AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Final8y · 3 Jul 2011 at 18:03

Jayster said:
I was just trying to tell opethdisciple that he does not need to wait out for PCI-e 3 as PCI-e 2 at x16 has more than enough bandwidth for even the biggest cards out at the moment and in the future. That does not mean to say we will not need PCI-e 3 eventually, just that there is no need to wait for it. Also people with a system that has 4 GPU's and is using eyefinity will probably have a high enough end board and upgrade often enough to where PCI-e bandwidth is a non issue.

Yes PCI-e 2 at x16 is more than enough.

opethdisciple · 3 Jul 2011 at 19:17

Next Gen AMD/Nvidia gpu's are they going to be PCI-Ex 3?

Clav · 5 Jul 2011 at 12:26

5.1Ghz on air.... (allegedly) Still no bench results either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haV93vh20Q0

Fonz-Valo · 5 Jul 2011 at 12:39

Clav said:
5.1Ghz on air.... (allegedly) Still no bench results either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haV93vh20Q0

Ouch 1.59v :eek:

What cooler is attached to that? It makes my Titan Fenrir look tiny lol

Cooper · 5 Jul 2011 at 13:04

Clav said:
5.1Ghz on air.... (allegedly) Still no bench results either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haV93vh20Q0

Great, but until i see 'clock for clock' results against SB, it means nothing....

Mollari · 5 Jul 2011 at 13:21

For me it means " it will be good enough ".

Cooper · 5 Jul 2011 at 13:38

Mollari said:
For me it means " it will be good enough ".

...but if say as an example, bulldozers have to run at 5Ghz to be as fast as a 4Ghz SB, then why not go with the lower power usage, cooler temps and the added bonus that SB is always going to be faster after overclocking... :confused:

Mollari · 5 Jul 2011 at 13:50

I see the AMD as a smaller company who doesnt even have such money designing new CPUs and I want to support them as much as I can with my thin wallet. Theres nothing wrong with it, and maybe this way Im also helping Intel cpu buyers to get their great processors a bit cheaper due to competition.

Thats it, really.

Clav · 5 Jul 2011 at 13:57

That's not really accurate though is it? AMD are a hugely successful company with enough money to buy ATI when they wanted to. They were on the cutting edge of cpu innovation right the way up to the Core2duo.

phil128 · 5 Jul 2011 at 15:23

AMD cannot, will not beat intel in performance. This is from a guy who has had an AMD and intel CPU's since AMD brought our their duron CPU's. Intel CPU's are far faster than AMD. We all know this from looking at benchmarks on the net. I know that AMD cpu's have to be clocked a lot more, just to atlease compete with lower clocked intel cpu's. Saying all of this though, i'm looking forward to AMD's apu's. I guess intel may bring something out in thel future to compete with this.

Clav · 5 Jul 2011 at 15:35

What Bulldozer to Sandybridge benchmark comparison are you basing this sweeping statement on?

pmc25 · 5 Jul 2011 at 15:39

phil128 said:
AMD cannot, will not beat intel in performance. This is from a guy who has had an AMD and intel CPU's since AMD brought our their duron CPU's. Intel CPU's are far faster than AMD. We all know this from looking at benchmarks on the net. I know that AMD cpu's have to be clocked a lot more, just to atlease compete with lower clocked intel cpu's. Saying all of this though, i'm looking forward to AMD's apu's. I guess intel may bring something out in thel future to compete with this.

Half the benchmarks are rigged and most of the rest aren't hugely indicative of performance.

The new Fusion APUs clearly show that AMD can beat Intel, and comfortably. I mean who in their right mind would ever buy an Atom based platform of any kind now? Their performance is so far behind. Way, way further behind than Phenom II is behind Sandy Bridge.

Bulldozer may only be on par with or slightly behind SB in clock for clock, but with more and more applications (and Windows itself) being heavily threaded, I'll happily take the architecture with more real cores.

Also, you guys seem to be forgetting that the only reason Intel kept any marketshare at all in the server / workstation market in the heydays of the Opteron was because of anti-competitive practice. When AMD beat them, Intel resort to criminality to compete. Not a company I wish to support.

psychas · 5 Jul 2011 at 15:56

well i guess it is not stable at 5.1 if he is doing cinebench on 4.85 ghz . will see not so long left

pmc25 · 5 Jul 2011 at 16:08

psychas said:
well i guess it is not stable at 5.1 if he is doing cinebench on 4.85 ghz . will see not so long left

If the purported scores attached to these runs are correct, I suspect it's only running with 50% of the cores enabled anyway ... so not sure too many conclusions can be drawn.

d_brennen · 5 Jul 2011 at 16:10

pmc25 said:
Half the benchmarks are rigged and most of the rest aren't hugely indicative of performance.

The new Fusion APUs clearly show that AMD can beat Intel, and comfortably. I mean who in their right mind would ever buy an Atom based platform of any kind now? Their performance is so far behind. Way, way further behind than Phenom II is behind Sandy Bridge.

Bulldozer may only be on par with or slightly behind SB in clock for clock, but with more and more applications (and Windows itself) being heavily threaded, I'll happily take the architecture with more real cores.

Also, you guys seem to be forgetting that the only reason Intel kept any marketshare at all in the server / workstation market in the heydays of the Opteron was because of anti-competitive practice. When AMD beat them, Intel resort to criminality to compete. Not a company I wish to support.

I agree with the sentiment but can we not go down the road of dividing ourselves into "camps", "teams" and "fanboys". If AMD come up with the goods then fine, great for everyone.

Remember the days of the Athlon XP/64 spanking the P4, the first consumer dual cores, forcing Intel's hand, price/perf of the Opterons a few years ago? AMD can compete, and have. Now with lawyers from both sides and various consumer groups et al watching like hawks, the field is more even than it ever has been.

Brazos, Zacate and Llano are brilliant for what they do. Intel can't match them as a package at the moment

Over the years I've gone Intel-AMD-Intel-AMD etc for various reasons. My laptop is a ULV Intel gobbie that's rubbish at video and games but at the time AMD couldn't do low power use and Intel couldn't do good video. Hopefully we're going to see a new era of innovation of the type that spawned the Core 2 architecture

Tea_Bag · 5 Jul 2011 at 16:23

So guys I'm going to place an order for a SB i5 and gtx 580 but ill wait for bull dozer if its out in the next few weeks. Anyone think this is officially around the corner?

Sayso · 5 Jul 2011 at 17:01

Tea_Bag said:
So guys I'm going to place an order for a SB i5 and gtx 580 but ill wait for bull dozer if its out in the next few weeks. Anyone think this is officially around the corner?

no...

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 5 Jul 2011 at 17:09

HardOCP are having a Bulldozer preview event on the 16th of July:

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2011/06/02/texas_gamexperience_july_16

w1lliam · 5 Jul 2011 at 17:25

This long delay hasnt been good for AMD, a lot of pople have gone SB. I cant wait till it comes out, the prices of the X6 have to fall and then cpu upgrae time.

ng93 · 5 Jul 2011 at 17:36

phil128 said:
AMD cannot, will not beat intel in performance. This is from a guy who has had an AMD and intel CPU's since AMD brought our their duron CPU's. Intel CPU's are far faster than AMD. We all know this from looking at benchmarks on the net. I know that AMD cpu's have to be clocked a lot more, just to atlease compete with lower clocked intel cpu's. Saying all of this though, i'm looking forward to AMD's apu's. I guess intel may bring something out in thel future to compete with this.

Oh jesus, you clearly no nothing about CPUs...