AMD Bulldozer Finally!

zoomee · 19 Feb 2011 at 17:30

allot of people seem to forget that gaming isn't the only purpose for a CPU lol. Six cores DOES matter - hence why Intel can get away with charging £1k for one! It's only those trying to make themselves feel better that argue against it

- Just because ALL software has not caught onto it doesn't mean its an inferior product.

And JF-AMD - As much as you may argue that we will only see benchies at launch I beg to differ - look at the X6 - Benchies were released from china well before release - and the same will happen with bulldozer, whether AMD like it or not LOL

But thanks for letting us know that AMD are purposley holding back the benchies so they can make money out of their existing stock - as much as its reassuring for AMD stockholders - its just a downright marketing farce from the consumers perspective - you'd think the sandybridge fail would have pushed AMD to move forward the launch of bulldozer instead of using it as an opportunity to plug existing kit >insert dissapointed smiley< - AMD's big point never was and still isn't customer focus......ah well. Patience is a virtue

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Feb 2011 at 17:53

AFAIK,Llano is supposedly being pushed forward and AFAIK this will replace the Athlon II and low end Phenom II CPUs in desktops and laptops.

morguk · 19 Feb 2011 at 18:01

Is bulldozer going to be under the Phenom II range?

Liquid · 19 Feb 2011 at 18:41

Cooper said:
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.

I am only talking about cpu's...oops edit lol, I misread your post and thought you thought I was talking about gpu's.........shoot me now lol.

Liquid · 19 Feb 2011 at 18:50

Rossuk89 said:
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?

Why on earth are you worried about bulldozer fella, your cpu sat at 4.6ghz kills anything out there and it's one of the first cpu's out too. When bulldozer lands Intel will be start selling 6 core items which you still wont need anyway lol.

Even now there are next to no games even utilising 4 cores 100%, as someone else here has already said, games will primarily always be needing GPU performance. I got 5 years out of Core 2 with a good video card.

Final8y · 19 Feb 2011 at 20:45

Liquid said:
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.

My setup is more responsive which i didn't expect at all, i have allot of stuff open at the same time & more cores help no matter if the individual programs are multi threaded or not as its not all about using all the cores on a single multi threaded program but about having cores free for many programs.

deusexlumina · 19 Feb 2011 at 23:01

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

of course it will be better, *how much* better is the idea

rypt · 20 Feb 2011 at 00:25

I fancy boys said:
of course it will be better, *how much* better is the idea

*how much better* only impacts the comparison to Intel and not current AM3 stuff

Gashman · 20 Feb 2011 at 16:03

as much as i would like to see some solid benchmarks, AMD are doing a great job at keeping things under wraps. put them in a better position if they can release information on the product, from manufacturer to customer, no middle-man, etc. means they can release the information when they are ready to which is better i think. relax its not long to wait, nothing is going to change between now and the Bulldozer launch, JF-AMD thumbs up for standing firm with these sorts of matters.

only question i would like to ask is will there be a good volume of Bulldozer chips available on release day, or are we looking at the traditional NVIDIA style release where they are in the wild, but impossible to get hold of...? is production, etc. on schedule? :confused:

buttkinz · 20 Feb 2011 at 21:29

zoomee said:
allot of people seem to forget that gaming isn't the only purpose for a CPU lol. Six cores DOES matter - hence why Intel can get away with charging £1k for one! It's only those trying to make themselves feel better that argue against it - Just because ALL software has not caught onto it doesn't mean its an inferior product.

And JF-AMD - As much as you may argue that we will only see benchies at launch I beg to differ - look at the X6 - Benchies were released from china well before release - and the same will happen with bulldozer, whether AMD like it or not LOL

But thanks for letting us know that AMD are purposley holding back the benchies so they can make money out of their existing stock - as much as its reassuring for AMD stockholders - its just a downright marketing farce from the consumers perspective - you'd think the sandybridge fail would have pushed AMD to move forward the launch of bulldozer instead of using it as an opportunity to plug existing kit >insert dissapointed smiley< - AMD's big point never was and still isn't customer focus......ah well. Patience is a virtue

good job your not in charge of a chip company then rofl

lollyhayes · 20 Feb 2011 at 22:01

from chiphell:

http://translate.googleusercontent.....co.uk&usg=ALkJrhih33aFmj8YOG_FN9h-t6gQU5Yv0A

Gashman · 21 Feb 2011 at 00:15

those are some pretty interesting benches there, fingers crossed that they are true.

DragonQ · 21 Feb 2011 at 00:27

Seems realistic. 10-12% faster than Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock (4 modules vs 4 cores with HT).

Gashman · 21 Feb 2011 at 00:29

DragonQ said:
Seems realistic. 10-12% faster than Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock (4 modules vs 4 cores with HT).

thats a stonking result since the extra 'core' only takes another 13% die-space, also lower clocked than the Sandy Bridge (3.4Ghz vs. 3.5Ghz) and still beating it? really hope they are 'authentic' though I doubt it somewhat.

DragonQ · 21 Feb 2011 at 01:00

I believe the die space used for a module is also roughly the same as the die space used for one traditional core plus HyperThreading (which does require more die space due to extra circuitry).

Even if those benchmarks are true, their success will depend on what price point they can afford for their 4 module chips and also on their overclockability. If they can't reach an average of ~4.5 GHz like Sandy Bridge then they might have a problem.

xMagition · 21 Feb 2011 at 11:03

Although this nothing concrete, i think my next machine will be AMD. I am really hoping that bulldozer provides stiff competition for Intel. It will be the perfect time to build a new PC.

zoomee · 21 Feb 2011 at 12:21

buttkinz said:
good job your not in charge of a chip company then rofl

LOL - Too right mate - I don't do execs, i'm a techie

Too much mention of smoke bombs in that translation!

If I recall correctly chiphell.com were the first to release the cinebench benchies of the X6's so it has some level of credibility.

Looking forward to bulldozer now - time to get saving.

Gashman · 21 Feb 2011 at 13:12

DragonQ said:
I believe the die space used for a module is also roughly the same as the die space used for one traditional core plus HyperThreading (which does require more die space due to extra circuitry).

Even if those benchmarks are true, their success will depend on what price point they can afford for their 4 module chips and also on their overclockability. If they can't reach an average of ~4.5 GHz like Sandy Bridge then they might have a problem.

I agree to disagree with that, indeed their success will depend entirely on what sort of price Bulldozer can be shipped for, don't think overclockability makes much difference in the grand scheme of things, since we account for a tiny percent of the market, as long as it works, works well and auto-overclocks using its various turbo-modes then it will be successful as long as its priced competatively. for us though, overclocking is a definate bonus, though for me its not really that important since they should be fast enough to not really notice any difference in real-world applications!

DragonQ · 21 Feb 2011 at 13:20

True, it won't affect them much financially but if they're hoping to revive the FX series as they've said, they'll need some highly clocked chips - otherwise an i7-2600K @ 4.5 GHz will still beat their presumably more expensive FX CPUs if they don't overclock as well.

We also still know nothing about single-threaded performance, which is important.

1Day · 21 Feb 2011 at 13:22

I really hope that AMD have a winner here. It would make me personally very happy as competition for the performance sector will result in lower prices for really good quality kit. And that can only be a good thing.