1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News AMD ships first Bulldozer processors

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 8 Sep 2011.

  1. arcticstoat

    arcticstoat New Member

    Joined:
    19 May 2004
    Posts:
    916
    Likes Received:
    13
  2. Jack_Pepsi

    Jack_Pepsi Clan BeeR Founder

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    646
    Likes Received:
    11
  3. BoogieMan

    BoogieMan Cunny Funt

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will be interesting to see their price range on release.
     
  4. cjoyce1980

    cjoyce1980 New Member

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    give me power!
     
  5. CrapBag

    CrapBag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    7,389
    Likes Received:
    319
    OMG I am so bored of waiting and waiting and waiting.

    I am so tempted just to get a 2500K and have done with it but I know I will kick myself hard if AMD do pull it out of the bag.

    For the love of god AMD at least get some benchmarks out so we can all know if the wait will be worth it.
     
  6. Journeyer

    Journeyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2006
    Posts:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    97
    Argh!
    I just want one 8150 for my new Sabretooth! Come on AMD, get them out there.
     
  7. Glix

    Glix Left Thumb Stick in the mud.

    Joined:
    11 May 2010
    Posts:
    318
    Likes Received:
    1
    You know what that means though... when Intel found their 'gem', they were more than happy to leak as much info on their c2d to persuade people to wait and buy their new product.
     
  8. r3loaded

    r3loaded Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    31
    The fact that benchmarks have hardly leaked out means that something must be wrong with Bulldozer :/
     
  9. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    This is a very painful wait for me .... AMD please tell us something :waah:
     
  10. CrapBag

    CrapBag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    7,389
    Likes Received:
    319
    That's exactly what worries me, I feel if it was going to be really good they would be shouting from the rooftops by now which in turn might actually stop people from buying Intel now.
     
  11. warejon9

    warejon9 New Member

    Joined:
    20 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    165
    Likes Received:
    2
    I might've seen somewhere that the CPC performance hasn't increased that much.

    On the positive side of pesimism, hopefully they've not released bench's due to hoping to get the jump on intel. Did they ever release bench's for the athlon 64 (back in the netburst day's)?
     
  12. Hustler

    Hustler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    33
  13. Bede

    Bede Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    1,340
    Likes Received:
    40
    How did you get hold of that article? It's pretty depressing if it's true - Intel will be able to charge what they like for Ivy Bridge and SB-E as it looks like Bulldozer can't even compete with this generation.
     
  14. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    We'll have to wait and see for release hardware what the true performance is. However, in similar number of thread apps up to the number of cores in a SB and the number of modules in a bulldozer, I'd expect the bulldozer to range from 10-30% slower clock for clock. Against hyperthreaded SB CPUs I'd expect performance in threaded apps ranging up to twice the number of cores in an SB and twice the number of modules in a bulldozer, that highly integer threads are probably going to perform similar or MAYBE a hair better than SB. In FP highly threaded applications I'd expect SB to pull even further ahead as the bulldozer cores have only somewhat improved FP performance from all indications, and they don't have the ability to run more than one FP thread per module, where as the SB hyperthreaded chips can at least run 2 per core, even if it is a time share arrangement effectively.

    So frankly, with the exception of things like some server workloads (database operations, some HTPC work, fileserving and a few others) I'd expect the bulldozer chips to perform worse clock for clock by a fair margin in most desktop workloads, as most are either single threaded, lightly threaded and/or FP operations.

    So for some servers, the new bulldozer chips actually make sense. For a desktop they are going to better than the old K10 and K10.5 architecture by quite a bit. Compared to SB, I frankly expect them to be a big dissapointment, though some parts may be cheaper than equivelent SB chips (I wouldn't even hold my breath on that frankly).

    Against SB-E, well AMD has pretty much already said they aren't competing against it. Against Ivy Bridge, we'll see, but if Intel's talk holds up, IB is going to be far and away faster than SB with the 3D transistors in its process shrink. That leaves Bulldozer holding the bag in just a few months (maybe by early spring, could be earlier). At best Bulldozer seems like it MAY be better in some highly threaded workload scenarios (seemingly in the minority for desktop workloads) than an SB chip, and SB-E and not too much later IB are going to pull past it like a track star against a fat kid running for a candy bar.

    I know AMD can't just give up on the large market shares like low/mid desktop parts, but I almost wish they'd focus in areas they might be able to beat the pants of Intel in. The E350 trashes Atom like mad, and bulldozer does sound like it'll make a lot of sense for some server types. Against mid and upper end desktop parts, Llano and Bulldozer just don't seem like they hold water. I almost wish AMD would give up and do their darndest to create really chip, really low power, really great performance per watt chips for the low end desktop, SOHO server and regular server market and just try to give up on the mid and high end desktop market. An improved architecture llano really could conquer the sub $150 desktop CPU market. An improved E350 (and other low end CPU) could dominate netbook, HTPC and SOHO servers (and with the right tweaks and low power part might even make a killer tablet processor).

    Just my 2 cents. In some ways I am an Intel fanboi. I used to use AMD parts exclusively way back in the single core days (Intel Celeron 433 for me, after that all AMD parts until my latest Core 2 E7500 a couple of years ago), but since Intel kicked AMD up between the legs on performance, I haven't been able to concious buying a lower performing part when it doesn't even cost much less. Well, actually I do have a Sempron 140 in my file server, but even that looks like it might get dumped for the new Intel Celeron low power dual core part as it has significantly lower power draw and is dirt cheap (hard to argue with sub $50 price).
     
  15. Tokukachi

    Tokukachi Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    225
    Likes Received:
    4
    Whoever wrote that "article" was an idiot, if your going to fake something at least do get the facts of the known comparison chip right.

    There is no 4 core sandy bridge chip that's got hyper threading (i.e a i7), a base clock speed of 3.0ghz with a turbo of 3.6..
     
  16. wuyanxu

    wuyanxu still wants Homeworld 3

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,599
    Likes Received:
    233
    16 thread processor, im sure AMD will market that as 16 cores. despite there is only 8 modules, each module have single fetch, single decode, single floating point ALU and single write back units. each module also known as a single core by usual definition.

    each module can only fetch-decode-execute a single instruction at a time, only thing duplicated is integer ALU. so i am having real difficulty trusting AMD at the moment when they market 4-module FX processors as 8 core.
     
  17. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    36
    Enough speculation and fanboy standoffs...Just let them launch the bloody things, then we will know : )
     
  18. DbD

    DbD Member

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    492
    Likes Received:
    10
    We've been waiting for ever for proper reviews, now it's shipping and still none. Perhaps this will be the cpu you are never allowed to bench - you are only allowed to buy it if you promise to never check how fast it is.
     
  19. Nikumba

    Nikumba Member

    Joined:
    29 Aug 2001
    Posts:
    648
    Likes Received:
    11
    Unless I have got the wrong end of the stick my Core i7 is a Quad core with hyper-threading or whatever its called presenting 8 cores to both OSX and Win7

    This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Desktop_processors would also suggest you are slightly wrong as well.

    Kimbie
     
  20. Tokukachi

    Tokukachi Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    225
    Likes Received:
    4
    I was quoting there stats on a specific processor they were supposedly testing, and you link just proves my point, there's no 3.0ghz i7...
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page