so disappointed with the performance level given it's a 6 core chip. Even looking now a 1090T cpu is similar money to an i5 2500k which wipes the floor with it quite frankly as a desktop user. Even if i'm sat on an amd board already it's not worth going for the amd to save the £100 or so you'd need for the 1155 board

Looking around there are games supporting 6-cores but it really is only a token effort and as such does not offer much advantage. By the time you factor IPC in they are no quicker really, edit..............well they are when comparing amd x4, and gaining 10-25% in a game for a 50% more capable cpu is hardly a win now is it.

rypt · 19 Feb 2011 at 10:56

JF-AMD said:
Well, we can always sell the AMD systems, right? Doh! AMD just released some benchmarks on a product that won't be available until Q2. Everyone decided that it was worth the wait, so they aren't buying this quarter.

But everyone knows that BD is out soon and is better than current stuff ... benches do not change that

psychas · 19 Feb 2011 at 11:08

well there rumors floating around that AMD might be bought out ? any statements on that JF-AMD ? Maybe Bulldozer last swan song for AMD ?

Cooper · 19 Feb 2011 at 11:18

Liquid said:
.well they are when comparing amd x4, and gaining 10-25% in a game for a 50% more capable cpu is hardly a win now is it.

No different to the GPU market though is it....

A 580 costs twice as much as a 560, does it give you twice as much performance?...no, not even close, less than 30% faster on average, yet people pay stupid prices.

wakayoda · 19 Feb 2011 at 11:38

My duel core Am3 Athlon is crying from all the rendering.

Brumboy · 19 Feb 2011 at 12:09

Ugh, I recently upgraded to an i5 2500k setup, now Bulldozer is coming out, hopefully it's not faster per clock than Sandybridge!

Although if it's close, and the prices of AMD's 8 core CPU's are less than £200 then it will be very tempting to swap.

All my computers last on average around 3 years but if more and more games use 4+ cores then maybe I made the wrong choice about my i5 2500k.

Just have to wait and see for the benchmarks I guess!

Does anyone know when Bulldozer will come out or when the benchmarks will be avaliable?

Cooper · 19 Feb 2011 at 12:44

Rossuk89 said:
Although if it's close, and the prices of AMD's 8 core CPU's are less than £200 then it will be very tempting to swap.

All my computers last on average around 3 years but if more and more games use 4+ cores then maybe I made the wrong choice about my i5 2500k.

Your 2500k will be more than good enough for at least the next 2yrs.....

At the present time and in the medium term, games wont need more than 4 cores, 6 or 8 cores will simply mean the CPU load is spread out out evenly.

Your Gfx card will play a far bigger part in games performance for the forseeable future...

modez · 19 Feb 2011 at 13:18

6 or 8 are a waste of time.

Bobmunkhouse · 19 Feb 2011 at 17:04

I'm stating to look forward to this......what is this about it boosting your performance if you also have a AMD GPU?

Bobmunkhouse · 19 Feb 2011 at 17:25

modez said:
6 or 8 are a waste of time.

That's what people said when I bought my quad and it turned out a great buy....