If it takes 8 cores for AMD to match or slightly improve on an i7 2600k which is only 4 cores, surely it's easy enough for intel to implement one or two more cores, say, a quincore (if it was called that?) would do, to trounce the bulldozer?
-
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
Hence NOT 2p, like I said
It wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to instead of having £X priced 2p/4p versions, sell a cheaper 1p version, and have a couple of the silly guys, Asus/Gigabyte make a daft server/enthusiast quad channel board.
Thats assuming a 8 core Bulldozer is behind a LGA2011 Intel chip by a lot(its unclear, I was sure those were also going to be 8 core, but a lot of people are saying 6/4core now). If they really wanted to, more for marketing reasons, have a platform for desktop that really gave Intel a run for its money.
I honestly doubt that many people are running around buying £400 mobo's and 990x's, there certainly are some though.
A 2p 32 core total Bulldozer would rip a LGA2011 desktop Intel setup to pieces, easily, but cost more. A 16 core one chip, single slot mobo with quad channel memory just to keep LGA2011 in check. It doesn't have to sell in the millions, just be there so every single review doesn't always end up with
"while Intel is the undisputed king of the high end where AMD can't compete, Bulldozer is a great midrange chip".
Almost no one buys the high end, its such small volume it won't make a big difference profits wise to Intel or AMD, but having that kind of sentence in every review, when AMD really can quite easily release a couple mobo's and whack a chip in it with, essentially almost no cost to them.
Doesn't
"AMD have the quad channel 16 core that competes well with Intel's more expensive LGA2011 platform, Bulldozer is also fantastic against Intel's midrange, AMD have a chip for you in every range that more than holds its own against anything Intel can make".
Which makes AMD look better?
I mean, 6990's aren't selling by the millions, but AMD worked out how important it was to have a card that, in every review, has someone sum up the conclusion with "while this is a great card by Nvidia, it doesn't come close to AMD's single best card".
Intel have done this for years, sell their highest end server chips as desktop parts to appear miles ahead.
Simple thing is, AMD has 16 core chips, they'll have chipsets, not much else to do there. Intel and Nvidia make a killing selling the same things in two different segments with no or marginal changes to appeal to the different segments.
That could be what Bulldozer "enhanced" is, or it could be 16 core chips on mainstream boards, though you'd think keeping 16 cores topped up with data might take a bit more than dual channel memory.
1. Don't ever assume that anything in this business is "easy", nor is anything in this business "cheap".
2. If the world sees intel as the guy that has the highest performance that nobody buys and AMD as the guy that has the best performance for the rest of the market, I am fine with that.
Don't assume that if AMD had a single high benchmark part at the top of the stack that somehow it would increase revenue. The reality is that people buy the best product for their budget, they don't care about benchmarks on parts that they can't afford.
Answer this simple question:
If AMD had a part that beat the 990X by 50%, but cost $2000, would that make you more likely to buy a $300 AMD part if the equivalent $300 Intel part was 10% faster?
I you answer yes, then you are, well, I will be nice and not say it. If you answer no, then you are like 99.999% of the rest of the market. They buy the best part for their budget.
Which is why having a "benchmark part" that nobody buys doesn't do anything other than consume your resources and distract you from the rest of the market. Trust me, I have been in technology for close to 20 years and I have a degree in economics. I know nothing about overclocking and gaming, but I know a LOT about pricing, consumer purchasing patterns and comparative products.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
This is all true and I agree.
But you can also surley see how having a benchmark product would help with marketing and drawing the attention of customers to your product.
To those that dont understand about technology, they hear about a $2000 cpu and they automatically think that all the cpu's from this company are desireable, price/performance are the market segement of the well in formed, which the vast majority of tech customers are not.
Its as much about price/performance as it is about hearts and minds.
Its a bit like the car manufacture skoda.
Even if they make an amazingly quality car, which has a good price/performance, they are always upgaist the same predudice that skoda is a poor manufacture of cars, as they havent managed over time to win the hearts and the mind of car customers...
AMD have made excellent in roads in the GPU market, winning hearts and minds, but they need to do the same in the cpu market now!
How they do that is your job!
Obviously I have noticed that the first step in this process was AMD taking the momentum they have builtup with the gpu's. adding the AMD name to the radeon and by relation, consumers will see an AMD cpu and think well they make good gpu's surely they make good cpu's as well!
'Hearts and minds'
Last edited:
Nvidia have played this card for years with their "preferred" partners and black listing anyone who doesn't run the benchmarks that they provide the way they tell them too, gloss over negative parts of their product and emphasize the parts that are greater than the competition to detract from the former. Rigged benches don't impress anyone, high benches attract the eye but an quickly dismissed by and reasonably intelligent person. Over reliance on specific benches make people ask why they're focusing so hard on one thing, it's subconscious a lot fo the time but that little doubt is always there
Amds cards are better value and have been for 18 months, amds cards are walking out the door while Nvidia is increasing prices to places that aren't "preferred" partners
It's the mid range that sells and make 90 odd percent of the profits. Over clockers like us make up a tiny part of the market, just like the tiny part that buys the top end.Nvidia ......
Amds cards are better value and have been for 18 months, amds cards are walking out the door while Nvidia is increasing prices to places that aren't "preferred" partners
Well..isnt its the same business with benchmarks for every company?
And to be fair,it started some years ago,when ati was doing very well in 3Dmark,but in games they were not that good.
Every company doing this,and to say that this is only Nv its simply stupid.
Seems now many "inteligent" persons love to jump on that "bad Nvidia" bandwagon and how "good' amd is.
Another funny thing - if amd so much "better" than NV,how NV making more $ from cards than amd?And exactly from midrange cards NV made (making) good $,check quarter results from both amd and ati.
As for value - everybody understands it differently
It really makes me smile this threat with all fanboyism and trashing other companies receiving for no reason.
Its clear that amd need miracle to chalenge SB,not even mention Ivy,current 6core amd cpu barely chalenges midrange Intel 4core cpu,and Intel cpu cost less.
No fanboysim involved,just funny to read some posts here
If ( IF ) amd's bulldozzer gonna be better than SB (4 core vs.4core,6core vs.6core - not another value/performance nonsense),i will be one of the first to build system with it,but somehow i doubt it.Not saying bulldozzer will be bad product or something,but this silence from amd tells something about it.No company with brains would keep they life saving product in such silence.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I've got around 250 quid ready to bang on a 8130fx.
Well..isnt its the same business with benchmarks for every company?
And to be fair,it started some years ago,when ati was doing very well in 3Dmark,but in games they were not that good.
Every company doing this,and to say that this is only Nv its simply stupid.
Seems now many "inteligent" persons love to jump on that "bad Nvidia" bandwagon and how "good' amd is.
Another funny thing - if amd so much "better" than NV,how NV making more $ from cards than amd?And exactly from midrange cards NV made (making) good $,check quarter results from both amd and ati.
As for value - everybody understands it differently
It really makes me smile this threat with all fanboyism and trashing other companies receiving for no reason.
Its clear that amd need miracle to chalenge SB,not even mention Ivy,current 6core amd cpu barely chalenges midrange Intel 4core cpu,and Intel cpu cost less.
No fanboysim involved,just funny to read some posts here
If ( IF ) amd's bulldozzer gonna be better than SB (4 core vs.4core,6core vs.6core - not another value/performance nonsense),i will be one of the first to build system with it,but somehow i doubt it.Not saying bulldozzer will be bad product or something,but this silence from amd tells something about it.No company with brains would keep they life saving product in such silence.
And which multi national company do you run again ? & its not the first time that AMD has been silent even when they have a winning product but it would not fit your argument to remember that fact.
AMD will not lose any sleep if you buy it or not in fact they will not lose sleep if no one here buys it.
Last edited:
Would love to live in a world where price/performance nonsense doesn't come into buying equation.
Bulldozer will not save AMD, the writing is on the wall for x86 stand alone processors.
However llano could be the turning point for AMD. If priced correctly it could have massive impact on low/mid graphics cards and laptops.
Worrying times for NV and Intel.
Bulldozer will not save AMD, the writing is on the wall for x86 stand alone processors.
However llano could be the turning point for AMD. If priced correctly it could have massive impact on low/mid graphics cards and laptops.
Worrying times for NV and Intel.
Nvidia has lost the discrete card market share to AMD...
Last edited:
This reminds me quite a lot about the threads in the leadup to the 6 series AMD graphics cards. Lots of nothing, some benchmarks showing the cards to be really strong, people going 'awesome this is going to beat Nvidia easily!'. AMD remaining silent on the subject, cards come out and they are pretty decent.
Obviously not saying the same thing is about to happen, and I'd love Bulldozer to be awesome, though I don't think I'm going to be upgrading this generation.
Obviously not saying the same thing is about to happen, and I'd love Bulldozer to be awesome, though I don't think I'm going to be upgrading this generation.
1) It would be nonsense if price/performance didn't come into buying equation.
2) Future Bulldozers will likely have gfx built in & by the time that x86 stand alone processors become unimportant in their target sector we will be many generations away from what we have now anyway & is no more important than this generations GPUs having tessellation when its hardly ever used & when is used is hardly ever worth it.
3) Indeed.
Eh .. die-size and transistor count are what's important. To the best of my knowledge, there's not much unused space on the sandy bridge CPUs at all. Ivy Bridge process shrink may allow them to shoehorn a hexacore in. Won't happen before then.
Sorry but that's very wrong, they've already made an 8 core sandy bridge, it's just not for sale yet.
true,release date is Q3 this year.
It's the CPU score I found interesting:
Bulldozer FX8110 - 81,917
i7 [email protected] - 73,592
Seems pretty impressive if true
i fail to see how this is impressive, 3d marks is one of the most multi core apps made and it scores a little over 8k in my eyes is disappointing tbh
each core for both cards score
intel 2600k - 18398
amd FX8110 - 10239
thats nearly 80% better per core from intel
amd need to do better than this tbh, also why is this bench even in here? why isn't it vs at least a 6 core intel chip? intel released gulftowns back in early 2010 and amd still have not caught up, so if people are expecting something massive from bulldozer they're in for a massive disappointment
and before anyone says about the price of the chips here is an i5 2500k scoring 83933 cpu points in the same 3d mark
http://3dmark.com/3dmv/2923844
now if the fx8110 is cheaper than the i5 2500k maybe they will be onto a winner
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
This should be more like 1 hyper threaded core vs one module from amd (2 cores) IMO.
But yet, its hard for AMD to compete for the single threaded performannce. I would be really surprised if they reached nehalem/westmere performance.
But yet, its hard for AMD to compete for the single threaded performannce. I would be really surprised if they reached nehalem/westmere performance.
Single core performance is becoming more and more irrelevant as time goes on and developers release decent software
yes there is 2500k scoring 83 k @ 5.4 GHZ !!! when if true dozer can do it on stock. im not sure were your fail is coming from.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
You're neglecting the hyperthreading on intel's cpu, and also the fact it is clocked much much higher. Its quite an impressive score in my opinion. However a core+hyperthreading +amd module comparison would be better as already stated.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 22,989
- Location
- London
These cpu's should idealy and if possible of course be benched using real world applications, rather than synthetic benchmarks.
They are at the end of the day the only things that real matter.
Im wondering how upgrading to a SB or BD chip plus an SSD would improve my gaming experince with me 5870...
My pc is still holding its own against the latest games at max settings (more or less), but load times and hdd performance could be better.
They are at the end of the day the only things that real matter.
Im wondering how upgrading to a SB or BD chip plus an SSD would improve my gaming experince with me 5870...
My pc is still holding its own against the latest games at max settings (more or less), but load times and hdd performance could be better.