• 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 Expects Significant Performance Improvements with Steamroller Microprocessors

Steamroller isn't the next iteration, Piledriver is.
It's also set for 2013.
We'll have Haswell by then pretty much.

However, Piledriver should be 10-15% better than Zambezi, so in certain work loads, sure, it'll be quite competitive with Sandy.
 
Last edited:
opethdisciple said:
Yes but if you look at the graph, they state 15% improvement with every iteration, which makes piledriver 15% better than BD.
Click to expand...

Then why the title?

I'm looking forward to Piledriver. Intel look to be keeping quadcore as mainstream, I'd hope Software will start to utilise more threads, a better performing octa core in all work loads is only a positive thing.
 
Initially I would have upgraded to a BD chip when they came out as I didn't want another 4 core I wanted next gen which would ave been 8, but due to overwhelming negativity surrounding the chip choose to wait.

SB turns me off because of the limitation it has on the mobo side of the equation.

So I thought OK, I'll wait for IVB which is basically SB but with all the mobo issues sorted.

Now I'm hearing IVB runs hot and wont clock as well. Brings me back to where I started again thinking maybe I want an octo core anyway.

I take it piledriver is due for release this year?
 
For every step that AMD take Intel are taking 1-2 steps in the same time frame so I'm skeptical they will ever catch up at this rate, even if Piledriver has 15% IPC improvement it will already have been negated by Ivy Bridge, so AMD will simply be restoring where they are now with BD v SB.
 
Last edited:
Freddie1980 said:
I honestly feel that history will look at Bulldozer as a highly threaded CPU that was ahead of it's time.
Click to expand...

Probably, but why did AMD not see this?

Surely for a company to make money they have to produce a product which has demand in the market.

Not something that is revolutionary but falls flat on its face because the rest of the ecosystem hasn't caught up or cant utilize its architecture.

Even Windows 8 which supposedly will have better support, wont improve it that much.
 
opethdisciple said:
Probably, but why did AMD not see this?

Surely for a company to make money they have to produce a product which has demand in the market.

Not something that is revolutionary but falls flat on its face because the rest of the ecosystem hasn't caught up or cant utilize its architecture.

Even Windows 8 which supposedly will have better support, wont improve it that much.
Click to expand...

I think they probably did, I would say it was always designed with the future in mind since amd cant push out a new arch every other year so have to think further ahead. Look at the decision to buy ati for example.
 
Freddie1980 said:
I honestly feel that history will look at Bulldozer as a highly threaded CPU that was ahead of it's time.
Click to expand...

That's inevitable really, as time goes on more and more cores will be utilised to the point where 8 cores is advantageous. Intel could have released an 8 core Pentium 4 and the same could have been said about that... "ahead of its time".

We'd all be getting much less performance right now though if both companies had stopped working on IPC in favour of more cores.
 
So that would make piledriver clock for clock equivelant to Phenom II and Core 2 Duo right?

Then a 8 core piledriver @ 4.0 GHz will finally perform equivelant to 4 core Sandy/Ivy Bridge @ 3.4 Ghz

And then next year AMD with steamroller might FINALLY match the first gen Core I3/5/7 clock for clock.
 
Problem is they need a 15% improvement NOW on current cpus, never mind future generations.

As for being ahead of it's time, like people have said that isn't always a good thing. Take those early legacy-free motherboards that came out around 10 years ago (no ps2/parallel/serial/floppy etc), they didn't exactly leap off the shelves because there were still people out there wanting to use one of those connections - not the best comparison but I suppose you could say that there are still a lot of people out there running applications that aren't perfectly threaded and need good performance per core

Rightly or wrongly, Bulldozer has become a bit of a laughing stock in the enthusiast community so the quicker AMD can move on the better, I think (a bit like ATI's HD2900 series).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom