-
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!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
i feel better for not upgrading to i5 2500k or i7 2600k & i think i will skip bulldozer too which is more or less going to be on the same level,i'm looking forward to the much advanced ivy bridge.
It's all relative,I have a half-built new gaming PC, just waiting for CPU/board and ram for complete new PC build so hoping Bulldozer is right for me, my laptop is newer then my gaming PC which is almost 6 years old ie AMD 3800+ X2 CPU(I got my money's and gaming worth out of this PC for sure), so either way I win with upgrade
.I could not care less about Ivy bridge,its Z68 or Bulldozer for me,end of the day there is always something faster around the corner.
So JF-AMD, what do you make on Intels Ivy Bridge, I don't know what department you're in or how much you know about the New Ivy Bridge, but I would assume its far greater than what I know but it looks pretty promising to be honest.
How do you think Bulldozer will compare and compete?
How do you think Bulldozer will compare and compete?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,319
- Location
- Planet Earth
This article is from other site:
"ARM wrestle
While not exactly unanticipated, Intel's unveiling of its 22nm manufacturing process, featuring a new kind of transistor, seems to have got many commentators rather bullish about Intel's prospects in the mobile device market, where it's currently a virtual bystander.
In a curious piece of timing, market researcher IDC chose today to announce it will be including ARM architecture in its PC market forecasts from now on, and kicked things off by announcing it expects 13 percent of PCs to running chips based on ARM architecture by 2015. Seeing as there are currently no PCs running ARM chips, and IDC doesn't count tablets as PCs right now, that's quite a prediction.
So with all this news and speculation flying around, we thought it was time to have a chat with ARM CMO Ian Drew, who was himself a long-time Intel employee before joining ARM in 2005. While we didn't expect him to have any inside information on Intel - far from it - we wanted to know what the significance of Intel's announcement was to ARM.
"Intel has always innovated through process improvement," said Drew, "But it's not only about the transistor. You have to also consider the architecture, SoC design, the broader ecosystem, and so on."
So Drew isn't contesting the significance of Intel's technological breakthrough. But while a smaller manufacturing process undoubtedly confers power/performance benefits, so does the micro-architecture, the efficiency of the whole SoC, software optimisation, and so on.
We put it to Drew that Intel had said it was a ‘misconception' that ARM's architecture was somehow intrinsically more power-efficient than Intel's. "Fewer transistors means lower power," he countered. "so RISC is inherently lower power." Drew also pointed out that ARM has already announced test chips at 22 and 20nm already, with foundry partners TSMC and GlobalFoundries also working on those processes, and that IBM is already working on 14nm.
Moving on to the IDC report, Drew took it with a pinch of salt. "If it happens we'll be very happy, but forecasts are always wrong in some shape or form," he said. "The ARM business model is not to favour one form over another." In other words, whether you call it a PC, a tablet or a smartbook, if it's got ARM IP in it then ARM's happy.
The implications for the low power market were the main theme of the Q&A after Intel's announcement yesterday. While Intel itself didn't focus on mobile devices much in the formal presentation, it clearly feels 22nm plus shiny new transistor can be a real difference-maker in bid to take on ARM in mobile devices.
But we can't fault Drew's assertion that it will take more than just technological innovation for Intel to convince the mobile device ecosystem to move away from ARM - just ask MIPS. The biggest obstacle Intel has to overcome is momentum. The likes of Qualcomm, TI and NVIDIA already have relationships with mobile OEMs, and the trend is for the bigger device-makers to license ARM's technology in order to design their own chips.
So Intel probably has to not only match, but significantly beat ARM's technology offering before mobile OEMs will even consider moving away from ARM. And with the likes of Apple, Samsung, and maybe more already making their own SoC's the number of potential customers may be shrinking."
"ARM wrestle
While not exactly unanticipated, Intel's unveiling of its 22nm manufacturing process, featuring a new kind of transistor, seems to have got many commentators rather bullish about Intel's prospects in the mobile device market, where it's currently a virtual bystander.
In a curious piece of timing, market researcher IDC chose today to announce it will be including ARM architecture in its PC market forecasts from now on, and kicked things off by announcing it expects 13 percent of PCs to running chips based on ARM architecture by 2015. Seeing as there are currently no PCs running ARM chips, and IDC doesn't count tablets as PCs right now, that's quite a prediction.
So with all this news and speculation flying around, we thought it was time to have a chat with ARM CMO Ian Drew, who was himself a long-time Intel employee before joining ARM in 2005. While we didn't expect him to have any inside information on Intel - far from it - we wanted to know what the significance of Intel's announcement was to ARM.
"Intel has always innovated through process improvement," said Drew, "But it's not only about the transistor. You have to also consider the architecture, SoC design, the broader ecosystem, and so on."
So Drew isn't contesting the significance of Intel's technological breakthrough. But while a smaller manufacturing process undoubtedly confers power/performance benefits, so does the micro-architecture, the efficiency of the whole SoC, software optimisation, and so on.
We put it to Drew that Intel had said it was a ‘misconception' that ARM's architecture was somehow intrinsically more power-efficient than Intel's. "Fewer transistors means lower power," he countered. "so RISC is inherently lower power." Drew also pointed out that ARM has already announced test chips at 22 and 20nm already, with foundry partners TSMC and GlobalFoundries also working on those processes, and that IBM is already working on 14nm.
Moving on to the IDC report, Drew took it with a pinch of salt. "If it happens we'll be very happy, but forecasts are always wrong in some shape or form," he said. "The ARM business model is not to favour one form over another." In other words, whether you call it a PC, a tablet or a smartbook, if it's got ARM IP in it then ARM's happy.
The implications for the low power market were the main theme of the Q&A after Intel's announcement yesterday. While Intel itself didn't focus on mobile devices much in the formal presentation, it clearly feels 22nm plus shiny new transistor can be a real difference-maker in bid to take on ARM in mobile devices.
But we can't fault Drew's assertion that it will take more than just technological innovation for Intel to convince the mobile device ecosystem to move away from ARM - just ask MIPS. The biggest obstacle Intel has to overcome is momentum. The likes of Qualcomm, TI and NVIDIA already have relationships with mobile OEMs, and the trend is for the bigger device-makers to license ARM's technology in order to design their own chips.
So Intel probably has to not only match, but significantly beat ARM's technology offering before mobile OEMs will even consider moving away from ARM. And with the likes of Apple, Samsung, and maybe more already making their own SoC's the number of potential customers may be shrinking."
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 132
- Location
- Blighty
The only problem with this strategy is that there'll always be something better not that far around the corner. So you could theoretically always be waiting for the next thing...i feel better for not upgrading to i5 2500k or i7 2600k & i think i will skip bulldozer too which is more or less going to be on the same level,i'm looking forward to the much advanced ivy bridge.
That said, it's probably worth waiting for now. Would like to see how Bulldozer stacks up against Ivy Bridge.
CHV (with UEFI bios too) and Sabertooth versions, hmmmm decisions decisions now
Nice! - Lol at the use of the Intel NIC in the CHV though
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,094
- Location
- Manchester
SLI on the 990 series...awesome! And about time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 15,629
- Location
- Chengdu
Good shout tbh, I'd rather have an Intel onboard NIC on all my motherboards.
As much as I hate Intel - your right dude - I'd rather have one of their NIC's than one of them Realtek jobbies - less overhead on the CPU for a start!
Only thing that interests me on the CHV - Is UEFI bios - I'd change to it in a flash if only it boots in seconds like UEFI is supposed to. If the BIOS is the same as the current range of snadybridge boards though its not worth it - They're buggy as eck! - so might still hang fire.
/heres praying my CHIV doesn't bottleneck BD.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,288
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'm sure a CH4 won't bottleneck BD, given I can't see BD being that fast 
.
For the record, I'm back with the CH4 crowd. Mine arrived this morning with my 95W 1055T
.For the record, I'm back with the CH4 crowd
. Mine arrived this morning with my 95W 1055TI'm sure a CH4 won't bottleneck BD, given I can't see BD being that fast
For the record, I'm back with the CH4 crowd
What happened to the sandybitch!
I'm all set to 'drop in' an FX-80xx as soon as they are out - the wait is killing me! Will keep my 1090T just in case though till BD gives me the 20% gain I'm after, then flog one of them depending how it goes.
I'm hoping that now that asus have announced the CHV they don't backtrack and skank us with just a BETA bios for BD, If they do - I'm just gunna stick with what I have
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,288
- Location
- Dormanstown.
My board died during stressing at 5GHZ.
A shame really. I had it at like 4.8GHZ 1.35v prime stable and it was perfect.
But I only paid 155 for my CH4 and 95W 1055T.
Sandy Bridge was blazing fast, and I can't imagine Bulldozer being as fast.. But oh well.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,319
- Location
- Planet Earth
That'll teach you for going Intel on us lol
Yeah BD is going to be far pushed to beat SB - I doubt BD will clock upto them sort of gigahurtz
Supposedly Turbo Core may hit 4.1GHZ:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-...o-4-1GHz-with-Turbo-Core-Enabled-196873.shtml
AFAIK,isn't second generation Turbo Core more like Intel Turbo Boost??
Honestly I haven't had any time to look into it. I have been on the road for several weeks and have more coming up. (Actually sitting in Edinburgh right now, headed down to london tomorrow morning.)
I believe it is always too early to say how technology will pan out until you see the silicon. How many times have I said to wait until you see final BD silicon to form your opinions? Obviously they have a way to go still, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it just yet.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,094
- Location
- Manchester
lol!