AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:08

Subliminal Aura said:
No can't see it being as bad as 40% or else AMD can just write themselves off and go defunct.

Hopefully the gap will be 20-25% and SMP will be better than intel - If so I'll take a punt with AMD and build a machine for virtual hosts.

Can't remember the last time I bought an AMD chip (2003 / 2004 ?)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=88
Admitting, the 2500k has 100mhz more.

But the difference is currently massive.
That gap widens.

FrenchTart said:
Their clock for clock difference means absolutely zero (outside of enthusiast circles) if the performance is the same or cheaper for the same price, along with TDP/etc in server spaces.

I'm not saying that BD will be awesome and for all I know it could fail massively. If it does, though, it won't be for the reasons that seem to be coming up in this thread.

All I've said is, the gap's widening between AMD and Intel, it's very possibly if that doesn't change, AMD can't offer the required performance in X amount of years, of course, software could become much more multithreaded to take advantage of AMD's "Throw more cores at it" approach.

Yes, they're priced differently, but I'm not on about price at the moment.

Price/performance wise? The 955's a lot better.

40% on average, as there's cases where it's not that, it's less, but in other cases it's 50%. So, 40% on average seems fair.

EDIT : Here's AMD's 6 core at 3.3GHZ versus the 2500k.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=203

While it does help slightly, it's still got 50% more cores, but no where near the same performance on average.

flopper · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:13

the cpu is fast enough either way.
its not like we are cpu bound much these days.
I always ask, will I notice the difference in my use?
and the answer most of times is, not.

its always price/performance ratio for me.
and I find a 2500k today oc to 4.8ghz hard to beat.

gareth170 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:16

Martini1991 said:
But it's not 10% difference.. Clock for clock it's more like 40%? AMD are only at Q6600 level clock for clock at the moment, although, that should change with BD. But then Intel have Ivy in a few months...

What gives me the idea that AMD can't keep up? The fact that the difference between the two keeps widening.

but even if it's 40% difference ,if the price is right for the performance it shouldn't matter.

also tbh i don't think amd are set out to beat intel, they just improve performance from they last gens and also to keep the price down

Subliminal Aura · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:17

Martini1991 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=88
Admitting, the 2500k has 100mhz more.

But the difference is currently massive.
That gap widens.

What do you expect ? AMD is a generation behind, this is the purpose of BD - to bring them back on par.

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:18

gareth170 said:
but even if it's 40% difference ,if the price is right for the performance it shouldn't matter.

also tbh i don't think amd are set out to beat intel, they just improve performance from they last gens and also to keep the price down

Obviously, at the moment they have a place.
But we're seeing the gap increase, my point is, in a few years, if the current trend continues, will AMD be able to offer the performance needed?

Subliminal Aura said:
What do you expect ? AMD is a generation behind, this is the purpose of BD - to bring them back on par.

But Llano's is newer than Phenom II and has the same IPC as Athlon II, Llano is also newer than SB.
SB-E is out this year, and Ivy is out in a few months.

The gap will only increase. That's what I'm getting at.

easyrider · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:20

But the price difference between the two perfromance chip currently with amd and intel are not that different tbh.

especially when it comes to perfromance.

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:22

easyrider said:
But the price difference between the two perfromance chip currently with amd and intel are not that different tbh.

especially when it comes to perfromance.

It depends on your budget a lot.
Although a lot of the time I see people can gain more performance going Intel on the same budget.

Those who bought a CHV and 1100T/980 spring to mind.

SeeKified · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:23

What do you think the IPC will be like when compared to Phenom II parts? I'm very much into emulation, and that's a definite area where threading does not help one bit. At the moment SB is much better for emulation, partly because of better IPC but also because of SSSE3 and SSE4 support, something which I'm told even Zambezi won't support?

gareth170 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:23

Martini1991 said:
Obviously, at the moment they have a place.
But we're seeing the gap increase, my point is, in a few years, if the current trend continues, will AMD be able to offer the performance needed?

we don't know

if more games/apps start using multicore over the next years then amd won't have any issues

Subliminal Aura · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:24

Martini1991 said:
But Llano's is newer than Phenom II and has the same IPC as Athlon II, Llano is also newer than SB.
SB-E is out this year, and Ivy is out in a few months.

The gap will only increase. That's what I'm getting at.

Do you see any 32nm AMD chips anywhere ? :rolleyes:

EDIT: Plz don't quote Llano

I see your point of view with regards to the gap but lets be fair - AMD has not had a direct answer for i7 over the past few years and hence the gap.

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:25

SeeKified said:
What do you think the IPC will be like when compared to Phenom II parts? I'm very much into emulation, and that's a definite area where threading does not help one bit. At the moment SB is much better for emulation, partly because of better IPC but also because of SSSE3 and SSE4 support, something which I'm told even Zambezi won't support?

Fellow PCSX2 user ?
I know Deneb didn't have SSSE3 or SSE4.
However, IIRC, BD has AVX?

In the instruction sets, I'm sure I've seen SSSE3 and SSE4 for BD, though I could be wrong.

AVX should be interesting for emulation, however at the moment I wouldn't move from SB to BD for emulation.

There's a lot of rumours on BD's IPC, some claim it's lower than Deneb due to the design, similar to netburst (High clocks to offset lower than previous generation IPC)

Not that I believe them.

Cooper · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:26

SeeKified said:
What do you think the IPC will be like when compared to Phenom II parts? I'm very much into emulation

Your in the same boats as me,Emulation...and core for core, clock for clock is what interests me, and if you extrapolate those benchmarks then the BD's are about 20% faster clock for clock than a Phenom II..

Sorry, but thats just not good enough.

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:27

Cooper said:
Your in the same boats as me,Emulation...and core for core, clock for clock is what interests me, and if you extrapolate those benchmarks then the BD's are about 20% faster clock for clock than a Phenom II..

Sorry, but thats just not good enough.

How'd you work that out?
BD has 8 cores. That will sway the results in apps, which can use the cores.
Then you've got turbo... So it'll never be 4 cores at 2.8GHZ to compare against a Deneb, or 6 cores to compare against Thuban.

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:28

Subliminal Aura said:
Do you see any 32nm AMD chips anywhere ? EDIT: Plz don't quote Llano

I see your point of view with regards to the gap but lets be fair - AMD has not had a direct answer to i7 over the past few years and hence the gap.

Exactly. What if that continues as the trend though? Bearing in mind Phenom II was after 1336.

Yes, BD's not released yet, so we can't judge it.

Cooper · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:31

Martini1991 said:
How'd you work that out?

Currently in emulation, PhenomII's are between 40-50% slower clock for clock, these results show BD has narrowed that gap to about 30%...

Maybe my math is off abit, but not by enough to tell me BD is going to cut it as regards emulators that thrive on fast single cores, which SB excels in..

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:32

Cooper said:
Currently in emulation, PhenomII's are between 40-50% slower clock for clock, these results show BD has narrowed that gap to about 30%...

Maybe my math is off abit, but not by enough to tell me BD is going to cut it as regards emulators that thrive on fast single cores, which SB excels in..

See my edits.

There's an AMD event today.

gareth170 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:35

amd are going the multicore rote. intel are going the raw performance rote...

if more games/apps start using multicore over the next years then amd won't have any issues

simple

Martini1991 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:36

gareth170 said:
amd are going the multicore rote. intel are going the raw performance rote...

if more games/apps start using multicore over the next years then amd won't have any issues

simple

Indeed, I'm just taking into account the current playing field.
However, how easy is it for games to be coded to take advantage of more cores?

Cooper · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:36

gareth170 said:
amd are going the multicore rote. intel are going the raw performance rote...

if more games/apps start using multicore over the next years then amd won't have any issues

simple

Thank you for my mid-morning ROFL.....

gareth170 · 8 Sep 2011 at 11:37

Cooper said:
Thank you for my mid-morning ROFL.....

????