Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
No one knows anything about bulldozer yet. Just becuase an article has been posted doesn't ean its necessarily true.
-
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 Says Bulldozer Is 50% Faster than Core i7
- Thread starter opethdisciple
- Start date
I don't think people are ignoring it, surely it is just common sense that competition affects pricing? If AMD wasn't around then Intel would be crazy not to charge more for their cpus.
Intel Quads have been 'cheap' for ages now anyway, even if you go back a couple of years the Q6600 was selling at around £110 or so and that was before i7 launched.
Associate
Im sure if AMD made the best cpu they would charge higher than Intel and just think what they would charge if there was no Intel so it works both ways.
If bulldozer is 50% faster than the top Intel chips id expect them to price it accordingly.
If bulldozer is 50% faster than the top Intel chips id expect them to price it accordingly.
Its funny to see the people who recently invested in I7's or sandy bridge worrying about Bulldozer and trying to dispel any illusion that Amd's chips will be better.
Just wait until the reviews are out. If they are better/cheaper then its all good as Intel will lower their prices.
The only people who loose out are those who invested in the last month or two.
Just wait until the reviews are out. If they are better/cheaper then its all good as Intel will lower their prices.
The only people who loose out are those who invested in the last month or two.
Associate
If Bulldozer is faster ill buy one Dave.
Soldato
I hope it is and wish AMD the best with it 
Crikey, modules, cores and semantics...
From a software dev point of view, it looks like bulldozer will be an 8 THREADED processor, same as the current i7 9xx chips. I don't really care about how the internals are arranged, I just want it to run my multi-threadded apps (sometimes using as many as 16 threads) fast...
Soldato
well they are 'supposidly' very strong in multi-threaded applications, or at least thats what AMD are saying. i do think the 'is it a core, isn't it a core?' argument is still valid, still not convinced one can call a module a 'dual-core' processor, since it just isn't, at least not in the same way current dual core processors are, plus they use a lot less die space than traditional dual cores, to be honest though, if you wanna call them 'eight core' fair enough, if you wanna call them 'four module, etc.' thats also fair enough, just give us some benchmarks already!
Soldato
well they are 'supposidly' very strong in multi-threaded applications, or at least thats what AMD are saying. i do think the 'is it a core, isn't it a core?' argument is still valid, still not convinced one can call a module a 'dual-core' processor, since it just isn't, at least not in the same way current dual core processors are, plus they use a lot less die space than traditional dual cores, to be honest though, if you wanna call them 'eight core' fair enough, if you wanna call them 'four module, etc.' thats also fair enough, just give us some benchmarks already!
Again your arguing semantics.
Its what defines a core is its function & if a module can perform the task of 2 cores simultaneously then its 2 cores.
Its no different than you arguing that a true display is a CRT because LCD uses allot less space & that the negative current side of an LCD pixel & emitted light is shared.
@Gashman
When you're dealing with heavily threaded apps, two things are immediately important: the number of concurrent threads the cpu offers the OS and how quickly it can swap threads in and out of execution. Increasingly nebulous concepts such as "Core" and "module" are in practice irrelevant to us end-users except perhaps for speculating on how well a certain processor will perform these tasks.
I think the bulldozer architecture offers a lot of promise and I look forward to getting hold of one. Looking at the architecture, like you, I'm betting bulldozer's 8 threads will offer more performance than the 8 of the current i7 range... but we'll have to wait and see. I can tell you from experience that the i7 really is very, very good at juggling threads around and any chip that surpasses it in this respect will be utterly awesome.
When you're dealing with heavily threaded apps, two things are immediately important: the number of concurrent threads the cpu offers the OS and how quickly it can swap threads in and out of execution. Increasingly nebulous concepts such as "Core" and "module" are in practice irrelevant to us end-users except perhaps for speculating on how well a certain processor will perform these tasks.
I think the bulldozer architecture offers a lot of promise and I look forward to getting hold of one. Looking at the architecture, like you, I'm betting bulldozer's 8 threads will offer more performance than the 8 of the current i7 range... but we'll have to wait and see. I can tell you from experience that the i7 really is very, very good at juggling threads around and any chip that surpasses it in this respect will be utterly awesome.
Last edited:
o.O I know they're doing 8 cores but I thought 12 core was the highest they were going to go? ^^ AMD ***
Interlagos will support 12-16 cores, AMD have said they will produce a 16 core Interlagos.
...and what is the function of a core?
What about a hyperthreaded i7 "core?" Is that not performing the function of two traditional cores?
Last edited:
Soldato
Lets just hope its fast and cheap.
Soldato
No its not as its not executing 2 threads simultaneously at the same time & has been covered & answered already in this thread to what its doing.
To make it simple if there was a single core CPU with hyperthreading & the first thread didn't stall at all & left no unused circles then the second thread would have to wait indefinitely.
hyperthreading is interleaving threads when it can.
Last edited:
This has already been covered but il add it here too just to clarify.
Bulldozer is not a true 8 core. Its 4 bulldozer modules. Each module is faster than a first generation intel i7 core + hyperthreading but not as fast as 2 cores. The initial clockspeed will be 3.5Ghz and dont expect them to overclock too high as they are going to be fabbed gate first and are not due to be fabbed gate last till second generation late 2012.
Anyhoo i guess we will have to wait for the release and benchmarks shortly after to be sure.
Bulldozer is not a true 8 core. Its 4 bulldozer modules. Each module is faster than a first generation intel i7 core + hyperthreading but not as fast as 2 cores. The initial clockspeed will be 3.5Ghz and dont expect them to overclock too high as they are going to be fabbed gate first and are not due to be fabbed gate last till second generation late 2012.
Anyhoo i guess we will have to wait for the release and benchmarks shortly after to be sure.
Last edited:
Soldato
Indeed its not true 8 core but its closer in functionality to 8 cores than hyperthreading.
Yes, and the same can be said of a bulldozer module. Each integer processor shares floating point resources so it too is not truly executing two simultaneous threads.
The idea of a "core" in the traditional sense is old thinking. It's all about threads, IPC and thread swapping.
Soldato
There is always a sharing of resources at some point no matter what.
Last edited:
Yes, and therefore the notion of a "core" is somewhat blurred now shall we at least say? I don't know why you concern yourself with arguing about it. Probably because AMD themselves aren't quite sure how to market the new architecture to the mediocre masses of DIY computing.
All that matters is power consumption, threads, IPC and thread swapping efficiency.