• 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!

well either way, it is good for the consumer. still think that the biggest reason for price cuts and stuff is always competition, but we will have to wait and see for that, can't imagine Intel cutting their prices for any other reason, don't strike me as that sort of a company, far too cynical for that! :p
 
Would coincide with AMD's massive turbo. But I can see it's IPC being faster than Deneb, anything else would be a failure, though that again brings Llano into light, with its Athlon II like performance per clock (Yes, I know, its IGP is the main point)
 
Martini1991 said:
The Athlon II has no L3 cache... Llano performs the same as an Athlon II clock for clock. I don't get the "It's better" lark.
The only difference in reality between the Phenom II and Athlon II is the lack of L3 cache in the Athlon II's..

Llano doesn't perform clock for clock better than Deneb in anyway shape or form, nor does it perform clock for clock better than Athlon II.
Click to expand...

Apart from having twice as many transistors as Deneb, and several times that of Athlon II :rolleyes:

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/amd-llano-notebook-review-a-series-fusion-apu-a8-3500m/2
 
well there still will be improvement even if its 20% faster then previous process clock per clock , include higher frequencys and few more cores, you end up even at higher improvement.
 
Last edited:
psychas said:
well there still will be improvement even if its 20% faster then precious process clock per clock , include higher frequencys and few more cores, you end up even at higher improvement.
Click to expand...

While I do expect that to be the case, that only puts it clock for clock around Intels last generation, and SB is Intels mainstream :p
 
kenmare said:
You know what? Screw waiting, could be here forever. Technology changes. Going to get an 2500k/2600k and just live with it. If it lasts me a year then it'll have done me proud. 2 years and that would be marvellous :D
Click to expand...

RollerBall said:
I really don't think Bulldozer is going to be that great anyway. Even if it is better, I don't think it will be by much.
Click to expand...

Sandybridge will be better than my current Celeron D. ;) :D
 
Martini1991 said:
And it's clock for clock faster :p
Click to expand...

Not nearly enough to make a difference. If BD overclocks higher it could all balance out assuming they match Nehalem performance.

Anyway, i dont really expect a lot. I prefer to be pleasantly surprised in the end.

Hell, Core 2 still offers more performance than 95% of the people will ever need, especially overclocked.

Edit: Not nearly enough is obviously subjective. I doubt it would be more than 5% top per clock.
 
Actually,Llano has an IPC improvement when compared to the Athlon II X4 which has 512KB of L2 cache per core. It has the same amount of L2 cache per core as an Athlon II X2 which is 1MB of L2 cache per core. There are a few other improvements which means it probably has slightly faster cores than an Athlon II X2 which means it can compete with the Phenom II cores in IPC.

two00lbwaster said:
Noo, I don't think that they have a winner at all. The processor is pathetic. Athlon class processing performance possibly even holds back the graphics core. We won't know that until Trinity comes.
Higher IPC or not, it has no additional cache so suffers in performance compared to even Phenom processors, never mind Intel cores.

Anyway, I think that you may see the prices on par with Intel's with Trinity, but then the prices will drop due to competition.

FM2 may not bring performance enhancements, but it will bring a common platform, making FM1 a dead end in all likelihood.
Click to expand...

Actually they do have a winner. It seems AMD have no problems selling their fusion processors ATM and they even gained marketshare from Intel despite Sandy Bridge.

On top of this the Core i3 has weaker multi-threaded perfomance. My Core i3 2100 is beaten by lower clocked Core 2,Athlon II and Llano quad cores in software like HandBrake.

Zarf said:
Not really, The Intel 3000 IGP only has 12EU's (Execution Units), taking up around 115M transistors. The IGP in Llano takes up somewhere around 400M transistors. The performance per transistor is pretty much equal, All Intel have to do to catch up or overtake is decide to up the transistor budget for their IGP's and throw in some more EU's.
Click to expand...

Sandy Bridge uses DX10 capable cores. When AMD and Nvidia went from DX10 to DX11 cores there was an efficiency drop and an increase in the number of transistors used per core. Additionally, more transistors need to be allocated for a dedicated tessellation unit or for tessellation functionality to be added to the shaders. The same will probably happen to Intel too. For example, with a 256 bit memory controller the RV770 found in the HD4870 was around 956 million transistors. The Juniper core in the HD5770 has a 128 bit memory controller and has 1040 million transistors. The RV770 also has a tessellation unit already which is not part of the DX10 specification.

Look at this comparison between the HD6790 and the HD4890:

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7974&pageid=7981

Despite having the same number of shaders and the same memory bandwidth the HD4890 is still faster in most games.

AMD is moving to more efficient VLIW4 shader arrangements with Trinity too, and unlike with Llano there will be tighter integration between the CPU and GPU.
 
Last edited:
Those benchmarks have to be fake. The FX-8150 just barely beating the i7-2600K in a multi-threaded benchmark (7-Zip) when clocked higher? If that was true the rumoured prices would be way off and, quite frankly, Zambezi wouldn't even be considered for release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom