• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Martini1991 said:
Erm nope, I know exactly what it's for.
But it's priced at the same price as a 2120, for the higher end Llano.




It's not upto me to tell you how a CPU is.
As it stands, the highest end Llano is more expensive than the 2120.

The IGP on Llano is better by quite a bit.
But the actual CPU part isn't.
Click to expand...

And that's why it cost more because of the much better IGP & people who want better IGP will buy it for that fact & people who are only interested in CPU performance will by the Intel.

But more & more internet & multimedia is being more reliant on the GPU side of things.
 
Martini1991 said:
I appreciate Llano, but I'm eager for CPU performance.
Click to expand...

but i didnt think the Llano were designed for outright cpu performance, thats what BD will be for, which isnt benched yet, so how can you judge the BDs performance on a Llano bench??
the Llano seems to be meeting its needs, providing a low powered decent IGP chip, so who is to say that the BD wont do the same, offer a decent cpu performance chip?
 
paradisiac said:
but i didnt think the Llano were designed for outright cpu performance, thats what BD will be for, which isnt benched yet, so how can you judge the BDs performance on a Llano bench??
the Llano seems to be meeting its needs, providing a low powered decent IGP chip, so who is to say that the BD wont do the same, offer a decent cpu performance chip?
Click to expand...

Never said it was lol, I'm just eager for performance.
 
Final8y said:
And how many threads do multiple single threaded applications running at once use ?

And how many CPU intensive singled thread applications does the average user use today & how many of the average users care about the time it takes & are willing to pay more for it.
Click to expand...

for sure i agree, and i think llano achieves what it was meant to. but take for example the cinebench 11.5 benchmark in that anandtech article, in the single thread the llano is 33% slower than the i3, but only 10% faster in the multithreaded benchmark with twice the cores, which suggests under those circumstances each llano core is only performaing marginally better than half an i3 core. I dont think its relevant in terms of the llano target audience but rather that i'm hoping the bulldozer architecture address's what seems to be a widening gap in terms of how efficient each core is as eventually there is a cross over where by having twice as many cores isnt going to help it they are less than half as fast.
 
Zuban said:
for sure i agree, and i think llano achieves what it was meant to. but take for example the cinebench 11.5 benchmark in that anandtech article, in the single thread the llano is 33% slower than the i3, but only 10% faster in the multithreaded benchmark with twice the cores, which suggests under those circumstances each llano core is only performaing marginally better than half an i3 core. I dont think its relevant in terms of the llano target audience but rather that i'm hoping the bulldozer architecture address's what seems to be a widening gap in terms of how efficient each core is as eventually there is a cross over where by having twice as many cores isnt going to help it they are less than half as fast.
Click to expand...

Cinebench 11.5 benchmark is representative of what everyday task or program, unless your saying the the average user is a bencher.
 
I find this funny.

You have Final8y trying to find any way possible to say that AMD does not suck now, going as far as to say "ignore the benches, they don't represent anything".

Why not just admit that AMD are incapable of delivering a chip as good as Intel?
 
Final8y said:
Cinebench 11.5 benchmark is representative of what everyday task or program, unless your saying the the average user is a bencher.
Click to expand...

um... it isnt, and i'm not, i'm just using it to illustrate a concern i have about amd's current emphasis towards pricing there cpu's based on there multithreaded/multicore performance whilest the performance of each core has fallen quite far behind that of intel's and how i hope bulldozer changes that because after all this is a thread about bulldozer.
 
Final8y said:
Cinebench 11.5 benchmark is representative of what everyday task or program, unless your saying the the average user is a bencher.
Click to expand...

its representitive or any program that can multithread efficiently which is a lot of programs these days :confused:

games are not really seen as programs :confused:
 
arknor said:
its representitive or any program that can multithread efficiently which is a lot of programs these days :confused:

games are not really seen as programs :confused:
Click to expand...

What other programs use the CB algorithms because the user said under those circumstances & that's why we don't judge by any one game or app or bench.
 
Last edited:
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/...ll-makes-up-65-percent-of-intels-market-today

"It is something that you don’t see every day, and something that catches you off guard. In Q4 2010 a massive 65 percent of all Intel desktop CPUs are socket 775 based. This is the Core 2 Duo / Quad and current Celeron socket.

Amazingly the Core i 2010 generation with all the Core i3, i5 and i7, even some Pentiums holds a meager 27 percent share of the market. These is the peak for Core i 2010 processors and the LGA 1156 platform, as the plan is that in Q1 2010 its market share will go down to 22 percent, in favour of the soon to launch Core i 2000.

Core i2000 series based on socket LGA1155 and powered by Sandy Bridge occupies some 2 percent of all sockets shipped but it has massive growth potential. You should see its presence grow in desktop market to as much as 60 percent in Q3 2011.

The BGA Atom market takes some 5 percent of all desktop sockets and it will stay at this number through most of 2011 but the high end socket LGA 1366 is present with one percent of all sockets and this won’t change through most of 2011.

Intel has high hopes that many Core 2 and Core 2 Quad users will finally upgrade to Core i 2000 series and that Sandy Bridge can win their hearts and convince them to let go of LGA 775. Intel's plan is that LGA 775 market share drops to 25 percent in Q3 2011.

Just for the record, socket 775 is much older than Fudzilla, and we are three and a half now. It looks like sticking to one platform for some six years definitely paid off, but Intel’s future is a new socket every year, it seems.
"
 
most users are happy with a core2quad/core2duo so i doubt SKT775 people will be upgrading until ivy bridge and trinity are out as the requirements for windows 7 were the same as vista. It looks like windows 8 might have the same requirements too. People don't buy copies of windows seperately usually, they buy new pc's with the new version of windows on so once windows 8 is out we'll see a lot of nice new computers released.
 
Last edited:
clocka said:
most users are happy with a core2quad/core2duo so i doubt SKT775 people will be upgrading until ivy bridge and trinity are out as the requirements for windows 7 were the same as vista. It looks like windows 8 might have the same requirements too. People don't buy copies of windows seperately usually, they buy new pc's with the new version of windows on so once windows 8 is out we'll see a lot of nice new computers released.
Click to expand...

Indeed & that's when its more important for AMD to have something competitive ready.
 
News to me, is the word that AMDs new architecture will allow a single thread to run across two cores, this could be the reason for the slight delay in a firm release date......and pricing is starting to firm up with $320us price tag for the black edition.......this will probably mean a price for the UK market after conversion of about £350....looks like it'll be in a metal tin to boot to keep your biscuits in afterwards ..... Either way, it's been a long time coming , but with the eminent release of Intels 6 then 8 core Processors........2011/2012 is shaping up to be the clash of the Titans

Anyway hear is some short reads that I found worthy of my time for the AMD junkies

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/amd-reveals-pricing-for-eight-core-bulldozer-processor-320/6098

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110114134306_AMD_s_Bulldozer_Microprocessors_Expected_to_Offer_50_Higher_Performance_than_Core_i7_Phenom_II_Chips.html

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/processors/can-amd-s-eight-core-bulldozer-crush-intel--921019
Click to expand...

http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php/topic,5713.0.html
 
Last edited:
According to AMDs slides it can split 256bit AVX instructions over the two cores in a module, but I have no clue what that means in real terms to be honest. Anyone shed any light on that part? Or is that nothing to do with running threads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom