# Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II



## btarunr (Jan 13, 2011)

Here, take some salt. AMD reportedly gave out performance figures in a presentation to its partners, performance figures seen by DonanimHaber. It is reported that an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture is pitched by its makers to have 50% higher performance than existing processors such as the Core i7 950 (4 cores, 8 threads), and Phenom II X6 1100T (6 cores). Very little is known about the processor, including at what clock speed the processor was running at, much less what other components were driving the test machine. 

Taking this information into account, the said Bulldozer based processor should synthetically even outperform Core i7 980X six-core, Intel's fastest desktop processor in the market. Built from ground-up, the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based. The processor is backed by new 9-series core logic, and a new AM3+ socket. AMD is expected to unveil this platform a little later this year.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 13, 2011)

To say the least if true Holy Shit!!!


----------



## Melvis (Jan 13, 2011)

Wow if this is true, AMD will take the performance crown once again.

Im sure these wont even be the FX version's ether?


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 13, 2011)

My have a big smile on my face now after reading this


----------



## erocker (Jan 13, 2011)

This is suprising news if true. A 50% increase in speed over what I currently have is finally an acutal worthy upgrade.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 13, 2011)

They just have to ship the stuff fast. AMD had bright ideas all along, but the time is what has drove them over each time. And Intel was "sitting" in it. I mean what good is it to have 50% better performance now when you suck on the actual hardware release day...

So good luck to AMD and i hope they'll get the stuff out in time.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 13, 2011)

Let's not start the selective memory loss crap. We know how this goes. These things are always hand picked numbers from very specific instances, if not totally bs from some performance "simulation". Give a real chip to a bad asian plumber and maybe we'll see something to get excited about.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jan 13, 2011)

This is from AMD, so it might not be 100% legit. But it should be very close to the 980X, if not on par or better. Performance is surprisingly good, but this probably means that they won't be very cheap either. We'll see.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 13, 2011)

I bet a hexa-core Sandy Bridge would beat the octo-core Bulldozer, not to mention handling 50% more threads.  At least it is a significant improvement from Phenom II.

The one thing AMD, for sure, has going for them is not drastically changing sockets like Intel has, yet again, made a habit of doing.


----------



## blu3flannel (Jan 13, 2011)

This will hopefully be a worthy upgrade from my i5 750, I want some new hardware to play with.


----------



## Frizz (Jan 13, 2011)

I hope this is true, not to keen on staying with intel for too long since I'm really tired of having to switch platforms every so often.


----------



## Volkszorn88 (Jan 13, 2011)

This will be an instant success. I can't even wrap my mind around 50% faster.


----------



## gumpty (Jan 13, 2011)

Crikey doodle dandy. It would be cool if this is true.

Hopefully they compete well in the price/performance & performance/watt stakes.


----------



## T3RM1N4L D0GM4 (Jan 13, 2011)

Do want REAL bench....

NOW!


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 13, 2011)

Lets hope it's true. Though if it is, I expect it to be too expensive for my blood for a while, sadly.


----------



## unknwn (Jan 13, 2011)

They need to be as fast or  faster than intel at not fully threaded applications too (games, desktop apps) otherwise it won't be that good for casual users.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jan 13, 2011)

This needs to be taken with a mountain of salt, not just a grain of it. While I am all for AMD making a decisive comeback to drive prices in the high-end lower and lower (and make Intel drive forward faster), this reminds me of the pre-release nVidia slides for Fermi. After all the NV-hype was done, we were left with good cards, but nothing truly as revolutionary as nVidia would have us believe.

Until I see a TPU review, this is all manuFUD.


----------



## mcloughj (Jan 13, 2011)

Looks like I'll hold off on my new system for a little while longer... just in case!


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 13, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> This needs to be taken with a mountain of salt, not just a grain of it. While I am all for AMD making a decisive comeback to drive prices in the high-end lower and lower (and make Intel drive forward faster), this reminds me of the pre-release nVidia slides for Fermi. After all the NV-hype was done, we were left with good cards, but nothing truly as revolutionary as nVidia would have us believe.
> 
> Until I see a TPU review, this is all manuFUD.


Actually this is not far fetched at all.
Notice they say their Octa-Core (*8*) proc is *50% faster* than the i7 950 Quad-Core (*4*).
*If both chips are running at the same clocks, that just means the Bulldozer isn't any/much faster IPC than a Nehalem.*


----------



## arroyo (Jan 13, 2011)

Zubasa, you made a point!

That's true. They comparing 4 cylinder Intel engine with new V8 from AMD. Of course it would be faster than Intel!


----------



## Yukikaze (Jan 13, 2011)

Zubasa said:


> Actually this is not far fetched at all.
> Notice they say their Octa-Core (8) proc is 50% faster than the i7 950 Quad-Core (4).
> If both chips are running at the same clocks, that just means the Bulldozer isn't any faster IPC than a Nehalem.



This really depends on what they call a core:
1. A real core.
2. One half of their SMT arrangement.

In the case of 1, I agree. In the case of 2, their octa-core processor is not a "true" octa-core. According to what I know about bulldozer every pair of cores is a hybrid between Intel's SMT approach (HyperThreading) and a true pair of separate cores. It is getting hard to define this architecture by the number of cores in the way previous generations could be, but on strict terms, this is a 4-core processor with AMD's flavor of SMT.

In case 1, we're talking about nothing special. In the case of 2, we're talking about some serious processing power.


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 13, 2011)

In case 2, Intel will finally have some serious competition I have been waiting for.
On the other hand, we have yet to see how Intel's LGA2011 chips performs.
Also remember that these are PR figures likely done with cherry picked applications in the second case.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 13, 2011)

When overclocked the i5 2600k can beat the i7 980x in some cases, what will the hyper threaded 6/8 core sandy bridge i7's do? 

To be honest this release is far from specific enough, 50% core for core would be amazing but I'm doubting that, an 8 core CPU that's 50% faster than a 6 core CPU does not exactly sound amazing unless the 8 core is clocked much lower but no details.

I want to be impressed but until i see something more specific it's hard to be


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 13, 2011)

this brought a tear to my eye, lets hope prices are decent around june/july time, so i can build an amazing PC


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 13, 2011)

Using Google translate the one line i notice most is this "125 watts running at 3GHz + with 8-core"

So if it were 50% faster core for core than previous 3ghz cpu's that would very much impress me as long it did not cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 13, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> Using Google translate the one line i notice most is this "125 watts running at 3GHz + with 8-core"
> 
> So if it were 50% faster core for core than previous 3ghz cpu's that would very much impress me as long it did not cost an arm and a leg.



i personally dont think it will cost as much as the i7 980X more like i7 950 price range. the mobos are gonna cost an arm and a leg


----------



## Yukikaze (Jan 13, 2011)

Zubasa said:


> On the other hand, we have yet to see how Intel's LGA2011 chips performs.



All I will say on this matter is that they're pretty damned fast


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jan 13, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> This really depends on what they call a core:
> 1. A real core.
> 2. One half of their SMT arrangement.
> 
> ...



No it is an octa core - every core in the module has a dedicated SP but they share a "fat" FP which can either do 1 FP calc for each or an advanced 256-bit calc (which we probably won't se for a while because nobody will have ready code...)


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 13, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> i personally dont think it will cost as much as the i7 980X more like i7 950 price range. the mobos are gonna cost an arm and a leg


AMD tends to offer lower prices on their chipsets than Intel.
So in the end AMD boards are still likely be significantly cheaper than Intel boards.


----------



## TAViX (Jan 13, 2011)

I'll believe it when I've see the REAL bechies!


----------



## Yukikaze (Jan 13, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> No it is an octa core - every core in the module has a dedicated SP but they share a "fat" FP which can either do 1 FP calc for each or an advanced 256-bit calc (which we probably won't se for a while because nobody will have ready code...)



Not quite. There are additional things there which are shared, such as instruction decoders. Again, at least as far as I know. These are closer to real cores than Intel's HyperThreading, but they're not quite separate cores.


----------



## kisuke (Jan 13, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> This really depends on what they call a core:
> 1. A real core.
> 2. One half of their SMT arrangement.
> 
> ...



stop doing that you're getting all of our hopes up  . How likely is it that they deliver a Quad Core that is 50% faster than the 950? When was a new cpu generation _ever_ 50% faster than the previous one clock per clock? The only thing that comes to mind is conroe compared to NetBurst :/


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jan 13, 2011)

50%? yeah sure...


----------



## HammerON (Jan 13, 2011)

Interesting~

Until I see numbers...


----------



## Dave65 (Jan 13, 2011)

I hope this is true,will be nice to have some real competition with Intel for a change..But we all know hype when we see it...


----------



## Over_Lord (Jan 13, 2011)

well, if AMD's 1 and half year late 32nm Bulldozer 4 module 8 core processor beats a 2008 core i7 4 core 8 thread processor, we've really got a lot to cheer about.


----------



## DriedFrogPills (Jan 13, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> This really depends on what they call a core:
> 1. A real core.
> 2. One half of their SMT arrangement.
> 
> ...



I think it's more likely to be scenario 2 as I remember an article on anandtech midway through last year, that stated each core is one half of a bulldozer module.  What we really need is for JF-AMD to clarify the module versus core thing


----------



## Imperceptible (Jan 13, 2011)

50%.....yeah in what, a Cinebench R10 Multi-Threaded benchmark maybe. But still, as anyone would want, I'm hoping it will bring some tough competition to the market.


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 13, 2011)

I am pretty sure these numbers have never lied
Anyway, taking the phenom and core i7 as references is not the same thing and bulldozer should end up 20-30% faster than i7 processors. The 8-core does not mean anything against a 6-core from intel. The only thing that is needed is the performance.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 13, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> When overclocked the i5 2600k can beat the i7 980x in some cases, what will the hyper threaded 6/8 core sandy bridge i7's do?
> 
> To be honest this release is far from specific enough, 50% core for core would be amazing but I'm doubting that, an 8 core CPU that's 50% faster than a 6 core CPU does not exactly sound amazing unless the 8 core is clocked much lower but no details.
> 
> I want to be impressed but until i see something more specific it's hard to be



You can't throw overclocking into the equation vs non-oc'd chips. Theres lots of upsets when you do that. Got to be oc vs oc. We all know it's possible to take something cheaper and weaker, then oc it to beat something faster and more expensive, thats why we oc.


----------



## Tiltentei (Jan 13, 2011)

Its not 50% faster, Its 50% increased performance


----------



## ivicagmc (Jan 13, 2011)

As much as I love AMD, because of pricing, I must say that even if this is true AMD is a year late with bulldozer... This time, next year Intel will have 22nm CPU, and AMD, probably, a year behind Intel, again... Good thing is that we will se some good bang for our buck...


----------



## HXL492 (Jan 13, 2011)

Woohoo 
AMD is finally ahead of Intel 
'bout time too...


----------



## Googoo24 (Jan 13, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> As much as I love AMD, because of pricing, I must say that even if this is true AMD is a year late with bulldozer... This time, next year Intel will have 22nm CPU, and AMD, probably, a year behind Intel, again... Good thing is that we will se some good bang for our buck...



Uh..What? The CPU' are rumored to come out the 2nd and 3rd quarter of this year. If it's 50% it'll be faster/equivalent (apparently) than the the newer Intel CPU'. Can't recall if server or client products arrive first.

edit: I kinda misread what you posted originally.


----------



## Xaser04 (Jan 13, 2011)

50% faster than both the i7 950 and P2 X6 1100T is a bit too open ended. 

For a start the i7 950 is already faster than the 1100T in all but the most heavily thread situations so 50% faster number starts to lose its meaning. 

My assumption is that these new AMD chips will fall in line with the performance of the current Sandybridge range (excellent) and will compete accordingly on price. 

Intel will still hold the CPU performance crown with the LGA2011 chips.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> You can't throw overclocking into the equation vs non-oc'd chips. Theres lots of upsets when you do that. Got to be oc vs oc. We all know it's possible to take something cheaper and weaker, then oc it to beat something faster and more expensive, thats why we oc.




Very true but i just meant as in the i5 sandy bridge cpu's are close enough to the 980x that a speed bump lets them compete so what do people think will happen with the sandy bridge i7's come out.

If there is a dual threaded 8 core sandy bridge CPU (I'm unsure what will be available 6 or 8?) i would expect bulldozer to be left in it's dust... although knowing Intel they will cost way too much for me so i will probably end up buying a bulldozer core anyway


----------



## kisuke (Jan 13, 2011)

DriedFrogPills said:


> I think it's more likely to be scenario 2 as I remember an article on anandtech midway through last year, that stated each core is one half of a bulldozer module.  What we really need is for JF-AMD to clarify the module versus core thing





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Two tightly coupled, "conventional" x86 out-of-order processing engines which AMD internally named module
> (Single-Module ==> Dual-Core, Dual-Module ==> Quad-Core, Quad-Module ==> Octa-Core etc...) Bulldozer family will lay emphasis on multithreading and multiple cores too
> 
> Two dedicated integer cores



Wheres your need for clarification? 4 modules = 8 cores, 8 modules = 16 cores and so on.

This is a Octo-Core we're talking about or are you immplying that they used a 16 Core wich would make the 50 % statement much less impressive :/


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2011)

the way i see it, is thus.

33% more cores (6 to 8 for the AMD comparison) + 17% faster per clock = 50% faster (in 8 threaded synthetic apps/encoding programs etc)


----------



## Googoo24 (Jan 13, 2011)

You guys are also forgetting there is supposed to be a 12 core Bulldozer as well.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2011)

Googoo24 said:


> You guys are also forgetting there is supposed to be a 12 core Bulldozer as well.



that one should well crap over a 50% boost.


doubling the cores should make it 100% faster, and then some (based on IPC improvements)


----------



## Initialised (Jan 13, 2011)

So 8 cores to compete with SBs 4?


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> that one should well crap over a 50% boost.
> 
> 
> doubling the cores should make it 100% faster, and then some (based on IPC improvements)



As with anything else out there, doubt thats true. I'm not a processor expert. Most things I see, 2x the power, means a 50% or so increase. Performance gain usually isn't linear.


----------



## Googoo24 (Jan 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> that one should well crap over a 50% boost.
> 
> 
> doubling the cores should make it 100% faster, and then some (based on IPC improvements)



Needless to say, the CPU game has gotten real exciting!


----------



## ThomasK (Jan 13, 2011)

Lol, I would laugh if AMD couldn't outperform the i7 980X with a 8-core bulldozer chip.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> As with anything else out there, doubt thats true. I'm not a processor expert. Most things I see, 2x the power, means a 50% or so increase. Performance gain usually isn't linear.



when it comes to things like encoding, its quite linear.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 13, 2011)

thunderising said:


> well, if AMD's 1 and half year late 32nm Bulldozer 4 module 8 core processor beats a 2008 core i7 4 core 8 thread processor, we've really got a lot to cheer about.



Actually the i7 950 came out in mid 2009.  And while minor, their were several improvements to the design over that year.  Doesn't make a big difference, but I take what I can get.



Tiltentei said:


> Its not 50% faster, Its 50% increased performance



I hope you are implying 50% increase in performance > 50% faster.  If you are not, then your statement makes no sense to me.



HXL492 said:


> Woohoo
> AMD is finally ahead of Intel
> 'bout time too...



Sarcasm, it always falls on deaf ears in a serious discussion.



Googoo24 said:


> Uh..What? The CPU' are rumored to come out the 2nd and 3rd quarter of this year. If it's 50% it'll be faster/equivalent (apparently) than the the newer Intel CPU'. Can't recall if server or client products arrive first.



Server 16 core (8 modules) is slated to be the first Bulldozer on a market.  For now it is expected to be accompanied by a 12 core (6 module) version on release day.

Desktop Bulldozers will be released soon after that and expected to be a 4 core, 6 core, and 8 core versions with a clock around 3.4 Ghz.

While I can vouch for the server chips coming out first and core counts, the clock speed and number of chips released at first are best guess. 



Mussels said:


> the way i see it, is thus.
> 
> 33% more cores (6 to 8 for the AMD comparison) + 17% faster per clock = 50% faster (in 8 threaded synthetic apps/encoding programs etc)



I hope that is not true.  As stated before, the i7 950 is faster than the 1100T in synthetic benchmarks.  If I recall the 1100T sits a fraction below the i7 920.

So I am going with i7 950 8 cores (The system said it saw 8 cores so we go with that) vs. Bulldozer 8 cores = Bully wins by 50%.  And knowing AMD that was a 3Ghz i7 vs. a 3.3 Ghz Bully so minus 10% due to clock speed and we get 40% better performance....synthetic.

Truth is, this means nothing.  Without specs or details about the test setup and what the 50% relates to, this info. is pointless.  I have to write this off as AMD's marketing keeping the buzz up about their upcoming chip since CES for them was all about the Bobcat APUs.  Good job keeping us talking, but they better not disappoint us.  There is a point that hype turns into a monster no amount of awesome can slay.


----------



## LittleLizard (Jan 13, 2011)

i would be more worried about what lga 2011 will have waiting. but i dont think that, if it beat bulldozer will be for much.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> when it comes to things like encoding, its quite linear.



There are a few things that maybe linear, encoding is pretty straight forward. But multi tasking and gaming are far different.



LittleLizard said:


> i would be more worried about what lga 2011 will have waiting. but i dont think that, if it beat bulldozer will be for much.



I know some people out there are fine with spending $1000 on processors, I just can't, maybe someday that will be fine with me. But $300 and less is the sweet spot, and thats going to be the largest market too. Which seems to be where AMD aims, guess we'll see what both side release and at what prices though.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> There are a few things that maybe linear, encoding is pretty straight forward. But multi tasking and gaming are far different.



if AMD are quoting anything for this 50% claim, it would be exactly that. something that scales well in a linear fashion - a best case scenario.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> I hope that is not true.  As stated before, the i7 950 is faster than the 1100T in synthetic benchmarks.  If I recall the 1100T sits a fraction below the i7 920.
> 
> So I am going with i7 950 8 cores (The system said it saw 8 cores so we go with that) vs. Bulldozer 8 cores = Bully wins by 50%.  And knowing AMD that was a 3Ghz i7 vs. a 3.3 Ghz Bully so minus 10% due to clock speed and we get 40% better performance....synthetic.
> 
> Truth is, this means nothing.  Without specs or details about the test setup and what the 50% relates to, this info. is pointless.  I have to write this off as AMD's marketing keeping the buzz up about their upcoming chip since CES for them was all about the Bobcat APUs.  Good job keeping us talking, but they better not disappoint us.  There is a point that hype turns into a monster no amount of awesome can slay.



you hope its not true? shit, a near 20% boost at the same clocks is exactly what you want from a replacement CPU.

If AMD can get 20% faster than current at the same clocks and 12 cores out... they may not win over intel fanboys and their single threaded games/benchmarks, but everyone else will be damned glad for the excessive multithreaded performance.


----------



## Easo (Jan 13, 2011)

It have to be released in time, BS delays and crap will bring it down.


----------



## erixx (Jan 13, 2011)

This Press note pretends to save their stocks from falling into an abyss


----------



## air_ii (Jan 13, 2011)

Salt mines stocks on a rise today .

Do you remember the Barcelona disappointment? Initial *selective* numbers showed  a nice bump over Core2 for both int and fp, and we all know how it turned out to be in the end...

I smell more of the same. Hopefully to a lesser extent.


----------



## Googoo24 (Jan 13, 2011)

erixx said:


> This Press note pretends to save their stocks from falling into an abyss



Well, looking at the number of initial responses, I foresee it succeeding.


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 13, 2011)

this is great news
i knew that post on fudzilla couldnt be right, AMD wouldnt bring back FX for same as i7


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you hope its not true? shit, a near 20% boost at the same clocks is exactly what you want from a replacement CPU.
> 
> If AMD can get 20% faster than current at the same clocks and 12 cores out... they may not win over intel fanboys and their single threaded games/benchmarks, but everyone else will be damned glad for the excessive multithreaded performance.



I want the fact it was a best case scenario to not be true.  I want a 50% boost when compared to Intel when AMD is playing in their ballpark by their rules.  I hope 50% turns out to be a single threaded test to prove AMD improved the clock for clock fight they have been losing for so long.

Performance improvement always happens.  I want a giant leap of improvement to put us back in a head to head fight.  Then maybe AMD's new CEO will buy a marketing department and fight for real.



Easo said:


> It have to be released in time, BS delays and crap will bring it down.



There are no more delays.  The chip is done and being manufactured.  It is all waiting for real numbers, real benchmarks, real samples, and then release.  I can speak for everyone when I say to AMD, "We are frustrated and need a release ASAP.  Move the release date up if anything."



DigitalUK said:


> this is great news
> i knew that post on fudzilla couldnt be right, AMD wouldnt bring back FX for same as i7



FX is coming back.  AMD was serious about that announcement.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 13, 2011)

air_ii said:


> Salt mines stocks on a rise today .
> 
> Do you remember the Barcelona disappointment? Initial *selective* numbers showed  a nice bump over Core2 for both int and fp, and we all know how it turned out to be in the end...
> 
> I smell more of the same. Hopefully to a lesser extent.



Barcelona is a long time ago. Lately I would say AMD has been delivering on their promises. I have been extremely happy with all my AII and PII's so far.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Jan 13, 2011)

I'm very interested to see how it overclocks.  Given Intel's choice to block overclocking w/o K-series chips I suspect AMD might have an exciting value lineup.

Excited!


----------



## poohbear (Jan 13, 2011)

mcloughj said:


> Looks like I'll hold off on my new system for a little while longer... just in case!



me too, i was really considering upgrading to Sandy Bridge, but wanna hold out to see if AMD's claims for Bulldozer are true.  If it is, then prices will drop even more i hope.


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Jan 13, 2011)

Whatever apps AMD using for the presentation, it wouldn't amaze me.
What amaze me is that if AMD's bulldozer run @1.8ghz on that presentation.
If that is true, that is some serious shit coming from AMD.

And since AMD plans to revive the FX brand again, it's coming back to the glorious days of Athlon64. 1.8ghz A64 3000+ OCed to 3ghz.


----------



## MicroUnC (Jan 13, 2011)

poohbear said:


> me too, i was really considering upgrading to Sandy Bridge, but wanna hold out to see if AMD's claims for Bulldozer are true.  If it is, then prices will drop even more i hope.



Same here!


----------



## PirateBoy (Jan 13, 2011)

I swear that I saw somewhere showing an Integrated Electronics Corporation Core i5 750 Central Processing Unit only *just* getting beaten by AMD's 1100T. I would seriously doubt these new CPU's would perform even near as good as the 980X, let alone mid-range Sandy Bridge CPU's, let alone the high-end socket 2011 Sandy Bridge CPU's. A fair comparison, should be comparing two different 8-core CPU's in my books.

Hype from AMD has always tended to lead to disappointment. As Becker would say, no expectations, no disappointment. +1 to the skeptical kitty.

"AMD sure drag their hole, 'The Future is fusion' motto they have been using in their logo for ages now has still bared no fruit to my knowledge. Intel beat them at that too with the release of their Sandy Bridge processors, before AMD could even release their Bulldozer CPU's. Here's to hoping though, I want cheaper CPU's."

Skeptically 50% faster, at a 50% slower release rate.

"Everything beat the Intel CPU's (Pentium 4's / Pentium D's which were using the horrible Netburst architecture at the time) when AMD's FX series were out. Then if you rightly remember Intel's Core 2 Duo's came out mopping the floor with them and have been miles ahead since.

The FX's I'm betting will struggle to keep up with the current 'high-end' Intel Socket 1366 i7's, since the six-core Phenom's (proof as per mentioned on here elsewhere) are only about as powerful as the top 'mid-range' Intel Socket 1156 i5's. So I doubt they will ever reach anywhere near being able to compete against the new Intel Sandybridge architecture Socket's 1155 (the new i5 and mid-range i7 socket) and 1356/2011 (the new high-end i7 socket TBA). For that to happen they would have to have one hell of a trick up their sleeve so to speak, cos they would have to jump above like 3-4 series of Intel CPU's in performance to be able to claim top dog. Also doesn't make too much sense, having their logo being 'The Future is fusion' for quite sometime now, and Intel release their integrated graphics CPU's before them."

Hmmm, perhaps a ploy by AMD to hold back technology from the public so they can seem as though they are still in the game at later dates as they see fit in accordance to the competitions various releases. I sure hope not. I don't want to start a conspiracy, but if these suggested improvements are indeed true, they sure randomly made one hell of a big jump out of nowhere.


----------



## Googoo24 (Jan 13, 2011)

PirateBoy said:


> . I would seriously doubt these new CPU's would perform even near as good as the 980X, let alone mid-range Sandy Bridge CPU's, let alone the high-end socket 2011 Sandy Bridge CPU's. A fair comparison, should be comparing two different 8-core CPU's in my books.



You're joking.....................Right?


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 13, 2011)

you cant compared bulldozer with phenom II it is a completely new architecture. the phenom II is K10.5 pretty much a 10 year old architecture so it held up pretty well.


----------



## PirateBoy (Jan 13, 2011)

Here's to seeing what it will be like on release then.


----------



## left4lol (Jan 13, 2011)

For those who asking what kind of software they are using for this benchmark ? that question has already been answered in the linked article



			
				donanimhaber said:
			
		

> As mentioned above, but not yet test results are detailed in Hardware News AMD's official documentation of performance we were able to reach. In this document, AMD Bulldozer 8-core processor (model name and clock speed performance segment, but that information has not been specified), 6-core Phenom and Core i7 950 and compares II X6 1100T. The estimated results in the document, processors, three different categories *(media, rendering and game) i*n comparing the overall assessment of the Bulldozer processor 8-core Core i7 950 is 50% faster stressed. Carefully examined the performance table in the 8-core processor, *AMD's Bulldozer makes a difference, especially game and rendering tests.*


translate link

and lets not forget that the tested chip only have 4 bulldozer module. so they should have comparable power consumption and die size as the quad core core i7.


----------



## laszlo (Jan 13, 2011)

hope is true but i really don't need it..even 4 cores are enough if i upgrade


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 13, 2011)

This can't be true. 50% is a staggering increase on something that already delivers mind-blowing performance. I call bullshit. Real numbers between 20-25% increase.


----------



## Googoo24 (Jan 13, 2011)

PirateBoy said:


> Here's to seeing what it will be like on release then.



Also, to clarify, Fusion and the Intel variation of APU seem to be entirely different. Fusion is significantly broader in scope (apparently). But that's better suited for another discussion.


----------



## kirtar (Jan 13, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Server 16 core (8 modules) is slated to be the first Bulldozer on a market.  For now it is expected to be accompanied by a 12 core (6 module) version on release day.
> 
> Desktop Bulldozers will be released soon after that and expected to be a 4 core, 6 core, and 8 core versions with a clock around 3.4 Ghz.
> 
> While I can vouch for the server chips coming out first and core counts, the clock speed and number of chips released at first are best guess.


Actually I remember reading that the client launch was before the server launch.  IIRC JF-AMD mentioned on [H] or something like that (Q2 client, Q3 server).

Honestly, I'd just ignore the "numbers" and wait until actual reviews are out.  Now as long as it'll run -bigadv fairly well I'll be very happy.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 13, 2011)

I can see faster like mussels said more cores is faster in some apps and a complete redesign means that int/fpu should be up in theory remember k7 was better than the initial k8 chips in certain apps on release this will happen when "k11" is released when comparing to k10.5

My worries

quadfather fiasco will fx be released on am3+ or server socket
6 core chips will be 16% faster clock for clock (estimated) still not faster than i7 much less sandybridge
will the coldbug be back with the redesign

All that being said I want a 990fx based asus board (crosshair v extreme or m5a series 980gx) If 8 core is only faster than a 950 I see amd releasing it just over 950 prices if it beats a i7 6 core well I still don't see $1000 price tags maybe $500-600 amd still needs to bring its name out of the dirt unlike intel. Whoever said board will be expensive is oblivious to amd it appears am3+ is an all inclusive chipset 980G will still be midrange 940G low end Amd still has to sell dual and quad core chips cheap to be competitive with i3 and i5.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

OK, first off, let me start by saying that we don't comment on speculation.  If people want to speculate on this, have at it.  This is not an AMD article and I have no idea who this guy is.

We are in the middle of quiet period so you would never see AMD making a performance statement. I have no idea about the validity of the article because, amongst other things, I don't speak turkish.

To date the only performance statement we have made is around the server throughput of Bulldozer.

But, to address some of the comments.



HalfAHertz said:


> No it is an octa core - every core in the module has a dedicated SP but they share a "fat" FP which can either do 1 FP calc for each or an advanced 256-bit calc (which we probably won't se for a while because nobody will have ready code...)



Actually every core has its own dedicated FMAC for floating point.  If you want to do 256-bit floating point with AVX you can merge the 2 FMACs. Intel handles 256-bit AVX by merging their 128-bit FPU with the SSE functions (and you have to recompile all of your code to make SSE into AVX-128.



DriedFrogPills said:


> I think it's more likely to be scenario 2 as I remember an article on anandtech midway through last year, that stated each core is one half of a bulldozer module.  What we really need is for JF-AMD to clarify the module versus core thing



Modules are an architectural facet of the design, we will not market modules.  The cores are cores. They are not "half cores" as some suggest.  If you look at what defines a core, it is the integer execution pipeline.  When the system boots up it will see all of the cores as integer cores, the OS will see them and the application will see them.  All arguments have fallen flat on their face.  



Googoo24 said:


> Uh..What? The CPU' are rumored to come out the 2nd and 3rd quarter of this year.



AMD has already said in public Q2 for client, Q3 for server, so you don't need to say rumored.



Googoo24 said:


> You guys are also forgetting there is supposed to be a 12 core Bulldozer as well.



Yes, for server.  Server will have 8, 12 and 16-core models.

Client will have 8-core and something below that (I don't know the models, I am in server.)



TheLaughingMan said:


> Server 16 core (8 modules) is slated to be the first Bulldozer on a market.  For now it is expected to be accompanied by a 12 core (6 module) version on release day.
> 
> Desktop Bulldozers will be released soon after that and expected to be a 4 core, 6 core, and 8 core versions with a clock around 3.4 Ghz.
> 
> While I can vouch for the server chips coming out first and core counts, the clock speed and number of chips released at first are best guess.



Not sure how you can vouch for the server chips coming out first because I know the launch dates and server chips launch in Q3 with client launching in Q2.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> OK, first off, let me start by saying that we don't comment on speculation.  If people want to speculate on this, have at it.  This is not an AMD article and I have no idea who this guy is.
> 
> We are in the middle of quiet period so you would never see AMD making a performance statement. I have no idea about the validity of the article because, amongst other things, I don't speak turkish.
> 
> ...



Server 12 and 16 core chips will be multidie in a single package like current 8 and 12 core chips correct? Ala the q6600


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

correct


----------



## cdawall (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> correct



Connected via the ht link or internal cache or what?


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

via HT


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> via HT



I don't know if you can say or if it really will make a difference to performance but will there be a speed increase for the inter chip HT link over the current generation?


----------



## cdawall (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> via HT



How many ht links will each chip have will there still be a quad chip ready like the old 8 series and dual chip readdy 2 series and any plans of an am3+ 1 series right now?


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I don't know if you can say or if it really will make a difference to performance but will there be a speed increase for the inter chip HT link over the current generation?



Not saying at this point.



cdawall said:


> How many ht links will each chip have will there still be a quad chip ready like the old 8 series and dual chip readdy 2 series and any plans of an am3+ 1 series right now?



Each processor has 4 HT links.  The procesoors are capable of being unsed in 1P, 2P or 4P configurations, all with the same processor.  There is no longer a seperate 4P only SKU. As such, they are all priced the same - which customers really love.

As for 1P, most of those platforms will be C32, we will not share infrastructure with client.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Not saying at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wow if that was true then AMD really have a winner on this segment. btw why they release desktop first ? usually AMD release server first and then a desktop part a couple of month later ??


----------



## DanTheMan (Jan 13, 2011)

I think AMD realizes that they better start pulling all the stops out for the desktop models to compete on a somewhat scale or they will lose all respect and hardcore fan base. I love AMD for performance / price but the more I look at SB and i7 the more I like. And considering I want my new machine this year I will be looking at the reviews really close. AMD needs to get it right this time and from the looks of it - it may not steal Intel's thunder but it will make a loud boom - just enough to keep the CPU market competive and open for business a while longer. All in all it's a win win for the consumer, even if BD does not hit the highest benchmarks it will keep the prices from hitting a high that we will never return from. Maybe from the looks of it it might be Q2 - new CPU and Q3 - new 7000 GPU's - sweet!


----------



## cdawall (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Not saying at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



last questions in the 12/16 core chips will the ht betweem core have to go thru the chipset or is it all internal.

And the dual dual channel or quad channel memory bus the rumor mill is playing with is that a pair of 128bit mem controllers with the ability to run in ganged/unganged mode similar to the current chips? And will each die of a 12/16 be able to access its own individual memory ie one of the dual channels of a quad channel setup


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> wow if that was true then AMD really have a winner on this segment. btw why they release desktop first ? usually AMD release server first and then a desktop part a couple of month later ??



There is no set schedule of who goes first, it alternates based on a bunch of different factors.  Desktop got the lead slot this time around.


----------



## mechtech (Jan 13, 2011)

Does this mean office will open 1.5 times faster than with my 955BE?  Or would an SSD be better over my mech hdd??


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

cdawall said:


> last questions in the 12/16 core chips will the ht betweem core have to go thru the chipset or is it all internal.
> 
> And the dual dual channel or quad channel memory bus the rumor mill is playing with is that a pair of 128bit mem controllers with the ability to run in ganged/unganged mode similar to the current chips? And will each die of a 12/16 be able to access its own individual memory ie one of the dual channels of a quad channel setup



All HT happens between processors, not through the chipset.

Quad channel on servers.  The 128-bit memory controllers can be unganged to allow simultaneous read/write on the different channels.

The memory channel structure is identical to what we do on the AMD Opteron 6100 series today.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 13, 2011)

cdawall said:


> last questions in the 12/16 core chips will the ht betweem core have to go thru the chipset or is it all internal.
> 
> And the dual dual channel or quad channel memory bus the rumor mill is playing with is that a pair of 128bit mem controllers with the ability to run in ganged/unganged mode similar to the current chips? And will each die of a 12/16 be able to access its own individual memory ie one of the dual channels of a quad channel setup



it will be dual channel ram but with higher frequency than core i7 so it will have higher bandwidth

i think the HT was internal on CPU


----------



## kirtar (Jan 13, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> it will be dual channel ram but with higher frequency than core i7 so it will have higher bandwidth
> 
> i think the HT was internal on CPU


You're mixing client and server information


----------



## Magikherbs (Jan 13, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> This really depends on what they call a core:
> 1. A real core.
> 2. One half of their SMT arrangement.
> 
> ...



Is this what you mean ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs1CxuUrpc


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

Yukikaze said:


> This really depends on what they call a core:
> 1. A real core.
> 2. One half of their SMT arrangement.
> 
> ...



Can you please give us a complete description of why a bulldozer core is not a "true" core?  Please be thorough so that I only have to answer this once.


----------



## PirateBoy (Jan 13, 2011)

Gathered from Xtremesystems -

"AMD chose to go with performance per watt over performance per clock, which is perfectly fine, but it does mean that I don't think we'll see such a big gain.

There's a lot of speculation and wishful thinking going around. Personally I hope BD earns its FX title and isn't just another chip they threw more cores on.

It all comes down to perception, and that can VERY easily be controlled by carefully chosen benchmarks. Thuban wins enough tests that a full review could determine AMD wins 100% of the tests and blows Intel's much more expensive processors out of the water. Something has to change, it's not good from an enthusiast perspective. Maybe it's great from a shareholder or employee perspective though.

The marketing of "FX" is obviously working, folks are already sold on the FX moniker alone without knowing much about the product performance because of past associations.

My understanding has been that BE AMD chips are like the 'K' series of Intel chips and the FX's were the Extreme Edition equivalents. I believe all parties should leave all their chips unlocked.

Typically when companies are silent, it means their product isn't living up to par. Even with the most optimistic projections, its already well understood that bulldozer won't match up with SB or necessarily be even close in terms of IPC. AMD seems to have gone with a high throughput design, which is fine, but that means you have to have realistic expectations.

K10 and 10.5 derivatives have been around since June 23, 1999.

They don't compare it to the high end i7s. Saying 50% over i7 is just wrong."

I want my cores so I can snap em' off and eat em lol


----------



## Googoo24 (Jan 13, 2011)

PirateBoy said:


> Snip



Yes, you think it will be a big flop.  We understand.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Can you please give us a complete description of why a bulldozer core is not a "true" core?  Please be thorough so that I only have to answer this once.



Get em' JF!


----------



## OneCool (Jan 13, 2011)

bullshit


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 13, 2011)

Whilst this is all well and good, lets all assume it will be rubbish so regardless of what happens at launch we're all pleasantly surprised!


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 13, 2011)

that presentation was interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs1CxuUrpc

im probably wrong as bulldozer is abit hard to get my head round, but would that make from a windows point of view, windows would see it as 2 phyical cpus installed with 4 cores per cpu?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD: i think i speak for all of us (except the trolls) when i say:

I F'ing love having you around here to clean up the FUD and bullcrap.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 13, 2011)

Oh man! If bulldozer is going to be that good and if some motherboards will allow SLI then i may just go Bulldozer instead of Ivy Bridge


----------



## Tensa Zangetsu (Jan 13, 2011)

The desktop parts will probably come out same time as Intel's Socket 2011 based processors and judging from Sandy Bridges' performance, I don't see them regaining the performance crown for AMD, unless they get these a few weeks/months to market before Intel.


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> JF-AMD: i think i speak for all of us (except the trolls) when i say:
> 
> I F'ing love having you around here to clean up the FUD and bullcrap.



I 2nd that!
I can report that atleast I love it as marketing for the special piece of market


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 13, 2011)

It's always nice to have a rep here to say whats really going on, or as much as he can.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD thank you man for staying around. Really. Thank you.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jan 13, 2011)

Considering AMD is quite firm about launching a 4 module 8 core processor bulldozer first, we can expect this claim to be based of that.


Now 1 BULLDOZER module is 218 million transistors. 4 Modules will be 872 million.

Compare the die sizes, if we assue similarity case with 32nm manufacturing process, the 955 million transistors on Sandy Bridge 4 core has a die space of 216mm^2

source - http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188

Put the calculations on Bulldozer 4 module 8 core on pen and paper and you arrive at roughly 189mm^2....


Now if 189mm^2 die from AMD manages to beat the bigger Sandy Bridge(although we shouldn't neglect the gpu taking a part up, but thats intel's decision to stick it into sandy in the 1st place, so we cant do nothing about it) 216mm^2 by 50%, then I must say it's only a WIN-WIN situation for AMD here.


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 13, 2011)

thunderising said:


> Considering AMD is quite firm about launching a 4 module 8 core processor bulldozer first, we can expect this claim to be based of that.
> 
> 
> Now 1 BULLDOZER module is 218 million transistors. 4 Modules will be 872 million.
> ...




Die comparison is not applicable here.
Far from it.
Addin chipset DIE size, intel have interigated for PCI-E and interlink between cpu and NB SB, how this is done when its interigated I dunno, but atleast its in the cpu.
Graphics...

Graphics is a feature that comes to amd bulldozer cpu's sometime in H2 2012 (Correct me if i'm wrong..) meaning they do not have 128-190 million transistors or whatever SB have just for its graphics.
depending on if its 2 or 3 series.. not very accurate numbers i come up with here, but its the point..
Bulldozer is most likely bigger if we look at your numbers and take a very rough estimate, but direct comparison isnt possible due to same components isnt included.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jan 13, 2011)

we will back to Athelon x2 time


----------



## alucasa (Jan 13, 2011)

I am not entirely sure about this.

I do believe AMD's claim of 50% more speed, but I also do believe that it is from a selective benchmark. 

I've gotten old enough not to fall for every hypes companies make.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

alucasa said:


> I am not entirely sure about this.
> 
> I do believe AMD's claim of 50% more speed, but I also do believe that it is from a selective benchmark.
> 
> I've gotten old enough not to fall for every hypes companies make.



Of course. But a 50% jump is nice no matter what bench. However I am willing to bet over all it will be around 20%. Just a guess......I'm waiting for Cadave to drop some knowledge of how wrong I am


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> JF-AMD: i think i speak for all of us (except the trolls) when i say:
> 
> I F'ing love having you around here to clean up the FUD and bullcrap.



Agreed 100%.

I also doubt it will be that much faster, but hey, im always skeptical and if they can push that much past and i7's and Phenom II's then we've got ourselves an excellent platform coming . Then again, if Bulldozer performs that well over current chips, then LGA 2011 Sandy Bridge CPU's must be monstrous, as Intel usually piggybacks with something that pushes past AMD performance wise. But really, this could be the chip that brings AMD back into the Athlon 64 days, when they were a force to be reckon with in the performance realm. Very exciting to see some good competition overall, let the price wars begin!! lol


----------



## HTC (Jan 13, 2011)

Personally, i won't like it if this 50% over I7 turns out to be true. My reasoning is simple: dominance = overpricing!

What i want is for AMD to put out a chip that is within 2% of I7 and Sandy's performance (lower or higher) but with the *same or lower* power consumption. If Bulldozer is that chip, then great for all consumers.

If Bulldozer turns out a bit better then this or if power consumption is a bit higher, it's OK, but not ideal.

If Bulldozer turns out to be quite a bit better then I7 or Sandy's, then we have a problem, in the sense that it will be AMD's turn to overprice and i would *really hate* that!


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD...you're awesome.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 13, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Can you please give us a complete description of why a bulldozer core is not a "true" core?  Please be thorough so that I only have to answer this once.



Can you blame people for being skeptical?

Last time was Phenom1 launch, where leslie was telling poeple that there would be 3ghz Phenoms. That didn't happen. TLB bug happened.

I'm just gonna shoot straight from the hip here....

Back then, we didn't have guys like you trying to quell the rumours. So I'm going to make a very specific request, that will work well for everyone:

*Create a list of websites that post rumours pertaining to AMD that are not based in fact, and make it public. They want to throw mud at AMD, throw it back at them.*

You guys need to be far more agressive. Your single voice here is lost in the echoes, so you need a choir to back you up.



I know I'm off topic here, but this news is fake, so I see no point in staying on topic.


I really want to be AMD's next CEO. this may seem a bit far-fetched to some, but I think my vision of what AMD should be is the only right one. But who knows, maybe I'm just crazy.

You guys need to increase spending on both R&D and marketing.


I don't mean to brag or anything like like that, but I've been pretty accurate when it comes to what AMD is doing for some time now....as you can see by Mailman's posts. It's taken some itme, but I've even won HIM over.

The time for "playing safe" is over. Bulldozer IS ready. And it's pretty good. But just good performance, at this point, isn't enough. Agressive pricing, while beneficial, doesn't add enough value, either.

I know that at this point, it really is impossible for you guys to pull up the release. Qualification testing needs to finish, and then the launch is as good as gold.


But if many of the points that I mentioned in past are not addressed, bulldozer will fall flat on it's face.


I *WANT* AMD to succeed. So does basically everyone else here, from what I can tell. And I know...it's definately more than possible...but that depends on how you measure success.

Don't let others set that metric...69XX cards are a failure to many, because expectations were set too high. We all know who set those expectations, and it defiantely wasn't AMD.


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 13, 2011)

Amd is expected to bring even more than 30% better performance
Check out anandtech!


----------



## de.das.dude (Jan 13, 2011)

wow. 
intels gonna have a tough time beating this!'
even if they get that 22nm cpu thingy, they will never "feel" as fast as AMD.

i dont wanna sound like a fanboy, but intel HAD a few good CPUs
but now, i never used an intel CPU that satisfies me. however even i3/i5 users have said my computers are fast!


----------



## Isenstaedt (Jan 13, 2011)

I'm skeptical but at the same time I want this to be true so badly!


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

While I want AMD to succeed. I'm going to have to call BS on this until I see some numbers.


----------



## Widjaja (Jan 13, 2011)

As long as these processors beat Intels next release I'll be all smiles.

It would be like the little geek KO'ing the big douche bag.


----------



## wolf (Jan 13, 2011)

an 8 core 50% faster than a 3.06ghz 4c 8t chip.... this reeks of selective multithreaded benchmarking, but hey you have to promote the chips strengths somehow.

the i7 2600K is already par or faster than the i7 975 (3.33ghz) while consuming 40-45% less power, and intel have yet to release 6-8 and 12 core CPU's.

I can't help but think this round will go to intel again, but I sincerely hope AMD pull a rabbit out of their hat on this one, or at least price to compete like they have been doing, I love my 1090T.

come on clock for clock improvements over PII.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> While I want AMD to succeed. I'm going to have to call BS on this until I see some numbers.
> 
> [url]http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/605/sbsmashlilman.jpg[/URL]



I want AMD to pull this off more then ever. Just so it will crush your e-peen.


----------



## suraswami (Jan 13, 2011)

I am going to take Yoga classes now!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 13, 2011)

all you have to do is read a few business articles of late to understand that AMD is still a mess. right now they could not manage their way out of a wet paper bag. bulldozer is most likely a great chip and the engineers should be proud of the work they have done. however, management will screw up the launch and the marketing and it will be just another flop from the consumer stand point. the only way AMD is going to change and be more competitive with intel is when they finally get some real leadership. :shadedshu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> all you have to do is read a few business articles of late to understand that AMD is still a mess. right now they could not manage their way out of a wet paper bag. bulldozer is most likely a great chip and the engineers should be proud of the work they have done. however, management will screw up the launch and the marketing and it will be just another flop from the consumer stand point. the only way AMD is going to change and be more competitive with intel is when they finally get some real leadership. :shadedshu



As right as you may be I miss the old Easy Rhino. You seem more negative lately. I sense a lot of negative waves man. Would infracting me make you feel better?


----------



## LGV (Jan 13, 2011)

I Want A Bulldozer With A Wrecking Ball!!!


----------



## sunil (Jan 13, 2011)

It would likely have an edge in heavily multitask ed / multithreaded environments, and that's why it will be a GREAT processor for servers.

I kind of doubt it will outperform any Core i7 8xx or 9xx for desktop applications


----------



## cdawall (Jan 13, 2011)

sunil said:


> It would likely have an edge in heavily multitask ed / multithreaded environments, and that's why it will be a GREAT processor for servers.
> 
> I kind of doubt it will outperform any Core i7 8xx or 9xx for desktop applications



what about video encoding cause the 1090T already holds its own in that


----------



## kaneda (Jan 13, 2011)

sunil said:


> It would likely have an edge in heavily multitask ed / multithreaded environments, and that's why it will be a GREAT processor for servers.
> 
> I kind of doubt it will outperform any Core i7 8xx or 9xx for desktop applications



Desktop applications? Like what? Microsoft Word? Firefox?

core 2's will handle that as good as any nehalem/sb chip...

Photoshop/Blender/Maya/Premier Pro/ETC are  for digital content creation, therefore workstation applications. Workstation applications, for the most part, benefit greatly from additional cores.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 13, 2011)

Thanks for the facts JF-AMD, I appreciate your jumping in and the insight into the layout an design of the new series.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I want AMD to pull this off more then ever. Just so it will crush your e-peen.



Laugh the error in your judgement is you think i'm some kind of intel fan boy.

When i've owned more AMD system than intel.

This is only my second intel rig.

I'm sorry but I don't do wishful thinking all I care about is fact and numbers. And until I see actual benchmark numbers this is just marketing bs.

My money goes to performance not who's brand is on the chip I could careless if it said Via on the chip aslong as the performance is there and it fits my budget.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 13, 2011)

I cant wait to see the real time numbers, it's going to be interesting no doubt!


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 13, 2011)

Yeah!  Truth and some decent info. about the server chips.  Nice.

I don't know JF-AMD, but nice of him to drop by with some wisdom and correct some stuff for us (especially me).

Now, lets discuss chocolate chip cookies and how AMD should have coupons for free Chips Ahoy with every processor.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

Has there been a solid launch date set for BD yet or is it still H2 2011?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> Laugh the error in your judgement is you think i'm some kind of intel fan boy.
> 
> When i've owned more AMD system than intel.
> 
> ...



Someones e-peen is already hurting. Better get the prep-H ready.


----------



## erocker (Jan 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Someones e-peen is already hurting. Better get the prep-H ready.



I'm about to go postal on a certain mail man.   Keep on topic. Last warning.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 13, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> Laugh the error in your judgement is you think i'm some kind of intel fan boy.
> 
> When i've owned more AMD system than intel.
> 
> ...




This. I have as much love/hate for AMD as I do for Intel. I just know that Intel has given me more to be excited about over the last several years. Marketing BS is just that, BS. I really don't understand any of the fanboy mentality or allegiance to any one company. Make decisions based on performance and your own needs, then spend your money accordingly.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

That's because the Fanboy mentality is mostly from children who feel the need to 'big up' their purchases or who suffer from buyer remorse.

At the end of the day niether intel or AMD care about you they just want your money, these are processor companies not basketball or baseball teams your loyalty is wasted on them.

But to stay on topic i'm looking forward to the upcoming battle with BD and SB-E which I believe will be the true monster in the second half of this year. So marketing BS aside we all have to wait alittle longer.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 13, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> That's because the Fanboy mentality is mostly from children who feel the need to 'big up' their purchases or who suffer from buyer remorse.
> 
> At the end of the day niether intel or AMD care about you they just want your money, these are processor companies not basketball or baseball teams your loyalty is wasted on them.
> 
> But to stay on topic i'm looking forward to the upcoming battle with BD and SB-E which I believe will be the true monster in the second half of this year. So marketing BS aside we all have to wait alittle longer.



Basketball and baseball teams don't care about you either Makaveli.  They just want your money too and more of it.  AMD/Intel want to sell me like 2 or 3 processors.  Sports wants to sell me clothes, jerseys, drinks, drink bottles, vitamins, movies, TV commercial time, etc.  Processor companies are more honest about what they want from you.


----------



## KieX (Jan 13, 2011)

Nice to have some good informative posts from JF-AMD in here.

I do hope these Bulldozers turn out to be good enough to have direct competition against Intel across the market from the low end to the high end. If performance and cost end up with a nice balance it can only be a win situation for us consumers.


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 13, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> That's because the Fanboy mentality is mostly from children who feel the need to 'big up' their purchases or who suffer from buyer remorse.
> 
> At the end of the day niether intel or AMD care about you they just want your money, these are processor companies not basketball or baseball teams your loyalty is wasted on them.
> 
> But to stay on topic i'm looking forward to the upcoming battle with BD and SB-E which I believe will be the true monster in the second half of this year. So marketing BS aside we all have to wait alittle longer.



everyone caring about market wants amd to win this round...


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Basketball and baseball teams don't care about you either Makaveli.  They just want your money too and more of it.  AMD/Intel want to sell me like 2 or 3 processors.  Sports wants to sell me clothes, jerseys, drinks, drink bottles, vitamins, movies, TV commercial time, etc.  Processor companies are more honest about what they want from you.



I think there is a fairly big difference between a sports fan and someone that is a cpu fan.

One is alot more real world you follow teams with players real people, that you can connect with or even meet at games. You can bring your family to games its a good way to bond with your family and friends. You ever watched Michael jordan play a game in real life during the 90's when he was at his peek.

There is just that personal side of it you will never get with a piece of silicon.



Imsochobo said:


> everyone caring about market wants amd to win this round...



I want amd to produce something competitive so everyone gets reasonable pricing I don't really care about who wins the round.

The only thing I care is my wallet wins and it matches the performance I need.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 13, 2011)

Holy crap, an 8 Core yet to be released chip is 50% faster than a 4 core chip released a year and a half ago!  Stop the presses!  This is going to be so awesome!

I know this will sound like a shocker too, but did you know the latest 8 Cylinder Mustang has more horse power than the 4 Cylinder Malibu from 2005! Ford is making real breakthroughs, GM should really watch out!

It is laughable that AMD would even make a big deal out of this and not just hold their heads down in shame.:shadedshu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Holy crap, an 8 Core yet to be released chip is 50% faster than a 4 core chip released a year and a half ago!  Stop the presses!  This is going to be so awesome!
> 
> I know this will sound like a shocker too, but did you know the latest 8 Cylinder Mustang has more horse power than the 4 Cylinder Malibu from 2005! Ford is making real breakthroughs, GM should really watch out!
> 
> It is laughable that AMD would even make a big deal out of this and not just hold their heads down in shame.:shadedshu



Shut up with your damn logic. Let us have the fantasy dammit. Your like the guy in the strip club pointing out the fake boobs!


----------



## semantics (Jan 13, 2011)

In the words of kyle Bennett from [H]


> 4. He trolled my review post with a fucking stupid picture of a bulldozer......yeah, keep on dreaming fanboy. I have more faith in the world ending in 2012 than I do AMD pulling off an Intel killer.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Shut up with your damn logic. Let us have the fantasy dammit. Your like the guy in the strip club pointing out the fake boobs!



lol that is one of my friends. 

In my teens I didn't really care for fake or real.

But now I do I prefer real!



semantics said:


> In the words of kyle Bennett from [H]



lol I remember reading that post.


----------



## garyinhere (Jan 13, 2011)

Paulieg said:


> This. I have as much love/hate for AMD as I do for Intel. I just know that Intel has given me more to be excited about over the last several years. Marketing BS is just that, BS. I really don't understand any of the fanboy mentality or allegiance to any one company. Make decisions based on performance and your own needs, then spend your money accordingly.



Lol the only two bringing up fanboys is staff.


----------



## kirtar (Jan 13, 2011)

Competition drives innovation.  'nuff said


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

garyinhere said:


> Lol the only two bringing up fanboys is staff.



What was wrong with his post?

It seems pretty straight forward his loyalty is to his wallet not to a brand.


----------



## garyinhere (Jan 13, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> What was wrong with his post?
> 
> It seems pretty straight forward his loyalty is to his wallet not to a brand.



Not saying the posts were attacking but if you mention a divorce to a women it's always a topic of conversation. You open a can of worms so to speak. Inviting flame wars!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 13, 2011)

I wonder if Bulldozer with its 50% increase in power will be able to keep threads on topic.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 13, 2011)

I was expecting this thread to go off road. There are no concrete numbers to discuss just speculation. 

As the news editors first post says take it with a grain of salt.

To your point I believe AMd will match intel's SB when it comes to watts used at idle and load with BD as its a complete new design.

What i'm more curious about is the chipsets. i've been less than impressed with most of the AM3 boards except for the ones coming close to the $250 price range. 

For you guys with AMD systems how do you rate the boards and what improvements would you like to see if any in AM3+ ?


----------



## Noy (Jan 13, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> It is laughable that AMD would even make a big deal out of this and not just hold their heads down in shame.





JF-AMD said:


> OK, first off, let me start by saying that we don't comment on speculation.  If people want to speculate on this, have at it.  This is not an AMD article and I have no idea who this guy is.
> 
> We are in the middle of quiet period so you would never see AMD making a performance statement. I have no idea about the validity of the article because, amongst other things, I don't speak turkish.
> 
> To date the only performance statement we have made is around the server throughput of Bulldozer.



To be fair it doesn't look like they did. Though I agree.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

Yes, they did not but plenty of people are making that connection.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jan 13, 2011)

Wow, seeing the conversation bounce from AMD to Intel so much has gotten my brain feeling like a tennis ball in a Nadal-Federer match.
I think I'll just wait and hope that AMD not only brings out what we've been waiting for, for so long, but learns to properly market and manage themselves, and start stomping this constant over-hype rumours that leave us disappointed with the real product at the end of it all.:shadedshu

At the end of it all, this just seems like "leaked" hype to soften the blow to the stocks that losing Dirk Meyer seems to be causing, similar to what the announced Preliminary Fourth Quarter 2010 Results are no-doubt meant to do.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 13, 2011)

I can tell you that it is probably not leaked because they know I will not approve leaks. Since we share a die they would need to ask me first


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jan 13, 2011)




----------



## KainXS (Jan 13, 2011)

50% faster than the i7 950 

and . . . . . .


----------



## WitaminC (Jan 14, 2011)

didnt read all pages, but what i have read in few articles is, that 50% server processor increase is compared to voltages that uses 12 cores Magny-Cours Opteron. no1 cares about i7, what u are all talking about, atleast amd didnt even compare new one to i7 (what all of u are doing)...

the basic difference from nowadays cpu's are that cores wont share only L2 and L3, its like they will be paired and both of them will be able to do same process and it will be faster than only by sharing L2 and L3 (compearing was - if 2 ppl will eat same piece of food, they will eat it faster than one of them, virtualy (aka sharing cache) they cant eat it both togeather at all)... 

AMD thinks that if u place cores on 1 chip , and thats all, than its total waste of resourses, thats why they invented this system, what should be grate...

hope they will release it till i will get enought money for new PC, so i have more options to chose from! 

cheerz!


----------



## LittleLizard (Jan 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Shut up with your damn logic. Let us have the fantasy dammit. Your like the guy in the strip club pointing out the fake boobs!



you dont have idea how much i LOLED at that


----------



## LittleLizard (Jan 14, 2011)

kirtar said:


> Competition drives innovation.  'nuff said



Yeah, know a couple of examples of that. They're called World Wars


----------



## cdawall (Jan 14, 2011)

LittleLizard said:


> Yeah, know a couple of examples of that. They're called World Wars



its called a global conflict now thank you


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 14, 2011)

off topic posts will now receive 5 points. I REPEAT OFF TOPIC POSTS WILL NOW RECEIVE 5 POINTS!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 14, 2011)

kirtar said:


> Competition drives innovation.  'nuff said



Yes, and unfortunately AMD has been reather lacking in the competition front, which is why the industry has been rather lacking in innovation recently.

It is a lack of competition from AMD that allowed Intel to get away with releasing a new socket for no good reason.  There is no reason Sandbridge shouldn't have been released on 1156 other than Intel being in the position to make their customers take it up the ass.

Simply matching last generation 6-core processors with next generation 8-cores, IMO, is not being competitive.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 14, 2011)

So basically what intel said about all the internal changes to the SB was BS and they could have released it on 1156?

Not that I disagree but how can anyone outside of intel prove this?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 14, 2011)

I still very much wish AMD would get these chips out by the end of Feb instead of in April or later as by then I may just go back to Intel since I'll be doing a NEW build with TAX money like I dunno most Americans and this is where I'm confused the most as well...

Ive been hearing about Bulldozer since last August and it's still nothing more than a rumor as far as I'm concerned....Intel placed SB on the market at what I consider a great time for the consumer...

Hope someone from AMD is listening...
If these chips aren't out when I have my tax return I'm going Intel and I'm about a 10000% positive a lot of other people will as well....

EDIT: or at the very least AMD needs to have some Reviews out by then...Feb,20ish,2011


----------



## dna1x (Jan 14, 2011)

*Whoah!*

This gave me chills! It's good to see AMD back in the game throwing big shots!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 14, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> So basically what intel said about all the internal changes to the SB was BS and they could have released it on 1156?
> 
> Not that I disagree but how can anyone outside of intel prove this?



I'm not saying all the internal changes were BS, I'm just saying that if they were pushed a little harder from AMD they probably could have got it to work on 1156.

I mean, I know SandyBridge was a change from Lynnfield, but it wasn't super radical.  I mean 775 went from single core netburst based processors to quad-core processor using a completely different architecture, and it went through at least 3 chipset generations.  Now we've got Sandybridge being a slight tweaking of Lynnfield, and only one chipset generation, and it needs a completely new socket.  I'm not convinced it was necessary other than to get more money out of the pockets of the consumers that have no other option if they want the best performing processors possible.

The lack of competition is the same reason 775 is _still_ on the market filling Intel's low end. That is 2 or 3 generation old tech still competing with AMDs latest offerings...


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Jan 14, 2011)

*I may have just worked a 12 hour day but....*

I think I can see it clear while drinking a strong cup of coffee. All that matters is that Bulldozer is simply faster core to core and then it doesn't matter what the hell we are running we will hope the chip is faster than all comparible products in its price range and enables us to do the things that we want to do. For me that is gaming of any type at solid 60 FPS no matter what the single, double, or multithreaded software may be. So I say this loud and clear.

Whether you want to encode videos as fast as possible, game all night long, or stream 50 pornographic videos at the same time @1080p or whatever else it is that floats your boat the proof is in the pudding and it is important not to get excited too prematurely. That may lead to the kind of dissapointment that lasts a bit too long.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 14, 2011)

Robert-The-Rambler said:


> I think I can see it clear while drinking a strong cup of coffee. All that matters is that Bulldozer is simply faster core to core and then it doesn't matter what the hell we are running we will hope the chip is faster than all comparible products in its price range and enables us to do the things that we want to do. For me that is gaming of any type at solid 60 FPS no matter what the single, double, or multithreaded software may be. So I say this loud and clear.
> 
> Whether you want to encode videos as fast as possible, game all night long, or stream 50 pornographic videos at the same time @1080p or whatever else it is that floats your boat the proof is in the pudding and it is important not to get excited too prematurely. That may lead to the kind of dissapointment that lasts a bit too long.



lmao that was good dude sounds like something I would say after a long day of work.


----------



## alexsubri (Jan 14, 2011)

I believe that it will be 50% faster. Just think about it, Intel has been dominating for a while now, I would say since Core 2 Duo came out. That has given AMD enough time to reconstruct their architecture for the new Bulldozer Processor. Just remember who was king of the hill back then (2006) It was the AMD Anthlon64 FX. I believe their flagship processor was around $750-$800. That said AMD has been giving us hints (FX coming back, 50% Rumor, APU, etc...) so it's safe to say that AMD know's what they are doing and will bounce back. My only concern is paying $700-$800 for their enthusiast processor. I wouldn't mind playing $500, but I can pipe dream  ...I wouldn't be surprised if Bulldozer's Enthusiast chip is factory clocked at 3.8-4.0 ghz


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jan 14, 2011)

factory clocked @ 4ghz wow


----------



## amd64skater (Jan 14, 2011)

i bet they mean its 50% faster than anything current on the market but when it comes out it will be par with intel or slower


----------



## Omega (Jan 14, 2011)

It's unenviable to see this volume of discussion based on marketing number, and to see so many people holding on to that 50% number like hyena on a rotten bone.

Guys, we can't possibly know what they meant with that message they sent out to public. As far as I see it, it's got nothing with revealing true bulldozer performance, just pure marketing. A weapon used to start discussions like this one here, to get the people interested and program in their brains that bulldozer is coming, soon.

But if you read between lines, I'd say AMD has a good product coming. Think about it... one of biggest issue with AMD products has been lack of marketing, and when there was some, it was too passive and Intel marketing guys would run them over even if they had something inferior to work with.

So to see AMD stand up and say "Yes! We've got a fast product!" is a great thing all by itself, regardless how fast that product is. It means they are finally building up the confidence and spine to stand up to Intel who's been dominating the scene for the past few years, and we would all benefit from a few changes here and there.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jan 14, 2011)

Imsochobo said:


> Die comparison is not applicable here.
> Far from it.
> Addin chipset DIE size, intel have interigated for PCI-E and interlink between cpu and NB SB, how this is done when its interigated I dunno, but atleast its in the cpu.
> Graphics...
> ...



well if AMD chips dont have the SB and all, we can be ready for an even smaller die size??? No wonder AMD are planning native 16 cores on Bulldozer


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 14, 2011)

Omega said:


> It's unenviable to see this volume of discussion based on marketing number, and to see so many people holding on to that 50% number like hyena on a rotten bone.
> 
> Guys, we can't possibly know what they meant with that message they sent out to public. As far as I see it, it's got nothing with revealing true bulldozer performance, just pure marketing. A weapon used to start discussions like this one here, to get the people interested and program in their brains that bulldozer is coming, soon.
> 
> ...



This is not marketing.  Marketing comes from AMD.  This did not come from AMD.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 14, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> This is not marketing.  Marketing comes from AMD.  This did not come from AMD.



These numbers are FUD. However they are fun to talk about in a sane world.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 14, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> These numbers are FUD. However they are fun to talk about in a sane world.



I think that's what we all want right now, we can't have reviews or products to buy so we just want to talk about it to pass the time until it gets here.


----------



## Omega (Jan 14, 2011)

Every info has a source... how can you be sure someone at AMD didn't receive a task to spread some gossip trough known channels that deal with those things?
If i were that person, I sure as hell wouldn't pass that info to say TPU without any proof for numbers, cause it wouldn't be published.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 14, 2011)

Omega said:


> Every info has a source... how can you be sure someone at AMD didn't receive a task to spread some gossip trough known channels that deal with those things?
> If i were that person, I sure as hell wouldn't pass that info to say TPU without any proof for numbers, cause it wouldn't be published.



Dude people publish crap all the time that isn't true. Why do you think the tabloids are so popular. Shock sells.


----------



## Omega (Jan 14, 2011)

True.
But from past experience, lots of that crap turns out to be true when that product is launched.
I'm not saying that this info is true or bs, I'm just saying it's better for us that they're writing in positive way, rather than negative.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 14, 2011)

wait for the benchies. 

I fear that bulldozer will be quite a bit fater than current amd chips, but like the 69XX series will be crushed by the even higher expectations placed on it by bad marketing. So the launch will be deemed a failure despite having a nice boost over previous gens.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 14, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4579463630_58538e9f92.jpg
> 
> I believe that it will be 50% faster. Just think about it, Intel has been dominating for a while now, I would say since Core 2 Duo came out. That has given AMD enough time to reconstruct their architecture for the new Bulldozer Processor. Just remember who was king of the hill back then (2006) It was the AMD Anthlon64 FX. I believe their flagship processor was around $750-$800. That said AMD has been giving us hints (FX coming back, 50% Rumor, APU, etc...) so it's safe to say that AMD know's what they are doing and will bounce back. My only concern is paying $700-$800 for their enthusiast processor. I wouldn't mind playing $500, but I can pipe dream  ...I wouldn't be surprised if Bulldozer's Enthusiast chip is factory clocked at 3.8-4.0 ghz



But they aren't saying it will be 50% faster than Intel's offerings at the time of release, they are saying it will be 50% faster than Intel's current offering now, and not even 50% faster than Intel's high end offering only 50% faster than Intel's mid-range 4-core offerings.  According to AMD it only beats the 6-core offerings synthetically.  Meaning in everything real world use, AMD's next generation Bulldozer 8-core processor doesn't outperform Intels 6-core current generation...

I hate to say it, but Bulldozer is not the processor that will put AMD back on top.



amd64skater said:


> i bet they mean its 50% faster than anything current on the market but when it comes out it will be par with intel or slower



That is exactly what they said, no "mean" about it.  In fact they said 50% faster than Intel's 4-core processors(the article says 50% faster than a  i7 950), it just barely beats the current 6-cores on the market.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jan 14, 2011)

well, a TURKISH site says it's 50% faster than Core i7 950

Now the Core i5 2300 2.8GHz gives equal or more performance than Core i7 950


----------



## kirtar (Jan 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> According to AMD it only beats the 6-core offerings synthetically.  Meaning in everything real world use, AMD's next generation Bulldozer 8-core processor doesn't outperform Intels 6-core current generation...


Please don't make JF-AMD say it again.  AMD is not saying anything apart from what I remember to be a fairly superficial comparison of Interlagos to Magny-Cours.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 14, 2011)

//rant//

Ive pretty much been an AMD Fanboi due to Intel's ridiculous amount of Platform changes However AMDs best chips are competing with stuff Intel released 2 years ago and now to go forward with AMD you have to go to a new Platform...

Yes you can use AM3 cpus on a AM3+ board but as far as Ive seen there isn't any other reason to upgrade to an AM3+ board unless your buying a AM3+ cpu.

So unless AMD can give some type of reason not to switch brands and fast as you have to do a Platform change I can't see any reason to stick with them...

As of now Intel has the best bang for the buck......

AMD needs to get something out and SOON or at the very least they need to get some samples out for review...


//end rant//


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 14, 2011)

Omega said:


> Every info has a source... how can you be sure someone at AMD didn't receive a task to spread some gossip trough known channels that deal with those things?
> If i were that person, I sure as hell wouldn't pass that info to say TPU without any proof for numbers, cause it wouldn't be published.



A. I don't leak data, nor would I approve a leak.

B. We are in quiet period so releasing data about upcoming products would be forbidden.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jan 14, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> A. I don't leak data, nor would I approve a leak.
> 
> B. We are in quiet period so releasing data about upcoming products would be forbidden.



Is this the same quiet period as with the first phenoms? 

Don't get me wrong the K10 core was not bad, it had a 15-20% advantage over K8 at the same clock but it was just poorly implemented (big die for 65nm, lots of transistor leakage, weak OC-er TLB bug) and couldn't compete. I sure hope we're not in for another Phenom and that GloFo's 32nm process is healthy.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 14, 2011)

I assumed quiet period was meant as in it's too far from the launch to really start hyping it and the basic information is out there so its just time to wait until marketing ramps up before the chip and platform release.


----------



## TAViX (Jan 14, 2011)

when is the release date?!?


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 14, 2011)

The only things i have read about the release date is first half of this year and I'm sure i have seen the second quarter mentioned somewhere, i don't think a specific date has been released yet.


----------



## alexsubri (Jan 14, 2011)

TAViX said:


> when is the release date?!?



Sometime in Feb


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 14, 2011)

Q2 for client, Q3 for server.  It is in my blogs.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 14, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> Q2 for client, Q3 for server.  It is in my blogs.



are these performance increase a average or a specific task?


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 14, 2011)

That is in my brain server too 
Benches!!!!!! PLSSSSSSS!!!!!


----------



## Loosenut (Jan 14, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> //rant//
> 
> Ive pretty much been an AMD Fanboi due to Intel's ridiculous amount of Platform changes However AMDs best chips are competing with stuff Intel released 2 years ago and now to go forward with AMD you have to go to a new Platform...
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but I must disagree with you on that one.

If you're low on funds as I am but would like to upgrade, this is perfect. I can now buy an AM3+ board to use my current cpu and later when more funds become available, get Bulldozer


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 14, 2011)

Loosenut said:


> I'm sorry but I must disagree with you on that one.
> 
> If you're low on funds as I am but would like to upgrade, this is perfect. I can now buy an AM3+ board to use my current cpu and later when more funds become available, get Bulldozer



Agreed, and that's exactly what i plan to do when AM3+ boards come out. (if they're within my price range)


----------



## alexsubri (Jan 14, 2011)

Loosenut said:


> I'm sorry but I must disagree with you on that one.
> 
> If you're low on funds as I am but would like to upgrade, this is perfect. I can now buy an AM3+ board to use my current cpu and later when more funds become available, get Bulldozer



I'm on a budget too --that's why I went with AMD  AM2/AM3 backwards compatible FTW


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 14, 2011)

I have an AM2+ board and bought an AM3 phenom II specifically to buy an AM3 board in the future, i had my eye on the asus crosshair iv extreme but it took so long to come out i thought i should just wait for sandy bridge and bulldozer to come out and upgrade then.

As I'm on an AM2+ board I'm using DDR2 so an AM3+ board would let me get some DDR3 and hopefully a better clocking north bridge for a while and if it's worth it an 8 core bulldozer when i feel like it.

It seams keeping AM3 cpu's compatible with the new boards will keep a lot of people happy.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 15, 2011)

Loosenut said:


> I'm sorry but I must disagree with you on that one.
> 
> If you're low on funds as I am but would like to upgrade, this is perfect. I can now buy an AM3+ board to use my current cpu and later when more funds become available, get Bulldozer



Well if your on a budget I suggest not buying any of those boards until the BD line is out and you see the performance of them....

I'm on AM3 on 3 systems and I don't see any reason to upgrade to the AM3+ boards over the AM3 boards that is unless
1) Bulldozer is competing with Sandy bridge or doing better 
2) Cheap 

Sorry but for someone that already has an AM3 board this is a tough sale 
I just can't see switching when you would also need an AM3+ CPU to gain any benefit 

So unless I see some Benches from some reliable sources that suggest a major advance over the competitions current lineup I couldn't justify my next build being AMD...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Loosenut said:


> I'm sorry but I must disagree with you on that one.
> 
> If you're low on funds as I am but would like to upgrade, this is perfect. I can now buy an AM3+ board to use my current cpu and later when more funds become available, get Bulldozer



Yes, but what is the point in upgrading just the motherboard?  It will add little performance to no performance or features, and you pay more for it then you would if you waited 6 months until you had the cash for the motherboard and processor.

It is an unneeded upgrade that you would be doing for no other reason than to be able to say you did it.  People truly low on funds don't do that.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 15, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> are these performance increase a average or a specific task?



The only performance statement that we have made is for server, and you cannot make client performance assumptions based on that.



Aleksander Dishnica said:


> That is in my brain server too
> Benches!!!!!! PLSSSSSSS!!!!!



at launch.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 15, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> The only performance statement that we have made is for server, and you cannot make client performance assumptions based on that.
> 
> 
> 
> at launch.



so its true that bulldozer will be faster than magny cours ?

and btw is it true that AMD bring back FX line ? because if its true then i can't wait to buy it


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but what is the point in upgrading just the motherboard?  It will add little performance to no performance or features, and you pay more for it then you would if you waited 6 months until you had the cash for the motherboard and processor.
> 
> It is an unneeded upgrade that you would be doing for no other reason than to be able to say you did it.  People truly low on funds don't do that.



Doesn't mean to say that he will have the funds for both at that time ether. If going by what the rumors are saying these new CPU's arnt going to be cheap, so it would make sense to get a board now and then when the CPU's come out decide on what one he can afford.

At least he will be ready for Bulldozer and can sit back and wait for the CPU that fits his needs/budget the most.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 15, 2011)

I think there is one major point being missed here, we all love playing with new toys so it does not matter if there is a performance increase with just a new board then waiting to get a CPU later, it's new and shiny and we want to play with it


----------



## Thatguy (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but what is the point in upgrading just the motherboard?  It will add little performance to no performance or features, and you pay more for it then you would if you waited 6 months until you had the cash for the motherboard and processor.
> 
> It is an unneeded upgrade that you would be doing for no other reason than to be able to say you did it.  People truly low on funds don't do that.



I have a thuban on a am2+ and I wan to migrate to a new socket, I am waiting for am3+ boards which seem a bit late in comming. this way I can stretch my thuban a bit further and the stepup to a BD when the time is right. 

  As to the FX line. If they drop these in like q4 2011 or q1 2012 I suspect they might be on 28nm and will be a refresh. I wonder if they are already spinning silicon now to see how that might go. Especially with the glo-fo 28nm announcements. 

  This would also give them timeto make whatever tweak and get some early testing in on bulk 28nm that should be comming 2012 1h.


----------



## Thatguy (Jan 15, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I think there is one major point being missed here, we all love playing with new toys so it does not matter if there is a performance increase with just a new board then waiting to get a CPU later, it's new and shiny and we want to play with it



   I was into build fast cars for a long time, fast computers are much cheaper and not nearly as dangerous.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Doesn't mean to say that he will have the funds for both at that time ether. If going by what the rumors are saying these new CPU's arnt going to be cheap, so it would make sense to get a board now and then when the CPU's come out decide on what one he can afford.
> 
> At least he will be ready for Bulldozer and can sit back and wait for the CPU that fits his needs/budget the most.





Thatguy said:


> I have a thuban on a am2+ and I wan to migrate to a new socket, I am waiting for am3+ boards which seem a bit late in comming. this way I can stretch my thuban a bit further and the stepup to a BD when the time is right.
> 
> As to the FX line. If they drop these in like q4 2011 or q1 2012 I suspect they might be on 28nm and will be a refresh. I wonder if they are already spinning silicon now to see how that might go. Especially with the glo-fo 28nm announcements.
> 
> This would also give them timeto make whatever tweak and get some early testing in on bulk 28nm that should be comming 2012 1h.



Yes, but again that makes no sense.  If you truly are worried about money, it makes no sense to pay more for a board now instead of waiting and usually paying less for the same board a few months later when you actually have the money for both the board and processor.  Upgrading just the board now gains you nothing, it isn't necessary, so why do it?  So you can tweak it?  Well that doesn't make any sense, because you'll just have to re-tweak it with the new CPU.  So you can play with something new? Well we do like doing that, but those of use that are really worried about money don't waste it just to play with something new...


----------



## Loosenut (Jan 15, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> Well if your on a budget I suggest not buying any of those boards until the BD line is out and you see the performance of them....





newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but what is the point in upgrading just the motherboard?  It will add little performance to no performance or features, and you pay more for it then you would if you waited 6 months until you had the cash for the motherboard and processor.





newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but again that makes no sense.  If you truly are worried about money, it makes no sense to pay more for a board now instead of waiting and usually paying less for the same board a few months later when you actually have the money for both the board and processor.  Upgrading just the board now gains you nothing, it isn't necessary, so why do it?  So you can tweak it?  Well that doesn't make any sense, because you'll just have to re-tweak it with the new CPU.  So you can play with something new? Well we do like doing that, but those of use that are really worried about money don't waste it just to play with something new...



1- It calms the upgrade itch
2- more than likely going to be less expensive than SB
3- gonna have to upgrade one day anyways, right?


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but again that makes no sense.  If you truly are worried about money, it makes no sense to pay more for a board now instead of waiting and usually paying less for the same board a few months later when you actually have the money for both the board and processor.  Upgrading just the board now gains you nothing, it isn't necessary, so why do it?  So you can tweak it?  Well that doesn't make any sense, because you'll just have to re-tweak it with the new CPU.  So you can play with something new? Well we do like doing that, but those of use that are really worried about money don't waste it just to play with something new...



Maybe you should read the posts again^ its already been explained, so don't ask why.

And lets get real here, a board is going to drop how much in the next 6moths realy? $20? at most? So it makes perfect sense to get a board now IF your funds do not go far enough for both parts, mobo and CPU, and like i said before im pretty sure these CPU's arnt going to be cheap, unless you know different?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Loosenut said:


> 1- It calms the upgrade itch
> 2- more than likely going to be less expensive than SB
> 3- gonna have to upgrade one day anyways, right?



1- Calming the upgrade itch doesn't matter for people that worry about money.
2- The price of SandyBridge doesn't matter one bit here.
3- Correct, but spending money now for no improvement doesn't make sense.  Spend all the money at once when you can afford the processor as well.



Melvis said:


> Maybe you should read the posts again^ its already been explained, so don't ask why.
> 
> And lets get real here, a board is going to drop how much in the next 6moths realy? $20? at most? So it makes perfect sense to get a board now IF your funds do no go far enough for both parts, mobo and CPU, and like i said before im pretty sure these CPU's arnt going to be cheap, unless you know different?



In 6 months?  $50-60 at least, depending on the board.  It does not make perfect sense to upgrade just the motherboard.  Again, you point was about people that don't have a lot of money, but you don't want to save money.  Even if it is $20, $20 is $20.  There is no point in spending that $20 now just to upgrade the motherboard which gains you nothing.  It doesn't matter what the processors will cost, your out of pocket expense will be the same.  So your logic is faulty.  The cost of the processor means nothing.

I'll lay it out for you so you understand.

If you have $200 now, and the board you want costs $200 now.  So you buy the board now.  You now have $0.  In six months you make another $800, Bulldozer costs $800.  So buy a Bulldozer processor.  Your total out of pocket cost is $1000.

or

If you have $200 now, and the board you want costs $200 now.  You don't buy the motherboard now, instead you save the $200.(Yes, that is possible.).  You continue to get the same performance as if you bought the new motherboard.  In six months you make another $800, you now have $1000. Bulldozer costs $800.  The motherboard has dropped in price to $180.  You buy both at the same time, your total out of pocket cost is $980.  You get to buy some beer with that extra $20...WIN!!!

See, the price of the processor doesn't matter, that is a constant that you have to pay no matter what.  So it is faulty logic to argue that the processor will be expensive, so you should buy the motherboard now.  The only time that makes sense is if the concept of saving money doesn't exist...but it does.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

If you say so^


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 1- Calming the upgrade itch doesn't matter for people that worry about money.
> 2- The price of SandyBridge doesn't matter one bit here.
> 3- Correct, but spending money now for no improvement doesn't make sense.  Spend all the money at once when you can afford the processor as well.
> 
> ...



counter plan. that i actually did.

Buy cheap motherboard (785G in my case) and cheap CPU for socket (since i had none at the time - reuse old one here if applicable)

save money. buy new CPU (thuban for me), other CPU becomes spare.

buy new motherboard (in my case, went to DDR3 as well)


suddenly - old CPU and budget mobo (and in my case, the ram) are free. damn, second PC to sell and offset the cost (or, become my HTPC)


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> If you say so^



You don't?

You say "why" is because the processor will be expensive, so explain why that matters.  Is your out of pocket cost less if you buy the board months before the processor?  Does that logic make sense to you?



Mussels said:


> counter plan. that i actually did.
> 
> Buy cheap motherboard (785G in my case) and cheap CPU for socket (since i had none at the time - reuse old one here if applicable)
> 
> ...



How do you figure they were free?  Because you had them left over at the end?  That doesn't make them free, it just means you paid for extra shit you didn't need.  Was your overall out of pocket expense the same by buying the cheap board and processor first as it would have been by just buying what you ended up with up front?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 15, 2011)

Loosenut said:


> 1- It calms the upgrade itch
> 2- more than likely going to be less expensive than SB
> 3- gonna have to upgrade one day anyways, right?



Yes but does it put the lotion on it's skin...

I feel you But as Newteckie said the prices always fall dramatically within a month or two


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You don't?
> 
> You say "why" is because the processor will be expensive, so explain why that matters.  Is your out of pocket cost less if you buy the board months before the processor?  Does that logic make sense to you?



Well of course it will be expensive, don't you think it will be? 

Illl say it for the third time, IF his budget does NOT cover for both a mobo and a CPU then it makes SENSE to buy a mobo now that can handle future CPU's (Bulldozer) so there for WHEN  the CPU's come out, then he can decide on what one he wants and affords, its just plain common sense, shit even id do the same. 

And come on how is he out of pocket? hello he would be buying one anyway so there for why not get it in stages IF thats how he can afford it.

He might have lots of bills or whatever,and not have enough cash at that time to afford both,  it doesn't matter, its up to the individual and in this case this is the way HE can make it work.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Well of course it will be expensive, don't you think it will be?



Again, I never said the processor wouldn't be expensive.  I'm saying *it doesn't matter*.  The cost of the CPU is fixed no matter what.  So it being expensive doesn't matter.



Melvis said:


> Illl say it for the third time, IF his budget does NOT cover for both a mobo and a CPU then it makes SENSE to buy a mobo now that can handle future CPU's (Bulldozer) so there for WHEN  the CPU's come out, then he can decide on what one he wants and affords, its just plain common sense, shit even id do the same.



And I'll say again, it makes no sense to _upgrade_ from the perfectly functional motherboard he has now.  There is no reason to do this.  If he was building a new machine from scratch, yes it would make sense, but that isn't what we are talking about.  We are talking about a situation where he already has a fully functional motherboard working with the processor he already has and wants to continue to use.



Melvis said:


> And come on how is he out of pocket? hello he would be buying one anyway so there for why not get it in stages IF thats how he can afford it.



Again, it is called saving.  If  you've got the money for the board now, you have the money for the board in 6 months, and the parts get cheaper in time.  So if you are that concerned with the money, it only makes sense to buy the motherboard when you actually need it, and not as soon as you can afford it to replace a motherboard that is already working perfectly.



Melvis said:


> He might have lots of bills or whatever,and not have enough cash at that time to afford both,  it doesn't matter, its up to the individual and in this case this is the way HE can make it work.



Again, there is this new concept, I'm not sure if  you've heard of it, it is called saving your money.  If he has the money now, he'll have it in 6 months, so he will have the money to afford both.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Again, I never said the processor wouldn't be expensive.  I'm saying *it doesn't matter*.  The cost of the CPU is fixed no matter what.  So it being expensive doesn't matter.



What??? But that is the point we are trying to put across^ 



newtekie1 said:


> And I'll say again, it makes no sense to _upgrade_ from the perfectly functional motherboard he has now.  There is no reason to do this.  If he was building a new machine from scratch, yes it would make sense, but that isn't what we are talking about.  We are talking about a situation where he already has a fully functional motherboard working with the processor he already has.



Yes he might have a perfectly good mobo now, but the point is he wants to upgrade to bulldozer and this way is the cheapest option for him at this stage. And he wont be building a new machine from scratch, it wont be needed, so once again a mobo is the best option at this stage cost willing.



newtekie1 said:


> Again, it is called saving.  If  you've got the money for the board now, you have the money for the board in 6 months, and the parts get cheaper in time.  So if you are that concerned with the money, it only makes sense to buy the motherboard when you actually need it, and not as soon as you can afford it to replace a motherboard that is already working perfectly.



Again that's YOUR view, its a good view dont get me wrong, but some people can not do this, and can only make a purchase with what they have got at that time.



newtekie1 said:


> Again, there is this new concept, I'm not sure if  you've heard of it, it is called saving your money.  If he has the money now, he'll have it in 6 months, so he will have the money to afford both.



Again your view, just remember not everyone out there can save that amount of money for both partsm good for you if you can, congrades, but come on, we trying to help out someone that cant afford both that would like to move to the new Skt and the way he said is indeed the most common sense direction.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> What??? But that is the point we are trying to put across^



You've failed at it.  In fact, you have yet to even provide any point about why the processor being expensive matters.



Melvis said:


> Yes he might have a perfectly good mobo now, but the point is he wants to upgrade to bulldozer and this way is the cheapest option for him at this stage. And he wont be building a new machine from scratch, it wont be needed, so once again a mobo is the best option at this stage cost willing.



How is paying more money cheaper?  The best/cheapest option at this stage is doing nothing, and saving the money.  Then buy the board and processor at the same time.  The processor price doesn't matter because it is the same no matter what.  And again, if he has $200 now, he could stick that $200 under the mattres and he will still have it in 6 months when he can afford the processor.




Melvis said:


> Again that's YOUR view, its a good view dont get me wrong, but some people can not do this, and can only make a purchase with what they have got at that time.



Some people can't do this?  I'm pretty sure everyone can save money that they already have. Why exactly would someone not be able to save the $200 they have?



Melvis said:


> Again your view, just remember not everyone out there can save that amount of money for both partsm good for you if you can, congrades, but come on, we trying to help out someone that cant afford both that would like to move to the new Skt and the way he said is indeed the most common sense direction.



Yes, everyone can save.  Some people might not like it, but everyone can save money.  It isn't going to disappear if it isn't spent instantly, I assure you.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You've failed at it.  In fact, you have yet to even provide any point about why the processor being expensive matters.



No sir you have failed at it, you have not seen that it would cost more at that time to buy both, would it not? So please do not make me explain again. This all means something because he can not afford both, thats the point.



newtekie1 said:


> How is paying more money cheaper?  The best/cheapest option at this stage is doing nothing, and saving the money.  Then buy the board and processor at the same time.  The processor price doesn't matter because it is the same no matter what.  And again, if he has $200 now, he could stick that $200 under the mattres and he will still have it in 6 months when he can afford the processor.



I have already explained this before, go read it back there^ and make sure this time to READ it.
Also it doesnt mean he will have that cash, i think your just saying this how you would do it with your finances? Im saying this for the people that cant do it all in one hit, hell isnt this WHY AMD made these motherboards compatible for the older CPU's?



newtekie1 said:


> Some people can't do this?  I'm pretty sure everyone can save money that they already have. Why exactly would someone not be able to save the $200 they have?



Im not sure what world you live in, but im sorry not all people have this luxury.



newtekie1 said:


> Yes, everyone can save.  Some people might not like it, but everyone can save money.  It isn't going to disappear if it isn't spent instantly, I assure you.



As above^


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> No sir you have failed at it, you have not seen that it would cost more at that time to buy both, would it not? So please do not make me explain again. This all means something because he can not afford both, thats the point.



He has the $200 for the motherboard now.  He has the $200 for the motherboard in 6 months.  So in 6 months, he can afford both.



Melvis said:


> I have already explained this before, go read it back there^ and make sure this time to READ it.
> Also it doesnt mean he will have that cash, i think your just saying this how you would do it with your finances? Im saying this for the people that cant do it all in one hit, hell isnt this WHY AMD made these motherboards compatible for the older CPU's?



I've read it, and re-read it.  You haven't explained anything.  You haven't explained why he wouldn't have the money in 6 months that he has right now.



Melvis said:


> Im not sure what world you live in, but im sorry not all people have this luxury.



Yes they do.  Even the craziest rednecks living in the most backwoods hut can take $200 that they currently have, stick it in a mattress, and leave it there for 6 months.  I'm not sure what world you live in where this isn't possible. Maybe if he was homeless and didn't have a mattress?  No, I know those homeless dudes can manage to save up some cash even without a mattress to stick it under.  Though if he is homeless, perhaps buying a high end PC shouldn't be a priority...

Hmmm... I'm really having a hard time thinking of an instance where this wouldn't be possible.  Care to enlighten me?



Melvis said:


> As above^



As above^


----------



## wolf (Jan 15, 2011)

all i got to say is +1 newtekie1.

what you are saying makes perfect logical sense.

if you were to be building a new system based on an AM3 (lets say Thuban 6 core) CPU when AM3+ boards are out, but BD is NOT yet out, sure get an AM3+ mobo so your set for BD.

if you have and AM2+ or AM3 mobo and AM3 (lets say Thuban 6 core) CPU NOW, there is no reason to get an AM3+ mobo, unless perhaps your board lacks something you particularly want, like sata 6gbps, or DDR3, for example.

if it's all fine now, why spend money on a new board for no gain, it will be cheaper (not to mention there will be more choice) when BD is out and in the flesh.

simple.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> He has the $200 for the motherboard now.  He has the $200 for the motherboard in 6 months.  So in 6 months, he can afford both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im not going to debate more on this, i think we have both shared our views on it, i think its time for others to comment and have there say, don't you think?

And for the redneck answer, as i thought your only thinking about 1 country, sorry not every country like the USA has the money to do so, i can give you a list of over 1500 here alone just in my town in AUS that could not afford it all in one big go.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

wolf said:


> all i got to say is +1 newtekie1.
> 
> what you are saying makes perfect logical sense.
> 
> ...



I think Melvis is basing his opinion on some weird idea that saving is impossible...



Melvis said:


> Im not going to debate more on this, i think we have both shared our views on it, i think its time for others to comment and have there say, don't you think?
> 
> And for the redneck answer, as i thought your only thinking about 1 country, sorry not every country like the USA has the money to do so, i can give you a list of over 1500 here alone just in my town in AUS that could not afford it all in one big go.



Country doesn't matter.  Again, you seem to completely ignore the fact that the concept of saving money exists.

No matter what country you are in, if you have the money to buy the motherboard now, you can stick it under your mattress and you will have it when you can afford the processor.  It doesn't matter if we are talking $200USD or 17,109PKR, the idea remains the same.

Perhaps it is illegal to save in Australia?


----------



## wolf (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Perhaps it is illegal to save in Australia?



shhh don't say that out loud!


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I think Melvis is basing his opinion on some weird idea that saving is impossible...
> 
> Country doesn't matter.  Again, you seem to completely ignore the fact that the concept of saving money exists.



Nope didn't say that at all, maybe you should read back again^

Lets make it easy for you, lets put someone that has this issue right here infront of you now. 

Hello ITS ME, i have a very hard time saving money, i for one CAN NOT save enough money to go out and buy these new parts (bulldozer, mobo) to save my self. Now or 6months from now.

I take offense to that to be honest, and not pleased at all. :shadedshu

If i wanted to upgrade to bulldozer i for one would buy a mobo now and maybe in the furture i would have the funds to buy one.

I guess you cant get around it that there is people that have this issue??


----------



## wolf (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Nope didn't say that at all, maybe you should read back again^
> 
> Lets make it easy for you, lets put someone that has this issue right here infront of you now.
> 
> ...



it just doesnt make sense to me either... for all that you would gain from the mobo you mayaswell hide the money you'd spend on it and pretend (tell yourself) you bought and installed the mobo, so you dont even think you have the money anymore.

give it to a mate and ask him to keep it for 6 months, anything like that, i think its a better idea than buying an AM3+ mobo before the CPU you want to go on it, considering you have nothing to gain from using it in the meantime.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Nope didn't say that at all, maybe you should read back again^
> 
> Lets make it easy for you, lets put someone that has this issue right here infront of you now.
> 
> ...



Yes, you _can_ save enough money to go out and buy these new parts, you _choose_ not to.  Don't make it sound like it is impossible, because it definitely isn't.

If these processor are going to be as expensive as you say they are, and you absolutely can not save money at all, you will never be able to afford the processor. No?


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, you _can_ save enough money to go out and buy these new parts, you _choose_ not to.  Don't make it sound like it is impossible, because it definitely isn't.
> 
> If these processor are going to be as expensive as you say they are, and you absolutely can not save money at all, you will never be able to afford the processor. No?



I didnt say it ISNT, im saying that it can be very hard to and there is cases that people cant save, but only save enough to pay the bills. I for one can save (not alot if any) but we are talking about Bulldozer here, if its going to be a sub $200 CPU then YAY, but i doubt it.

You also gotta think that i could yes one day be able to buy one of these new CPU's but if the cost is anything like what the old FX series was id have to buy it off ebay second hand, that's how i would have to do it.

I make less then $300 a week, just to give you a heads up, in a country that is double everything in cost compared to USA, some times triple.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> I didnt say it ISNT, im saying that it can be very hard to and there is cases that people cant save, but only save enough to pay the bills. I for one can save (not alot if any) but we are talking about Bulldozer here, if its going to be a sub $200 CPU then YAY, but i doubt it.
> 
> You also gotta think that i could yes one day be able to buy one of these new CPU's but if the cost is anything like what the old FX series was id have to buy it off ebay second hand, that's how i would have to do it.
> 
> I make less then $300 a week, just to give you a heads up, in a country that is double everything in cost compared to USA, some times triple.



Ok, again none of this matters.  The total cost of the upgrade is lets just say $1000 for examples sake.  Lets say you can save $20 a week after paying all your bills(you aren't saving money to pay bills, the money left over after paying bills is what you save).  You've been saving for 10 weeks, so on the day AM3+ motherboards are released you have $200 saved and that would buy you the motherboard.  The bulldozer processor is going to cost $800.

Ok, now you could buy the board _or_ you could continue to save.  You don't loose that $200 that you already have saved up if you don't buy the motherboard.  You aren't using that money to pay bills.  So you keep saving, and 40 weeks later you have now saved up the $1000 and can buy the motherboard and processor at the same time.

It sounds like you are trying to say that if you don't buy the motherboard you will use the money to pay bills, but if you need that $200 to pay bills and have bought the motherboard what are you going to do?  Not pay the bills?

And the people that are just making enough to pay bills aren't upgrading computer parts. Not now, not in 6 months.  They never have the extra money to do this.

I really don't care what you make, if you can save the $200 to buy the motherboard, you can keep that $200 and continue to save.  How much you make doesn't affect this fact.  When I build my first gaming computer I was making $5/h bringing home less than $200 a week.  It took me a year to save up the $500 to buy the motherboard and processor.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

*sigh* Nevermind, you just don't get it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> *sigh* Nevermind, you just don't get it.



No, you just don't make any logical sense.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No, you just don't make any logical sense.



No you just don't live in a world that has issues with income, and don't have your type of wages, good luck with the rest of the thread.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 15, 2011)

Well done, a whole 2 pages of crap guys  

Seriously who cares, some people as mentioned can't save $ for shit, I'm one of those, some people can, thats cool too. Some people will wait until the CPU and mobos are avaiable and some will drop it on the mobo now as they have the cash and get the CPU later, its not fricken rocket science! 

ON TOPIC..... hope BD is a hit and a fair bit faster than PII, along the lines of core i5 and up is needed


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Melvis said:


> No you just don't live in a world that has issues with income, and don't have your type of wages, good luck with the rest of the thread.



I'm pretty sure we both live in the same world.  Again, issues with income do not affect the fact that you've already saved the money for the motherboard and that money will still be there in 6 months.  How exactly do you think your income changes this fact?

How did you even manage to save the money for the motherboard if your income is such an issue?  How do you ever plan on saving enough for Bulldozer if your income is such and issue?  Explain that to me.



NdMk2o1o said:


> Well done, a whole 2 pages of crap guys
> 
> Seriously who cares, some people as mentioned can't*choose not to* save $ *and will never have enough money to buy bulldozer in the first place* for shit, I'm one of those, some people can, thats cool too. Some people will wait until the CPU and mobos are avaiable and some will drop it on the mobo now as they have the cash and get the CPU later, its not fricken rocket science!
> 
> ON TOPIC..... hope BD is a hit and a fair bit faster than PII, along the lines of core i5 and up is needed



FTFY


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm pretty sure we both live in the same world.  Again, issues with income do not affect the fact that you've already saved the money for the motherboard and that money will still be there in 6 months.  How exactly do you think your income changes this fact?
> 
> How did you even manage to save the money for the motherboard if your income is such an issue?  How do you ever plan on saving enough for Bulldozer if your income is such and issue?  Explain that to me.
> 
> ...



Seriousley NT you're coming off like an ass, you know what he means by some people are no good at saving and yet are being pedantic about the whole thing. I get your point but I think it's been and gone. And this "and will never have enough money to buy bulldozer in the first place" is just immature imo  

It's too damned early for me 





> backs slowly out of thread and gets 2nd cup of coffee


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Seriousley NT you're coming off like an ass, you know what he means by some people are no good at saving and yet are being pedantic about the whole thing. I get your point but I think it's been and gone. And this "and will never have enough money to buy bulldozer in the first place" is just immature imo
> 
> It's too damned early for me



At this point, it is kind of intentional because he has been an ass for a while now.

I get the point that some people are no good at saving(though he seems to jump back and for between some people are no good at saving to it is impossible to save because they don't make any money).  But _his_ point is that Bulldozer will be super expensive.  So if you put those two(three) points of _his_ together, the only possible outcome is that these people will never be able to afford Bulldozer.  Is there some other conclusion we should be drawing from these two(three) points?

My point is that if you are able to save up the money for the motherboard, and are continuing to save for the processor, the money you've already saved for the motherboard will continue to be there.  I get that some people feel that money in their wallet will burn a hole in it, and must be spent.  But if these people can't even manage to hold onto $200, roughly the cost of a high end motherboard, without running out spending it as quickly as possible, how will they ever manage to save the $800+ for a Bulldozer processor?

It's early for you, but late for me, time for bed.


----------



## Nick89 (Jan 15, 2011)

I like how because this news is from AMD its Fud, but If intel made the exact same claims then everyone on this forum would bend over backwards to Suck praise intel.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 15, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you hope its not true? shit, a near 20% boost at the same clocks is exactly what you want from a replacement CPU.
> 
> If AMD can get 20% faster than current at the same clocks and 12 cores out... they may not win over intel fanboys and their single threaded games/benchmarks, but everyone else will be damned glad for the excessive multithreaded performance.



Rumor has it that LGA2011 is also supposed to bring 12 core cpus. That's 24 threads, and bulldozer getting bulldozed.

Even speaking in current gen, the 4 core HTT i7 threads just as well as 6 core AMD's in things like encoding, giving almost Identical performance per clock, so I'm not sure where the "Intel fanboys and their single threaded games/benchmarks" statement comes from?



newtekie1 said:


> Yes, but what is the point in upgrading just the motherboard?  It will add little performance to no performance or features, and you pay more for it then you would if you waited 6 months until you had the cash for the motherboard and processor.
> 
> It is an unneeded upgrade that you would be doing for no other reason than to be able to say you did it.  People truly low on funds don't do that.



I agree. This whole new AMD gen is no different than Intel changing sockets. You still have to buy both a new mobo and a new cpu to get the benefits of the platform. AM3+ being able to take AM3 cpus doesn't mean squat, as it gives you no performance benefit. On the Intel side, I can buy a new 2011 mobo when it releases, but just continue to use my current setup until I can afford a cpu to put it it. It is no different at all. I get tired of hearing that argument from people blindly devoted to AMD. They are changing the socket just the same as Intel.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> How do you figure they were free?  Because you had them left over at the end?  That doesn't make them free, it just means you paid for extra shit you didn't need.  Was your overall out of pocket expense the same by buying the cheap board and processor first as it would have been by just buying what you ended up with up front?



by free, i meant available/leftover. bad choice of a multi purpose word.

"freed up" would be a better choice.

you get improvements in the interim, and a second machine when you're done - and if you had a use for that second machine, awesome.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jan 15, 2011)

Nick89 said:


> I like how because this news is from AMD its Fud, but If intel made the exact same claims then everyone on this forum would bend over backwards to Suck praise intel.



It's not from AMD, that's the point.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

Wile E its like this man. Its simple.

I have a 1090T running on a DDR2 board. Now I want to upgrade to a DDR3 board. SO all I have to do it buy the 990FX board and I am future proof without the need of a new CPU.

If I were on an Intel platform not only would I have to buy a new board but also a new CPU. Now do you understand? Its not about a massive performance benefit. Its about the flexibility of the platform that allows it to work with a tight budget. If I wanted the 133t's system I wouldn't even be running AMD.


----------



## Kantastic (Jan 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Wile E its like this man. Its simple.
> 
> I have a 1090T running on a DDR2 board. Now I want to upgrade to a DDR3 board. SO all I have to do it buy the 990FX board and I am future proof without the need of a new CPU.
> 
> If I were on an Intel platform not only would I have to buy a new board but also a new CPU. Now do you understand? Its not about a massive performance benefit. Its about the flexibility of the platform that allows it to work with a tight budget. If I wanted the 133t's system I wouldn't even be running AMD.



You would still not see any improvements with just a board swap. It'd be wiser to wait until you can afford both a board and a CPU, you'd be paying less for the board since the value dropped while you were saving for a CPU.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> You would still not see any improvements with just a board swap. It'd be wiser to wait until you can afford both a board and a CPU, you'd be paying less for the board since the value dropped while you were saving for a CPU.



No difference between DDR2 and DDR3?


----------



## blibba (Jan 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ok man. Read this....
> 
> Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II



Ok, so rather than buying the future proof board now, wait until you need the upgrade that you want it for, and buy it then? It'll even be cheaper, and it may support things that a board bought now would not. What's the issue here?

Please don't take me as criticising AMD's backwards and forwards compatibility, I love it. I just don't see why it is cheaper to buy upgrades before you need them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

blibba said:


> Ok, so rather than buying the future proof board now, wait until you need the upgrade that you want it for, and buy it then? It'll even be cheaper, and it may support things that a board bought now would not. What's the issue here?
> 
> Please don't take me as criticising AMD's backwards and forwards compatibility, I love it. I just don't see why it is cheaper to buy upgrades before you need them.



Well I do need to upgrade. I need more RAM at a higher speed. If I go 8 gigs on DDR2 I am limited to 800mhz. Thats not the case with DDR3. So the money I saved by skipping the last gen. of mobos is now open to the new gen. which happens to use the new socket. This is not something you can do with an Intel platform.


----------



## Kantastic (Jan 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No difference between DDR2 and DDR3?



Nothing drastic.


----------



## blibba (Jan 15, 2011)

Indeed it is not something you can do with an Intel platform. This kind of thing used to be possible under LGA775, which is why I bought Intel at the time. If I were to build a new system for myself now, it would definitley be AMD.

However I would have to disagree that you NEED more than 4GB of RAM, and DDR3, at this stage. Those are very high end features with relativley minimal impact on performance, and if you're on a tight budget they don't make sense.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> Nothing drastic.


 Oh? Ever tried running A large Photoshop on 800mhz of RAM? Yes there is a huge difference.



blibba said:


> Indeed it is not something you can do with an Intel platform. This kind of thing used to be possible under LGA775, which is why I bought Intel at the time. If I were to build a new system for myself now, it would definitley be AMD.
> 
> However I would have to disagree that you NEED more than 4GB of RAM, and DDR3, at this stage. Those are very high end features with relativley minimal impact on performance, and if you're on a tight budget they don't make sense.



Again I need more then 8 gigs for what I do. However if I run 8gigs at 800mhz vs 8gigs at 1333mhz+ which do you think is going to be faster?

A tight budget means I cannot "dump" money at one time. It means I can dump money over a period of time as I need it.


----------



## blibba (Jan 15, 2011)

Bank the money, put up with the performance of your 1067mhz low latency DDR2 for now, get something far more awesome in a year's time. Having limited income makes it even more irresponsible to be daft with the money that you do have.

Or, if you have lots of disposable income, buy an AM3 board now. If this is the case, however, my comments were not aimed at you.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 15, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> so its true that bulldozer will be faster than magny cours ?
> 
> and btw is it true that AMD bring back FX line ? because if its true then i can't wait to buy it



1. Yes, we have already said that BD will be ~50% faster than MC.

2. I am not a client guy, I don't know about that.



Nick89 said:


> I like how because this news is from AMD its Fud, but If intel made the exact same claims then everyone on this forum would bend over backwards to Suck praise intel.



This is not from AMD.  I don't approve leaks before launch and we also happen to be in our quiet period so this would be a major no-no.

If AMD was to let any performance information go prior to launch, it would come directly from my blog.  Any other source is suspect.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

blibba said:


> Bank the money, put up with the performance of your 1067mhz low latency DDR2 for now, get something far more awesome in a year's time. Having limited income makes it even more irresponsible to be daft with the money that you do have.
> 
> Or, if you have lots of disposable income, buy an AM3 board now. If this is the case, however, my comments were not aimed at you.



Bank the money? I did. Thats why I can now afford the new board and RAM which in fact is a huge upgrade. However I don't have to buy bulldozer but can upgrade to it when it hits second generation.  So thank you for proving my point.


----------



## blibba (Jan 15, 2011)

Excellent, and thank you for proving mine!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

blibba said:


> Excellent, and thank you for proving mine!



No your point was...



blibba said:


> If you're too poor to ever have the money for a high end system, don't ever buy one. Not hard. That's what I do.
> 
> If you've enough income to buy part of it now and part of it later, then keep the part that you would spend now in a savings account (it'll even gain interest ffs) and then get a complete upgrade when you would have bought the second part. Still not hard.
> 
> There is no reason at all, not one, why it would be cheaper to buy part of a system now and part later.



Which is the same idea as dumping a massive amount of income in one shot (Intel). Mine was to piece it over time which is the exact opposite of what you posted.


----------



## blibba (Jan 15, 2011)

As you can see my post starts with the word "you".

It was addressed at the guy I was quoting, who was complaining of a lack of money. You would do well to notice this. He wanted to buy a part that was in no significant way an upgrade to his current PC, then buy a part that was later, by which time the first part would have been cheaper. I think that you would agree that this is inadvisable.

Furthermore, I don't think that, if you have a large amount of money to splurge, doing so on an AMD system would be a bad idea right now.

If you're someone who continuously upgrades your system as you run into performance issues, which it sounds like you are, then you are in a different situation to the guy I was originally insulting, and as such my advise is not relavent. I do this also, although it sounds like I am willing to put up with a much slower system and have much less disposable income.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

Mussels said:


> by free, i meant available/leftover. bad choice of a multi purpose word.
> 
> "freed up" would be a better choice.
> 
> you get improvements in the interim, and a second machine when you're done - and if you had a use for that second machine, awesome.



Ok, that does make sense in your situation, _if_ you are wanting a second machine at the same time.  However, the original idea was that the person was strapped for cash and worried about money and wanted the "cheapest" solution.  Paying for extra parts that isn't needed isn't cheaper.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh? Ever tried running A large Photoshop on 800mhz of RAM? Yes there is a huge difference.



Yes I have, Photoshop doesn't really care if the ram is running at 533MHz or 1600MHz, it make no difference.  Photoshop wants more RAM, it doesn't really care how fast it is.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Again I need more then 8 gigs for what I do. However if I run 8gigs at 800mhz vs 8gigs at 1333mhz+ which do you think is going to be faster?



When I switched my Xeon X3370 machine from 8GB of 533Hz DDR2 to 8GB of 1333MHz DDR3 there was no difference in performance in Photoshop, and from my understanding AMD rigs are even less effected by DDR3...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Ok, that does make sense in your situation, _if_ you are wanting a second machine at the same time.  However, the original idea was that the person was strapped for cash and worried about money and wanted the "cheapest" solution.  Paying for extra parts that isn't needed isn't cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I doubt very seriously you use Photoshop to the level I do. You get a large enough file with enough data involved (tiff with layers and such) you WILL see a large difference.



blibba said:


> As you can see my post starts with the word "you".
> 
> It was addressed at the guy I was quoting, who was complaining of a lack of money. You would do well to notice this. He wanted to buy a part that was in no significant way an upgrade to his current PC, then buy a part that was later, by which time the first part would have been cheaper. I think that you would agree that this is inadvisable.
> 
> ...



Which he would be doing pretty much what I stated. He is piecing together a new rig slowly. His circumstances are different but the principal is the same.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 15, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> Nothing drastic.



The board I have in my HTPC (Measly Cow) uses DDR2 or DDR3 I currently have DDR3 1333 in it the only diff I noticed from DDR2 1066 was the time between programs I have yet to really notice a diff in any other program other than the OS


----------



## Thatguy (Jan 15, 2011)

Everybody needs to STFU about motherboard upgrades, some of us hand down parts to other people. for intsnace I will sell my am2+ board to a friend of mine for like $40 along with a phenom 9550 and my ddr2 ram for a total of $200, I will by a new am3+ board and 8 gb of ddr3 ram to replace my current stuff. 

  Then I will by a bulldozer after that. 

  BTW its no ones bussiness about how or why I or anyone else plans there upgrades, keep your stupid fucking opinions to your self. 

   Its not a matter of money in my case, more a issue of wanting more chipset capability. I may not upgrade to BD until the FX line is out anyways. 

  So everybody, STFU about it already, enough is enough.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I doubt very seriously you use Photoshop to the level I do. You get a large enough file with enough data involved (tiff with layers and such) you WILL see a large difference.



1.) I bet I do.
2.) A 109MB 7000x5443 Tiff. + Main Rig + Script applying 15 filters that takes roughly 3 minutes total to apply.  DDR3-1600=179.9s to Complete.  DDR3-800=185.7s to Complete.  So doubling the memory speed yeilds a ~3% improvement in Photoshop.  Of course there is also the fact that DDR2 goes up to 1200MHz, making the transition to DDR3 even smaller than what I've tested...  Yeah, you WILL NOT see a large difference.  And I didn't even adjust the timings when I switched to DDR3-800, I probably could have tightened them and got the difference down even smaller.
3.) I've done the transition and actually seen the difference, or lack there of.  Why are you arguing like you know this for a fact and you are still using DDR2.  You've never even tested with DDR3, so how can you argue that it makes a difference like you know it is fact and you've never even tested it?



Thatguy said:


> Everybody needs to STFU about motherboard upgrades, some of us hand down parts to other people. for intsnace I will sell my am2+ board to a friend of mine for like $40 along with a phenom 9550 and my ddr2 ram for a total of $200, I will by a new am3+ board and 8 gb of ddr3 ram to replace my current stuff.
> 
> Then I will by a bulldozer after that.
> 
> ...



If you don't want to hear our opinion about why your opinion is faulty and wrong, don't post your opinion.  Don't bitch about us responding to your opinions, you can take your own advice and keep your opinions to yourself if you don't want others to respond.


----------



## acperience7 (Jan 15, 2011)

Isn't it easier to just say that everyone likes to upgrade differently? I've seen this argument before in this forum and it always ends up right back where it started. None of you is going to convince each other to change, so can we please continue the speculation.

I may not post here alot, but threads like these are learning opportunities for me, and bickering about upgrade preferences isn't helping anyone or adding anything. To each his own, leave it at that.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 15, 2011)

Everybody needs to keep their tempers down when making points. This isn't that grave a topic that you start calling eachother names (it's not allowed in any case).


----------



## blibba (Jan 15, 2011)

I don't think there was any name calling, just a bit of informing those requiring such information of their incompetence 

Everyone does like to upgrade differently, and that's fine, different people have different priorities. However there are some methods that are not sensible for anyone.

Other than that, I think everything's covered above


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> 1.) I bet I do.
> 2.) A 109MB 7000x5443 Tiff. + Main Rig + Script applying 15 filters that takes roughly 3 minutes total to apply.  DDR3-1600=179.9s to Complete.  DDR3-800=185.7s to Complete.  So doubling the memory speed yeilds a ~3% improvement in Photoshop.  Of course there is also the fact that DDR2 goes up to 1200MHz, making the transition to DDR3 even smaller than what I've tested...  Yeah, you WILL NOT see a large difference.  And I didn't even adjust the timings when I switched to DDR3-800, I probably could have tightened them and got the difference down even smaller.
> 3.) I've done the transition and actually seen the difference, or lack there of.  Why are you arguing like you know this for a fact and you are still using DDR2.  You've never even tested with DDR3, so how can you argue that it makes a difference like you know it is fact and you've never even tested it?
> 
> ...



1. 109mb file is a joke. Try running a file thats damn near a gig and get back with me.
2. You have no idea what I have used. I was an art director in charge of 15+ artists in the past. I've used MANY configurations. Also the Phenom II does not support over 800mhz when using more then 4gigs of RAM. At 4 gigs you are fine. Anything above that is hit and miss. (8+ gigs anyone) Its a well known issue with the memory controller and as you said Photoshop loves RAM.

NT I may not know much but don't argue Photoshop with me. Thats my Dojo. I can send you .psd files that will bring a 980x to its knees.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 1. 109mb file is a joke. Try running a file thats damn near a gig and get back with me.
> 2. You have no idea what I have used. I was an art director in charge of 15+ artists in the past. I've used MANY configurations. Also the Phenom II does not support over 800mhz when using more then 4gigs of RAM. At 4 gigs you are fine. Anything above that is hit and miss. (8+ gigs anyone) Its a well known issue with the memory controller and as you said Photoshop loves RAM.
> 
> NT I may not know much but don't argue Photoshop with me. Thats my Dojo. I can send you .psd files that will bring a 980x to its knees.



I have, the only problem is that to get much bigger you have to add layers, and the filters and editting only affects the single selected layer in Photoshop, so it doesn't make a difference.  That is a single 109MB layer, I could add 10 of them and get over 1GB, but any work done would still only be effecting the single 109MB layer so the amount of data being processed would be the same, and when I ran the test on it the time required was the same.  Furthermore, adding more layers increases the amount of memory in use, but the speed that memory operates goes rather unnoticed, because as I said Photoshop almost always deals with a single layer at a time.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I have, the only problem is that to get much bigger you have to add layers, and the filters and editting only affects the single selected layer in Photoshop, so it doesn't make a difference.  That is a single 109MB layer, I could add 10 of them and get over 1GB, but any work done would still only be effecting the single 109MB layer so the amount of data being processed would be the same.



Add overlays, hard lights, layer effects ect. and my files would be larger also. I have jpgs that are bigger then 109mb man. Artificial gradients and even the amount of channels and paths make a huge difference. You know that simple little skull I did a while back for TPU? That thing was 500mb before I downsized it. Now imagine doing a full car body wrap with that much detail in every inch? Just zooming in can be a mission on a lesser rig.

My point is you cannot judge RAM performance on filter actions. Hell I don't even use filters. They are for armatures. (That wasn't a dig at you. I'm just saying)


----------



## BeepBeep2 (Jan 15, 2011)

Why did this thread turn in to a "I'm more beast at photoshop at you, look at my epeen" contest?

Photoshop wants more ram, not faster ram.

DDR2-800 can transfer 6.4GB/s. I'm pretty sure your files aren't much over 1GB (because you would need well over 32GB of RAM to open them correctly).

Maybe you don't understand how much ram a file takes up when it is opened compared to the actual size on disk. A simple 100MB JPEG can use 3GB+ of ram. I believe your problem here is that you have mistaken that DDR2-800 is too slow when in reality windows is using up all of it's available physical memory and resorting to the page file.

You also must not understand how latency works.

The difference between DDR2-800 CAS 4 or 5 and DDR3-1600 CAS 9 is ...nothing. 1066 and 1200 CAS 5 vs 1600 CAS 7-8 is negligible as well.

Buy an AM3 CPU and you should be able to do 1200 with 16GB fine. AM2+'s will have problems with that, yes.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Add overlays, hard lights, layer effects ect. and my files would be larger also. I have jpgs that are bigger then 109mb man. Artificial gradients and even the amount of channels and paths make a huge difference. You know that simple little skull I did a while back for TPU? That thing was 500mb before I downsized it. Now imagine doing a full car body wrap with that much detail in every inch? Just zooming in can be a mission on a lesser rig.
> 
> My point is you cannot judge RAM performance on filter actions. Hell I don't even use filters. They are for armatures. (That wasn't a dig at you. I'm just saying)



I don't doubt it, but again the size of the layer is the important part, and having a layer that is larger than 109MB isn't common, even for professional photoshop users.  I bet you couldn't send me a single file with a layer that is over 100MB.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't doubt it, but again the size of the layer is the important part, and having a layer that is larger than 109MB isn't common, even for professional photoshop users.  I bet you couldn't send me a single file with a layer that is over 100MB.



If you are screen printing a 4ft by 2ft banner before starting anything its a 444mb file, and that is grayscale/single layer (900dpi).

I understand most people don't use Photoshop to make screenprints but I do.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 15, 2011)

GSG-9 said:


> If you are screen printing a 4ft by 2ft banner before starting anything its a 444mb file, and that is grayscale/single layer (900dpi).
> 
> I understand most people don't use Photoshop to make screenprints but I do.



And the speed of the RAM still probably wouldn't make a difference.


----------



## ROad86 (Jan 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> And the speed of the RAM still probably wouldn't make a difference.



  For God sake enough. Let me explain his (TheMailMan78) thought; I had an old AM2+ platform , I need an upgrade BUT i dont want to buy a whole new pc so I buy a phenom II x6 which is a very good processor. I learn that AM3+ is compatible with Bulldozer and my recently bought phenom and I need/ want to make an upgrade on the mobo to get the most out from the processor so I buy one (for DDR3, sata 6gb, usb3 and whatever new you get). And if I have the money and see that bulldozer worth the upgrade I take one without the need to buy everything again and I keep my machine for another 3 years as it is.
  Now what's wrong with that?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 16, 2011)

BeepBeep2 said:


> Why did this thread turn in to a "I'm more beast at photoshop at you, look at my epeen" contest?
> 
> Photoshop wants more ram, not faster ram.
> 
> ...


 I guess all the rigs I work with didnt get your memo. I work on 1gig files all the time.



GSG-9 said:


> If you are screen printing a 4ft by 2ft banner before starting anything its a 444mb file, and that is grayscale/single layer (900dpi).
> 
> I understand most people don't use Photoshop to make screenprints but I do.



Same here but for T-Shirts currently. Do you know how to separate?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 16, 2011)

alright... lets stop with the photoshop stuff now.

back to this non official leak of info about bulldozer.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> alright... lets stop with the photoshop stuff now.
> 
> back to this non official leak of info about bulldozer.



I wonder how much faster Bulldozer will be in Photoshop. I kid, I kid. Moving on.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 16, 2011)

TheMailMan78's situation is one of the very few where I would say upgrading to an AM3+ motherboard first then moving to the processor later would be a reasonable move.  But _only_ because I think it isn't worth it to buy more DDR2 RAM at this point, so if he wants to move to 8GB he might as well do it with DDR3, which would require a new motherboard.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 16, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Wile E its like this man. Its simple.
> 
> I have a 1090T running on a DDR2 board. Now I want to upgrade to a DDR3 board. SO all I have to do it buy the 990FX board and I am future proof without the need of a new CPU.
> 
> If I were on an Intel platform not only would I have to buy a new board but also a new CPU. Now do you understand? Its not about a massive performance benefit. Its about the flexibility of the platform that allows it to work with a tight budget. If I wanted the 133t's system I wouldn't even be running AMD.



So? Just keep running what you have until you can afford it all. That new board and DDR3 isn't going to help your performance enough to justify the price. Your performance will be the same whether you buy the board now or later. I was on s775 and DDR2, and bought 1 piece of my X58 setup at a time until I had a working system.

Both scenarios provide the same exact end results. Unchanging performance until you have the complete package.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Well I do need to upgrade. I need more RAM at a higher speed. If I go 8 gigs on DDR2 I am limited to 800mhz. Thats not the case with DDR3. So the money I saved by skipping the last gen. of mobos is now open to the new gen. which happens to use the new socket. This is not something you can do with an Intel platform.



So, an AMD DDR2 platform deficiency forcing you to upgrade to new ram and a new mobo is somehow better than me keeping the same ram and upgrading my board and cpu? I can use my current ram to it's full advantage on the new Intel platforms. You can't use your new ram and mobo to their full advantage until you buy a new cpu as well. So, I have to buy mobo and cpu, and you have to buy mobo, ram and cpu.

How is that better?



TheMailMan78 said:


> Bank the money? I did. Thats why I can now afford the new board and RAM which in fact is a huge upgrade. However I don't have to buy bulldozer but can upgrade to it when it hits second generation.  So thank you for proving my point.



No, it isn't a huge upgrade, even for photoshop.

And even if AMD forcing you to buy a new socket for Bulldozer somehow translates into a positive feature (which it doesn't), you are still the smallest niche of the supposed market that benefits from it.

The fact is, to use Bulldozer, you must buy both a new board, and a new cpu. That is no different than Intel at all. So you can buy a new board and use the old cpu on AMD? Yep, but I can buy a new board on Intel and use an old cpu too. Just gotta wait to use the new board is all. Still teh same end results, no matter how you look at it.



ROad86 said:


> For God sake enough. Let me explain his (TheMailMan78) thought; I had an old AM2+ platform , I need an upgrade BUT i dont want to buy a whole new pc so I buy a phenom II x6 which is a very good processor. I learn that AM3+ is compatible with Bulldozer and my recently bought phenom and I need/ want to make an upgrade on the mobo to get the most out from the processor so I buy one (for DDR3, sata 6gb, usb3 and whatever new you get). And if I have the money and see that bulldozer worth the upgrade I take one without the need to buy everything again and I keep my machine for another 3 years as it is.
> *Now what's wrong with that?*



Nothing at all.

All we are saying is that the bottom line to use Bulldozer is no different than the bottom line if you want to use the new Intel cpus. New board + new cpu.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 16, 2011)

So? How is that even slightly important?


I hate to say it, but the bleeding edge of technology is not for those who are strapped for cash. I don't understand why people even complain about cost of entry into a completely new platform, except unless they can't afford it, and even then, jealousy and envy is hardly justification for an argument. 

Well guess what...if you cannot afford it, your not part of the market it's intended for, plain and simple. If cost is a concern at this ponit, I think you belong in a niche that has no part in this conversation.

Nevermind that this whole conversation was started on pure outright lies from someone trying to get hits.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 16, 2011)

Really with so many games and programs only using one or two cores my biggest hope for bulldozer is that the IPC has been improved enough to give a big boost per core over the phenom II's at the same speed MHz wise.

I would like to get an AM3+ board so i can get double my ram capacity while at the same time near doubling the speed while keeping my 965 for a while but if the major performance increase comes from more cores then most things i use right now wont show much of an improvement, if that is the case i will be considering Intel depending on the cost.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 16, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> 1. Yes, we have already said that BD will be ~50% faster than MC.
> 
> 2. I am not a client guy, I don't know about that.
> 
> ...



wow, thats great. i can't wait for BD to come out, 

btw so we won't have desktop version of MC?


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> Really with so many games and programs only using one or two cores my biggest hope for bulldozer is that the IPC has been improved enough to give a big boost per core over the phenom II's at the same speed MHz wise.
> 
> I would like to get an AM3+ board so i can get double my ram capacity while at the same time near doubling the speed while keeping my 965 for a while but if the major performance increase comes from more cores then most things i use right now wont show much of an improvement, if that is the case i will be considering Intel depending on the cost.



Protip : dx11 loves cores. 
I think it natively supports core scaling even if the engine doesn't ( seems that way, I get better fps on my dx11 games just by switching cores on and off in my system )

So more and more games will support extra cores.

+ applications are becoming more multi core compatible anyways.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 16, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Protip : dx11 loves cores.
> I think it natively supports core scaling even if the engine doesn't ( seems that way, I get better fps on my dx11 games just by switching cores on and off in my system )
> 
> So more and more games will support extra cores.
> ...



the graphics segment of DX11 is multi threaded, DX9 and 10 arent. I repeat that all time in various threads, its the main benefit of DX11.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 16, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Protip : dx11 loves cores.
> I think it natively supports core scaling even if the engine doesn't ( seems that way, I get better fps on my dx11 games just by switching cores on and off in my system )
> 
> So more and more games will support extra cores.
> ...



I know DX11 does better with more cores but at least 85%+ of the games i play are DX9, so far i have played 3 games that support DX11


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 16, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I know DX11 does better with more cores but at least 85%+ of the games i play are DX9, so far i have played 3 games that support DX11




Aye but that's my point( although not one i've made here ) lots of people are like " most things don't support x" but those people are using older stuff to make that statement.

It's like when motors started using petrol instead of coal/water( STEAAAM YEAH!!!!!!) and people going  "most motors don't even support petrol!" 

Gota look to the future


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 16, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Aye but that's my point( although not one i've made here ) lots of people are like " most things don't support x" but those people are using older stuff to make that statement.
> 
> It's like when motors started using petrol instead of coal/water( STEAAAM YEAH!!!!!!) and people going  "most motors don't even support petrol!"
> 
> Gota look to the future



 Very true, But i meant as in i already have 4 cores (if i had less then then adding more for DX11 would be a must) but for the moment DX11 would be helping games catch up with what i already have but speeding up games that i still play and will play for quite a while that are DX9 faster performance per core is very important for me.

Plus of course it's also about keeping me from buying Intel, i have been with AMD so long as i have used an AM2, AM2+ and AM3 CPU all on the same board so with buying a new board, CPU and ram at once it's easier for Intel to be an option for the upgrade so if bulldozer does not impress me in most areas for a good price Intel will be getting my money for the first time in several years.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> So? How is that even slightly important?
> 
> 
> I hate to say it, but the bleeding edge of technology is not for those who are strapped for cash. I don't understand why people even complain about cost of entry into a completely new platform, except unless they can't afford it, and even then, jealousy and envy is hardly justification for an argument.
> ...


Who is this aimed at? And what are you referring to? If this is aimed at me in any way, you obviously have read my comments in the wrong context.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 16, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> wow, thats great. i can't wait for BD to come out,
> 
> btw so we won't have desktop version of MC?



No, you will not get that.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> So? How is that even slightly important?
> 
> 
> I hate to say it, but the bleeding edge of technology is not for those who are strapped for cash. I don't understand why people even complain about cost of entry into a completely new platform, except unless they can't afford it, and even then, jealousy and envy is hardly justification for an argument.
> ...



Money doesn't determine what market you should be in, not everyone who buys parts in the high end category has money like you do, so depending on the circumstance, swapping platforms and upgrading may take more saving or determining ''best bangs for bucks'' at the moment for what is needed. You can't just say ''well if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in that market in the first place'', that makes no sense except from a standpoint of someone who can afford anything they want when they want and at the time they want, where in which the large majority aren't people who can, yet still mange to scrounge up money for amazing rigs.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 16, 2011)

Wile E said:


> So? Just keep running what you have until you can afford it all. That new board and DDR3 isn't going to help your performance enough to justify the price. Your performance will be the same whether you buy the board now or later. I was on s775 and DDR2, and bought 1 piece of my X58 setup at a time until I had a working system.
> 
> Both scenarios provide the same exact end results. Unchanging performance until you have the complete package.


 The difference is I can use the system with the new parts were you couldn't. AMD=Working computer. Intel=Takes up closet space until done.

As for the Photoshop stuff I am not going to debate it. The Mod said to stop and I don't need anymore trouble.


----------



## blibba (Jan 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Money doesn't determine what market you should be in, not everyone who buys parts in the high end category has money like you do, so depending on the circumstance, swapping platforms and upgrading may take more saving or determining ''best bangs for bucks'' at the moment for what is needed. You can't just say ''well if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in that market in the first place'', that makes no sense except from a standpoint of someone who can afford anything they want when they want and at the time they want, where in which the large majority aren't people who can, yet still mange to scrounge up money for amazing rigs.



I don't want to cause offense, but if you have to "scrounge up money" for an "amazing rig", then perhaps your priorities are a little out.

I'd have to agree with the sentiment that high end platforms are intended for people who have a large amount of money to spare, not for those looking for what they can get away with on a tight budget.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 16, 2011)

blibba said:


> I don't want to cause offense, but if you have to "scrounge up money" for an "amazing rig", then perhaps your priorities are a little out.
> 
> I'd have to agree with the sentiment that high end platforms are intended for people who have a large amount of money to spare, not for those looking for what they can get away with on a tight budget.



That's untrue in my mind really, my system before my current rig was an i7 920 on the X58 platform and i bought it through incrementally buying each part and saving. You don't need to have all the money in the world to have the best of the best it all depends on how much you can spare and how good of a system you want to push for and what you yourself need in a system.

Now yes, people who are buying a 980x and 3x GTX 580's usually aren't the ones saving or on a tight budget. But it is possible if it's something you really need/want.


----------



## blibba (Jan 16, 2011)

I do see your point there.

Does that mean, though, that for a while you had parts of an X58 build sitting around in your house that you couldn't use?

Regarding the "how much you need/want it" point, I don't think anyone should need the difference between a high end and and mid range PC so much that they should risk their financial stability for it. I realise that that is not what you mean, I'm just saying.

As you say and as I said above, it's about how much you can spare, and as such I don't think it should be about what you're willing to sacrifice for it.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 16, 2011)

blibba said:


> I do see your point there.
> 
> Does that mean, though, that for a while you had parts of an X58 build sitting around in your house that you couldn't use?
> 
> ...



Ya i bought the X58 board first and then in a couple weeks, maybe a month i picked up the i7 CPU, and then a couple weeks later i picked up the triple channel memory and then finally i got it all out and made a monstrous system.

I agree that if you are struggling financially your prioritizes shouldn't include a super high-end system. It's just the notion that if you don't have enough money right in your hands for what you need whether it be high end or not doesn't mean you shouldn't be in that market(you didn't say that though).


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Money doesn't determine what market you should be in, not everyone who buys parts in the high end category has money like you do, so depending on the circumstance, swapping platforms and upgrading may take more saving or determining ''best bangs for bucks'' at the moment for what is needed. You can't just say ''well if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in that market in the first place'', that makes no sense except from a standpoint of someone who can afford anything they want when they want and at the time they want, where in which the large majority aren't people who can, yet still mange to scrounge up money for amazing rigs.



Dude, I don't know why you think I have money. :shadedshu 

Arguing over if INtel of AMD is the right chioce, based on cost, doesn't make any sense, as Intel is that high-end platform. In reality, very few can afford it.

AMD is the "budget" alternative. They currently bring good performance...not the best, but good, for far lower cost of entry.

I don't think the majority of users in this forum applies to any of this, as we are definitely a minority. Most people buy a computer, as use it for three to five years, while many of us change our rigs out of boredom.

You're just taking this far too personally.


Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad?

Qualcomm.

The 65 million that that deal brought AMD falsely raised profit margins, at the sacrifice of huge potential income...how many units do you think the iPhone and iPad will sell? At least 65 million, no? and each Qualcomm chip in there is going to sell for more than one dollar, right?


Dirk screwed up big-time. He failed to see the market that already exists, and how to exploit it.


Likewise, I think many fail to see the market that Bulldozer is intended for, and JF-AMD is here trying to tell us to not get our expectations too high...andwith that in mind, although the competition is Intel, Bulldozer may not even be targeted at Intel's best...

Just like the 6-series, that so many are dissappointed by, due to falsely raised expectations.

I think somebody's marketing team is very well versed in the art of war, but noone understands that.

I am quite serious when I say I need to be AMD's next CEO.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Dude, I don't know why you think I have money. :shadedshu
> 
> Arguing over if INtel of AMD is the right chioce, based on cost, doesn't make any sense, as Intel is that high-end platform. In reality, very few can afford it.
> 
> ...



I didn't know that about Qualcomm. I thought they were merged out. I now understand what happen to Dirk. However in playing devil advocate he may have HAD to sell Qualcomm to keep AMD afloat. Remember a year ago is when banks stopped handing out money willy nilly.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 16, 2011)

Yeah, I hear ya on the timing issue, however, I do not think 65 Million would have had that large of an impact. It merely made Dirk appear to be doing good at the helm, when really, he only looks good to doing the same as what Hector did..sell off assets. I'm not sure why everyone doesn't see it like that, but I definitely do

AMD's financials for the year seem good, but we have many deals that took place, like the settlement from Intel, that are considered profit, but they are NOT profit based on sales.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> and JF-AMD is here trying to tell us to not get our expectations too high...



No, I believe that Bulldozer will be great.  All I can do is point people to the real data.  For all I know this data could be true, I am not denying that, only pointing oug that the data, as far as I know, did not come from AMD.

I will never stop people from thinking my product will be great, but I will stop people from making untrue assumptions, like that this is somehow a master planned leak campaign.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 16, 2011)

Yeah, I get that. I'm not saying Bulldozer will be terrible...how could I know...you haven't sent me parts yet!


----------



## blibba (Jan 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Ya i bought the X58 board first and then in a couple weeks, maybe a month i picked up the i7 CPU, and then a couple weeks later i picked up the triple channel memory and then finally i got it all out and made a monstrous system....



Were the components that you bought in advance on special offer or something?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 16, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Dude, I don't know why you think I have money. :shadedshu
> 
> Arguing over if INtel of AMD is the right chioce, based on cost, doesn't make any sense, as Intel is that high-end platform. In reality, very few can afford it.
> 
> ...



That's because i know you work for Goldman Sachs. lol jk

I'm not arguing over pricing for Intel or AMD chips, that's a different debate in itself. More of just that it is possible for most if needed/wanted can afford the high end platforms if determined to get it and needed for what they want to do with their system. No where was i saying that Intel chips/chipsets are not the best current performing platform at the moment and that AMD is the price for performance champ. I'm not trying to take anything to far, just saying that it is in fact possible to afford what is considered the unaffordable by many if need be, though of course it largely depends on the circumstance of the persons needs and financial well being in the end.



			
				cadaveca said:
			
		

> I am quite serious when I say I need to be AMD's next CEO.



lol Go for it if you think you have the right stuff. Plus being a fellow TPU member that would give me an opportunity to get a discount. lol


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 16, 2011)

blibba said:


> Were the components that you bought in advance on special offer or something?



Nope all the i7/X58 stuff i bought was full price, the EVGA board at the time was $300, the i7 920 was about $289.99 etc. Buying the parts in increments helped a ton, as dropping around $750 for the mobo, CPU and RAM was out of the question, so i bought the mobo first so i'd have a base to build off of and from there i eventually picked up the 920 and tri channel DDR3 memory.

Recently i did a slight down/sidegrade to a 1055T though, as the X58 platform was getting under utilized. As i said before, no point in keeping the Enzo Ferrari around if im just going to be driving it around the block (all i manly do is gaming), so i'm planning. to sell the parts off.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 16, 2011)

You guys gotta understand that where cadaveca lives its cold. Not a little cold ether. IT FU#KING COLD. So all day he stays indoors and reads.....and reads.........faps and reads. He doesnt even need LN2 to cool his rig. He just opens a window.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jan 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Nope all the i7/X58 stuff i bought was full price, the EVGA board at the time was $300, the i7 920 was about $289.99 etc. Buying the parts in increments helped a ton, as dropping around $750 for the mobo, CPU and RAM was out of the question, so i bought the mobo first so i'd have a base to build off of and from there i eventually picked up the 920 and tri channel DDR3 memory.
> 
> Recently i did a slight down/sidegrade to a 1055T though, as the X58 platform was getting under utilized. As i said before, no point in keeping the Enzo Ferrari around if im just going to be driving it around the block (all i manly do is gaming), so i'm planning. to sell the parts off.



Interesting choice 
Are there any games in which the t1055 pulls ahead? Most reviews vouch for the i7 for gaming and te t1055 for productivity, where you may need more cores...


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 16, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Interesting choice
> Are there any games in which the t1055 pulls ahead? Most reviews vouch for the i7 for gaming and te t1055 for productivity, where you may need more cores...



through HT i7 has more virtual cores, but with overall value (bang for the buck/pound) is where AMD pulls ahead everytime 

in gaming its all about clocks, they are all really close, you can have any high end quad core/higher and have blazing framerates


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 16, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Interesting choice
> Are there any games in which the t1055 pulls ahead? Most reviews vouch for the i7 for gaming and te t1055 for productivity, where you may need more cores...



Some games do pull ahead, but i believe that's mainly because those particular games prefer the 6 physical cores as opposed to the 8 threads of the i7, but overall there hasn't been much of a noticeable difference at all. Since i do no photoshop, CAD, video editing, heavy benchmarking etc, i'm really not noticing a difference overall, but that's of course because my main goal is gaming.


----------



## blibba (Jan 16, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Nope all the i7/X58 stuff i bought was full price, the EVGA board at the time was $300, the i7 920 was about $289.99 etc. Buying the parts in increments helped a ton, as dropping around $750 for the mobo, CPU and RAM was out of the question, so i bought the mobo first so i'd have a base to build off of and from there i eventually picked up the 920 and tri channel DDR3 memory.
> 
> Recently i did a slight down/sidegrade to a 1055T though, as the X58 platform was getting under utilized. As i said before, no point in keeping the Enzo Ferrari around if im just going to be driving it around the block (all i manly do is gaming), so i'm planning. to sell the parts off.



I'm interested as to why you didn't simply put the $300 for the motherboard to one side until you had an additional $290 for the CPU as well - mightn't the motherboard have been cheaper by then?

I realise that taking a $750 hit is a lot, but if you put $300 aside and save up then as prices go down and bank balances increase with interest, it tends to be more cost effective.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 17, 2011)

probably because if he hadnt brought the motherboard when he did he may have broken into what he saved and never would have got any of it. which is what alot of us do.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 17, 2011)

DigitalUK said:


> probably because if he hadnt brought the motherboard when he did he may have broken into what he saved and never would have got any of it. which is what alot of us do.



Exactly.

When i bought the motherboard it basically pushed me to get the rest of the parts to complete it, it's tough to wait because eventually something will more likely come up and i'll end up having to wait longer. When you buy the parts in increments it feels satisfying to know you still have a good chunk left in your pay check for your priorities while at the same time satisfying your needs to build a kick ass system.


----------



## Kantastic (Jan 17, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> When i bought the motherboard it basically pushed me to get the rest of the parts to complete it, it's tough to wait because eventually something will more likely come up and i'll end up having to wait longer. When you buy the parts in increments it feels satisfying to know you still have a good chunk left in your pay check for your priorities while at the same time satisfying your needs to build a kick ass system.



That does not apply to everyone. You essentially spent a small amount more than you should have had you, successfully, saved up enough to purchase the parts in one go.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 17, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> That does not apply to everyone. You essentially spent a small amount more than you should have had you, successfully, saved up enough to purchase the parts in one go.



Right im not claiming that it applys to everyone, that was actually the first time i bought parts incrementally instead of everything at one time, and it worked out. Even if i had to spend a bit more for each part, the bigger picture was more important, which was that i got the parts through a way that was more financially suitable for me at the time.


----------



## Thatguy (Jan 17, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> No, I believe that Bulldozer will be great.  All I can do is point people to the real data.  For all I know this data could be true, I am not denying that, only pointing oug that the data, as far as I know, did not come from AMD.
> 
> I will never stop people from thinking my product will be great, but I will stop people from making untrue assumptions, like that this is somehow a master planned leak campaign.



  If you guys would get client to feed us something to chew on for a while it would calm down the negative spin. How about some videos of bulldozer systems running in the wild. Give us something. we are all dying to build on AMD's first new arch in years. 

  Come on, you've got a captive audience. Pitch the sale !


----------



## kirtar (Jan 17, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> If you guys would get client to feed us something to chew on for a while it would calm down the negative spin. How about some videos of bulldozer systems running in the wild. Give us something. we are all dying to build on AMD's first new arch in years.
> 
> Come on, you've got a captive audience. Pitch the sale !


They'll release info when they think the time is right (which is apparently not now).  Also, I guess I have a different definition of "captive audience" than you do.

I guess I can understand why some people are dying information to be released right now or soon (tax refunds), but I'm fine with waiting.  I'm not building until the summer anyways.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 17, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The difference is I can use the system with the new parts were you couldn't. AMD=Working computer. Intel=Takes up closet space until done.
> 
> As for the Photoshop stuff I am not going to debate it. The Mod said to stop and I don't need anymore trouble.



So what? Still have the same performance either way. New hardware does you no good if it doesn't benefit your setup, just like it does me no good sitting in my closet. Might as well just wait to buy. The results are the same. Both of us are still using, and getting the performance of, an older cpu, yet have shiny new mobos in our possession.

Again, end results are identical.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 17, 2011)

Can't we just drop the subject of buying parts, we are all humans with free will and we shall chose to do whatever makes us happy even if it defies logic, not everything that makes people happy has to be sensible or logical, just look at religion 

I just can't wait for bulldozer to come out so we can see some real performance numbers and one thing i really want to see is how well the launch models overclock, i hope that they can at least be pushed up to 4.20GHz if not more.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 17, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> Can't we just drop the subject of buying parts, we are all humans with free will and we shall chose to do whatever makes us happy even if it defies logic, not everything that makes people happy has to be sensible or logical, just look at religion
> 
> I just can't wait for bulldozer to come out so we can see some real performance numbers and one thing i really want to see is how well the launch models overclock, i hope that they can at least be pushed up to 4.20GHz if not more.



I agree that it's personal preference. What i don't agree about is the claim that AMD is better for allowing old cpus in new boards, but not vice-versa. To use Bulldozer, you must still buy both a new board and a new cpu. Same as Intel.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 17, 2011)

It still makes some sense for those people that have an AM3 cpu on an AM2+ board that want to upgrade to DDR3 as They will save money as compared to the people upgraded to AM3...The people that have an AM3 board however will not gain anything so they might as well wait and see the performance of BD and then decide whether it's better to upgrade the whole platform or move over to Intel


----------



## Wile E (Jan 17, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> It still makes some sense for those people that have an AM3 cpu on an AM2+ board that want to upgrade to DDR3 as They will save money as compared to the people upgraded to AM3...The people that have an AM3 board however will not gain anything so they might as well wait and see the performance of BD and then decide whether it's better to upgrade the whole platform or move over to Intel



But moving to DDR3 on current AMD cpus doesn't really provide much benefit. No matter how the current AMD owners look at it, they still have to buy both a board and cpu, at minimum, to see the performance benefits of dozer.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 17, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I agree that it's personal preference. What i don't agree about is the claim that AMD is better for allowing old cpus in new boards, but not vice-versa. To use Bulldozer, you must still buy both a new board and a new cpu. Same as Intel.



That is true, with past boards it has been different but this time around things have changed a bit.

But there are many people like myself running an AM3 phenom on an AM2 board with DDR2, i want to increase my ram capacity an speed and i see little point in buying 8GB of DDR2 as i have 4 1GB sticks so they would need to be fully replaced plus this board just does not like me pushing my north bridge so in this specific case an AM3+ board with my current CPU and new ram should help increase performance and give me the ability to get a bulldozer in the future assuming that would be a good choice.

In the case with people running an AM3 CPU on an AM2 board it is easier/cheaper to upgrade in a way that *could* (not saying it would) show performance increases while staying with AMD, in that case it's almost like running an i5 on a board for the core 2 quad with DDR2 and skipping the 1156 board to go straight to an 1155 board using the exact same CPU but with DDR3 so i understand from that point of view but an AM3 CPU on an AM3 board being put into an AM3+ board would be more like putting an 1156 i5 on an 1155 board so kind of pointless.

Of course i know none of those Intel based examples would work i was just trying to use the CPU generations and boards as examples as to why people still say it's easier with AMD as there is still some compatibility between boards and CPU's.

Even though no matter what sticking with the same CPU wont give any major performance increase for some it would be the best choice assuming they intended to stick with AMD before knowing how well bulldozer performs and costs.

*edit*
 most of what i just said has been pointed out before i posted.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 17, 2011)

Wile E said:


> But moving to DDR3 on current AMD cpus doesn't really provide much benefit. No matter how the current AMD owners look at it, they still have to buy both a board and cpu, at minimum, to see the performance benefits of dozer.



you can boost ram CAPACITY very large amounts going to DDR3.


2GB sticks is the best you can get in DDR2, and it limits you to 800Mhz to run 4 of them.

DDR3 you can move to 4GB sticks on 1600Mhz.

double the ram amount, double the Mhz - that IS quite a boost. sure, 8GB+ of ram isnt for everyone... but its not a non issue.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 17, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you can boost ram CAPACITY very large amounts going to DDR3.
> 
> 
> 2GB sticks is the best you can get in DDR2, and it limits you to 800Mhz to run 4 of them.
> ...



One thing i have to ask is I'm running 4 1gb sticks between 1066mhz and 1120mhz, would higher capacity modules cause issues with running it so fast or is it a board specific thing?

That reminds me of one other reason why i want an AM3+ board with some DDR3, i have 4GB of 1066mhz ram that i can push to 1092hmz or 1120mhz depending on the timings but at that point it becomes a major limit to my overclock reducing how far i can push my north bridge and HT unless i drop the memory down to 800mhz and push up from there, i would hope buying some 1866mhz ram would remove the sticks as the limiting factor and put it back to the CPU allowing me to get around or over 1600mhz while also pushing the speed of the north bridge and HT further than i can now giving me a better overall increase.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 17, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> One thing i have to ask is I'm running 4 1gb sticks between 1066mhz and 1120mhz, would higher capacity modules cause issues with running it so fast or is it a board specific thing?
> 
> That reminds me of one other reason why i want an AM3+ board with some DDR3, i have 4GB of 1066mhz ram that i can push to 1092hmz or 1120mhz depending on the timings but at that point it becomes a major limit to my overclock reducing how far i can push my north bridge and HT unless i drop the memory down to 800mhz and push up from there, i would hope buying some 1866mhz ram would remove the sticks as the limiting factor and put it back to the CPU allowing me to get around or over 1600mhz while also pushing the speed of the north bridge and HT further than i can now giving me a better overall increase.



its the memory controller.

Is your memory modules one sided? that may be why it works well for you. If thats the case, then yes, 2GB sticks (double sided) would cause you the same problem.

moving to DDR3 solves those problems, yes. not sure what the upper limit there is, as i've got a BE chip and never bothered looking into it.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 17, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you can boost ram CAPACITY very large amounts going to DDR3.
> 
> 
> 2GB sticks is the best you can get in DDR2, and it limits you to 800Mhz to run 4 of them.
> ...


There are 4GB DDR2 sticks. Too pricey tho.

The mhz makes no real difference in performance, but the amount possibly could, tho I don't know anyone that could benefit from 16GB of ram that is using an AM3 chip in an AM2+ board. That has to be one of the smallest niches out there. If they don't benefit from 16GB of ram, there is no point in upgrading. 

So, instead of AMD worrying about this small niche, what could they have done to make Dozer or it's platform any better?

No matter how many scenarios I come up with, I just see no point in keeping AM3 support on the new platform. I just don't think there is really anyone out there that will see a real performance benefit from using an AM3 cpu on a dozer board, even if they only currently have DDR2. I just don't buy it.


----------



## Goodman (Jan 17, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad



I didn't know that about dirk but from what i read that is recent & not a year like you said or i miss read you?

Article date from January 12 2011


> Citing people familiar with the matter, a story in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) said that *AMD's board had been concerned for the past year over Meyer's *seeming lack of motivation and interest in expanding the company's reach into mobile devices. Following a meeting in November, the board grew more impatient, eventually forcing Meyer to resign on Monday.
> 
> The Journal was unable to reach Meyer for comment yesterday.
> 
> Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20028285-92.html#ixzz1BH83l6P7






CDdude55 said:


> Recently i did a slight down/sidegrade to a 1055T though, as the X58 platform was getting under utilized. As i said before, no point in keeping the Enzo Ferrari around if im just going to be driving it around the block (all i manly do is gaming), so i'm planning. to sell the parts off.



So you still have the Intel parts/system?
Sorry! but i don't get you at all , it was already paid for & you went spending more money & buy an AMD system because all you do is gaming?
Your already paid I7 would have done that better anyhow...

As for Bulldozer it may be good as server chip but what we will be getting as desktop user , may not be all that good?
my guess is it will probably be as good as I7 is right now & nothing more... maybe?
Anyhow time will tell...


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jan 17, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad?
> 
> Qualcomm.



*No.* It's rumored to use qualcomm's GSM/CDMA/UMTS chipset. it's rumored to use Cortex A9-based CPU and PowerVR SGX543 GPU. no one ever said it will use Scorpion CPU or Adreno GPU.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 17, 2011)

Wile E said:


> But moving to DDR3 on current AMD cpus doesn't really provide much benefit. No matter how the current AMD owners look at it, they still have to buy both a board and cpu, at minimum, to see the performance benefits of dozer.







Wile E said:


> There are 4GB DDR2 sticks. Too pricey tho.
> 
> The mhz makes no real difference in performance, but the amount possibly could, tho I don't know anyone that could benefit from 16GB of ram that is using an AM3 chip in an AM2+ board. That has to be one of the smallest niches out there. If they don't benefit from 16GB of ram, there is no point in upgrading.
> 
> ...




err, maybe why AMD still keeping AM3 support is to keep current AM3 CPU on the market, maybe they will lower the price on to move it to lower end market, its just like intel moving platform LGA 775 to lower end consumer, but without any compability problem


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 17, 2011)

Goodman said:


> I didn't know that about dirk but from what i read that is recent & not a year like you said or i miss read you?



I said almost a year ago Dirk sold the mobile stuff off to qualcomm. Your quote says for almost a year they have been concerned...seems to fit.



pr0n Inspector said:


> *No.* It's rumored to use qualcomm's GSM/CDMA/UMTS chipset. it's rumored to use Cortex A9-based CPU and PowerVR SGX543 GPU. no one ever said it will use Scorpion CPU or Adreno GPU.



Yes. You are right. It is a rumour, but one that is near a year old as well:

January 2010:



> Qualcomm’s CEO Paul Jacobs has openly expressed interest in inserting a Qualcomm chip into Apple’s popular iPhone. New rumors reported by TheStreet.com indicate that Qualcomm’s endeavors were successful: A Qualcomm chip will power a new version of the iPhone on Verizon in the summer.



http://mashable.com/2010/01/06/qualcomm-verizon-iphone-chip/

July 2nd:



> July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Qualcomm Inc. stands to get its technology into millions of new phones if Verizon Wireless begins offering Apple Inc.’s iPhone, because the device would have to start using Qualcomm’s chip designs.
> 
> Qualcomm is the only company that can provide the signal processor that the iPhone would need to connect with Verizon’s network, said Will Strauss, an analyst for Tempe, Arizona-based Forward Concepts. Infineon Technologies AG, the provider of that chip for the AT&T Inc. version of Apple’s phone, would suffer by losing out on the Verizon shipments, he said.



http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...rizon-would-boost-qualcomm-hurt-infineon.html



> Qualcomm, which has long been rumored to supply a CDMA chipset to Apple for a Verizon-compatible iPhone, is looking to hire an "iPhone Developer Guru" for a "secret" project.
> 
> "The iPhone has no secret for you?" the job listing posted earlier this month reads. "Well, that's what you think... join us and develop the most challenging product of your life!"
> 
> Qualcomm built the first CDMA-based cellular base station in the early '90s. Today, CDMA is used by a number of carriers around the world, most notably Verizon Wireless in the U.S. Recent rumors have suggested that Apple is eyeing an early 2011 launch for a Verizon-compatible CDMA iPhone.



http://www.appleinsider.com/article...tor_qualcomm_seeks_iphone_developer_guru.html


I mean, you always need to take the stuff I post like this with a grain of salt. But if Qualcomm is making the CDMA chips for Verizon's iphone, they've already get a foot, and a leg, and another leg, into the iphone hardware. 

Point is that there is potential there, and Dirk sold it off. Profits are profits, no matter how large, and a lack of interest in Dirk's part is largely what lead to the situation @ AMD today. The "board" @ AMD has been reported as saying that this is specifically why Dirk was turfed, as Goodman's link shows.




Anyway, this is far off-topic.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 17, 2011)

I warned you guys not to question Cadaveca. Now look what you did! Reads and faps. I waned you. Have mercy on your tech soul.


----------



## MikeX (Jan 17, 2011)

some AMD boards support ECC memory. The ECC stick are like 4GB, 8GB, 16GB individual.
see http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/listmodule/DDR3/~ECC~/list.html
I don't know if these will actually work on any supported ECC AM3 boards.


----------



## jtleon (Jan 17, 2011)

Geez I hate to post off-topic...but Kudos to AMD!  Its about time for some more Intel Pwnin'!


----------



## swaaye (Jan 17, 2011)

AMD says Barcelona 40% faster than Intel Quads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_n3wvsfq4Y

I suggest skepticism with this news.  It's not that he was lying, but 40% happened only in rare special circumstances that really leveraged the on-die communication. Otherwise Barcelona was no match for Kentsfield, especially with the bugs considered (TLB and XP Cool 'n Quiet). They will only say things that put their product in a positive light.

From what I've read, Bulldozer is designed to be (hopefully) exceptional for multithreaded loads but in single/poorly threaded stuff it will have some problems up against more traditional CPU cores, especially Intel's extremely efficient modern cores. So their claims here are likely for some highly threaded apps, meaning that these results could be meaningless for most people. I just hope that their design is clearly superior overall to Phenom II in every way. It's a big architectural change and there's a lot of risk to it.


----------



## JF-AMD (Jan 17, 2011)

And Intel said that Netburst would go to 10GHz (just to be fair.)

This is why I am a strong proponent of benchmarks at launch and not before.

The 40% number was a server-only number (Randy ran the server division) but too many people had tried to take that number and compare it on client.  To the same degree I have told people not to try to draw client conclusions from any server estimates.  We look at throughput, they look at speed and you just can't draw accurate conclusions.


----------



## jtleon (Jan 18, 2011)

Not to be a Debbie Downer here....but if AMD can match the perf of Intel's flagship CPU....I will be plenty happy!


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2011)

jtleon said:


> Not to be a Debbie Downer here....but if AMD can match the perf of Intel's flagship CPU....I will be plenty happy!



indeed. cause they're likely to do it at lower cost


----------



## mackintire (Jan 18, 2011)

Bulldozer will match the i7 quad processors.

So (4) i7 cores with hyperthreading = 8 cores seen by the OS

Bulldozer with (8) interger cores = 8 cores seen by the OS


Bulldozer will be 50% faster in applications that CAN use all 8 cores to their full potential.

Now that I have said that.  Bulldozer will be as fast at Nehalem, but not as fast as sandy-bridge clock for clock.  Also Intel's processors will still be faster at the high end.

All in all AMD has set themselves up to win back a fair share of the server market with bulldozer and offer a competitive midrange product.


Don't compare this to AMDs current hex core as that processor can not even compete with Intel's i5 processor.  Bulldozer is a big step up for AMD.  If AMD can get bulldozer onto 28nm in early 2012 AMD has a good chance of maintaining competitiveness against Intel.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 18, 2011)

*twiddles thumbs* I'm anxious to change my mobo already, will get something highend me thinks : ] ( may not change cpu right away, but watch for benchmarks and overclocking info)

4 pci-e slots me thinks


----------



## Thatguy (Jan 18, 2011)

mackintire said:


> Bulldozer will match the i7 quad processors.
> 
> So (4) i7 cores with hyperthreading = 8 cores seen by the OS
> 
> ...



   Looking at some of the key design eement of bulldozer and how they are really trying to streamlin everything and balance the chip. It may actually end up with high IPC then comparable intel chips.


----------



## alexsubri (Jan 19, 2011)

mackintire said:


> Bulldozer will match the i7 quad processors.
> 
> So (4) i7 cores with hyperthreading = 8 cores seen by the OS
> 
> ...









Remember, AMD always has a trick up their sleeve...

Remember, AMD 64 FX was king of the hill back in 2006. The FX lineup is rumored to be coming back. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they were released Q4 2011 or Q2 2012



> AMD's Bulldozer is set to receive the "FX" branding, which has been absent since the Athlon 64 FX-70 back in 2006, according to DonanimHaber. The flagship 4-module, 8-core CPU Zambezi will be branded as Vision Black FX. 4-core and 6-core Bulldozer CPUs will be branded as Ultimate Vision FX.
> 
> In the past, AMD's "FX" branding was an equivalent to Intel's "Extreme Edition" moniker. The resulting products are flagships with unlocked multipliers and exorbitant ~$1000 price tags. However, since the onslaught of Intel's "Core" CPUs, AMD has been restricted to the <$300 market, with no FX CPUs. Bulldozer is AMD's most major architectural change since K8 in 2003, and arguably since K7 in 1999. Judging by the rumoured branding, it is entirely possible that the branding will be radically altered as well, with "FX" not signifying the high-end, extreme performance (and price tag) as it did in AMD's glory days. However, DonanimHaber does indicate that AMD are confident of Bulldozer's performance. Whether it will be a match for Intel's Gulftown (let alone the 8-core Sandy Bridge CPU) remains to be seen.
> 
> ...



Sauce


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 19, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...vity/files/2009/09/1-ace-up-sleeve-zp.jpg&t=1
> 
> Remember, AMD always has a trick up their sleeve...
> 
> ...



Don't see why that matters, back then the FX chips were so super expensive for the average person that it really didn't matter that they performed well. Just because the naming scheme is coming back doesn't mean they'll be cheap and beat out everything out there. We still have yet to see how a regular Bulldozer chip performs, so assuming that just because they are bringing back the top end FX chips that somehow it's going to magically turn the tables and make AMD the top performer again isn't right, but you may have your fantasy, but in the real world we'll just have to keep waiting.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 19, 2011)

JF-AMD said:


> And Intel said that Netburst would go to 10GHz (just to be fair.)
> 
> This is why I am a strong proponent of benchmarks at launch and not before.



Both very true.


Mussels said:


> indeed. cause they're likely to do it at lower cost



No they aren't. You are deluded if you believe that. Their chips sold for just as much as Intel when they could compete at the top.

The top tier will ALWAYS be in the >$800 range US retail, regardless of who makes the chip.


CDdude55 said:


> Don't see why that matters, back then the FX chips were so super expensive for the average person that it really didn't matter that they performed well. Just because the naming scheme is coming back doesn't mean they'll be cheap and beat out everything out there. We still have yet to see how a regular Bulldozer chip performs, so assuming that just because they are bringing back the top end FX chips that somehow it's going to magically turn the tables and make AMD the top performer again isn't right, but you may have your fantasy, but in the real world we'll just have to keep waiting.



Also very true.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 19, 2011)

I have to say, I think it would be truly amazing if AMD had performance competitive parts against Intel again. I have personally never owned an AMD CPU and would love to try it if they have a good product. If AMD released a chip that was 100% equal in performance and cost (including motherboard) I would honestly pick AMD just for something different. (I missed out of the AMD FX days because my parents bought a P4, needless to say quite a few years have gone by and things have changed)


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> indeed. cause they're likely to do it at lower cost



Not likely if you pay attention to history.  When AMD was matching and outperforming Intel's flagship processors, AMD was also charging the same or more.  AMD has only charged less in times when they couldn't compete with the high end.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Not likely if you pay attention to history.  When AMD was matching and outperforming Intel's flagship processors, AMD was also charging the same or more.  AMD has only charged less in times when they couldn't compete with the high end.



But winning market share won't happen so easily if they are priced the same as same performing Intel parts, i think AMD needs to try and carry on competing on value as well as performance.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> But winning market share won't happen so easily if they are priced the same as same performing Intel parts, i think AMD needs to try and carry on competing on value as well as performance.



They didn't have market share when the did it the first time. As a matter of fact no one even heard of them before. I think we will be looking at paying through the nose again. Why? Because they can.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They didn't have market share when the did it the first time. As a matter of fact no one even heard of them before. I think we will be looking at paying through the nose again. Why? Because they can.



Yes, they had been heard of. They had the entire K7 architecture before the Athlon 64s (not to mention the K5s and K6s!) which put them ahead, and before those break away chips they manufactured intel clone chips for IBM. Its not a long read to get a history of AMD.

I sure hope the prices end up being a reflection of the performance compared to competing products.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They didn't have market share when the did it the first time. As a matter of fact no one even heard of them before. I think we will be looking at paying through the nose again. Why? Because they can.



But back then AMD was beating Intel on the top end, to be honest i still don't think an 8 core bulldozer with dual channel memory will beat a dual threaded 8 core quad channel sandy bridge CPU. 

If a single threaded quad core sandy bridge chip when overclocked can trade blows with the dual threaded 6 core gulftown core than what will double the cores and dual threading do? 

Yes i know it will cost at least $1000 but if Intel is still beating AMD on the high end i don't think AMD can start charging whatever they want just yet.


----------



## HTC (Jan 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Not likely if you pay attention to history.  *When AMD was matching and outperforming Intel's flagship processors, AMD was also charging the same or more.*  AMD has only charged less in times when they couldn't compete with the high end.



Agreed, which is why i posted this:



HTC said:


> Personally, i won't like it if this 50% over I7 turns out to be true. My reasoning is simple: dominance = overpricing!
> 
> What i want is for AMD to put out a chip that is within 2% of I7 and Sandy's performance (lower or higher) but with the *same or lower* power consumption. If Bulldozer is that chip, then great for all consumers.
> 
> ...



The prices only come down with competition and, let's face it, there has been no competition, which is why Intel can charge whatever they want. The same was true when AMD led in the FX days.

I really want AMD to succeed but not by trading one overpricing CPU company for another.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

GSG-9 said:


> Yes, they had been heard of. They had the entire K7 architecture before the Athlon 64s (not to mention the K5s and K6s!) which put them ahead, and before those break away chips they manufactured intel clone chips for IBM. Its not a long read to get a history of AMD.
> 
> I sure hope the prices end up being a reflection of the performance compared to competing products.



AMD was not a household name before Athlon. AMD will charge what the market demands. Its simple. Here is an example.

If Intel is currently getting $100 for X amount of performance. Then AMD comes along and can beat Intels X performance then the market would demand it charge more then $100.

Now would they be smart to charge less and gain market share? Sure. But Intel will NOT be caught with thier pants down again like they did with the Athlon. AMD has to get what they can get NOW.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

MAybe, but that is not good business strategy. IN today's economy, it is very easy to win over customers by offering the same or better for a much lower cost.


That said, Intel's SandyBridge is very competively priced, wit hthe 3.4ghz 2600K costing a merely $329 locally. Amd needs to beat the same performance, with less cost, in order to increase market share, so that is what they MUST do.

Any failure to do so only means that those in control @ AMD are not the right people for the job...it's not the time to sit back and rake in the profits...


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 19, 2011)

HTC said:


> The prices only come down with competition and, let's face it, there has been no competition, which is why Intel can charge whatever they want. The same was true when AMD led in the FX days.


But when AMD did it back then they were innovating on new cores in the lower end still, there were quite a few cores I was so pumped when I got my first Venice to overclock.





cadaveca said:


> That said, Intel's SandyBridge is very competively priced, wit hthe 3.4ghz 2600K costing a merely $329 locally. Amd needs to beat the same performance, with less cost, in order to increase market share, so that is what they MUST do.


$329 is hard to beat with the performance it gets with a mild oc, if they had not changed the socket you know what I would be upgrading to next...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> MAybe, but that is not good business strategy. IN today's economy, it is very easy to win over customers by offering the same or better for a much lower cost.
> 
> 
> That said, Intel's SandyBridge is very competively priced, wit hthe 3.4ghz 2600K costing a merely $329 locally. Amd needs to beat the same performance, with less cost, in order to increase market share, so that is what they MUST do.
> ...



You are assuming AMD will market it properly. I agree less cost and better performance will increase market share but if Apple has taught us anything marketing a product is what matters. Not the product.  Intel markets their products well. They could have a crappier product and still out sell AMD. They have proven this in the past.

AMD needs hype. LOTS of hype. With hype comes market share.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> AMD was not a household name before Athlon. AMD will charge what the market demands. Its simple. Here is an example.


They did not excel in the market until K8/Athlon64. K7 was a generation where AMD just existed, the Athlon XP chips were never taken seriously at least not by anyone I talked to about building and I myself waited for the Athlon 64s.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are assuming AMD will market it properly. I agree less cost and better performance will increase market share but if Apple has taught us anything marketing a product is what matters. Not the product.  Intel markets their products well. They could have a crappier product and still out sell AMD. They have proven this in the past.
> 
> AMD needs hype. LOTS of hype. With hype comes market share.



Sure, and now that Dirk is gone, I really believe that ANYTHING is possible from AMD.

Also, you cannot compare AMD and Intel as businesses, directly. They are completely different, with different goals, motives, and expectations.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, and now that Dirk is gone, I really believe that ANYTHING is possible from AMD.
> 
> Also, you cannot compare AMD and Intel as businesses, directly. They are completely different, with different goals, motives, and expectations.



I can compare their markets and the rules of supply and demand.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

Sure, but even thier markets are not exactly the same.

Intel has priced Sandbridge so low in an effort to cut AMD's nuts off, plain and simple. To me, that sounds like a SCARED INTEL, not an over-confident AMD.


The "budget" market has been AMD's for some time now. Intel hasn't had "performance" or "mainstream" products in direct price competition with AMD for YEARS.


So why now? I do not believe you are looking at this very subjectively...you really have to put your own thoughts and beliefs aside and emphatically dissect AMD first.

What YOU want is NOT what AMD wants. So ignore YOUR wants, and think about AMD's goals.


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 19, 2011)

the athlon xp chips were taken seriously by builders, i built loads of systems back then with xp chips most popular was 2000xp palamino and the 3200xp barton (A64 didnt come for afew years after). only problem they had then was alot of silly people thinking mhz was everything so would by a p4 with higher mhz because they thought it was faster.

i also remember that the FX Chips were actutally cheaper at the time than intels highest offering but were still way out of my price range.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 19, 2011)

DigitalUK said:


> the athlon xp chips were taken seriously by builders, i built loads of systems back then with xp chips most popular was 2000xp palamino and the 3200xp barton (A64 didnt come for afew years after). only problem they had then was alot of silly people thinking mhz was everything so would by a p4 with higher mhz because they thought it was faster.
> 
> i also remember that the FX Chips were actutally cheaper at the time than intels highest offering but were still way out of my price range.



I honestly did not know there were 'FX' Athlon non 64 chips.


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 19, 2011)

just realized how that was typed, as i put a64 didnt come for afew years i was talking about a64 era when i said about FX


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, but even thier markets are not exactly the same.
> 
> Intel has priced Sandbridge so low in an effort to cut AMD's nuts off, plain and simple. To me, that sounds like a SCARED INTEL, not an over-confident AMD.
> 
> ...



But thats somewhat of a contradiction. If their markets are not the same then what would Intel have to be scared of? Anyway I digress. Has Intel had mainstream products that could compete with AMD for years now? No. And yet they dominate the market share of OEMs. Why? Well some would say because of the lawsuit reasons. Others would say marketing. I think its a mixture. I feel AMD will play to market demand rather then take the long term route of low price/high performance. I guess time will tell. I have a rule of never underestimating greed.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

Right. But how do they win over the OEMs? Remember that us, as a market, is jsut a drop in the bucket compared to the OEMs.



Seems to me you are considering this from the perspective as a cpu buyer/system builder, rather than an OEM. AMD doesn't sell US chips..they sell them to retailers and OEMs. Both of those tend to push products that give them the best profit.


you are right, greed palys an important role, but not AMD's greed..the greed of the real AMD cpu buyers is what is important.


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 19, 2011)

per unit cost/performance and shed loads of tv adverts so the sheep know AMD is just as good.

i build systems to this day and i still get stupid things like, i recommend an AMD to customer and they say no because there friend said AMD's dont do internet, then have to explain its a complete load of rubbish but still want intel because they know the name.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Right. But how do they win over the OEMs? Remember that us, as a market, is jsut a drop in the bucket compared to the OEMs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have an AMD rig and an Intel rig priced identical. Customer comes into store wants to buy one. Which one does he buy?


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

Which ever one the salesperson convinces him is best...? Whichever one the salesperson makes the most money off of?

It's not JUST AMD that needs to market thier products more...the OEMs need to as well. It's is impossible for anyone to achieve great levels of success on thier own, and the same applies to business as well.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Which ever one the salesperson convinces him is best...? Whichever one the salesperson makes the most money off of?
> 
> It's not JUST AMD that needs to market thier products more...the OEMs need to as well. It's is impossible for anyone to achieve great levels of success on thier own, and the same applies to business as well.



Apple. HP. Dell. Intel are ALL household names. AMD is not.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Apple. HP. Dell. Intel are ALL household names. AMD is not.



Yeah, but ATI is highly recognized here in Canada, at least. You get where I'm headed?


I mean really, that's what they need to change...mindshare. How do you do that? Maybe put your products alongside those well recognized names? Make it so that with those names, you offer more value for the dollar, but the same performance/features?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yeah, but ATI is highly recognized here in Canada, at least. You get where I'm headed?
> 
> 
> I mean really, that's what they need to change...mindshare. How do you do that? Maybe put your products alongside those well recognized names? Make it so that with those names, you offer more value for the dollar, but the same performance/features?



Nope. In a sane world sure but not in reality. Just look at Apple man. They are just better.......why I don't know but the commercials tell me so.

This is the perfect example....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Nope. In a sane world sure but not in reality. Just look at Apple man. They are just better.......why I don't know but the commercials tell me so.
> 
> This is the perfect example....
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg



MailMan has it right. When was the last time you saw an Intel advert on the TV. Now when did you last see an AMD advert on the TV. And I mean an advert where it's selling it's own product, not "here at PC world you can get the latest AMD...".

Plus Intel has that annoying DUN DUN DUN DURRRR chime at the end of every advert. Again what does AMD have?


AMD marketing really does suck.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Nope. In a sane world sure but not in reality. Just look at Apple man. They are just better.......why I don't know but the commercials tell me so.
> 
> This is the perfect example....
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg




Yeah, I get that, but of course, there is far more to making sales than just a pretty face(AMD kinda tried that with Leslie and the 3GHz Phenom1..we know how well that turned out...). There's no point in marketing a product if you can't get it into consumer's hands. That lawsuit was part of that...Intel's business practices prevented them from getting thier cpus into products that the consumers...well.. could consume.


And in regard to TV advertizing...I don't watch TV. MMA, F1, Rally racing is about the total of my TV consumption.

I mean really, us Canadians watch more youtube and such than anywhere else, as was reported recently, so marketing to me is not the same as marketing to you, etc...but again, marketing to the end user isn't the whole picture, just part of it. You can't, very specifically, market one way, and call it good enough. I think it's foolhardy to think that any single approach will be effective.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 19, 2011)

my word its amazing how quick threads turn into fanboy bitchfights lol

 anyone got any firm release date info on the new 8 core bulldozer, and has anyone else noticed a clear strategy by ati THEIR making bulldozers for effin everything phones tellies lapys pads pcs and servers prob all similar but binned different.

 thats implies to me that they are running the bejebus outa their fab plants and might yet yield even higher cored derivatives for us tech heads im not surgesting their growing spuds or summat but id be surprised if we had heard of all their surprises yet??!!


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 19, 2011)

marketing a new cpu to people like us is completely different than marketing to people who know nothing about computers. tv adverts would be pretty much useless to us but give some samples to some top sites to test and bingo.  with OEM/normal users seems to be "if you cant make it good,make it shinny" and bundle norton 360 with it and a office demo (make it seem your getting the full version) and an intel badge (doesnt matter if its says celeron,pentium or i5) as long as it says intel.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> my word its amazing how quick threads turn into fanboy bitchfights lol
> 
> anyone got any firm release date info on the new 8 core bulldozer, and has anyone else noticed a clear strategy by ati THEIR making bulldozers for effin everything phones tellies lapys pads pcs and servers prob all similar but binned different.
> 
> thats implies to me that they are running the bejebus outa their fab plants and might yet yield even higher cored derivatives for us tech heads im not surgesting their growing spuds or summat but id be surprised if we had heard of all their surprises yet??!!



Who's having a fanboy bitch fight? cadaveca and I are discussing AMD marketing strategies when it comes to bulldozer. If you are calling us fanboys you picked the wrong two guys.



cadaveca said:


> Yeah, I get that, but of course, there is far more to making sales than just a pretty face(AMD kinda tried that with Leslie and the 3GHz Phenom1..we know how well that turned out...). There's no point in marketing a product if you can't get it into consumer's hands. That lawsuit was part of that...Intel's business practices prevented them from getting thier cpus into products that the consumers...well.. could consume.
> 
> 
> And in regard to TV advertizing...I don't watch TV. MMA, F1, Rally racing is about the total of my TV consumption.
> ...



Canada is a good market. However they are not THEE market. Good old glutenous USA is the biggest consumer in the world. TV is our G-d.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Canada is a good market. However they are not THEE market. Good old glutenous USA is the biggest consumer in the world. TV is our G-d.



Meh. Isn't China about to buy 48 Billion worth of US exports? 

My point was not that one market is better than the other, but that they are very differnt, and as such, each needs it's own approach. Likewise, marketing to the consumer, and to the OEMs, is very different as well.

The big question is...does AMD have the financial brevity to successfully market thier products to each and every segment?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Meh. Isn't China about to buy 48 Billion worth of US exports?
> 
> My point was not that one market is better than the other, but that they are very differnt, and as such, each needs it's own approach. Likewise, marketing to the consumer, and to the OEMs, is very different as well.
> 
> The big question is...does AMD have the financial brevity to successfully market thier products to each and every segment?



If you are talking about marketing deviation for different demographic regions then sure. Put AMD ads on youtube for Canadians, ads on TV for Americans and ads in tentacle porn for the Japanese. But thats not the point. The fact of the matter is AMD has NO ads ANYWHERE.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

That's not entirely true. They are pushing Facebook and Twitter pretty hard, but gain, I don't think that that is enough.

I mean, I see AMD ads fairly often online...but that's about it. A big part of that though, is things like Google adwords prevents stuff like that reaching peopel who wouldn't normally see that sort of stuff...I know that alot of my internet usage is AMD-focused, so Google serves up AMD ads.

So again, do that have to power to actually market worldwide effectively? Probably not. But they do have the money to market to the largest user-base...and that's really, only the OEMs.

I mean, we both know that we already agree on all of this, it's just I do not see it as important as you do, unless truly done on a global scale.

 imean really..AMd doesn't need to market to me, and it's kinda my job to market AMD's products to you.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 19, 2011)

im saying after 2 pages of you guys punching and counter punching about only slightly relevant to this thread nonesense(marketing strategy??) i think you should have got a room a while ago


----------



## sneekypeet (Jan 19, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> im saying after 2 pages of you guys punching and counter punching about only slightly relevant to this thread nonesense(marketing strategy??) i think you should have got a room a while ago



and I think you should stop poking or flaming the discussion before you get into trouble.

Issue is the whole thread is not much more than speculation, at least this is an intelligent discussion with no feelings being hurt, let it go man!


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> im saying after 2 pages of you guys punching and counter punching about only slightly relevant to this thread nonesense(marketing strategy??) i think you should have got a room a while ago



Sure, but you must understand what started the conversation is that this bit of info that started this thread was some guerilla marketing, seemingly more aimed at creating disappointment when the actual product arrives. Alot of people are going to be screaming about how AMD lied about the 50% performance they indicated now, when the product launches. Of course, the info didn't come from AMD, seemingly, so one must wonder why it was even posted in the first place...and I don't mean psoted here on TPU...I mean posted on the orginal website/source.

that point alone, of course, leads to us discussing proper marketing practices. Logical way for the conversation to progess, it seems to me.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> The big question is...does AMD have the financial brevity to successfully market their products to each and every segment?






TheMailMan78 said:


> ...The fact of the matter is AMD has NO ads ANYWHERE.



I don't see any marketing for AMD except through OEMs and reviews on the consumer level (supplied by AMD marketing).

I see even less advertising. I think computers are a complex market because lets face it, as techies we don't _want_ to see an advertisement. We want reviews, and we want to hear first hand accounts of other users experiences. Its easy to complain that we don't see the advertisements, but I don't think we want them as AMD's primary (consumer) audience.

As far as marketing on the oem/server sides. I don't know what it takes, I don't know what an OEM wants to hear to get a product, I would assume they want a lower priced product. It seems to be that all the major companies release both AMD and Intel based solutions regardless of which has the upper hand, I know more goes into the decision for which they use but we don't hear about it.

P.S. Marketing and Advertising are not the same!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 19, 2011)

ok sorry didnt mean to offend chillax a joke is what it is

I am V interested in this topic i see it as my next upgrade prob and i think you two should both be aware that a statement of performance is niether her nor there as it may have been put out to deter better competition ie downplayed so as to reduce the pressure intel puts on amd or generally be none sense if its actually true it is still mearly a guide as of what to maybe expect   final silicon may differ greatly.

and i think if they, AMD flood the market as they will with loads of apu bulldozer derived chips and chipsets OE companies are definately gona buy as it means lower cost more profit better HD handling simples intels trying to move more towards corporately appreciated products (kill switch etc) anyway.. leaving home entertainment for ATI you arent going to see an intel CPU embedded in a telly soon but def AMD


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 19, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> That's not entirely true. They are pushing Facebook and Twitter pretty hard, but gain, I don't think that that is enough.
> 
> I mean, I see AMD ads fairly often online...but that's about it. A big part of that though, is things like Google adwords prevents stuff like that reaching peopel who wouldn't normally see that sort of stuff...I know that alot of my internet usage is AMD-focused, so Google serves up AMD ads.
> 
> ...


I agree. You being more tech orientated and me being from a marketing background we see this differently. I mean if AMD did a viral marketing attack like the old Xbox it would get them some needed hype.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2011)

Well, see that's what gets me. they have this nugget planted already into alot of people's brains, but do not realize it...


"We helped bring you the stunning graphics in the XBOX360 and the Wii. You already own our products, with millions of consoles in millions of livingrooms around the world.. Now come and see what else we can do."

But do you think the AMD team has the balls to pull that one off? Or have they even considered it?


LoL. Like I said...I need to be AMD's next CEO. They NEED me.  Killing off the ATI brand was the stupidest thing done under Dirk's Reign of Terror. Too bad that terror was his personal fear of risk.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 20, 2011)

yeah, AMD marketing deos suck, but you must remember guys that on the AMD64  days, intel was bribing OEMS so they won't buy AMD CPU.

btw at least in my country AMD marketing is everywhere even right now(i see they ads on TV and poster in the street) i sell more AMD CPU than intel one and almost every game center and internet cafe use AMD CPU


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 20, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> yeah, AMD marketing deos suck, but you must remember guys that on the AMD64  days, intel was bribing OEMS so they won't buy AMD CPU.


Thats true they got their Intel Edge asses Kicked, luckly I got myself a E6300 combo/Mobo/Vista Ultimate Combo from them before they went under. 



wahdangun said:


> btw at least in my country AMD marketing is everywhere even right now(i see they ads on TV and poster in the street) i sell more AMD CPU than intel one and almost every game center and internet cafe use AMD CPU


Thats kinda a good thing to know, even if we don't see any marketing here that does not mean they aer not marketing somewhere. At least there is some plan.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 20, 2011)

GSG-9 said:


> Thats true they got their Intel Edge asses Kicked, luckly I got myself a E6300 combo/Mobo/Vista Ultimate Combo from them before they went under.
> 
> 
> Thats kinda a good thing to know, even if we don't see any marketing here that does not mean they aer not marketing somewhere. At least there is some plan.



yeah its quite shocking to me, i mean its just now AMD have really agresive marketing(the poster and start showing of when dragon platform was launched), but on the AMD64 days i never find AMD ads even a poster


----------



## inferKNOX (Jan 20, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> yeah its quite shocking to me, i mean its just now AMD have really agresive marketing(the poster and start showing of when dragon platform was launched), but on the AMD64 days i never find AMD ads even a poster



I actually sent AMD a rant email once complaining about their complete lack of marketing.
My friends were going on and on about their nV & Intel stuff with screensavers, wallpapers, etc, & I thought let me at least find some cool AMD wallpaper to sport at a LAN too, lo and behold... NOTHING! Nothing on the entire intarwebz, well nothing decent anyway, and I was livid with AMD for not giving me, the die hard fan with the only AMD rig among an army of blue and green, even a morsel of brag-room!:shadedshu
Mind you, I did have among the best performing rigs, but you know how it is when the trolls gather...


----------



## Mussels (Jan 20, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> I actually sent AMD a rant email once complaining about their complete lack of marketing.
> My friends were going on and on about their nV & Intel stuff with screensavers, wallpapers, etc, & I thought let me at least find some cool AMD wallpaper to sport at a LAN too, lo and behold... NOTHING! Nothing on the entire intarwebz, well nothing decent anyway, and I was livid with AMD for not giving me, the die hard fan with the only AMD rig among an army of blue and green, even a morsel of brag-room!:shadedshu
> Mind you, I did have among the best performing rigs, but you know how it is when the trolls gather...



AMD do give out some marketing stuff. well, ATI did.








and yes, the fans from my PC make it wave in the 'breeze'


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 20, 2011)

Mussels said:


> AMD do give out some marketing stuff. well, ATI did.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110120/Capture256.jpg
> 
> ...



I want that flag. How much for the little flag?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 20, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I want that flag. How much for the little flag?



flag is not for sale. it'll go well with my OCZ mug TPU shirt.


also, random fact: i have a (distant) relative in the second blues brothers movie.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 21, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> I actually sent AMD a rant email once complaining about their complete lack of marketing.
> My friends were going on and on about their nV & Intel stuff with screensavers, wallpapers, etc, & I thought let me at least find some cool AMD wallpaper to sport at a LAN too, lo and behold... NOTHING! Nothing on the entire intarwebz, well nothing decent anyway, and I was livid with AMD for not giving me, the die hard fan with the only AMD rig among an army of blue and green, even a morsel of brag-room!:shadedshu
> Mind you, I did have among the best performing rigs, but you know how it is when the trolls gather...



are you sure ? because a have a dozen of AMD dragon poster, thats poster is really cool, and i also have a spider platform poster, i will give you the photo when i have my digital camera back


----------



## Jasonwuzthere (Jan 22, 2011)

*Happiness or Impressed*

I'll be very happy if they can compete head to head with Intel, even if at the same price points.  I'll be impressed/ecstatic if they can beat them at any price point.  Either way, I can't wait for the release!


----------



## sliderider (Jan 23, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Here, take some salt. AMD reportedly gave out performance figures in a presentation to its partners, performance figures seen by DonanimHaber. It is reported that an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture is pitched by its makers to have 50% higher performance than existing processors such as the Core i7 950 (4 cores, 8 threads), and Phenom II X6 1100T (6 cores). Very little is known about the processor, including at what clock speed the processor was running at, much less what other components were driving the test machine.
> 
> Taking this information into account, the said Bulldozer based processor should synthetically even outperform Core i7 980X six-core, Intel's fastest desktop processor in the market. Built from ground-up, the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based. The processor is backed by new 9-series core logic, and a new AM3+ socket. AMD is expected to unveil this platform a little later this year.
> 
> Source: DonanimHaber



Until games start utilizing more than 2 or 3 cores the performance is going to be constrained no matter how many additional cores they add. Until there are games that take full advantage of all the cores, it's an expensive waste. A similarly clocked 2 or 3 core probably wouldn't be too much slower. I'm actually impressed by how well the Core i3 games even when compared to a Phenom II x4.


----------



## Wile E (Jan 23, 2011)

sliderider said:


> Until games start utilizing more than 2 or 3 cores the performance is going to be constrained no matter how many additional cores they add. Until there are games that take full advantage of all the cores, it's an expensive waste. A similarly clocked 2 or 3 core probably wouldn't be too much slower. I'm actually impressed by how well the Core i3 games even when compared to a Phenom II x4.



Just to be fair, games aren't the only thing cpus are used for.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 23, 2011)

sliderider said:


> Until games start utilizing more than 2 or 3 cores the performance is going to be constrained no matter how many additional cores they add. Until there are games that take full advantage of all the cores, it's an expensive waste. A similarly clocked 2 or 3 core probably wouldn't be too much slower. I'm actually impressed by how well the Core i3 games even when compared to a Phenom II x4.



Firstly, what guy above me said is true.

Secondly more and more games/apps will support multi threading as time goes on, I've already got a whole bunch of programs that use all 6 of my cores.

The rate that multithreading is supported will increase and actually only get faster and faster.

Eventually every app that comes out will be multithreaded by default ( free potential performance boost after all)

Also, bare in mind a some games you can fiddle with settings and force them to multithread 

Sometimes it doesn't make a difference but other times it will reduce minimum fps/frame drops in general. 
Cool!


----------



## psyko12 (Jan 23, 2011)

If it's true and the price is right tis easier to get AMD cpu's here rather than intel, budget wise here in the Philippines AMD is the way to go, and intel chips are rarer and pricier than amd chips here.


----------



## sliderider (Jan 23, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Just to be fair, games aren't the only thing cpus are used for.



And here I thought this was a gaming forum.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jan 23, 2011)

sliderider said:


> And here I thought this was a gaming forum.



Clues in the name of the forum actually 

he he


----------



## Wile E (Jan 24, 2011)

sliderider said:


> And here I thought this was a gaming forum.



Not really. It's a computer tech forum.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 24, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Firstly, what guy above me said is true.
> 
> Secondly more and more games/apps will support multi threading as time goes on, I've already got a whole bunch of programs that use all 6 of my cores.
> 
> ...


I own a few games that utilize all 6 of my cores.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Feb 5, 2011)

Being an Avid AMD Fanboy and lover of their procs, I take this with less than a grain of salt. IF true, well done and about time, but you have to look at this within reason of what Intel has been doing since AMD whooped its ass and it came back strong and continues to do so. I will wait to see performance numbers but hopefully the new architecture will be amazing.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Oct 12, 2011)




----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 12, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I own a few games that utilize all 6 of my cores.



What else besides BF3?


----------



## Jstn7477 (Oct 12, 2011)

Funny that this thread has been dug back up. 10 months later and now we know the answers.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 12, 2011)

This thread is old... No sense in beating a dead horse  it should be locked


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 12, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> What else besides BF3?



Shogun, F1, Any source game, Supreme Commander and a dozen others.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 12, 2011)

*AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer.* Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this, 
LINK:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 12, 2011)

nt300 said:


> *AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer.* Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this,
> LINK:
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/11



some said ms was working on patch for win7 to fix this.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Interesting....


> We can hope that Windows 8 and upgraded applications and utilities that use the new FX instructions will make it more competitive, and I'd expect these things right about the time Ivy Bridge become available.
> 
> *Pros:*
> + First consumer eight-core processor
> ...


http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...k=view&id=831&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=17


----------



## Mussels (Oct 13, 2011)

the extra PCI-E lanes make me think it may be worth it for crossfire/SLI


edit: really, windows 8? thats an interesting comment


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the extra PCI-E lanes make me think it may be worth it for crossfire/SLI
> 
> 
> edit: really, windows 8? thats an interesting comment



Oh you caught that too...Yeah...kinda like spitting in someones wound to get the salt to spread better.


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 13, 2011)

Mussels said:


> the extra PCI-E lanes make me think it may be worth it for crossfire/SLI
> 
> 
> edit: really, windows 8? thats an interesting comment



Let me clarify that for you...

It's nothing fancy really.


Bulldozer has 4 "packages". Each of them contains 2 cores.

For Turbo mode to work correctly, workload must be on a single package. If workload splits between 2 cores between 2 packages, the cpu won't be able to turn off cores that are not in use.

Bulldozer can turn off "package" but not individual core.


----------



## specks (Oct 13, 2011)

If its true then


----------



## wolf (Oct 13, 2011)

btarunr said:


> the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based.



seems like what they wanted but not what they achieved... especially when you compare it to PII X6 1100T or X4 980, let alone the last 2 generations of core i5/i7....

I am so idssapointed in Bulldozer, almost heartbroken... I wanted it to succeed and compete against SB quite badly, but it's almost like they are still in the water at the moment, they added 2 cores but made each core do less than a PII... ?


----------



## Nick89 (Nov 13, 2011)

Woa, what happened between January an October?


----------



## Super XP (Nov 13, 2011)

We were trying to kill off this thread, and now you resurrected it


----------



## Frick (Nov 13, 2011)

Only mods can truly kill threads!


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 13, 2011)

i dont think they can kill news threads. anyhoo keep to topic or leave this thread.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure, but you must understand what started the conversation is that this bit of info that started this thread was some guerilla marketing, seemingly more aimed at creating disappointment when the actual product arrives. Alot of people are going to be screaming about how AMD lied about the 50% performance they indicated now, when the product launches. Of course, the info didn't come from AMD, seemingly, so one must wonder why it was even posted in the first place...and I don't mean psoted here on TPU...I mean posted on the orginal website/source.
> 
> that point alone, of course, leads to us discussing proper marketing practices. Logical way for the conversation to progess, it seems to me.



I find it funny that I was warning about the poor marketing creating false expectations for months before the launch, as seen in the quote above, from back in January. 

Nothing really changed over those months, per se...at least for myself.  


No need to hide this thread!


----------



## CDdude55 (Nov 13, 2011)

We know you said that, you've mentioned how you've said that multiple times. Really the best strategy that i think most people should take is to not expect things will go a certain way no matter what people are saying, as the only people who were really mad or sad about the FX chips were people who saw ''new architecture'' written everywhere and hence proceeded to wet their pants and expect more then what they got.  

When it comes to this thread though, even a blind man could of easily seen that this threads prediction was not going to come true, 50% faster then a Core i7 is significant and felt mroe like wishful thinking as opposed to anything factual.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2011)

Aren't you people tired of this conversation yet? Don't get me wrong, I find most of you amusing.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 13, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> We know you said that, you've mentioned how you've said that multiple times. Really the best strategy that i think most people should take is to not expect things will go a certain way no matter what people are saying, as the only people who were really mad or sad about the FX chips were people who saw ''new architecture'' written everywhere and hence proceeded to wet their pants and expect more then what they got.
> 
> When it comes to this thread though, even a blind man could of easily seen that this threads prediction was not going to come true, 50% faster then a Core i7 is significant and felt mroe like wishful thinking as opposed to anything factual.



Sure. But it seems that I cannot stress this point enough. I'm not some boy-genius or anything..as you say, it's obvious, but many have ignored the obvious.

I'll be using this same example for some time, not because I'm tooting my own horn...but because really, I don't know jack. It's pretty painful to see peopel ignore the obvious, and then be upset because of it.



erocker said:


> Aren't you people tired of this conversation yet? Don't get me wrong, I find most of you amusing.



meh. Bulldozer will be talked about for years and years. I still cannot get FX-8120 or FX-8150 in lcoal shops, and I was at them all yesterday. Not ONE chip has come into town yet. Until it does, this is the best and closest I can get to playing with my own.


----------



## Super XP (Nov 13, 2011)

Well since we are on topic, what about this post about the Bulldozer's L1, L2 and L3 cache. What I am reading is Bulldozer may need a complete cache overhaul. Am I correct? Or AMD can fix this with minor process revisions and tweaks.


> Total cache can be deceptive.
> As I indicated in earlier speculation thread scrypt is VERY L1 cache dependent.
> 
> While the Bulldozer has more total cache (L1+L2+L3) it has less L1 data cache (L1 cahce is divided into discrete data & instruction caches).
> ...






> > Do you guys think a revision or stepping will make any difference besides make the power consumption better?
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a L1 cache bug, absolutely; could be 10% right there. If other efficiencies altogether added another 10% (include BIOS revisions in there too), we could see a 20%-25% improvement, which pretty much puts this chip where it needed to be; if not a thriller, certainly no disappointment.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I find it funny that I was warning about the poor marketing creating false expectations for months before the launch, as seen in the quote above, from back in January.
> 
> Nothing really changed over those months, per se...at least for myself.
> 
> ...



I honestly thought that they had a chance though. AMD's marketing team did a great job of leading me to believe that they were on to something. Oh well, lesson learned.



CDdude55 said:


> We know you said that, you've mentioned how you've said that multiple times. Really the best strategy that i think most people should take is to not expect things will go a certain way no matter what people are saying, as the only people who were really mad or sad about the FX chips were people who saw ''new architecture'' written everywhere and hence proceeded to wet their pants and expect more then what they got.
> 
> When it comes to this thread though, even a blind man could of easily seen that this threads prediction was not going to come true, 50% faster then a Core i7 is significant and felt mroe like wishful thinking as opposed to anything factual.



Truer words I have not heard spoken in a long time.


----------

