AMD Bulldozer Finally!

silversurfer · 6 Apr 2011 at 21:47

16 core processor he says with higher performance per core. Thats ht or whatever 2x i guess

I wanted a bulldozer to drive through the background wall

qbazdz · 6 Apr 2011 at 21:55

Where's you badge

don't trust you

JF-AMD · 6 Apr 2011 at 23:45

Badge is in my bag, on a flight out to california

rypt · 6 Apr 2011 at 23:52

This AMD lack of info is starting to just bore me now

Time to go spec an SB build as I want a new PC and am bored of waiting now

dustofnations · 7 Apr 2011 at 01:14

rypt said:
This AMD lack of info is starting to just bore me now

Time to go spec an SB build as I want a new PC and am bored of waiting now

I'm not too certain that your impatience will hasten the launch of a multi-billion dollar product line, but as you're defecting to enemy number 1 - who knows

.

And yes, I know you didn't expect them to, I'm just teasing. The point is, I doubt AMD are going to prioritise the release new information at the behest of a small group of enthusiasts. We shall just have to be patient, and attempt to objectively analyse performance data as we get it.

zoomee · 7 Apr 2011 at 08:02

rypt said:
This AMD lack of info is starting to just bore me now

Time to go spec an SB build as I want a new PC and am bored of waiting now

Dude! - you've been saying that since january this year - lol.
Just do it - I'm probably more impatient than you but heck, good things come to those who wait

rypt · 7 Apr 2011 at 16:32

zoomee said:
Dude! - you've been saying that since january this year - lol.
Just do it - I'm probably more impatient than you but heck, good things come to those who wait

Tell me about it

I really want a new system, but I'm waiting for firstly some games that need it (BF3) and secondly to know whether I should get AMD or Intel ... I hate getting something only to find out it was the wrong choice !

Troezar · 7 Apr 2011 at 17:32

rypt said:
Tell me about it

I really want a new system, but I'm waiting for firstly some games that need it (BF3) and secondly to know whether I should get AMD or Intel ... I hate getting something only to find out it was the wrong choice !

I was holding out but finally decided to take a chance and go for SandyBridge. I just can't see BD being better at high clock speed quads, I won't get that must benefit from more cores. In fact I would go as far as to say most people won't benefit from more than quads for some years to come. I had a 64bit processor for years before there seemed to be any benefit to owning one, I suspect the same may happen for 6,8 and more core processors...I hope I'm wrong though as more speed/power is always good :cool:

davieg · 7 Apr 2011 at 19:56

Dont think you can count the new BD architecture on cores, thought AMD wanted us to think of them as modules, ie 2 cores = a module. So maybe a "Module" will act in the same way as a core with HT, only having 2 cores in a module will work better than the HT way in software. So saying I cant see 6 or 8 cores showing any benefit in software may not be the case and up in the air untill how we see how these things perform in the wild.
Just my two pence to the debate on how more cores may/may not be pointless at this time as far as software/gaming is concerned.

Dave.

marms · 7 Apr 2011 at 20:22

According to that video the new processors will only be 12.5% faster than the old ones if using the same number of cores, was hoping for a bit more.

qbazdz · 7 Apr 2011 at 20:34

davieg, my understanding is similar.
I think that essentially an 4 core with HT (8 threads) intel would be equivalent to 4 module (8 proper cores) AMD. In all multi-core intensive applications as well as in single core super intensive work this approach should clearly benefit AMD... As long as their solution does what they claim

In multi-core applications we have proper cores, not threads, while for single core applications we have 1 module working (2 proper cores).
Let's hope that simply half of the module of AMD processor is faster than 1 thread of intel CPUs and we have a neat and fast chip!

marms, video with JF?

gurusan · 7 Apr 2011 at 21:03

Azuse05 said:
But to do that you have to put out more for the motherboard than the equivalent amd (where all the sata ports will be III). You also know it's new mobo now and new mobo next time where amd users will grab an am3+ mobo in the next few months then add an am3+ cpu later.

Performance per pound the 2500k is the best ship, no question or contest. However adding in the other costs and it rapidly become the chip which is not only overkill for the average user, but far more expensive too boot.

No that's not really the case. Good AMD mobos are just as expensive if not moreso.

And SB is expensive and overkill? I don't think so.

rypt · 7 Apr 2011 at 21:05

I think AMD prices are still a bit lower than Intel ones for boards, but so was the quality at times.

gurusan · 7 Apr 2011 at 21:13

Yeah, thing is in a lot of past builds I've seen people are using cheap mobos with no VRM cooling and buying unlocked quads and clocking them, then saying that omg intel boards are so expensive.

JF-AMD · 8 Apr 2011 at 17:20

marms said:
According to that video the new processors will only be 12.5% faster than the old ones if using the same number of cores, was hoping for a bit more.

Which video?

marms · 9 Apr 2011 at 08:22

JF-AMD said:
Which video?

this one

psychas · 9 Apr 2011 at 10:27

marms said:
this one

should not of told him got removed now what was in the video ?

edit: oh i seen it nvm he says that

a 16 core BD will be 50% faster than a 12 core Operton.

buy he doesn't say per clock per clock , but if it is it works out 12.5% faster wich is bit dire ?

considering that 8 core bulldozer that will go ahead with i7 ~ 2600k , people will be disappointed.

Zarf · 10 Apr 2011 at 01:26

psychas said:
should not of told him got removed now what was in the video ?

edit: oh i seen it nvm he says that

buy he doesn't say per clock per clock , but if it is it works out 12.5% faster wich is bit dire ?

considering that 8 core bulldozer that will go ahead with i7 ~ 2600k , people will be disappointed.

It's important to note that the 12 core Magny-Cours is around 1.8 billion transistors, whist the 8 module (16 core) Interlagos it's being compared to is suggested to be only around 1 billion transistors.

Taking the figure of 150% performance, that indicates bulldozer gets 2.7 times the work done per transistor. That is going to mean huge things for pricing. The 8 module Bulldozers are going to be similar in cost to 4 core Sandy bridge.

A bit of number crunching to try and account for the low clock speeds of Interlagos and I guesstimate that bulldozer will be about 80% faster than Phenom2 per transistor at equal frequencies. This should have it beating sandy bridge by about 10-15% with parts that cost the same to produce.
Of course, in less heavily threaded scenarios the balance of power will probably swing back towards sandy bridge, but it's good news for the server guys and people doing rendering/encoding.

Azuse05 · 10 Apr 2011 at 11:48

More importantly it means lower heat and price.

opethdisciple · 10 Apr 2011 at 12:35

The hyperthreaded cores on SB, what percentage are they in terms of power to a 'real' core?