# AMD Bulldozer Performance Exposed?



## Goodman (May 21, 2011)

AMD Bulldozer (Zambezi-FX) CPU Performance Exposed, Beats i7 2600K in CineBench Benchmark

Read more: http://wccftech.com/2011/05/21/amd-...s-i7-2600k-cinebench-benchmark/#ixzz1Mxe20f5x


----------



## Wile E (May 21, 2011)

This is worthless without knowing more details on the cpu used.

I call fake or OCed.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 21, 2011)

Rubbish.


> _A recent post from a Chinese Blog site has exposed the performance of AMD’s Upcoming Bulldozer Based Zambezi-FX Processors. Although the Blog has been deleted but Zol.com.cn which is another Chinese Forum managed to get the screenshots from the blog post._


@Damn_Smooth, you pulled out the "fanboy" gun a bit early.  The screen caps come from a Chinese blog that got them from another Chinese forum because the original forum took it down; this is not really the process for releasing credible information on the internet.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 21, 2011)

Wile E said:


> This is worthless without knowing more details on the cpu used.
> 
> I call fake or OCed.



Of course you do, any Intel fanboy would.


----------



## Wile E (May 21, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Of course you do, any Intel fanboy would.



Except I've probably owned more AMD cpus in my life than you have. My comments have no fanboyism in them at all. I buy the fastest cpu I can get for the money I'm willing to pay. I don't care who makes it. If AMD had a faster chip for the $1000 I saved to get this, I would have bought it.

My comment is based on the fact that it came from an unknown website, and has no facts posted with it.


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 21, 2011)

Fake and Gay.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 21, 2011)

considering reports in the wild are saying bulldozer server chips are -50% aka half the performance of up to 150%+ the performance of a Phenom II, ill take this with a grain of salt, just like the so called press slide which W1zzards noticed if accurate would only show the Bulldozer chip at 25% faster then a Phenom II x6. I suggest people wait for real benchmarks, as most of the asian sites that post this shit just want traffic for ad revenue.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 21, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Except I've probably owned more AMD cpus in my life than you have. My comments have no fanboyism in them at all. I buy the fastest cpu I can get for the money I'm willing to pay. I don't care who makes it. If AMD had a faster chip for the $1000 I saved to get this, I would have bought it.
> 
> My comment is based on the fact that it came from an unknown website, and has no facts posted with it.



I respect your opinion. And I can guarantee that you've owned more AMD systems than I have, but to think that AMD can't go back to owning Intel, is just plain ignorance.

Remember Athlon, with the last series of FX?


----------



## Wile E (May 21, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I respect your opinion. And I can guarantee that you've owned more AMD systems than I have, but to think that AMD can't go back to owning Intel, is just plain ignorance.
> 
> Remember Athlon, with the last series of FX?



Yeah, I remember just fine, but you need to understand something, AMD woke a sleeping giant. Intel rested on their hands, assuming AMD was a non-threat. After AMD kicked their ass, they no longer do that. Couple that with Intel's much, MUCH larger R&D budget, and AMD pulling off another all-out victory is not nearly as likely to happen. Granted, it's possible, but it still isn't all that likely. Regardless, even if Bulldozer isn't as fast, that doesn't mean it's gonna be a bad chip.

Not to mention, if you look at the charts closely, the Intel 6 core cpu is still ahead of this mystery AMD chip. So, without clock speed and core count info, we still know nothing. This could just be a decently clocked 1090T, or something along those lines.

EDIT: I should clarify something. AMD isn't likely to take the lead until they can increase their R&D budget. With the gfx division starting to pay off, it is a possibility to see it in the future. I just don't think Bulldozer is going to be it.


----------



## Melvis (May 21, 2011)

FAKE!!!! Bulldozer is "meant" to beat the current 12 core opterons, and in that bench it shows that it does not.

Also ive seen benchmarks in this program that show the so called Bulldozer killing all CPU's in this benchmark, so i call BS on these.


----------



## xenocide (May 21, 2011)

Melvis said:


> FAKE!!!! Bulldozer is "meant" to beat the current 12 core opterons, and in that bench it shows that it does not.
> 
> Also ive seen benchmarks in this program that show the so called Bulldozer killing all CPU's in this benchmark, so i call BS on these.



Because there has never been a company that talked up a product and failed to deliver correct?  The fact is, there exists the very real possibility that Bulldozer is NOT as good as people want.  I hope it does great, but there has to be a reason AMD isn't bragging left and right with Benchmarks for their new flagship product that is around a month away from launch.  That being said, I cannot prove or disprove these screens so who knows.  We'll have to wait and see when AMD does a big reveal at whatever that trade show is that is coming up.


----------



## happita (May 21, 2011)

Some people might have forgotten that Phenom II's were the answer to the much older Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad cpu's. This means that the upcoming Bulldozer based Zambezi cpu's are in theory supposed to compete with Intel's first generation i3/i5/i7 processors.

If you ask me, if Bulldozer can perform side by side with Sandy Bridge at about the same price point, I see this as a win no question about it.


----------



## de.das.dude (May 21, 2011)

i believe bulldozer is more powerful.


----------



## Crap Daddy (May 21, 2011)

Regardless how Bulldozer will perform it's all down to the price and you will never see a better performing CPU to be cheaper. We really don't need any benchmarks only MSRP to understand BD's performance. If they provide relative same performance for a liitle less money, as they do with the GPUs then AMD can still be in the market.


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2011)

I must have a little bit better RAM or something with my "sample".


----------



## Nesters (May 21, 2011)

Bulldozer has been with servers in mind.
So yes, I believe it won't be what people expect in gaming benchmarks where cores doesn't scale well and all you need is higher clock.



erocker said:


> I must have a little bit better RAM or something with my "sample".



Nice try.


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2011)

Nesters said:


> Nice try.



But its realz tho I swear!


----------



## cadaveca (May 21, 2011)

erocker said:


> But its realz tho I swear!



 Sure, a real AMD chip.  What clocks did that score take?


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, a real AMD chip.  What clocks did that score take?



About 100mhz more than the clocks in the OP's post.  REAL COREZ btw.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 21, 2011)

lol erocker essentially proved the point that all the info Chinese sites release is pretty much bollocks.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 21, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, I remember just fine, but you need to understand something, AMD woke a sleeping giant. Intel rested on their hands, assuming AMD was a non-threat. After AMD kicked their ass, they no longer do that. Couple that with Intel's much, MUCH larger R&D budget, and AMD pulling off another all-out victory is not nearly as likely to happen. Granted, it's possible, but it still isn't all that likely. Regardless, even if Bulldozer isn't as fast, that doesn't mean it's gonna be a bad chip.
> 
> Not to mention, if you look at the charts closely, the Intel 6 core cpu is still ahead of this mystery AMD chip. So, without clock speed and core count info, we still know nothing. This could just be a decently clocked 1090T, or something along those lines.
> 
> EDIT: I should clarify something. AMD isn't likely to take the lead until they can increase their R&D budget. With the gfx division starting to pay off, it is a possibility to see it in the future. I just don't think Bulldozer is going to be it.



I completely disagree with your sleeping giant analogy.  AMD did a great job of keeping up with Intel, and they completely wiped the floor with them in the price/performance ratio, up until the release of Sandy 3 months ago.

The whole time they were using 45nm technology.

Now that they've jumped to 32nm, I really don't find it hard for them to not only match Intel, but to easily beat them.


----------



## damric (May 21, 2011)

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNd8ddu1Z58&feature=player_detailpage


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Now that they've jumped to 32nm, I really don't find it hard for them to not only match Intel, but to easily beat them.



I like AMD and all, but I don't see this happening. Core for core they might match SB, but easly beat them, no. There is no facts stating that it would be true or otherwise.


----------



## cadaveca (May 21, 2011)

Man, anything can happen.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 21, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I completely disagree with your sleeping giant analogy.  AMD did a great job of keeping up with Intel, and they completely wiped the floor with them in the price/performance ratio, up until the release of Sandy 3 months ago.
> 
> The whole time they were using 45nm technology.
> 
> Now that they've jumped to 32nm, I really don't find it hard for them to not only match Intel, but to easily beat them.



That's a stretch. The only place AMD won was in price/performance is the sub $100 range. AMD chips are a little cheaper because they perform less. At best that would give them the same price/performance ratio, not better. SB really didn't change anything. The best their price/performance has ever been is right now (X6 1100T for $200), except of course it's the least appealing time to buy with BD immanent.


----------



## HalfAHertz (May 21, 2011)

well the Phenom 1 >> Phenom 2 jump was pretty nice and that was keeping the same core architecture and only shrinking the die. Now imagine a similar die shrink plus an entirely new architecture. I think we're looking at at least twice the improvement of what we experienced with the Phenom 2s


----------



## xenocide (May 21, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> well the Phenom 1 >> Phenom 2 jump was pretty nice and that was keeping the same core architecture and only shrinking the die. Now imagine a similar die shrink plus an entirely new architecture. I think we're looking at at least twice the improvement of what we experienced with the Phenom 2s



Just because they are implementing a new architecture doesn't mean they are doing it with the same level of success that Intel usually does.  It will definitely be better than PII's, but those are only just better than the last generation of C2D's\Q's.  AMD is a full generation and a half to two generations behind in most applications outside of Cinebench and various Synthetics.  Keeping that in mind, Bulldozer might just make AMD competitive again since SB is pretty affordable, and the mid-range SB CPU's destroy anything AMD has currently.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 21, 2011)

erocker said:


> I like AMD and all, but I don't see this happening. Core for core they might match SB, but easly beat them, no. There is no facts stating that it would be true or otherwise.



There are no facts about Bulldozer period. All either one of us is doing is speculating. 

I could very well be wrong, I just hope I'm not.


----------



## allnights (May 22, 2011)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear ... I always see the same old stuff spouted time after time.

Think some people need a CPU history lesson or two!

It seems some people believe that Intel can do no wrong. Funny I seem to remember a number of failed designs, and not just the desktop market either, and seem to recall there was a problem just recently.

As for their wonderful R&D, do you know WHERE the first Core Design first came about? While intel were using miniature freezer units, pun, to keep the Pentium D cold enough?

As for Bulldozer I am just as anxious as everyone else to see real benchmarks but I am not going to allow the fact the the stress from being on tender hooks is going to make me billow out a load of claims that has no foundation whatsoever. I even just came from a site that claimed AMD were coming to an end, I shall not use any words to describe my thoughts on him, other than misguided.

Now I could be completely wrong here, though I have NOT been proved wrong before. But my money is on Bulldozer being something a bit special, and that benefits us all. I also do not think it is a case of whether it is faster than SB but instead a case of how much.

Sorry to any intel fanboys out there but those of you who have been a little too forthcoming may have to do some back pedalling. SB was a great design and I thoroughly enjoyed reading about it and I love the fact that both companies exist. But to claim that AMD do not stand a chance is pure madness.

I look forward to what Bulldozer can do and what Intel will counter with and I believe that the main event, which means WE benefit, will take place around Dec/Jan. Hmm but then considering history maybe make that August to October 2012, lol.

Oh one last thing, I may be 'new' here, hello by the way, but I am certainly not new to this industry. lol.

Wish I was, could do with knocking a few years off.


----------



## allnights (May 22, 2011)

Oh and if you want a laugh about this Intel thing I will tell you of a short conversation I had with the owner of a local Computer Store.

Me: Any idea when AMD Bulldozer is being released.

Store Owner: Oh we do not touch AMD only sell Intel

Me: That is mad, why do you do that?

Store Owner: AMD are unreliable they always overheat and crack!

Me: Your saying you built AMD rigs and customers bought them back cracked, sorry that's not right....(realsiing why) OH MY GOD I LET YOU TOUCH MY LAPTOP?!?!

When I left the store he was NOt very happy for some bizarre reason. LOL.


----------



## cadaveca (May 22, 2011)

You must consider that what many here are looking at for performance, is not stock numbers. Most are interested on what you get with a fair overclock, and that's what Intel brings, currently.

That says, that thier process is very mature, as thier chips have high "overhead".

AMD, on the other hand, do not scale as far, and current chips have much less overhead than what Intel offers.


Your comment about the store owner seems almost fitting, in this regard. try running an AMD @ 5 GHz on air, and yeah, it'll crack, and crumble, if it even gets that far.

I'm not an Intel fanboy, actually, quite the opposite, but Intel is faster currently, so AMD has a huge bar to jump over.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 22, 2011)

also for those looking for value for performance AMD didnt offer that either

Core 2 Duo vs Athlon II or Athlon x2 64 hmm the old X2s got slammed athlon II offered parity,
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4ghz yea Phenom I 9850 did okay it was slowery but in multi thread apps it stayed close. Phenom IIs yea they butcher a stock Q6600. but oh wait G0 stepping 2.4ghz went to 3.4 some were able to get 3.6ghz

compare a 3.6ghz Q6600 vs a Phenom II the performance difference is miniscule

Q6600 release was Jan 7 2007
Phenom II x4  January 2009

that means the guy who paid the high price for a Q6600 had a Phenom IIs performance 2 years before Phenom II arrived and still has equal performance now. at least when compared to the quads.

so in 2007 intel offered 100% for example it took amd 2009 to offer 102% its now 2011, AMD still couldn't really put a nail in the 775 coffin with Intel users enjoying the same performance over the course of 4 years what AMD offered for 2years. value for money dosent exist really. The AMD chip came late and didnt beat its intended competition and arrived late to the party with core i3 i5 and i7 slaughtering it in the process.

Overall theres ways to make any company look good or bad if you pick out the right data. All that really matters is WHEN can you buy the CPU and for how long is its performance going to keep up.

from what i can tell so far Core 2 Quad still does well to this day 1156 / 1336 is faster and 1155 faster still. from that perspective it would seem an Intel Chip in recent memory has a good 4 year to 5 year life span before its no longer really able to push the Games we play or the apps we use. compared to AMDs cpus only offering comparable performance to there competition at 2yrs . this basically means you might pay an Intel Tax but at the same time you got that much more performance sooner.

good example of this if amd does beat a 2600k by 5-10% thats great but you could already own a 2600k for the last 6 months sure there was a mobo problem with the chipset that was blown way out of proportion. so sure AMD might reach parity with or beat a 2600k but will it beat it enough to make ppl notice? thats the problem here. if they cant wow people then they wont make a difference. You have a chip thats good but not good enough to make people take notice. This is a world of consumers. we are a tiny 1-5% of the market, what matters is winning over the consumer and the OEMs heres the thing the guy above posted about a shop owner stating amd systems overheat and crack etc. is that a load of BS sure is. problem is thats what MOST of the consumer population thinks as well Untill AMD changes that nothing changes same old song an dance.

I will give AMD one thing thought they REALLY REALLY REALLY! know how to milk and architecture, since the Athlon 64 to Phenom to Phenom II is essentially still the same architecture just scaled further and further all these years. But they just cant scale it enough to be good enough anymore.

now before any smartasses step in saying how great AMD are.
yes yes we know
They were the first with an IMC
the first to bring 64bit cpus to the masses blah blah we get it they have done us alot of good  

and 

I am running a phenom II system right now. Ive pushed it as far as it can go with gpus which it could never hope to feed. I like a few others around here know the limits AMD has. If they can pull off a big win with Bulldozer id be extremely happy about that as my new build wont be for a little while, but history tells us that Bulldozer wont be what we wish it would be. It could it might its possible but following the trends it wont.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

Actually, if history tells us anything, it's that when AMD releases a completely new architecture, it beats Intel quite solidly.

But, since no one has released an architecture anything like Bulldozer, there is no historical basis for comparison.


----------



## erocker (May 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Actually, if history tells us anything, it's that when AMD releases a completely new architecture, it beats Intel quite solidly.
> 
> But, since no one has released an architecture anything like Bulldozer, there is no historical basis for comparison.



The Athlon series did, the Phenom series definitely did not. History tells us it's a 50/50 chance.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

erocker said:


> The Athlon series did, the Phenom series definitely did not. History tells us it's a 50/50 chance.



The Phenom series wasn't completely new.


----------



## alexsubri (May 22, 2011)

@ Damn_Smooth --where did you find that pic? those girl`s look sexy. I would like to see a close up 







wait..nvm they are attractive, but the only really hot one is the one in the middle...

is it just me (stoned) or from left to right, these girl`s have: cup cake breast`s, hot water bottle`s breast`s, flap jack breast`s, & lemon breat`s?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> @ Damn_Smooth --where did you find that pic? those girl`s look sexy. I would like to see a close up
> 
> http://www.mega-cars.net/d/2606-4/AMD-pit-babes.jpg
> 
> wait..nvm they are attractive, but the only really hot one is the one in the middle...



I like the 3 tall ones.

I guess I'd have to take those tops off to be able to tell for sure.


----------



## Melvis (May 22, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Because there has never been a company that talked up a product and failed to deliver correct?  The fact is, there exists the very real possibility that Bulldozer is NOT as good as people want.  I hope it does great, but there has to be a reason AMD isn't bragging left and right with Benchmarks for their new flagship product that is around a month away from launch.  That being said, I cannot prove or disprove these screens so who knows.  We'll have to wait and see when AMD does a big reveal at whatever that trade show is that is coming up.



Yes i agree both sides have talked up there products before and did not deliver (Phenom 1 and P4) But AMD has also done this in the past and said nothing about there older FX CPU's and we all know what happened there  And if AMD wants to bring back the FX branding i for one would NEVER bring it back unless you know your product is going to deliver like it did in 2005, it just wouldn't make sense and look even sillier then the Phenom 1 release. 

At this stage i disprove ALL so called leaked benchmarks and will wait for real ones after the release date, then the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## alexsubri (May 22, 2011)

I am still optimistic for AMD...Beating an i7-2600K is pure win, but beating a i7-990x is winning!


----------



## Wile E (May 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I completely disagree with your sleeping giant analogy.  AMD did a great job of keeping up with Intel, *and they completely wiped the floor with them in the price/performance ratio*, up until the release of Sandy 3 months ago.
> 
> The whole time they were using 45nm technology.
> 
> Now that they've jumped to 32nm, I really don't find it hard for them to not only match Intel, but to easily beat them.


No, not really. Several members showed that the price to performance ratio was pretty damn equal until you hit AMD's wall, then Intel got considerably more expensive, but also considerably faster. Intel currently still has the fastest desktop cpu.

Die size is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is end results.



allnights said:


> Oh dear oh dear oh dear ... I always see the same old stuff spouted time after time.
> 
> Think some people need a CPU history lesson or two!
> 
> ...


Yeah, I think I already pointed out that Intel got it's ass kicked in the P4 days, but I also pointed out that they have since learned from their mistakes. I don't see them making the same error any time in the near future. Your point is moot in terms of modern cpus. 


That said, I hope for the best with Bulldozer, but don't honestly expect it to pull ahead. But even if it just reaches parity with Intel in terms of performance, then that's a huge win. Not only for AMD, but for us as well.

There is only one thing we can do, and that's wait for the real benches to hit.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Die size is irrelevant here. The only thing that matters is end results



Die size matters because it directly effects end results.


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 22, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> He sounds like a complete CUNT!



For having an opinion different from yours? He owns the store, he can sell whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants.


----------



## Lionheart (May 22, 2011)

allnights said:


> Oh and if you want a laugh about this Intel thing I will tell you of a short conversation I had with the owner of a local Computer Store.
> 
> Me: Any idea when AMD Bulldozer is being released.
> 
> ...



He sounds like a complete CUNT!



alexsubri said:


> @ Damn_Smooth --where did you find that pic? those girl`s look sexy. I would like to see a close up
> 
> http://www.mega-cars.net/d/2606-4/AMD-pit-babes.jpg
> 
> ...



Do they come with any AMD CPU/GPU bundle?


----------



## Lionheart (May 22, 2011)

ShiBDiB said:


> For having an opinion different from yours? He owns the store, he can sell whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants.



Yep of course, I still stand by what I said though. 

Anyways back to topic.


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 22, 2011)

Lionheart said:


> Yep of course, I still stand by what I said though.
> 
> Anyways back to topic.



woah sneaky ninja edit.. that or the rapture reversed r posts just to mess with peoples minds !!


----------



## Thefumigator (May 22, 2011)

May I post my opinion? 

you won't believe some of these points but...

1-I dislike the AMD girls in the picture... sorry guys, ugly girls being blonde and blue eyed are ugly girls after all.

2-I agree with Wile E ... AND I also agree with DAMN SMOOTH.

There was a different attitude from intel after Athlon. Because intel lost market share to AMD, and shareholders became worried, mad or commit suicide. After these tragic events (sorry, black humor), Intel REALLY turned some lights on. Also, DAMN SMOOTH got a point, AMD learnt some lesson on the way and got as close to intel as possible. And they really are now, they just have to complete their offerings with better performance CPUs in the high end.

When Phenom 1 was out the TLB bug ruined it, if it wasn't because of that, I would just call it a very good processor. Not an excellent one, just a very good one. *But people out there just called it a complete disaster. Even after the bug was corrected.* I personally think the intel offerings at the time weres better. But it wasn't fair to call Phenom B3 a complete disaster.... C'mon guys.

to me Phenom was a godsend. With a simple bios update it worked on my old mobo, which had AGP(!) (Asrock NF3), with only a pair of butterflies in my pocket, at least I could get rid of my Athlon 64 X2, the first AM2 one.

Also, @DAMN SMOOTH, does your nick name relates to the "feeling" of having an AMD system, then I'm with you. As an owner of a Phenom 9550, I can notice that the whole system doesn't lag. it is slow, but no matter how many things I throw at it, it just doesn't lag as the X2 did. I mean, *maybe Phenom 1 is slower to whatever, but its not laggy at all.* Ok, it may be a subjective thingy, but mouse pointer and non-responding windows are quite evident in older systems.

Rounding out things: in my opinion, first of all, to AMD:* if you can't catch intel, at least improve what you have. improve and innovate your line as far as you can*. As several actual AMD offerings are not bad sellings products. Just keep going. Being 10% slower than competition should not be big deal.


----------



## Wile E (May 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Die size matters because it directly effects end results.



Only when referring to the same architecture design. AMD's die size vs Intel's is completely irrelevant, and not directly comparable. Besides, if you really want to go down that road, after the p4 debacle, Intel has been ahead, even when on the same size process.


----------



## Goodman (May 22, 2011)

I make this thread & post the article because that is the only "benchmark" i found about AMD Bulldozer true or false it's always fun to speculated 

But my personal opinion is that Bulldozer will still not be able to beat the performance of the I7 SB but will come close at a much better price , ~90% performance for 65-75% of the price of an SB...


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Only when referring to the same architecture design. AMD's die size vs Intel's is completely irrelevant, and not directly comparable. Besides, if you really want to go down that road, after the p4 debacle, Intel has been ahead, even when on the same size process.



Yes, because AMD hasn't released a new architecture since then.


----------



## Wile E (May 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Yes, because AMD hasn't released a new architecture since then.



What is your point? So has Intel, and Intel has still been firmly ahead since then, on every process.

AKA: Your die size argument is *not* in AMD's favor.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

Wile E said:


> What is your point? So has Intel, and Intel has still been firmly ahead since then, on every process.
> 
> AKA: Your die size argument is *not* in AMD's favor.



My point is that Bulldozer has a very real chance of beating Sandy Bridge. And it's the new architecture along with the die shrink (Wich was probably a necessity to make the new architecture.) that will help it do it if it does. What is your point.


----------



## Wile E (May 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> My point is that Bulldozer has a very real chance of beating Sandy Bridge. And it's the new architecture along with the die shrink (Wich was probably a necessity to make the new architecture.) that will help it do it if it does. What is your point.



My point is I don't think AMD has had enough recovery time to really challenge Intel in terms of performance at this stage.

Wow. We used so many more posts than we needed to. lol.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

Yes we did. 

I can't wait for this to be over so we all know for sure one way or the other.


----------



## jagd (May 22, 2011)

15 days left to launch?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

jagd said:


> 15 days left to launch?



I think the reveal is on the 7th and the nda's will be lifted. I don't think the actual launch is until the 20th though.


----------



## Evolved (May 22, 2011)

How big of a price drop can we expect from 1100T or 965 or 980?

Might convert to AMD for the end of this year (Nov. - Dec.) to prepare for Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3.

The price/performance ratio is very intriguing with AMD's CPU's.


----------



## xenocide (May 22, 2011)

Evolved said:


> How big of a price drop can we expect from 1100T or 965 or 980?
> 
> Might convert to AMD for the end of this year (Nov. - Dec.) to prepare for Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3.
> 
> The price/performance ratio is very intriguing with AMD's CPU's.



BF3 will be insanely CPU dependant, all DICE Games are.  That being said, a 965 would be the best purchase, but it would probably still start to struggle since BF3 is supposed to be a real high-end PC game.  Rather than run it on DX9 with various dated technologies, DICE is forcing the jump to DX11 for PC users (I remember hearing\reading).


----------



## ivicagmc (May 22, 2011)

Even if it beat's Intel, it' short living victory. Intel has shown 22nm 3D processor which is coming around New Year. AMD is 1 technology to late and until that changes it can't best Intel.


----------



## HalfAHertz (May 22, 2011)

Well unfortunately even if AMD beats Iintel's mid end, we are yet to see what the consumer LGA2011 monstrosities that are to follow are capable of...


----------



## allnights (May 22, 2011)

The Store Owner I previously mentioned was NOT OC'ing the built rigs. In fact I can say with some certainty that they know very little about computing hardware and software, or indeed they lie, which comes down to money and profit margins.

That is NOT a way to run a business I am afraid.

I understand many of the points people make regarding architectures and understand why people can come round to thinking that way. But you must bare in mind that many things come down to planning.

Take for instance that many CPU's are mostly speed bumps or have bolt ons. These tend to come out far more often and the time span between rumour and release is fairly minimal. BUT if you look back some of the most ground breaking things have taken place when this time span has been huge. The number of times I have got fed up waiting for a CPU and then when released its a 'WOW' factor.

With Bulldozer I do not think I can think of a time when I have read about a forthcoming architecture for so long. If I had been at my computer for longer than I have waiting for it I would look like a grey haired ZZ Top reject!

So I strongly believe, and hoping, BD will deliver. I also hope that IB does too whenever that arrives. But as for all this conjecture about what will be released, when it will be released and what it will do when it is is daft, just smoke and mirrors.

I have often wondered whether or not staff from both companies come on and make false claims to 'muddy' the waters for the rest of us. Even these screenshots that turn out to be fake. I have seen a great deal worse from companies that have a much smaller annual turnover than either of these two.

However, saying that, I do find all that to be kind of funny. Sad it gets us end consumers into our little wars between each other, lol. Oftebn I see screenshots that are so obviously fake and notice people arguing about them but no one points out the obvious points. Like where one quoted showed Phenom II 6 core to be way faster than any of the SB's. AMD fanboy I am afraid to say lol.

Before too long I think the conjecture about either company and there products will cease. Reason? Blown comps because we have been drooling all over our keyboards at what is now possible lol.

There was a time when I used to drool over a 386DX, lmao.

Oh there is one other thing...

Let us say, for arguments sake, that Intel did indeed wake up after Athlon. In time intel produced some pretty cool architecture with the introduction of Core.

That is about the time Bulldozer was first being designed, or even thought about. I think the Core's introduction made AMD also realise they can not rest on their laurels.

As far as MONEY is concerned, let us not forget that as pointed out by so many people how big and the worth of intel. AMD are minnows in comparison, but... do you not think that there are powers that be that would like a slice of what intel has? Even if there are, or have been, doubts (from ..well rumours) do you not think that someone else will come along and SEE an oppurtunity.

That is, after all, the name of the game with these big corporates.

Just wish they would stop treating us like idiots, lol.

EDIT: 

Oh and I came real close to building a Core i5 2500K rig recently via Scan.. but then heard BD was imminent then about BD and IB in December and then I though...'for the love of god ...STOP!!' LMAO


----------



## DrunkenMafia (May 22, 2011)

The only thing I don't like about the upcoming bulldozer release is the amount of threads like this that will keep appearing over the next few weeks.

The OP found some info on the net, whether true or not and posted it here.  Give him a break, its not fanboi-ism or whatever you call it.


----------



## allnights (May 22, 2011)

DrunkenMafia I was not infering you was a fanboy. I apologise if you thought that. No I have seen some convincing screenshots in all honesty. The one I was referring to was NOT your one.

No I have an analogy for all this..

It is like being late for an important interview and you have waited ages for a bus, in the distance you can see 4 approaching, typical, and your chewing your finger nails and praying one is the one for you! lol.

I must admit I have never seen quite so much chat about a CPU as there has been for BD. Never seen so much of a frenzy, so it has become rather interesting in one respect.

I am sure before long we will all be grinning like cheshire cats lol.

EDIT: Sorry was not inferring the OP was a fanboy or the screenshot fake. Was only reacting at some of the daft claims about AMD and Intel, lol.

It is just odd as you seem to have an intel camp that hate AMD and will run them down and use knowledge they don't posses to back up their claims and vice versa.

Talk about nanometers, cores, modules and frequencies. I think that the area of CPU deisgn is a very intricate one. With my experience it is a case of suck it and see, you just do not know. I have known many very experienced and knowledgeable people get predictions wrong over the years, just too hard to call until the raw facts arrive.

People getting frustrated with each other over something they can not possibly know really. It's like two kids arguing who's dad can beat up who, lol. Daft. Not worth it.

Have a debate but don't get silly. It should be fun lol.


----------



## Wyverex (May 22, 2011)

This has gotta be the worst topic I've seen on TPU in the last month. So much bitching and fanboing over a (probably) fake benchmark.

Goodman, thank you for posting this, even if it is fake. I'm guessing we'll see the real truth in 2 weeks or so 


@allnights, thank you for insightful posts, but could you please refrain from double posting? If you have something to add, you can always use the "Edit" button

@mods: sorry for intruding into your domain


----------



## trickson (May 22, 2011)

Well one thing is for sure . Cinebench is far from a real world performance benchmark . I wonder why the CPU was whited out in cinebench ! Something to hide maybe ? Just seems a bit strange I think this is a BS benchmark .


----------



## metarox (May 22, 2011)

Some clocks leaked?

AMD FX-8130P – 8 Core, 3.8Ghz, Max T.C 4.2Ghz, 125W (320$)
AMD FX-8110 – 8 Core, 3.6Ghz, Max T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W (290$)
AMD FX-6110 – 6 Core, Unknown, Max T.C Unknown, 95W (240$)
AMD FX-4110 – 4 Core, Unknown, Max T.C Unknown, 95W (190$)

http://news.mydrivers.com/1/194/194271.htm


----------



## Athlon2K15 (May 22, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well one thing is for sure . Cinebench is far from a real world performance benchmark . I wonder why the CPU was whited out in cinebench ! Something to hide maybe ? Just seems a bit strange I think this is a BS benchmark .



CPU is whited out because its under NDA


----------



## erocker (May 22, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well one thing is for sure . Cinebench is far from a real world performance benchmark . I wonder why the CPU was whited out in cinebench ! Something to hide maybe ? Just seems a bit strange I think this is a BS benchmark .





AthlonX2 said:


> CPU is whited out because its under NDA



It's whited out because it's BS. It's a Thuban chip, I proved that.


----------



## ShiBDiB (May 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> My point is that Bulldozer has a very real chance of beating Sandy Bridge. And it's the new architecture along with the die shrink (Wich was probably a necessity to make the new architecture.) that will help it do it if it does. What is your point.



Bulldozer SHOULD beat sandy bridge... They've had 6 months of watching intel destroy them in the market. They also know unless bulldozer performs to and above expectations that itll b awhile before they can recover.


----------



## Nesters (May 22, 2011)

metarox said:


> Some clocks leaked?
> 
> AMD FX-8130P – 8 Core, 3.8Ghz, Max T.C 4.2Ghz, 125W (320$)
> AMD FX-8110 – 8 Core, 3.6Ghz, Max T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W (290$)
> ...



0.4 Ghz Turbo Core sounds like bullshit, it should be around 1 Ghz Turbo for single core, respectively, 3.2 and 3.0 Ghz stocks.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

ShiBDiB said:


> Bulldozer SHOULD beat sandy bridge... They've had 6 months of watching intel destroy them in the market. They also know unless bulldozer performs to and above expectations that itll b awhile before they can recover.



I agree, but SHOULD and WILL can be very different beasts.


----------



## Dent1 (May 22, 2011)

Think a lot of people forget that it doesnt matter whether Bulldozer beats Sandybridge or not because AMD's revenue will not increase much based on the opinion of geeks in a forum. It's the OEMs they have to impress, oh and their shareholders of course.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (May 22, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Think a lot of people forget that it doesnt matter whether Bulldozer beats Sandybridge or not because AMD's revenue will not increase much based on the opinion of geeks in a forum. It's the OEMs they have to impress, oh and their shareholders of course.



Very true.


----------



## Super XP (May 23, 2011)

Those benchmarks IMO are BS. It sounds like AMD has a real winner with Bulldozer and should give Intel a real run for it's money. Intel can afford to make a mistake, AMD cannot at this stage, there's a lot resting on Bulldozer, and if she does not perform AMD's stock price for starters is going to go down, way down...


----------



## Melvis (May 23, 2011)

*Fake or Real? FX-4110*

I saw this on the tubes and thought i might as well bring it here and get the pro's to figure out if its fake or real 

Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zK4WAPKNYo&feature=related

Im going with fake by the way lol


----------



## The Von Matrices (May 23, 2011)

I would agree with fake.  The Windows experience index is not a good benchmark anyway.  Show me a test that actually means something.


----------



## Melvis (May 23, 2011)

The Von Matrices said:


> I would agree with fake.  The Windows experience index is not a good benchmark anyway.  Show me a test that actually means something.



Agreed 100%, he picked the WORST benchmark program to show us how it may perform, idiot!


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 23, 2011)

thats how you know its fake lolz.

these chips arent in retail means very few ppl have them and those that do are under NDA and there usually close to the company in some way shape or form meaning any of the bs shit we see on performance is just that BS untill a review gets it.

also if you stop the Video at 5:51 seconds you will see its in reality a 965BE and that the windows files can be edited to change the scores  just tossing that out there.


----------



## SlayerJC (May 23, 2011)

Melvis said:


> I saw this on the tubes and thought i might as well bring it here and get the pro's to figure out if its fake or real
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> ...



Brazilian guy with bulldozer sample? No way!


----------



## Super XP (May 23, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> also if you stop the Video at 5:51 seconds you will see its in reality a 965BE and that the windows files can be edited to change the scores  just tossing that out there.


It really says it's a AMD FX 4110 when you stop the video at 5:51. My question is can the CPU name be modified? I still don't believe it's true...And the Windows test is not a great example.

LINK:
http://www.techpowerup.org/uploaded.php?file=110523/AMD_FX.jpg


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 23, 2011)

anything can be edited on a PC if you know what your doing


----------

