# Bulldozer Shines in 3D Gaming and Rendering: AMD



## btarunr (Jan 24, 2011)

Close to two weeks ago, reports surfaced about AMD claiming that its upcoming "Zambezi" 8-core desktop processor based on the company's new Bulldozer architecture is expected to perform 50% faster than Intel's Core i7 and its own Phenom II X6 processors. The slide forming the basis for the older report surfaced, and it's a little more than a cumulative performance estimate. 

Slide #14 from AMD's Desktop Client Solutions presentation to its industry partners reveals that the company went ahead and provided a breakdown on which kinds of applications exactly does its new 8-core chip perform better compared to present-generation processors. The breakdown provides an interesting insight on the architecture itself. To begin with, AMD's 8-core Bulldozer "Zambezi" processor is 1.5X (50%) faster overall compared to Intel Core i7 "Bloomfield" 950, and AMD Phenom II X6 1100T. Breaking down that graph, the processor performs similar to the other chips in media applications, but features huge gains in gaming and 3D rendering, which is where most of its gains are coming from.






To put this into perspective, games and 3D graphics applications, which still favour processors with higher clock speeds with lesser number of cores/threads to processors with lesser clock speeds and higher number of cores/threads, performing well on Bulldozer indicates that AMD is concentrating on higher performance per core, in other words, higher instructions per clock (IPC). The modular design of Bulldozer, perhaps, is contributing to high inter-core bandwidth, which helps 3D games that can do with lesser number of cores. 

AMD described the Zambezi-powered "Scorpius" enthusiast desktop platform to have "the best graphics features and performance". A comparative table also reminds us that apart from the radical design, Bulldozer might benefit from a vastly upgraded SIMD instruction set compared to the previous generation. Bulldozer packs SSE 4.1, SSE 4.2, and AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions). With socket AM3+ motherboards already seeing the light of the day in pre-release photo shoots, AMD's new processor doesn't seem too far.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## blibba (Jan 24, 2011)

Except that that graph also shows the Phenom x6 to be better in games than the i7 950.

So presumably AMD is looking at games optimised for 6+ cores here.

The one area in which AMD admit that the i7 950 is faster than the Phenom x6 is "media", so presumably that's the single threaded task, as I don't think anybody would claim that a Phenom is faster than an i7 in single threaded tasks at similar clock speeds.

Therefore, contrary to the above article, Bulldozer will be a slight improvement in per core performance and a massive improvement in parallel performance.


----------



## HXL492 (Jan 24, 2011)

So is that 3d with or without glasses? 
Anyway its nice to know to these chips can excel at gaming.. especially in the future


----------



## ivicagmc (Jan 24, 2011)

Can't wait to see some benchmarks... Great thing for me is that I don't have to bye a new processor right away. First I bye a AM3+ mob and put my current AM3 processor on it, and latter, when I had money to spare, get some nice Bulldozer...


----------



## Red_Machine (Jan 24, 2011)

The title said "3D gaming" and I was expecting it to be referring to the intergrated GPU!


----------



## DanTheMan (Jan 24, 2011)

Can't seem to wait for this baby - I hope it hold true to the hype. Take this CPU and add dual 6990 cards and you have a nice machine that should do well for at least 3 years. But may need a 850 or higher power supply to keep that setup going. Maybe the AMD guy can give us a better estimate on release of this - I'm hoping by April-June timeframe (or sooner)!

AMD


----------



## toyo (Jan 24, 2011)

They compared their future octo core with last year quad core from Intel and they're proud of winning? 
AMD, wake the hell up, guys!!!


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jan 24, 2011)

I totally like the sound of this. Waiting to upgrade my desktop as soon as Windows 8 is released, possibly next year, and this is the CPU it'll carry.


----------



## blibba (Jan 24, 2011)

DanTheMan said:


> Take this CPU and add dual 6990 cards and you have a nice machine that should do well for at least 3 years.



This setup and dual 6990s would last a lot longer than 3 years. My Pentium dual core has lated 3 years and it's probably be fine for at least a couple more, lol. A high end system like that should last for 5-8 years imo, unless you really NEED cutting edge performance.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

I want to see two things....

1. Benches.
2. Price.



blibba said:


> Except that that graph also shows the Phenom x6 to be better in games than the i7 950.
> 
> So presumably AMD is looking at games optimised for 6+ cores here.
> 
> ...



This is about gaming and media crunching which the 1090T is very much on par with the i7 950. Nevermind the 1100T.


----------



## claylomax (Jan 24, 2011)

An 8 core cpu is 50% faster than a 4 core cpu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

claylomax said:


> An 8 core cpu is 50% faster than a 4 core cpu



Multi-threading is a bitch ain't it!


----------



## claylomax (Jan 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Multi-threading is a bitch ain't it!



What do you mean?


----------



## caleb (Jan 24, 2011)

He means that adding a core(thead) doesn't mean you get +100% of performance.


----------



## meran (Jan 24, 2011)

do i see bottle neck here>>>> dual channel


----------



## blibba (Jan 24, 2011)

blibba said:


> Except that that graph also shows the Phenom x6 to be better in games than the i7 950.
> 
> So presumably AMD is looking at games optimised for 6+ cores here.
> 
> ...





TheMailMan78 said:


> This is about gaming and media crunching which the 1090T is very much on par with the i7 950. Nevermind the 1100T.



Like I said, nobody would claim that the Phenom is faster per clock in tasks using between 1 and 4 threads (right?). So yes, the 1090t is very much on par with the 950, and even better, in games that use more than 4 logical cores well (the only one I can think of right now is 3d mark, which isn't really a game. I'm probably forgetting something though). As I also explained above, this would appear to be what AMD is suggesting, too.



meran said:


> do i see bottle neck here>>>> dual channel



I think that the superiority of the 1155 CPUs over the old 1366 CPUs has shown that memory bandwith isn't as important as it's sometimes made out to be, even on high end platforms.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jan 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Multi-threading is a bitch ain't it!



4 module, 8 core

effective die area to be comparable to a 4 core 8 threaded INTEL (hopefully)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2011)

claylomax said:


> An 8 core cpu is 50% faster than a 4 core cpu


That's what I was going to point out.  All these Bulldozer charts AMD is releasing are misleading because they are comparing a two year old SMT enabled architecture quad-core to a new architecture octo-core.  The performance gap between them should be at least 2, not 1.5.  From that information, I can almost guarentee you that existing Gulftown coares are about equal to octo-core Bulldozer in performance and an octo-core Sandy Bridge will bitch slap an octo-core Bulldozer.

All the signs AMD is sending don't look very positive to me.  Yes, it has higher IPC than Phenom II but it still behind Intel.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 24, 2011)

if thats what 8 cores do than quad core will not be much better than a phenom
the only thing amd has to give is low price and high overclocking else it will
be a flop ,intel sandy bridge isn't much better also, compare i5 760 to i5 2300
and you get only 20% .both amd and intel are feeding us bread crumbs.


----------



## kaneda (Jan 24, 2011)

People sometimes forget something when it comes to custom machine building.

I mean, for gaming people focus too much on the cpu and very little on the gpu( the major decider on graphics capabilities.)

Proving the cpu is powerful enough to feed the gpu being used, gaming benchmarks seem somewhat unimportant. If it were me, despite using my machine as more of a workstation,  i'd focus more on multi-tasking performance, i mean  the chances are you're going to spend more time with multiple applications open over long periods of time( atypical enthusiast machine). 

So really, on a forum like techpowerup, wouldn't the major desire for all enthusiasts be multi-tasking performance?

maybe it's just me, but i figure most people here will  use photoshop at some point, or run some distributed computing client in the background, or something similar.

</rant>

Seems like AMD's bulldozer has promise,  with some (even if its just a bit) of evidence to say it's gonna tank in multi-tasking  if these are priced right it would be desired by people looking for home office workstations  (freelancers and the such).


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 24, 2011)

toyo said:


> They compared their future octo core with last year quad core from Intel and they're proud of winning?
> AMD, wake the hell up, guys!!!



ditto!!!!


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 24, 2011)

*puts on stupid thinking cap*
Lets say AMD ranks bulldozer according to the Phenom II. We all know that the Phenom II is maybe 80%(?) the strength of a i7 9xx processor (sans the 6 core monsters), and if they claim that bulldozer is 1.5x the power of Phenom II, then it should be 120% compared to the i7 9xx, and since that the new i2xxx are 10-20%(?) better than the old 9xx, so we have Bulldozer = Sandy Bridge. 

All the numbers are obviously not accurate, they are off by at least 10%, but I think its quite a good estimate of the strength of Bulldozer after you strip all the number inflation by AMD to their own bosses.


----------



## kaneda (Jan 24, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> The title said "3D gaming" and I was expecting it to be referring to the intergrated GPU!



What integrated gpu... i was under the impression only AMD's apu's had cpu/gpu capabilities.


----------



## kaneda (Jan 24, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> *puts on stupid thinking cap*
> Lets say AMD ranks bulldozer according to the Phenom II. We all know that the Phenom II is maybe 80%(?) the strength of a i7 9xx processor (sans the 6 core monsters), and if they claim that bulldozer is 1.5x the power of Phenom II, then it should be 120% compared to the i7 9xx, and since that the new i2xxx are 10-20%(?) better than the old 9xx, so we have Bulldozer = Sandy Bridge.
> 
> All the numbers are obviously not accurate, they are off by at least 10%, but I think its quite a good estimate of the strength of Bulldozer after you strip all the number inflation by AMD to their own bosses.



If what you say is true, wouldn't that mean they're equal in a large number of tasks, except multi-tasking performance where AMD's octo-core will shine?


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's what I was going to point out. All these Bulldozer charts AMD is releasing are misleading because they are comparing a two year old SMT enabled architecture quad-core to a new architecture octo-core. The performance gap between them should be at least 2, not 1.5. From that information, I can almost guarentee you that existing Gulftown coares are about equal to octo-core Bulldozer in performance and an octo-core Sandy Bridge will bitch slap an octo-core Bulldozer.
> 
> All the signs AMD is sending don't look very positive to me. Yes, it has higher IPC than Phenom II but it still behind Intel.




 We have all seen reviews about Sandybridge. How much faster is the new cpu's? Because your are all talking like the 950 is something very slow. 950 is faster than i5 2500k in most tasks and lacks only from i7 2600K. 
 And something else everyone are comparing 4 cores(intel) vs 6/8 cores(amd). What matter's is the price. If a processor with 4 cores cost more than one with 6 or 8 why I should buy the 4 core? So the important thing is the price of the cpu's.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 24, 2011)

kaneda said:


> If what you say is true, wouldn't that mean they're equal in a large number of tasks, except multi-tasking performance where AMD's octo-core will shine?



yes, but those statistics by me is made up of 50% daydream 50% rubbish (like most other stats).


----------



## Tiltentei (Jan 24, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> Can't wait to see some benchmarks... Great thing for me is that I don't have to bye a new processor right away. First I bye a AM3+ mob and put my current AM3 processor on it, and latter, when I had money to spare, get some nice Bulldozer...


Do you think that you can use current phenom II on the new board am3+? I was thinking that this was a completely new architechture that wouldnt be compatible with any older amd cpu's. Would be nice if it were possible, but i doubht it. Hope i am mistaking.


----------



## OBR (Jan 24, 2011)

heheheh, look at bottom of screen: Render performance is based on Cinebench R11, 3D gaming performance is based on 3D Mark 06 CPU test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is fail


----------



## ThomasK (Jan 24, 2011)

toyo said:


> They compared their future octo core with last year quad core from Intel and they're proud of winning?
> AMD, wake the hell up, guys!!!



You forgot to considere two things: 

First: The Core i7 processors have HyperThreading, which doubles the number of "threads" seen by the OS.

Second: Orochi processors feature 4 Bulldozer-based modules (I considere a module as an entire core, mainly 'cause it doesn't have its own dedicated L3 Cache). Each module contains two cores along with 2MB of dedicated L2 Cache. 
Four modules result in eight logical cores and 8MB of L2 Cache. 

Final considerations: AMD opted not go with a SMT arrangement like Intel. Instead, they decided to go with real cores which are less complex, occupy a smaller die size but offer less performance per core when compared to Intel cores, that basically allowed them to cranck up the core count to eight.


----------



## Hotel (Jan 24, 2011)

Something is going on here.. I think we all know it

The 6 core release from AMD earlier didn't really set the market alight.  I mean the chip was better at some "boring" things.. but in general use.. wasn't really faster (it was slower) than the standard comeptition i5 750/760

Onboard GPU is rubbish, anyone getting a chip that strong will have a graphics card.  The onboard GPU is just stupid consumers and for companies like hp, compaq, etc to sell "monster" machines that can actually play a game with 3d capabilities of an ATI 5670 without actually having to fork out for the graphics card.  Its just a niche selling point, it makes zero logical sense for the normal knowledgable buyer/gamer

Dell/HP/whoever are allergic to buying graphics cards (beause of cost vs consumer knowledge) but will often spec their pcs with very high spec processors, this is the case for 90% or higher of consumer pcs

I feel that this chip will just be an AMD X8 955.. a little faster.. but with 8 cores

Unfortunately I am sure the 2500K will be faster in the gaming/usual benchmarks and the 8core will be faster, in anything, that literally takes advantage of physically having 8 cores

The only competitive point will be price and if they can slip it into the budget market - this will be key

Of course I am rooting for AMD, if we didnt have them, then we'd have slow overpriced intel chips.. but its not looking like this chip will blow intel away at all


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiltentei said:


> Do you think that you can use current phenom II on the new board am3 ? I was thinking that this was a completely new architechture that wouldnt be compatible with any older amd cpu's. Would be nice if it were possible, but i doubht it. Hope i am mistaking



Amd said it would be compatible am3 cpu's will work at am3+ socket mobo's


----------



## SlayerJC (Jan 24, 2011)

Intel processor Core i7 950 but the package 1156? Mistake or fake?


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

SlayerJC said:


> Intel processor Core i7 950 but the package 1156? Mistake or fake?




Maybe both! But I hope that means; we will have the prices of lga 1156 mobo's(I wish this is!!!)


----------



## Mindweaver (Jan 24, 2011)

I think if bulldozer is at least 20% faster than i7 950 amd has a winner. Hell i'd be happy with 10% faster at half the price! I like Intel too, but hell they are still selling Q9650 for over 330 bucks.. Great processor but really still worth 330?


----------



## spynoodle (Jan 24, 2011)

1.5x speed of the i7 950 = ~Core i7 2600k.

So you could chose to buy:
a. A quad-core i7 2600k that can overclock like crazy and works well with highly-threaded and low-threaded games
b. A flagship AMD Zambezi that only performs well with highly threaded programs and is most likely going to be more expensive

Hmmm....

This is AMD's problem. You can't throw 8 slow half-cores (essentially de-hyperthreaded) onto a die and expect people to buy it over a quad-core that performs just as well. Same thing with the Phenom II X6. Yeah, it's just as fast as the i7s, but only for _some applications_.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2011)

ROad86 said:


> We have all seen reviews about Sandybridge. How much faster is the new cpu's? Because your are all talking like the 950 is something very slow. 950 is faster than i5 2500k in most tasks and lacks only from i7 2600K.


Core i7 950 has hyperthreading, QPI, 8 MiB L3, and 3.06 GHz clock.
Core i5 2500K does not have hypthreading, no external QPI, only 6 MiB L3, and 3.3 GHz clock. 

Hyperthreading makes a significant difference in mulithreading.  The larger cache makes a significant difference no matter the task.


I'm comparing apples (Core i7 Sandy Bridge) to apples (Bulldozer) here.




ROad86 said:


> And something else everyone are comparing 4 cores(intel) vs 6/8 cores(amd). What matter's is the price. If a processor with 4 cores cost more than one with 6 or 8 why I should buy the 4 core? So the important thing is the price of the cpu's.


Intel and AMD always position their processors prices more or less according to price/performance of their respective competition.  My guess is Intel's octo-core will be $999 while Intel's hexa-core and AMD's octo-core will be around $400-500, quickly falling to ~$300 each.  Intel has always positioned their processors to cost about $20-40 more than AMD for equal performance because they can since people know the brand.


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

spynoodle said:


> 1.5x speed of the i7 950 = ~Core i7 2600k.
> 
> So you could chose to buy:
> a. A quad-core i7 2600k that can overclock like crazy and works well with highly-threaded and low-threaded games
> ...




a. Buy a 150$ mobo and a 330$ cpu and overclock it like hell. Hmmm 480$ maybe will vanish instantly. 
b. Low threaded games, high threaded games at 1650x1080 and above needs gpu power not cpu. With sandybridge you gain what from 150 fps at 1024x768 you go 200 fps. Not a big deal.
c. The most cpu demanding programms became multi-thread. So 8 real cores maybe (we will see at the reviews) will give an advantage.
 Now about the price is all that matters. If zambezi will be priced nicely tell me one reason not to buy it? As for the perfomance I don't now if these numbers are real and surely we have to wait until the release.


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm comparing apples (Core i7 Sandy Bridge) to apples (Bulldozer) here.



Completely agree with you! I said this because in some post 950 was said like it was something very slow.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 24, 2011)

spynoodle said:


> 1.5x speed of the i7 950 = ~Core i7 2600k.



Its true we don't know how fast BD will be, but can you link me some tests where 2600k is about 50%-er on average than 950, the last time I checked it was more like around 20%, if you can't then your post is just BS.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Core i7 950 has hyperthreading, QPI, 8 MiB L3, and 3.06 GHz clock.
> Core i5 2500K does not have hypthreading, no external QPI, only 6 MiB L3, and 3.3 GHz clock.
> 
> Hyperthreading makes a significant difference in mulithreading.  The larger cache makes a significant difference no matter the task.
> ...



Its enough if you just make a performance increase of Sandy 2600K against i7 950 and it should be enough, last time I checked it was about +15-20% for 2600K on average.


----------



## spynoodle (Jan 24, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> Its true we don't know how fast BD will be, but can you link me some tests where 2600k is about 50%-er on average than 950, the last time I checked it was more like around 20%, if you can't then your post is just BS.


Here:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php
It's roughly 50% faster, which puts it almost in line with the 980x (except that the benchmark used is highly multithreaded, so it gives the 980x a bit better of a score).
Granted, in real-world applications it's less of a blowout:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
Still, the AMD comparison test doesn't use real-world applications, so I would place Zambezi around the same mark as the 2600k.


----------



## Arrakis9 (Jan 24, 2011)

SlayerJC said:


> Intel processor Core i7 950 but the package 1156? Mistake or fake?



wondering the same, maybe the person that put together the slide didn't do his research very well


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jan 24, 2011)

I hope it overclocks well.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 24, 2011)

Get it out in the real world and perform unbiased real world benchmarks.  Its competition will be the relative price point it occupies (thats is what dictates market conditions - If A is priced similar to B but B performs better, B wins, as opposed to B costs more than A and performs better, not competitive).

It's why the core i7 980x is so expensive - it had no peers (overclocking aside) and could be priced as such.

All being said, it would be excellent for AMD to produce a proficient Intel competitor.  But if it really is, it won't be budget - thats just unrealistic.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 24, 2011)

spynoodle: it could be around 2600k although I wish for a healthy increase, but from just 3 test anticipating performance is pointless.

What you linked were just some cases but its not on average thats my point.


----------



## OneCool (Jan 24, 2011)

We can sit here and assume everything.

Its all going to come down to... price and overclock 



We shall see.....


----------



## spynoodle (Jan 24, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> spynoodle: it could be around 2600k although I wish for a healthy increase, but from just 3 test anticipating performance is pointless.
> 
> What you linked were just some cases but its not on average thats my point.


I see. It's possible that Zambezi will be a valid competitor, but from the one bench so far, it's not looking too good IMO.


OneCool said:


> We can sit here and assume everything.
> 
> Its all going to come down to... price and overclock
> 
> ...


^ I guess this is really what it comes down to. We won't know anything for sure until it comes out, right?


----------



## crow1001 (Jan 24, 2011)

heh, 3Dmark06 represents gaming performance does it AMD...GTFO.:shadedshu


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 24, 2011)

spynoodle: It will probably depend on what you are using it. At another forum we are already discussing this and it looks like BD will be fastest CPU in multi thread based on CineBench at least untill 6 core Sandy is released.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> Its enough if you just make a performance increase of Sandy 2600K against i7 950 and it should be enough, last time I checked it was about +15-20% for 2600K on average.


And Core i7 2600K is still behind the Core i7 950 in many regards (namely QPI and memory channels).  X68 based Core i7s should be even faster (at least where lots of graphics and memory bandwidth are concerned).

LGA 1156 -> LGA 1155 = no QPI
LGA 1366  -> LGA 2011 = QPI


----------



## spynoodle (Jan 24, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> spynoodle: It will probably depend on what you are using it. At another forum we are already discussing this and it looks like BD will be fastest CPU in multi thread based on CineBench at least untill 6 core Sandy is released.


Agreed. It'll probably only just barely edge out the 2600k, though, and LGA2011 will probably come out only a short while after BD, considering the delays that AMD's going through.

Also, we still don't know how biased AMD's benches are. They don't seem very detailed as of yet.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 24, 2011)

this is the second time the 50% subject headline raise a discussion about
Bulldozer looks like what amd is saying to people :"dont buy intel yet please we have something better wait for us pretty please"


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept: 

LGA 2011 will be in 4 quarter and even a delay may happen.
Maybe I am wrong but triple channel didn't have much of a effect when you compared socket 1366 CPU versus socket 1156. On average it will be no more that 2-3 % at best my guess.


----------



## THANATOS (Jan 24, 2011)

spynoodle: still 4-5 months or possibly more difference is enough and LGA 2011 will be just 6 cores at first then you can forget about competitive prices more like extreme edition will be released. It seems there won't be a delay for BD.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

My guess is Bulldozer will only be about 20% faster in over all performance then the current generation of AMD processors. (waits for cadaveca to correct me)


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2011)

I'm going to guess there is a very specific reason that AMD didn't put a 6-core processor in the slight, and that reason is probably because Intel's current 6-core processors match AMD's upcoming 8-core.  And Intel 8-Core processors will probably destroy Bulldozer.

I like how AMD is going back to its own marketting ways. "First true 8-Core Processor"...  Remember when they had the first "True Quad-Core Processor"?  Everyone pretty much added "that still gets it ass kicked by Intels fake Quad-Core Processors" to the end and laughed at the line...


----------



## trt740 (Jan 24, 2011)

are any of these going to be backwards compatible with current am3 boards?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

trt740 said:


> are any of these going to be backwards compatible with current am3 boards?



No.



newtekie1 said:


> I'm going to guess there is a very specific reason that AMD didn't put a 6-core processor in the slight, and that reason is probably because Intel's current 6-core processors match AMD's upcoming 8-core.  And Intel 8-Core processors will probably destroy Bulldozer.
> 
> I like how AMD is going back to its own marketting ways. "First true 8-Core Processor"...  Remember when they had the first "True Quad-Core Processor"?  Everyone pretty much added "that still gets it ass kicked by Intels fake Quad-Core Processors" to the end and laughed at the line...



Well having real cores do have its advantages.


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm going to guess there is a very specific reason that AMD didn't put a 6-core processor in the slight, and that reason is probably because Intel's current 6-core processors match AMD's upcoming 8-core. And Intel 8-Core processors will probably destroy Bulldozer.



And then Amd will make 16 core cpu's...etc,etc. Are the current model's of amd and intel so far between them in terms of perfomance? I think no! Only the 980x which cost $1000 and the brand new 2600K are clearly ahead( and not at all the programms). The point is in a certain price range which will preform better?
As for 2011 plattform if P67 costs $150 at least and i72600K $330 how much the mobo and the 6 core, 8 core from intel will cost?


----------



## btarunr (Jan 24, 2011)

trt740 said:


> are any of these going to be backwards compatible with current am3 boards?



No, but AM3 processors are forwards-compatible with AM3+ socket.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

ROad86 said:


> And then Amd will make 16 core cpu's...etc,etc. Are the current model's of amd and intel so far between them in terms of perfomance? I think no! Only the 980x which cost $1000 and the brand new 2600K are clearly ahead( and not at all the programms). The point is in a certain price range which will preform better?
> As for 2011 plattform if P67 costs $150 at least and i72600K $330 how much the mobo and the 6 core, 8 core from intel will cost?



The argument of price/performance will be won by AMD. However raw performance is what enthusiasts want and thats what Intel provides. PLEASE guys don't turn this into a AMD vs Intel thread.


----------



## spynoodle (Jan 24, 2011)

KRONOSFX said:


> spynoodle: still 4-5 months or possibly more difference is enough and LGA 2011 will be just 6 cores at first then you can forget about competitive prices more like extreme edition will be released. It seems there won't be a delay for BD.


Guess my info on the delay is outdated:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...6_AMD_Bulldozer_Not_Delayed_Says_Company.html
I remember hearing about this a few months ago, and I guess the source was wrong.
I'm guessing that 6 core LGA2011 will be superior to Zamezi 8 core, due to the whole module vs. core thing. When Zambezi 16 core comes out, we'll probably see some more high-end competition.


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> PLEASE guys don't turn this into a AMD vs Intel thread.




Ok I went a bit off topic  so I stop.


----------



## blibba (Jan 24, 2011)

ROad86 said:


> And then Amd will make 16 core cpu's...etc,etc. Are the current model's of amd and intel so far between them in terms of perfomance? I think no! Only the 980x which cost $1000 and the brand new 2600K are clearly ahead( and not at all the programms). The point is in a certain price range which will preform better?
> As for 2011 plattform if P67 costs $150 at least and i72600K $330 how much the mobo and the 6 core, 8 core from intel will cost?



Already the majority of users don't really benefit from more than a dual core. I would argue that even most enthusiasts really have little need for a 16 core CPU.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 24, 2011)

blibba said:


> Already the majority of users don't really benefit from more than a dual core. I would argue that even most enthusiasts really have little need for a 16 core CPU.



Yeah, but by the same argument we really don't need more than 1 core back in early 2000s. Most of the tasks we do normally can be done efficiently with 2 cores, hence Intel still have 2 core 4 thread as their low end. But that said, games are starting to utilise 4 cores (Frostbite engine etc), and you get a massive improvement by using 4 cores instead of 2. Also, development goes the other way round: if you have 16 cores, people will develop apps to use all 16 of them, instead of developing 16 thread apps and wait for 16 core processors. I still believe 4 thread is still the way to go for the next couple of years though. If you study and work in engineering (and the likes), you will quickly notice how slow i7 980x is.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The argument of price/performance will be won by AMD. However raw performance is what enthusiasts want and thats what Intel provides. PLEASE guys don't turn this into a AMD vs Intel thread.



I do agree. But it also matters your price range, I personally will probably never spend over $300 on a processor, under that line is pretty blurry between both companys, so in my market, it isn't the same.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2011)

ROad86 said:


> And then Amd will make 16 core cpu's...etc,etc. Are the current model's of amd and intel so far between them in terms of perfomance? I think no! Only the 980x which cost $1000 and the brand new 2600K are clearly ahead( and not at all the programms). The point is in a certain price range which will preform better?
> As for 2011 plattform if P67 costs $150 at least and i72600K $330 how much the mobo and the 6 core, 8 core from intel will cost?



Yeah, and it will perform worse than Intels 12 core.

Intel's prices are high because they have no competition in those high price segments.  So to answer your question in certain price ranges Intel will perform better because Intel is the only one in those price and performance ranges.

If you go lower, AMD competes nicesly, but enthusiasts want high end, and will pay Intel's prices for it until AMD can offer something competitive.  And 50% faster with 100% more cores than a 2 year old product doesn't point to AMD being competitive at the current high end to me.

You can say, oh AMD wins price/performance at the lower end, but I don't see that all that often either.  You can look at the $125 segment and see an i3-540 beating the x2 565BE or the i3-540 beating an x4 920 if you prefer the idea that "real men use real cores"-and still get their asses handed to them by a dual core...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, and it will perform worse than Intels 12 core.
> 
> Intel's prices are high because they have no competition in those high price segments.  So to answer your question in certain price ranges Intel will perform better because Intel is the only one in those price and performance ranges.
> 
> If you go lower, AMD competes nicesly, but enthusiasts want high end, and will pay Intel's prices for it until AMD can offer something competitive.  And 50% faster with 100% more cores than a 2 year old product doesn't point to AMD being competitive at the current high end to me.



The question is now will AMD market Bulldozer as being an "Intel destroyer" or a better deal then Intel. That is what will make or break the Bulldozer.


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You can look at the $125 segment and see an i3-540 beating the x2 565BE or the i3-540 beating an x4 920 if you prefer the idea that "real men use real cores"-and still get their asses handed to them by a dual core



Anandtech very objective site...


----------



## jsfitz54 (Jan 24, 2011)

*Do my eyes deceive me?*



SlayerJC said:


> Intel processor Core i7 950 but the package 1156? Mistake or fake?



Is AMD trying to pull a fast one on its customers?


----------



## MicroUnC (Jan 24, 2011)

Can't wait anymore! I found a great deal on i7 980 X for $500 couldn't let it go. Anyway i'am intrested in how the bulldozers will perform.

Waiting for benches


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 24, 2011)

this slide proves nothing not enough information there for anyone to guess anything, could even be completely faked. funny thing is if the title was intel to release new i7 50% more powerful this thread would have a different vibe.


----------



## lashton (Jan 24, 2011)

> TheMailMan78
> I want to see two things....
> 
> 1. Benches.
> 2. Price.



lol i want to se 1 thing Benches first


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 24, 2011)

I can't say whether this data is real or not.  It might be, but it is not my department, I am in server.

However, someone should kill the [AMD] from the title of the thread because we are not making these claims, some third party is.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> I can't say whether this data is real or not.  It might be, but it is not my department, I am in server.
> 
> However, someone should kill the [AMD] from the title of the thread because we are not making these claims, some third party is.



Knowlage......is dropped.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2011)

ROad86 said:


> Anandtech very objective site...



Yeah you could make a useless post about the credibility of the site I linked to, despite it being one of the most respected tech sites on the net, or you could make a post with some numbers of your own that back up your point... Guess which one would have actually helped your point.:shadedshu


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 24, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And Core i7 2600K is still behind the Core i7 950 in many regards (namely QPI and memory channels).  X68 based Core i7s should be even faster (at least where lots of graphics and memory bandwidth are concerned).
> 
> LGA 1156 -> LGA 1155 = no QPI
> LGA 1366  -> LGA 2011 = QPI



I wouldn't call that many, I'd call that two. Two that only make for extremely rare instances of performance advantage over the 2600k. Hell the bandwidth discrepancy isn't even always there, as 1155 can support higher speeds than 1366, and is clock for clock better in the timings and copy department. So when you press your memory on 1155 to match 1366 bandwidth you're further increasing the advantages you already had.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, and it will perform worse than Intels 12 core.
> 
> Intel's prices are high because they have no competition in those high price segments.  So to answer your question in certain price ranges Intel will perform better because Intel is the only one in those price and performance ranges.
> 
> ...



Wait.  You are comparing a i3 540 to a AM2+ 920?  That processor wasn't even the flagship of its generation and no one is thinking about it now.  Try comparing your i3 540 to say the Phenom II X2 565 or Athlon II X4 645.  Both of those are $10 cheaper and you will see your comparison gets real grey real fast.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/204?vs=143

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=143

Price/performance is AMD stomping ground because they price their processors according to their audience and Intel inflation.  Who gave regular folks quad cores for less than $100?  AMD  Who gave gamers the first "sweet spot" of our current gen or offerings? AMD 720 comes to mind.  Title now held by i5 750.

For me it has always been 3 groups:  
* People who want to computer on a budge, AMD is your best friend.
* People who want to swing their e-penis in public and brag about how fast their processor is in applications they don't own or use, Intel to the rescue.
* People who try to mix budget with performance, I feel sorry for your because this middle ground's competition is ugly and confusing. This is my buying area and I am always torn for weeks before I make a final decision.  And to be honest, I don't really think me picking one or the other ever really matters.

I think AMD should go after that middle ground more aggressively which is what they seem to be doing.  I don't think the *initial* flagship will truly compete with Sandy's top end, but I expect it to go blow for blow with Sandy's mid-range processors in the same price range.  I am just hoping this time AMD will take the mid-ranged crown so they can say, "We beat Intel overall in every price segment, unless you are spending $800+."  And they can say, "And we offer better overall server processors in every price segment, unless your budget is unlimited.  Then I think we can help you with our GPU based servers."


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 24, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Wait.  You are comparing a i3 540 to a AM2+ 920?  That processor wasn't even the flagship of its generation and no one is thinking about it now.  Try comparing your i3 540 to say the Phenom II X2 565 or Athlon II X4 645.  Both of those are $10 cheaper and you will see your comparison gets real grey real fast.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/204?vs=143
> 
> ...



Until recently you cudnt find a better budget system that could last than X6 1050T.
was some serious performance for your $$$
Especially for current am2/am2+ user, and even for new users it was the better choice.
It is however not that now, its more balanced in that area now...
But if bulldozer stomps intel this time and with 28/22nm or whatever it is next time amd will be the e-peen company.
Intel have never been the budget maker though, too great market position, and the lawsuits just tells the story of miss use of that position..
However the outcome could be diffrent.

Amd bringing in AMD FX name suggest it will perform, on par atleast. time will tell how it performs, if its just 3% below or 10% above or w/e.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 24, 2011)

Imsochobo said:


> Amd bringing in AMD FX name suggest it will perform, on par atleast. time will tell how it performs, if its just 3% below or 10% above or w/e.



Of course, with this bit of info, like all others recently, we must question the source of such info that the FX line is to return.

I failed to find a quotable AMD source for the "FX to return" info, merely the same source as this info(DonanimHaber). Many sites suggest that this same info is just rumour as well, so I can only suggest you take that info with just as much salt as this info, as JF-AMD suggests.

It's quite interesting to me for an AMD rep to continually say "we did not make any such statement", time and time again. The more I see it, the more I suspect that someone is taking advantage of the "quiet period before launch" to get hits, a period that JF-AMD says is currently in effect.

So who ya gonna listen to...AMD themselves, or someone without a source they can quote? Personally, I choose AMD, and as such, ahve chosen to ignore any and all info relating to BullDozer, until the product hits the shelves, or AMD makes official announcements.


----------



## swaaye (Jan 24, 2011)

Read this page:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT082610181333&p=2

I think that sums up what AMD is going for with Bulldozer. A lot is depending on the clock speed they can pull off but I expect a CPU that beats Phenom II in every way but is behind i7s on per-core performance. It's supposed to be a multithreading monster but we'll see how that goes.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 24, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Wait.  You are comparing a i3 540 to a AM2+ 920?  That processor wasn't even the flagship of its generation and no one is thinking about it now.  Try comparing your i3 540 to say the Phenom II X2 565 or Athlon II X4 645.  Both of those are $10 cheaper and you will see your comparison gets real grey real fast.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/204?vs=143
> 
> ...



They'll never be able to say that. Intel can just lower prices to compete. Intel can afford to have slimmer margins on their cpus more so than AMD can. The only way AMD can truly compete, is if they can counter Intel on every level, including top end.

That said, I am dying to see some real numbers here.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 24, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, and it will perform worse than Intels 12 core.
> 
> Intel's prices are high because they have no competition in those high price segments.  So to answer your question in certain price ranges Intel will perform better because Intel is the only one in those price and performance ranges.
> 
> ...



I disagree completely with your opinion on enthusiast. Look at my setup, I know a lot of people that play computer games, and only one of them has a setup around my specs and it's Marineborn (talking about people I know in person). I have built gaming machines for other people, and those are usually quad cores with a good single GPU. 

An enthusiast is not someone who spends 1k on a processor, if you need to do that to define  enthusiast, then 99.9% of this forum are not enthusiasts. If you got crossfire, SLI, Water cooling, even extreme air cooling, you done case mods, you tinker with flashing and in the bios. Thats enthusiast, spending 1k on a processor doesn't make oyu that, it means you got deep pockets and can afford it. My setup is a crusher, it costed a lot, no it's not the best stuff on the market. 

What your saying is like saying, "your not a car enthusiast till you own a Veyron, go out and spend that 2.5 mil". Not true at all.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 24, 2011)

I have to agree with that sentiment, Kurgan. And I do own a top end cpu.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 24, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Of course, with this bit of info, like all others recently, we must question the source of such info that the FX line is to return.
> 
> I failed to find a quotable AMD source for the "FX to return" info, merely the same source as this info(DonanimHaber). Many sites suggest that this same info is just rumour as well, so I can only suggest you take that info with just as much salt as this info, as JF-AMD suggests.
> 
> ...



Quiet period is over, earnings were announced.  The reason I have been saying that we did not say this is that some people believe that it is some type of manufactured leak. That is not how I do business.  If I have info to share, it is in my blog.




Wile E said:


> They'll never be able to say that. Intel can just lower prices to compete. Intel can afford to have slimmer margins on their cpus more so than AMD can. The only way AMD can truly compete, is if they can counter Intel on every level, including top end.
> 
> That said, I am dying to see some real numbers here.



Then why don't they just do that all the time?  The reason is that when you grab the price lever, it is hard to recover.  And there are financial expectations that companies set with wall street.  When you don't make those there is hell to pay.

It seems easy to say just drop the price, but once the $300 price point becomes $275, it is really hard to get back there.

Sometimes it is easier to take the short term sales hit then drop price and lose those dollars on the revenue stream for the next several years.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 25, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Quiet period is over, earnings were announced.  The reason I have been saying that we did not say this is that some people believe that it is some type of manufactured leak. That is not how I do business.  If I have info to share, it is in my blog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking of the client side (for which I am much more familiar than the server side), they do.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 25, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Quiet period is over, earnings were announced.  The reason I have been saying that we did not say this is that some people believe that it is some type of manufactured leak. That is not how I do business.  If I have info to share, it is in my blog.



Thanks for the clarification. But on that note, is that confirming the info? Or a hint to keep an eye on your blog?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Speaking of the client side (for which I am much more familiar than the server side), they do.



Server or client the principle is the same. What he is saying is once your drop a price on anything its hard to convince your customers of a cost increase. Holders have expectations. Price drops are not one of them.


----------



## happita (Jan 25, 2011)

Everyone should just keep quiet on how BD is going to perform because honestly NOONE knows except AMD themselves...and maybe wizzy  Speculation gets us nowhere and is useless. All it does is set expectations and everyone either hypes up the product or downtalks the hell out of it. 
Until I hear something official, or until it is released to review sites to review before being put on the market to be sold, then I won't believe anything about Bulldozer that even has a 1% chance of not being true.
With that being said, I'm fairly certain that everyone wants the new processors from AMD to be competitive, otherwise we as consumers will suffer the consequences of price hikes.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 25, 2011)

I want AMD to be more than competitive...I want them to spank Intel back into the dark ages.


Alas, that may be unrealistic, but stranger things have happened. I am more than willing to wait for launch though.

Could use a cpu to do motherboard reviews with though. 

you know, what would be more scary is that if Bulldozer does deliver, and then Intel raises it's prices on the up and coming socket...that would not be in comsumer wallet's interests


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 25, 2011)

It would be nice to see that, but Intels position didn't come from spanking, it came from showing up decades ahead of AMD. Thats why I take AMD's position with a grain of salt, hopefully someday they can make up that difference. But even when they did have the top dog processors on the market, I don't think they made a dent in the gap.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 25, 2011)

When they were on top for a few years it took every bit of that time for it to become widely accepted they were better, then the next day core 2 duo comes out and the party is over. They'd need to take the lead and never give it up to really put pressure on intel.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 25, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I wouldn't call that many, I'd call that two. Two that only make for extremely rare instances of performance advantage over the 2600k. Hell the bandwidth discrepancy isn't even always there, as 1155 can support higher speeds than 1366, and is clock for clock better in the timings and copy department. So when you press your memory on 1155 to match 1366 bandwidth you're further increasing the advantages you already had.


Intel made a mistake by having Clackdale about as fast as Bloomfield because then it's hard for consumers to justify purchasing the more expensive LGA 1366 platform.  I'm sure LGA 2011 is coming second this time around to make sure that doesn't happen.

Core i7 950 is 45nm, Core i7 2600K is 32nm.  That's the reason why the 2600K can "support higher speeds."  The LGA 2011 processors will be 32nm too (maybe 22nm if it takes too long).

LGA 2011 = 4 x DDR3-1600 = 51.2 GiB/s
LGA 1155 = 2 x DDR3-1333 = 21.2 GiB/s

Huge memory performance gap there.  There's no memory in existance that can make up that gap with only 2 channels.  LGA 2011 also doesn't have an integrated GPU which could substantially improve overclocking capability (less heat).


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 25, 2011)

of course it does AMD


----------



## N3M3515 (Jan 25, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I want AMD to be more than competitive...I want them to spank Intel back into the dark ages.
> 
> 
> Alas, *that may be unrealistic*, but stranger things have happened. I am more than willing to wait for launch though.
> ...



Man, when amd was nothing to be feared, they released the mighty athlon that spanked P3, then also athlon 64 spanked P4, it is more possible now than ever before.


----------



## wiak (Jan 25, 2011)

meran said:


> do i see bottle neck here>>>> dual channel


sandy bridge that is faster than nehalem uses dual channel, so memory bandwith dont have that much to do with performance benefits, heck amd could have used DDR2 on their current sixcore phenoms IIs,


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 25, 2011)

wiak said:


> sandy bridge that is faster than nehalem uses dual channel, so memory bandwith dont have that much to do with performance benefits, heck amd could have used DDR2 on their current sixcore phenoms IIs,



Sandy Bridge is neck and neck with nehalem. a 950 can easily take down a 2500k. the only thing that stands in the way of the i7 950 is the 2600k even then they really are close to the same


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 25, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Thanks for the clarification. But on that note, is that confirming the info? Or a hint to keep an eye on your blog?



Not confirming the info because I can only confirm the things I have control over.  If that was a server slide I could tell you with 99% accuracy because I make 99% of them.




TheMailMan78 said:


> Server or client the principle is the same. What he is saying is once your drop a price on anything its hard to convince your customers of a cost increase. Holders have expectations. Price drops are not one of them.



That is very true, but look at the bigger picture.  Let's say you are going to sell a million processors in Q1.  But then there is a price war.  You lower the price $10.  Doesn't sound like a lot.

$10M

And that is only Q1.  Most products live ~6 quarters.  So that little price move cost you $60M in pure profit.

And worse yet, if you look at the typical processor market, new products come in at the price of the old products, so your $10 price cut carries on to the next generation.

Companies tend to not cut prices, but instead push new technology in at those established price points.  Taking a price cut also disrupts the stack, so while you think you just need to change one price, the new price is too close to the one below.  So you have to drop that.

It becomes a snowball that eats up profits.  And the guy with the bigger share has more to lose in a price war, not the other way around.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 25, 2011)

wiak said:


> sandy bridge that is faster than nehalem uses dual channel, so memory bandwith dont have that much to do with performance benefits, heck amd could have used DDR2 on their current sixcore phenoms IIs,


Better to have too much than not enough. 


Triple channel does appear to have a pretty significant impact so long as you aren't gaming:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1...y_analysis_can_dual_channel_cut_it/index.html


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jan 25, 2011)

so the graph mean bulldozer didn't better than core i7 950 by 50% in everything, so in as the graph say it's 20% better and that's it's 10$ better only in real test as the point in the graph the i7 950 same as 1100T and that is bull shit.


----------



## largon (Jan 25, 2011)

As long as it's not Intel-made-CPU I'm a buyin' it.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 25, 2011)

guys, check out this JF-AMD post on anandtech



> Why couldn't it be 95W? There are 95W client parts today.
> 
> There will be a 35W TDP 8-core server part and there will be a <95W TDP 16-core server part as well.



its look like it will be a power efficient bulldozer 

source


----------



## Thatguy (Jan 25, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Not confirming the info because I can only confirm the things I have control over.  If that was a server slide I could tell you with 99% accuracy because I make 99% of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




   I like your points and they are very valid with regards to profit per unit and total scaled profits. Its usually better to raise prices and move a few less units then lower prices and sell more units. People forget the economic scalling falls apart at certain volumes. It just depends on where those volumes fall on the distrobution side that makes it worth while for the producer. 

  Would be nice to see some client side info however 

  hint hint.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 25, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Wait.  You are comparing a i3 540 to a AM2+ 920?  That processor wasn't even the flagship of its generation and no one is thinking about it now.



I used the 920 because they didn't have a comparison with the 925, which is the same processor with the same performance, but DDR3 support enabled which is pretty accepted as not really helping performance any.



TheLaughingMan said:


> Try comparing your i3 540 to say the Phenom II X2 565 or Athlon II X4 645.  Both of those are $10 cheaper and you will see your comparison gets real grey real fast.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/204?vs=143
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=143



Actually, as per the post you quoted, I did compare the 565 to the i3-540, and the 540 wins.(I just linked to the wrong comparision.)  Comparing it to the 645 still sees a lot of wins in the 540 column, but I think it is closer, but the 540 still crushes the 645 in games, and even some multi-threaded apps...

And again, I'm not saying the 540 is an amazing super great processor that everyone should buy over AMDs offerings.  I'm saying that the idea that AMD is better price for the buck in the areas the compete in isn't a given fact.  Intel stays pretty competitive going down into the lower end.



TheLaughingMan said:


> Price/performance is AMD stomping ground because they price their processors according to their audience and Intel inflation.



Yeah, if you believe this, I pitty you.  This is coming from someone that paid $900 for an AMD processor, AMD prices their products where they need to be to sell.  Don't kid yourself and think that AMD would still be selling their highend processors at $300 if they were on top and Intel wasn't.  They sell their processors at low prices because they have to, because that is where they perform.  You aren't getting incredible bang for the buck by going with AMD, you are just getting a cheaper processor that doesn't perform as well, but performs good enough for _you_ to not notice.



TheLaughingMan said:


> Who gave regular folks quad cores for less than $100?


  AMD-Because the $99 quad-core performed worse than Intels $99 dual-cores.  But minor details like that don't mater, I'VE GOT FOR CORES AND YOU DON'T!  HAHA



TheLaughingMan said:


> Who gave gamers the first "sweet spot" of our current gen or offerings?


 Sweet spot if you consider only Intels current generation, but since Intel kept that last generation going to compete with AMD's "sweet spot", Intel still had that title...they just held it with the last generation products that were still competiting with AMDs current gen.



TheLaughingMan said:


> For me it has always been 3 groups:
> * People who want to computer on a budge, AMD is your best friend.
> * People who want to swing their e-penis in public and brag about how fast their processor is in applications they don't own or use, Intel to the rescue.
> * People who try to mix budget with performance, I feel sorry for your because this middle ground's competition is ugly and confusing. This is my buying area and I am always torn for weeks before I make a final decision.  And to be honest, I don't really think me picking one or the other ever really matters.



Exactly, that is my point.  Intel competes very well in the middle-ground.  The only area that AMD really shines is low-end, and even there Intel's Celerons compete pretty well, they just don't have something to compete with the single cores from AMD.(but really, would you recommend a single core to anyone today?)  But, honestly, once you get down this low, most people buying here don't care about a few percentage points difference, it really won't help them checking their email any faster, and won't let them watch movies any better.  Where AMD shines in the low end market is their integrated graphics, they really do walk all over Intel, who are still relying on the G31/G41 chipset in this market.



TheLaughingMan said:


> I think AMD should go after that middle ground more aggressively which is what they seem to be doing.  I don't think the *initial* flagship will truly compete with Sandy's top end, but I expect it to go blow for blow with Sandy's mid-range processors in the same price range.  I am just hoping this time AMD will take the mid-ranged crown so they can say, "We beat Intel overall in every price segment, unless you are spending $800+."  And they can say, "And we offer better overall server processors in every price segment, unless your budget is unlimited.  Then I think we can help you with our GPU based servers."



I expect the same, but I fear that people are getting their hopes up and over hyping what Bulldozer will really do.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 25, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 1.  Actually, as per the post you quoted, I did compare the 565 to the i3-540, and the 540 wins.(I just linked to the wrong comparision.)  Comparing it to the 645 still sees a lot of wins in the 540 column, but I think it is closer, but the 540 still crushes the 645 in games, and even some multi-threaded apps...
> 
> 2.  Yeah, if you believe this, I pitty you.  This is coming from someone that paid $900 for an AMD processor, AMD prices their products where they need to be to sell.  Don't kid yourself and think that AMD would still be selling their high end processors at $300 if they were on top and Intel wasn't.  They sell their processors at low prices because they have to, because that is where they perform.  You aren't getting incredible bang for the buck by going with AMD, you are just getting a cheaper processor that doesn't perform as well, but performs good enough for _you_ to not notice.



1.  i3 540 does not win against the AMD PII 925 or AII 645 in much of anything.  Here you go:  http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/1.html

But I digress as synthetic benchmarks are mostly crap IMO.

2.  Them adjusting price based on compared performance is exactly what I was talking about with the Intel Inflation comment.  And yeah, I kinda do believe that if AMD had the top of the heap processor it would as over priced as Intel.  I don't think it would be $300 range, but I seriously doubt it would be in the $1000+ range either.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 26, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Not confirming the info because I can only confirm the things I have control over.  If that was a server slide I could tell you with 99% accuracy because I make 99% of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They also move more units to make up the difference. Intel already matches AMD's price cuts every time they happen. Whether with a new part or not is irrelevant to a purchaser. AMD cuts prices, and Intel has a cpu right there at the same perf level in the same price range. I don't see that changing any time soon.



TheLaughingMan said:


> 1.  i3 540 does not win against the AMD PII 925 or AII 645 in much of anything.  Here you go:  http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/1.html
> 
> But I digress as synthetic benchmarks are mostly crap IMO.
> 
> 2.  Them adjusting price based on compared performance is exactly what I was talking about with the Intel Inflation comment.  And yeah, I kinda do believe that if AMD had the top of the heap processor it would as over priced as Intel.  I don't think it would be $300 range, *but I seriously doubt it would be in the $1000+ range either.*



You are deluded then. They charged $1000 for the FX cpus when they were ahead of Intel last time. They will do it again if they ever get up there again. The only way top end might drop, is if both AMD and Intel are on equal performance ground, and a price war commences.


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 26, 2011)

So an upcoming product from a new generation is beating a CPU which Intel has replaced 3 times over (i7 Bloomfield -> i7 Lynnfield -> i7 Gulftown -> Sandybridge) by a mere 50%. I was expecting WAY more than that. Why didn't they compare it to the 980X or a Sandy Bridge chip? Because they were too expensive for them to buy at the time? They lost the chips on the way home? They forgot which chip was the best from Intel?

Come on AMD, that's a crock and you know it.


----------



## erocker (Jan 26, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> So an upcoming product from a new generation is beating a CPU which Intel has replaced 3 times over (i7 Bloomfield -> i7 Lynnfield -> i7 Gulftown -> Sandybridge) by a mere 50%. I was expecting WAY more than that. Why didn't they compare it to the 980X or a Sandy Bridge chip? Because they were too expensive for them to buy at the time? They lost the chips on the way home? They forgot which chip was the best from Intel?
> 
> Come on AMD, that's a crock and you know it.



Why so mad? The guy said it himself that AMD didn't release these performance comparisons. At least let AMD and actual reviewers come out with some concrete performance numbers first.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> 1.  i3 540 does not win against the AMD PII 925 or AII 645 in much of anything.  Here you go:  http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_540_530/1.html
> 
> But I digress as synthetic benchmarks are mostly crap IMO.



It all depends on where you look, they go back and forth, which is my point.  They are close in performance and priced accordingly.



TheLaughingMan said:


> 2.  Them adjusting price based on compared performance is exactly what I was talking about with the Intel Inflation comment.  And yeah, I kinda do believe that if AMD had the top of the heap processor it would as over priced as Intel.  I don't think it would be $300 range, but I seriously doubt it would be in the $1000+ range either.



Again, coming from someone that paid $900 for a AMD processor, I can assure you they would if they could.


----------



## jsfitz54 (Jan 26, 2011)

My last build was an Asus A8N32SLI-deluxe with an AMD dual core FX-60 that cost $400.00.
My new i7 950 quad core from Intel cost $280.00.
I only built AMD systems for 10 years and I made the decision to go with Intel for my current build.  I made that choice because Intel had a great product. This is also the first time I have had an SLI setup.  I can say I am not loyal to either camp at this time but will make future decisions based on need and cost.

What is of interest to me now is Tri channel memory systems, will it last or go away like Rambus memory?  Will dual channel win out? AMD has stayed with Dual channel but right now Tri channel feels like it was an experiment for a few years like Rambus.

While the CPU's are getting faster, memory does not seem to be keeping pace...almost disproportionately.

While we all would like the next best thing most of us don't need it, we just like to tinker a bit.  To that end, all we can do is wait and see.

I am interested to see 5GHz on Air.  That would make us all...Buy..Buy..Buy.


----------



## Thatguy (Jan 26, 2011)

jsfitz54 said:


> My last build was an Asus A8N32SLI-deluxe with an AMD dual core FX-60 that cost $400.00.
> My new i7 950 quad core from Intel cost $280.00.
> I only built AMD systems for 10 years and I made the decision to go with Intel for my current build.  I made that choice because Intel had a great product. This is also the first time I have had an SLI setup.  I can say I am not loyal to either camp at this time but will make future decisions based on need and cost.
> 
> ...



   the next jump in memory will be on die ram becuase the bus is quickly reaching the specs of what it can reliably transmit.


----------



## HillBeast (Jan 27, 2011)

erocker said:


> Why so mad? The guy said it himself that AMD didn't release these performance comparisons. At least let AMD and actual reviewers come out with some concrete performance numbers first.



Was I mad? No. Was I disappointed in AMD? Yes. They have spent 6 or 7 years raving on about Fusion and how it's going to be the best CPU ever and how it'll revolutionise computing, and all I have seen is steam and every benchmark that has been leaked hasn't been anything I would deem as being 'ground breaking'.

For one, AMD came up with the idea of an APU for desktop computing, and in the time it took for AMD to rave on about it and produce nothing, Intel built a so-called APU, TWICE. Yes the GPU is rubbish but can you honestly tell me the video encoder/decoder that uses the GPU in Sandy Bridge isn't amazing? Unless ALL the figures that have been mentioned so far are a major underestimation, I can see AMD Fusion become AMD Flop.

Besides, this slide is released by AMD, leaked yes, but it's still from AMD. That still means the information in this should be taken as an exaggeration and that this will in fact be HIGHER than what we should expect.

And anyways, was I ever taking a jab at JF-AMD? No. I posted my comment straight after reading the article. It wasn't until after I read the thread that I saw his posts.

Besides he said himself: 



JF-AMD said:


> I can't say whether this data is real or not.  It might be, but it is not my department, I am in server.



So how does he know that it's not official information?


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 27, 2011)

HillBeast said:


> So how does he know that it's not official information?



I know that I was not leaked by me or my team or the desktop team.  We share silicon.  If they were going to purposely leak this information they would need my approval first (just like everything I do goes past them for review as well.)

That is the stock AMD template, but I just can't vouch for any slides that I did not create. 

We did change our template in January with the launch of the APU, so if it is an AMD slide it would have been from last year.  The dates auto populate.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 27, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> I know that I was not leaked by me or my team or the desktop team.  We share silicon.  If they were going to purposely leak this information they would need my approval first (just like everything I do goes past them for review as well.)



Again, nobody claimed it to be a purposeful leak by your client team. The client guys may have shared that slide with the motherboard industry (they need to, it's part of their partner relations), and someone in the motherboard industry may have leaked it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Again, nobody claimed it to be a purposeful leak by your client team. The client guys may have shared that slide with the motherboard industry (they need to, it's part of their partner relations), and someone in the motherboard industry may have leaked it.



Hes just making it clear to the people who do not know how to read in this thread man. How many jackasses have you seen on here screaming how AMD sucks from these slides? You know slides AMD may or may not have released?


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 28, 2011)

Wile E said:


> You are deluded then. They charged $1000 for the FX cpus when they were ahead of Intel last time.



To be fair Intel charged even more for the P4 Extreme Editions when they were losing!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 28, 2011)

regardless of some peoples dislike of the new bulldozer and APu chips it does do a lot of good NV quad core +GFX on way intel using shaders etc it pushes up the for want of a better word shitter level , the place where peeps play net games and sims and wow and if more pcs can play games at framerates on low-med settings at last (lookin at u intel) as seems amd's plan then gloat and be happy the fight goes on i luck t the discount bin for hope of a gleamin summat


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 28, 2011)

Nobody has ever been able to show me the parallel universe where more competition has led to a wose environment for customers.

Everyone should be happy that there is lots of competition and new products are coming out.  They should want every product to be better than what they are expecting, not worse.  

Bad products lead to complacency, not innovation.


----------



## jpierce55 (Jan 28, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Nobody has ever been able to show me the parallel universe where more competition has led to a wose environment for customers.
> 
> Everyone should be happy that there is lots of competition and new products are coming out.  They should want every product to be better than what they are expecting, not worse.
> 
> Bad products lead to complacency, not innovation.



agreed


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 29, 2011)

largon said:


> As long as it's not Intel-made-CPU I'm a buyin' it.



That sounds reasonable.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 31, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Nobody has ever been able to show me the parallel universe where more competition has led to a wose environment for customers.
> 
> Everyone should be happy that there is lots of competition and new products are coming out.  They should want every product to be better than what they are expecting, not worse.
> 
> Bad products lead to complacency, not innovation.



I can get behind that statement.


----------



## MarcusTaz (Jan 31, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I can get behind that statement.



Agreed!


----------



## largon (Jan 31, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> largon said:
> 
> 
> > As long as it's not Intel-made-CPU I'm a buyin' it.
> ...


I consider myself having a strong sense of justice. 
If a company shows such indifference to laws and good sales practices, as Intel has been,  that company does not get my $$$ no matter how good their product is.


----------

