• 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!

I m really looking forward to it.

I would like an upgrade, but I would hate my self for 'upgrading' from a 4 core C2Q to a 4 core 2500k.... even if it is better performance I would be disapointed.

An upgrade should be next gen. Next gen for me from a 4 core C2Q is an 8 core cpu....

Thats leaves the 2600k or a BD..... which one will offer a better price/performance?

Hopefully the BD.

On the subject of cores, as I understand it not all the 8 cores on the 2600k are equal. 4 of them are cores the others are just simply hyperthread cores.

On the BD chips are all 8 cores of equal power?
 
Definite info or proof of what it tastes like or your point is not valid :)

Fake breasts.
I m really looking forward to it.

I would like an upgrade, but I would hate my self for 'upgrading' from a 4 core C2Q to a 4 core 2500k.... even if it is better performance I would be disapointed.

An upgrade should be next gen. Next gen for me from a 4 core C2Q is an 8 core cpu....

Thats leaves the 2600k or a BD..... which one will offer a better price/performance?

Hopefully the BD.

On the subject of cores, as I understand it not all the 8 cores on the 2600k are equal. 4 of them are cores the others are just simply hyperthread cores.

On the BD chips are all 8 cores of equal power?


In any application you'd opt for a 2600k over a 2500k, the 8 core Bulldozer will be faster.
But anything that only 1-4 cores, a 2500k would be faster than a BD CPU.
I'm talking clock for clock here.
The 2600k is only 4 cores, but it's got 8 threads.
The "8 core" BD chip is 4 modules, a module consists of 2 mini cores (Essentially).


Enter the 2600k, in applications that use 6 threads, I'm not sure how it would fair against BD. 8 threaded app's would see BD ahead.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of cores, as I understand it not all the 8 cores on the 2600k are equal. 4 of them are cores the others are just simply hyperthread cores.

On the BD chips are all 8 cores of equal power?

Basically with an i7-2600K, you get 4 real cores (let's call this baseline performance 100 per core), plus 4 virtual cores (~25 performance boost per core). So when using 4 cores, you're getting 400 performance and you get 500 performance when using 8 cores.

With AMD Zambezi, each module contains two real cores. The module structure allows each core to have ~90% the performance of what a single core would run at but using much less die space (I remember this from an article about the new module architecture but this was a while ago). So you're getting 360 performance when using 4 cores but 720 when using 8 cores. Essentially it's much more efficient than HyperThreading with a minor single-threaded performance cost, which means it should be much better with programs that use many cores (e.g. video encoding).

However, there are so many more factors - even though you get more relative performance with Zambezi when using all 8 cores, Intel's cores are probably going to be faster in the first place so the gap isn't as big as the 720/500 stated above. We're not sure about clock speeds and overclocking yet but from the little information we have, it looks like Sandy Bridge and Zambezi will be similar in this regard.
 
Last edited:
I still think the sweet spot for Intel is their 2500k for overclockers, and everyone else who wants a quad, the 2300.

AMD need to beat those price/performance wise.
 
DragonQ, you are propably right. And if building purely gaming PC i5 2500K would still be very competative as only few of the games supports over 4 cores (any?). However in the future things might be different but then again Intel also will bring 8 core cpus someday.. Uh this race seems neverending.
 
DragonQ, you are propably right. And if building purely gaming PC i5 2500K would still be very competative as only few of the games supports over 4 cores (any?). However in the future things might be different but then again Intel also will bring 8 core cpus someday.. Uh this race seems neverending.

What race? Intel are in their own stride.
 
amdbulldozersaathizi_dh_fx57.jpg


4120 & 6120 come later. Everything else in August, apparently :)


Interesting, Anyone know if the TDP rating only effects Turbo, or if manual overclocking can exceed this?
 
And thanks Emlyn we can now start on discussing what is and what isnt a pointless discussion, so I'll free some time up in my diary.

If I didn't want to read the pointless conversation, I wouldn't keep opening this thread. I always know there isn't any BD information in it. :D
All my diary slots are currently free, so it's looking good.
 
If you put more Vcore into it and clock it, TDP will raise?

Obviously power draw will raise, but considering that the chip monitors its power draw and uses this to keep Turbo mode overclocks under the TDP, will the chip throttle itself back down under load to stay under the rated TDP ceiling if manually overclocked, or will it ignore the TDP ceiling?

Basically, given the same quality chip, will the 8100 have the same overclocking potential as an 8150?
 
Last edited:
It looks like the quad core Bulldozer CPUs will have the fastest cores as they have the most L3 cache per core. 12MB is a lot of cache.

It's the reason I went for a Tri core over a quad with the Phenom II, the extra L3.

Should be interesting to see how it works this time around.
 
Anyone got any info on the integration of DDR4 into BD? Like if it will happen?

Also (not been on here much for a while), do we know for sure yet if it will work in 890 chipset boards?
 
Back
Top Bottom