Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 14 Mar 2011.
Apparently not. Word is they will require a new mobo. AM3+ it has been referred to as so far.
It is all very well AMD saying Bulldozer will give SB a run for its money but WHERE is it?
SB is here now and with LGA2011 not too far away I can't help but feel this is nothing more than spin from AMD.
Been a while since I read about Bulldoer/ Llano/ Zambezi/ whichever name AMD calls this, but here it goes-
I am not sure that the modules are 'real cores', but very close. Each module has two part cores, which share resources in order to reduce die space. (or something like that)
On the other hand Hyperthreading only involves a logical core, which I seem to think allows space between cores to be utilsed, but doesn't actually have all of the components that the cores do, hence the threads having less of an impact on performance.
*goes to learn about how all this so he can make a better informed post*
Also, with regards to motherboards, I think that BD requires AM3+, but AM3 CPUs will work with AM3+
that was what i was referring to. amd said they were creating their own hyper-threading for bulldozer and it was supposed to be more efficient than intel's. there was an article on bit-tech about it a few months ago.
They did it before with the first Athlon and wooped Intel until the Core 2 architeture came out in my opinion so i'm hopefuly compitition is good so bring it on AMD!!!!!
Is Bulldozer a new Architecture by AMD? My understand that even the Phenom 2 was a evolution from first Athlon?
Not sure where the Â£900 comes from - the price points on the left hand side of the slide indicate the total 'system' price, not the price of the CPU/APU.
If the slide is genuine, then it looks a bit worrying if they are relying on 'more cores overclocked' to compete with the 2500/2600k, however that may be more of an indication of the way that the bulldozer micro-architecture functions than anything else.
Hopefully we'll see some more useful information over the next couple of months that will provide a better indication of performance.
It's a pain in the ass keeping up these days IMO. When I plan to start a new build (in the next few months after I see what Llano is really all about), I am just going to post a noobish "Which should I buy?" opinion soliciting post on the [H] or somewhere. It's just easier
From what I've found out so far they will run in AM3 boards, but I thik it might be like the hex cores on the M£ mobos where you don't get all the features. AM3+ will be the way to go. I would love to see really high overclocks, 5Ghz+ would be good. I've not have a good experience with X58/i7 and I'll quite happily go back to AMD even if it can only match the 990X, I don't realistically need much more than that.
I'll be happy if the price is right. Just give us the chips already!
lets home AMD reclaims top spot for a while as it will only help us the consumers even the playing field and bring back the price wars
In other news... Israel and Palestine don't see eye to eye on everything.
I think AMD will be hard pressed to compete with high end nehalem based cpu's let alone sandy bridge chips,however it would be great to see AMD back on form giving intel a run for its money once again.When it comes to choosing a platform to invest in i find completly boring that Intel is the only realistic choice in price to performance ratio.And no i am not an Amd fan boy (i use i7 920) but would happily go down the AMD route if the product was right.
in more news, captain obvious was seen today browsing the bit-tech forums and pointed out how porkins made an obvious statement that was obviously not news and was obviously not relevant to this topic.
idk about you but this observation was also obvious.
It looks good, although an amd core != intel core. Each AMD module shares resources a bit like intel does with each core and hyperthreading, only less sharing so as I understand it a module has about 1.75 times the power of a single core, where as hyperthreading is more like 1.2 times. IPC (performance/core) isn't meant to be as good as intel either so chances are it'll be competitive but not blow sandy bridge away. SB probably still better for games as you tend to only need 2-4 cores for a game, in which case it's higher IPC will give it the edge. If you've got something that can use all the cores/modules then it'll be fast.
Biggest problem for AMD is they'll only have a few months after release till Intel moves to Ivy Bridge at 22nm and up's performance again.
I had an Athlon 64 3000+ back in the day, it was claimed to perform as good as the Intel 3.0GHz Pentium.. 1.8GHz (AMD) vs 3.0GHz (Intel) ? you really think you can get 1.8x the performance clock for clock? AMD has some interesting marketing strategies to push their Price/Performance punt.
When I found out my 3.0GHZ beater was only 1.8, I lost all respect for AMD. Intel may be more expensive, but at least you get what they say you're getting. (if you ignore the billion sockets for intel of course! *roills eyes* )
Oh and by the way, my AMD system did NOT perform as advertised. I built this PC with a group of about 12 people, each making their own machine (school elective) half had Intels, half had AMD. Boy those Intels ran well! and they were only 2.6-2.8 GHz systems! So I'm not just Intel Fanboy-ing it up, there was evidence.
Virtually all other specs were equivalent.
Happy with my in-progress sandy build
You do realise that clock speed isn't an indication of speed? That was purely Intel marketing for you. Otherwise a 3Ghz P4, would be the same as a 3Ghz Sandy Bridge right?
Clock speed is meaningless its what you do in that time that matters. And at the time the Athlon architecture was way ahead of Netburst P4. (oh and Netburst didn't "run well" it was possibly the worst chip Intel ever put out, hot and slow.)
If your 3Ghz beater was running at 1.8, you shouldn't have felt mis-sold rather impressed with the efficiency.
What AMD did was break the cycle of misleading marketing by using their own ratings.
Personally I'm not a fanboy either way, I go where I feel the best bang/buck is for each build at the time that I build.
To be perfectly honest I don't think AMD can pull anything out of the hat that can compete with Intel at the top level. They are amazingly strong in the low-power department, blowing Atom away with Zacate/Ontario. This will get even worse for Intel with Llano, judging from what I've seen so far.
My prediction (though I'm in no way the right person to make one, but what the hell? this is the internet after all!):
High end: Intel
Mid-market: split between AMD/Intel, with Intel taking the higher mid-market segment, AMD the lower one
Low end: AMD
So, nothing here to get excited about. For me, that is.
Theres nothing to say AMD can't do it again, they've done it before and do have some very good engineers.
Remember their glory days of the AMD Athlon-FX chips, the original Athlon and Athlon 64. They've come up with some great chips and innovations (memory controller on die, hypertransport) which has benefits the industry as a whole.
Perhaps I like an underdog, but I do hope they pull something out the hat, they're in need of a win.
And its the competition AMD provides and innovations which spurred Intel into their current position.
Separate names with a comma.