# AMD tapes out its Bulldozer CPU architecture



## mdsx1950 (Jul 19, 2010)

I found an interesting article. Thought i'd share it 



> On Friday, AMD announced that it has successfully taped out its much delayed Bulldozer architecture and hopes to begin sampling working chips with customers shortly. The company's new high-end architecture will be fabricated on the 32nm process at Globalfoundries and is expected to sample throughout the second half of 2010.
> 
> We recently reported that AMD's 32nm Zambezi eight-core processor, the first to release in the Bulldozer lineup, will use a modified AM3 r2 socket and should feature 8MB of L3 cache, should support DDR3 1866MHz speeds, and should be paired with the Scorpio platform. The company has also stated that Interlagos is the server codename for its 32nm, sixteen-core Opteron 6000 series processors based on socket G34 which will be paired with the Maranello platform.
> 
> ...


----------



## erocker (Jul 19, 2010)

Samples shipping soon. Nice! I'm trying to be optimistic about performance, hopefully we'll get to see some leaks soon.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 19, 2010)

Awesome find bro, very interesting


----------



## Melvis (Jul 19, 2010)

This is looking promising, as long as it leap frogs the current i7 in performance they have a good chance of a good future. Bring on bulldozer.....


----------



## ebolamonkey3 (Jul 19, 2010)

Looking forward to leaked specs!


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 19, 2010)

what to do to get a sample?


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jul 19, 2010)

pft 16 cores...... Bring on the 48 cores @ 5.00GHZ 
srsly its not far away now, 3-5 years imo.




really want to see some benchmarks at the same clocks as an i7. wonder if its going to surpass clock for clock.


----------



## enaher (Jul 19, 2010)

Bring on the A64 day's were AMD was more expensive , wait is that really good?


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 19, 2010)

I seriously hope that this series of CPUs perform on par with Intels. I'm fed up of seeing AMD as the "weaker" yet cheaper option.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 19, 2010)

enaher said:


> Bring on the A64 day's were AMD was more expensive , wait is that really good?



I can not remember the P4 costing more than the Athlon 64. Maybe it was a region thing but over here Intel prices it self higher regardless.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 19, 2010)

WhiteLotus said:


> I seriously hope that this series of CPUs perform on par with Intels. I'm fed up of seeing AMD as the "weaker" yet cheaper option.


I think it is because that was AMD's priority in designing it.  If AMD pumped all the money into R&D and it still falls way short of Intel's offerings, investors would be pissed.


There's no way to be certain though.


----------



## TIGR (Jul 19, 2010)

slyfox2151 said:


> pft 16 cores...... Bring on the 48 cores @ 5.00GHZ
> srsly its not far away now, 3-5 years imo.



48 cores yes. 5GHz, probably not. As clock rate goes up, the heat generated and power consumed by a CPU per unit of performance become prohibitively high—Intel calls it the ”fundamental theorem of multicore processors.” This is a good intro to why the future of computing is massively parallel.


----------



## largon (Jul 19, 2010)

Hoping for memory width higher than 128bit... 
And it will surely be interesting to see what new tricks AMD has stuffed in Bulldozer for it's been too much of evolutionary additions and not much of the revolution type since Hammer came back in 2003.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 19, 2010)

largon said:


> Hoping for memory width higher than 128bit...



On Wikipedia, it says that the Bulldozer will support quad channel memory. Do you think this might speed up memory bandwidth enough?


----------



## largon (Jul 19, 2010)

QC would mean it's 256bit, double what AM3 has atm. I doubt we'll see that. Buuut I'd like to be wrong on that one. 256bits requires four populated DIMMs - do I hear memory manufacturers screaming "Quad channel kits!!one1"? 
¦P


----------



## Timonthy (Jul 19, 2010)

Bulldozer should use quad-channel memory (256-bit) AFAIK. 

The G34 Opterons are already Quad-channel and has been promised Bulldozer, I doubt AMD will take a step backwards. Its probably gonna be like the i7 and scales back to dual channel with only 2DIMMs inserted.


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jul 19, 2010)

largon said:


> QC would mean it's 256bit, double what AM3 has atm. I doubt we'll see that. Buuut I'd like to be wrong on that one. 256bits requires four populated DIMMs - do I hear memory manufacturers screaming "Quad channel kits!!one1"?
> ¦P



were there tripple channel kits when skt 775 was dom? 
why would they market quad channel kits to a market that dosnt exist?



im fairly certain intel has said they are also going to be using quad channel, with there new R Socket (2011)


----------



## twilyth (Jul 20, 2010)

TIGR said:


> 48 cores yes. 5GHz, probably not. As clock rate goes up, the heat generated and power consumed by a CPU per unit of performance become prohibitively high—Intel calls it the ”fundamental theorem of multicore processors.” This is a good intro to why the future of computing is massively parallel.



As dies continue to shrink, they've got other problems besides heat and power.  I remember reading something recently where one scientist said that the speed of light was just too damn slow.  Amazing.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 20, 2010)

i can't wait for the reviews. With all the hype that has been put on these i hope they don't turn out to be another Phenom


----------



## GENTLEMEN (Jul 20, 2010)

All I'm hoping for is backwards compatability to AM3 and performance on par (if not greater) than the current i7 while still keeping it's pricing methods (maybe a bit higher).

Hmm, I smell 48 core Black Editions...


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 20, 2010)

I get the feeling that these procs might dominate the market next year.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 20, 2010)

^ We hope so that's for sure, and for AMD's sake


----------



## largon (Jul 20, 2010)

GENTLEMEN said:


> All I'm hoping for is backwards compatability to AM3 (...)


If Bulldozer were pin compatible with AM3, which I hope it is not, it would mean it would have only dual channel memory as AM3 doesn't have enough pins for >128bit memory. 
I'd like to see desktop BD using LGA1207'ish socket.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 20, 2010)

and if we pay attention to how amd has done things lately 9/10 the BullDozer chips on AM3 will be like the AM2+ Phenom IIs where the IMC was disabled (thats an EXAMPLE ) its no that far a fetch just because only dual channel could be used dosent mean it wouldnt still be a huge upgrade for ppl with AM3. I hope it uses AM3 because i dont need quadchannel memory. Altho i do 3d rendering etc on my off time ive found that even with huge amounts of data the number of channels dont help as much as more ram. And to be honest id only want the upgrade if bulldozer offered better gaming performance and im pretty sure dual channel DDR3 isnt the bottleneck in that senario.


----------



## Frick (Jul 20, 2010)

twilyth said:


> As dies continue to shrink, they've got other problems besides heat and power.  I remember reading something recently where one scientist said that the speed of light was just too damn slow.  Amazing.



Link? 

Another problem is that after a couple of shrinks they're running out of atoms to work with. Then they need new materials.


----------



## adrianx (Jul 20, 2010)

wtf.... I change my sistem on 16/07/2010 from amd x4 9850 BE, and 8GB ddr2 1066mhz to x6 phenom 1090T and 4gb ddr3 1600mhz. so I'm pissed of ....wtf they need to change the socket?


----------



## DriedFrogPills (Jul 20, 2010)

no need to stress AdrianX all sources generally are pointing to the first few Bulldozer CPU's being compatible with AM3

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871/2


----------



## GENTLEMEN (Jul 20, 2010)

Well, I was thinking more of a new socket (am4?) where newer features would be there, but "Bulldozer" would still fit in AM3 sockets to retain "some" backwards compatability. Or it might go the way of lga1156/1157 and new platform time.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 20, 2010)

Im sure a fully fledged bulldozer will be a new socket, maybe just a few of the first gen stuff will be backwards compatible, but not the pure breed bulldozer. (i hope)


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 20, 2010)

Sounds great so far!.,

If it offers a pretty significant boost over my current i7 rig, then i shall be looking at this and switching up for an AMD rig.


----------



## Techtu (Jul 20, 2010)

Frick said:


> Link?
> 
> Another problem is that after a couple of shrinks they're running out of atoms to work with. Then they need new materials.



+1

Moore's law is coming to an end as we know it!


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 20, 2010)

If there 8 cores are equal or better performing than the i7 980x and cheaper. I'll be jumping aboard the AMD ship. Can't wait to see the 12 and 16 core chips. 

EDIT: Cheaper or not, if it outperforms the 980X it will be pure win.


----------



## krisna159 (Jul 20, 2010)

hmmm very intersting to see AMD moving forward like this...
let wait and see how this buldozer can beat up intel lineup procesor,just keep it up AMD


----------



## GENTLEMEN (Jul 20, 2010)

Though, if it does outperform the 980x at lower costs, maybe we can finally see Intel making "competitive" pricing at the upper end. Besides, maybe after 32nm, imagine 24core BE chips on air...


----------



## mdsx1950 (Jul 20, 2010)

GENTLEMEN said:


> Though, if it does outperform the 980x at lower costs, maybe we can finally see Intel making "competitive" pricing at the upper end. Besides, maybe after 32nm, imagine 24core BE chips on air...



24Core BE chips will be pretty badass.  Should be able to encode a BluRay movie in seconds lol.


----------



## mdm7923 (Jul 21, 2010)

Heres to hoping AMD will put up a fight this round. according to the information we have so far though, it should be an interesting race in 2011/2012. here is a glimpse of what the high end market has in store from both companies

*Intel Sandy Bridge*
Socket 2011
6 to 8 cores w/ hyper-threading
4x DDR3 1600
3.2 GHz+ clock speed
Expected release Q3/Q4 2011

*AMD Bulldozer* 
Socket AM3+,AM3                                        
8 Cores w/ "multi-threading" technology           
4x DDR3 1866                                              
Clock speed unknown
Expected release Q1 2011


Overall the AMD architecture looks like it may outperform Intel due to the higher native
memory speed. And also because of price. the Sandy Bridge 8 core will be a 3.2GHz EE
only, and carry a price tag of $1000 whereas bulldozer will carry a price tag
somewhere in the $300-500 range. Also, there is the fact that AM3+ will be backwards
compatible over the course of a few CPU generations, whereas socket 2011 will last
2-3 years, like the current LGA1366 platform.

Looks like my next build may be an AMD build. but for the love of god, please score a 7.9 on WEI. I need those kind of bragging rights


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 21, 2010)

Price is determined by competitiveness.  If the Bulldozer has a $300-500 price compared to Sand Bridge's $1000, that means Sandy Bridge is still considerably faster than Bulldozer.

Memory speed also isn't very telling in terms of overall performance.  Core i7 920, for example, has DDR3-1066 while AM3 processors are DDR3-1333.  The 920 has tri-channel memory instead of dual though so it slaughters it in terms of sheer bandwidth.  Even if you handicap the 920's memory, it's still a faster chip than Phenom II clock for clock.

AMD is throwing some new technologies out there and we just don't know how well they'll perform until they get benchmarked by 3rd party sources.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 21, 2010)

twilyth said:


> I remember reading something recently where one scientist said that the speed of light was just too damn slow.  Amazing.



Then that scientist was a moron, not uncommon among scientist. It's a downside of being a specialist in a mentally rigid system. Like how specific doctors always look at your symptoms in terms of their specialty often giving you a wrong diagnosis. You need a generalist to get proper direction for a treatment... but I digress. The speed of light isn't the problem, the architecture and materials used are. Switching from silicone could net a 10x increase in speed. Switching to an optical/laser architecture could bring a 10x-100x improvement. Ballistic deflection processors could bring a radical change even sticking with silicone, about 1000x. The real problem is the current architecture is just so shitty. Flipping switches on and off is so wasteful. It's hard for me to get excited about the 10-15% increase we get from new cpu architecture because I know it's just so half-assed. A company like Intel could fast track development of one of these techs at the expense of the tic-toc development pattern while still maintaining a performance lead with existing i7 products. Once they came out with one of those news archs they'd rape the market and easily become the most valued company in the world. Probably get in trouble for a monopoly but it wouldn't be their fault the competition fell 20 years behind.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 21, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Then that scientist was a moron, not uncommon among scientist. It's a downside of being a specialist in a mentally rigid system. Like how specific doctors always look at your symptoms in terms of their specialty often giving you a wrong diagnosis. You need a generalist to get proper direction for a treatment... but I digress. The speed of light isn't the problem, the architecture and materials used are. Switching from silicone could net a 10x increase in speed. Switching to an optical/laser architecture could bring a 10x-100x improvement. Ballistic deflection processors could bring a radical change even sticking with silicone, about 1000x. The real problem is the current architecture is just so shitty. Flipping switches on and off is so wasteful. It's hard for me to get excited about the 10-15% increase we get from new cpu architecture because I know it's just so half-assed. A company like Intel could fast track development of one of these techs at the expense of the tic-toc development pattern while still maintaining a performance lead with existing i7 products. Once they came out with one of those news archs they'd rape the market and easily become the most valued company in the world. Probably get in trouble for a monopoly but it wouldn't be their fault the competition fell 20 years behind.



I wish I could remember the context.  I just thought it was a funny comment.  Not sure why you think it was moronic given you have no idea what the context was.

Anyway, that's not really relevant.  However some links for the stats you posted would be interesting.


----------



## krisna159 (Jul 21, 2010)

i hope the buldozer came up with triple chanel memory,its the best way to compete against intel core i7


----------



## TIGR (Jul 21, 2010)

Tech2 said:


> Moore's law is coming to an end as we know it!



Not that there's any guarantee it will continue on, but Moore's law has met and conquered many obstacles that previously appeared insurmountable in the past. The ongoing march of technological progress is not a steady process of gradually building up to higher and higher levels of power and sophistication, but a capricious beast that has periods of rest as well as unforeseeable breakthroughs.

Who knows ... optical and/or quantum computing may swoop in to save the day, or it may be something completely out of the blue that nobody has thought of. Moore's Law has been called a self-fulfilling prophecy because the industry strives to keep pace with it as a benchmark. They will not fail it without a fight.


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 21, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Price is determined by competitiveness.  If the Bulldozer has a $300-500 price compared to Sand Bridge's $1000, that means Sandy Bridge is still considerably faster than Bulldozer.



Actually not 100% true. When the P4's were released they cost 1k for unlocked multi's. Also when core 2 came out AMD X2's could be more expensive even though they were slower.


----------



## TIGR (Jul 21, 2010)

^^ In a perfect world, price might be determined by competitiveness, but we are not so lucky as to live in a world so simple. First, the range of pricing is not linear—generally, after a certain point, as you go up in performance, you drop in performance per dollar. And the question must be asked, "performance in _what_?" Different architectures and designs are advantageous for certain types of computing but not for others. Then there's brand loyalty, which may allow, for example, one company to generate better sales at a higher price point than a competing product simply because buyers in that segment are typically loyal to that brand. Finally, supply vs demand in a certain segment and product differentiation play a big role in pricing.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jul 21, 2010)

Positively itching to see AMD finally get a break.

I wonder when they will finally move on from this type of architecture to others like quantum architecture, etc.


----------



## Champ (Jul 21, 2010)

Just a general observation, this forum is generally anti-intel (let me add Nvidia). I don't own any Intel hardware yet so, this is unbiased.  If AMD starts outperforming Intel processors, I expect the price to rise accordingly.  I think that's what makes AMD look good.  You pay for the performance you know your gonna get with Intel, but AMD gives you decent performance for much less.  It usually shows with Intel with gaming or benchmarking.  How does AMD sell their processors cheaper?  Same product, but massive difference in prices.  I'm being serious.  Are they using lower quality/cheaper parts?


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 21, 2010)

Champ said:


> How does AMD sell their processors cheaper?  Same product, but massive difference in prices.  I'm being serious.  Are they using lower quality/cheaper parts?



Designing a CPU takes years and costs millions whereas once actual production starts it costs very little to create and then the actual profit they make from selling them so cheaply covers the cost of design. Since intel has the performance crown they can sell a chip that only cost a few dollars to make for $1000 because it's the fastest. If AMD did the same no-one would buy it so they sell it for much less because more people would buy it.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 22, 2010)

I have seen on this forum a few people say that AMD use higher quality materials/parts in there CPU's compared to intel? I cant back this up, but i have seen it been said before.


----------



## TIGR (Jul 22, 2010)

Melvis said:


> I have seen on this forum a few people say that AMD use higher quality materials/parts in there CPU's compared to intel? I cant back this up, but i have seen it been said before.



If you happen to find more info and a source for that, please post—I'd be very interested in that info.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 22, 2010)

TIGR said:


> If you happen to find more info and a source for that, please post—I'd be very interested in that info.



Yea even id like to find it to, just for myself to look into, i thought it was a convo between a member and a moderator. If i find it, it be a miracle lol


----------



## Champ (Jul 22, 2010)

I'm even on the scale with both, but if that's true, that would help sway someone's mind   Well, I know for a fact that AMDs handle voltage a lot better than Intels.  But Intel OC high on the voltage they do take.  I can't translate this into quality.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 22, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Since intel has the performance crown they can sell a chip that only cost a few dollars to make for $1000 because it's the fastest. If AMD did the same no-one would buy it so they sell it for much less because more people would buy it.



This is true, but to a larger extent the performance crown plays a very little part in whether people will buy a $1,000 Intel CPU. The larger part is brand awareness, Intel has a bigger brand identity due to their larger marketing budget. Even if Intel’s performance crown was dethroned they'll still have the larger market share and marketing budget so they'll price their CPUs at $1,000 regardless and customers will still buy it.

To a large extent Intel’s guerrilla marketing is so effective that when Intel doesn’t have the performance crown their fan base will still be just as strong if not stronger because the general public will always assume AMD is inferior due to its smaller market presence, the general public do not read reviews or obsess about benchmarks like us enthusiasts do and will opt to a slower $1,000 Intel over a faster $500 almost every time.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 22, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> This is true, but to a larger extent the performance crown plays a very little part in whether people will buy a $1,000 Intel CPU. The larger part is brand awareness, Intel has a bigger brand identity due to their larger marketing budget. Even if Intel’s performance crown was dethroned they'll still have the larger market share and marketing budget so they'll price their CPUs at $1,000 regardless and customers will still buy it.



This is so true, just look at the Pentium 4 /Athlon days, this is when AMD was far superior then intel, but did anyone know this? Nope because know one new what the hell AMD was. Intel continued to out sell AMD even though they had a CPU that was very much behind AMD at the time. Marketing your product is the key to success.


----------



## mdm7923 (Jul 22, 2010)

And this is exactly why Sandy Bridge 8 Core EE will be $1000 while AMD Bulldozer is $3-500 (to start).

Also, does anyone know what is going on with the multi-threading. I know it is hardware based unlike Intel HT but does that mean the Bulldozer 8 core is 8 physical cores, 16 logical or 4 physical and 8 logical (like the current i7). because an 8 core that performs almost as good as a 16 core (due to the hardware based multi-threading) would kick the crap out of the Intel.

Heck even a 6 physical 12 logical would probably still be better than the current 980X if it is using hardware based hyper-threading.

If they could also figure out a way to do the "thread fusion" to combine all the cores into one for single threaded apps, well that would just be unspeakably awesome, and would be something like having a 24 GHz CPU core on the 8 core model!


----------



## Super XP (Jul 28, 2010)

I heard AMD’s Bulldozer is going to be at the very least 40% faster than Intel’s Sandy Bridge or if you like to call it Nehalem II. Obviously Bulldozer is above and beyond what is currently out today. Only time will tell. Can’t wait for some leaked scores.


----------



## mdm7923 (Jul 28, 2010)

well, that is great news for the competitive market then, as well as us consumers.
The performance of bulldozer combined with the recent news that Apple may be switching to AMD processors for it's macs will surely stir up some competition, and should bring high end parts from both chip-makers down to affordable levels.

If this 40% performance benefit proves true, I think that this future generation of CPUs will end up much like the recent ATI/Nvidia graphics wars, in which ATI can offer higher performing GPUs at the same, or a lower price than a comparable Nvidia. It will also spark lower prices, which may push hex and octocores into the mid-range or mainstream segment. This will be very good for Personal Computers in general. This might finally be the push that is needed to get the highly multi-threaded apps that we need to take advantage of the additional processing power. It just makes sense at that point for software developers to deliver high performance apps that use ALL of the cores.

Also, if this proves true, this would mean that we could see a HUGE performance boost in personal computing power over the next couple of years,with DDR3 becoming cheaper, octo core CPUs, PCIE 3.0, mainstream USB 3.0, and larger, cheaper solid state drives coming into the picture all in the 2011-2012 time-frame. I do however believe that SATA 6 gb/s is doomed, as these solid state drives will hit 600 MB/s quickly. In the future, I believe that our disks will be PCIE Based. this allows for a theoretical 8GB/s read/write speeds (using PCIE 3.0)


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 28, 2010)

Melvis said:


> This is so true, just look at the Pentium 4 /Athlon days, this is when AMD was far superior then intel, but did anyone know this? Nope because know one new what the hell AMD was. Intel continued to out sell AMD even though they had a CPU that was very much behind AMD at the time. Marketing your product is the key to success.



Most definitely true.

I remember at that time the Pentium 4's were all over the place, i saw commercials on the Pentium 4's all the time and i actually had no clue AMD even existed until i really starting getting into the computer hardware scene, that's where i realized most gamers were using the Athlon's and i was like wtf. Good times.


----------



## Super XP (Jul 29, 2010)

Great post. 
I look forward to Intel's Lite Peak technology where it can hit between 10GB/s upto 100GB/s. Though I do believe LPTech won't be ready until later in 2011 and so this may be the reason why Intel has yet to support USB 3.0.

Why don't companies play nice  For the past several years, AMD lead the way. Such as they kept DDR2 alive for a long time where as Intel screwed themselves with expensive DDR3. The industry stuck with AMD and it's strong DDR2 support. Anyway, I admire Intel's innovations, but for some reason AMD's Bulldozer design may very well be something phenomenally crazy and awesome at the same time, they may actually steer the PC gaming & multi-media industry with Bulldozer. 

Remember the Opteron & the Athlon 64 when they took the industry by storm? Well I believe Bulldozer is going to be 10X more potent and AMD’s stock may go way high.

Remember this? It's an old article, but it hits the nail on the head. Thank you AMD for being a super strong UnderDOG 
*Where AMD leads, Intel follows. * 
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1011948/where-amd-leads-intel-follows



> *Role reversal: How it might have been!*
> If there had been a role reversal between Intel and AMD - that is, Intel had developed what AMD had brought to market and AMD had done the same with Intel's technology - AMD would have failed as a going concern long before this day.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 29, 2010)

Super XP said:


> Great post.
> I look forward to Intel's Lite Peak technology where it can hit between 10GB/s upto 100GB/s. Though I do believe LPTech won't be ready until later in 2011 and so this may be the reason why Intel has yet to support USB 3.0.
> 
> Why don't companies play nice  For the past several years, AMD lead the way. Such as they kept DDR2 alive for a long time where as Intel screwed themselves with expensive DDR3. The industry stuck with AMD and it's strong DDR2 support.



How did Intel screw themselves in moving technology forward?, Because DDR3 was expensive? i don't see how they screwed themselves, its not like they forced everyone to move to DDR3. Of course is going to be expensive, it's new tech, that's just how they get priced like every other new tech when released. How are you ''leading the way'' by staying with old technology?



> Remember the Opteron & the Athlon 64 when they took the industry by storm? Well I believe Bulldozer is going to be 10X more potent and AMD’s stock may go way high.
> 
> Remember this? It's an old article, but it hits the nail on the head. Thank you AMD for being a super strong UnderDOG
> Where AMD leads, Intel follows.
> ...



Don't jizz your pants over something that we still have yet to get full concrete information on, what are you basing your opinions on besides the obvious fanboy love for AMD.(no offense lol).


----------



## mdm7923 (Jul 29, 2010)

> Don't jizz your pants over something that we still have yet to get full concrete information on, what are you basing your opinions on besides the obvious fanboy love for AMD.(no offense).



You are exactly right, there is no real way to tell without benchmarks. Yes, in theory the architecture seems to be revolutionary in a way that Intel's new architecture is not. This does not however prove that it will run 10x better than the Intel chip. I will be going with whoever can provide me bleeding edge performance for a reasonable price. This generation it was the Core i7 920 that got my attention. We will see when the benchmarks come out. I'm pulling for AMD simply because, as I said I want the best, but at an affordable price, and I know the Intel octocore is going to cost $1000 given their recent pricing scheme, that much is predictable. 

That being said, it would seem foolish to even think about replacing an i7 system at this point but my lust for
a 7.9 is insatiable, even though the WEI, in most cases is a really crappy benchmark and, unfortunatley Due to Intel changing sockets
every 3 seconds, I pretty much HAVE to buy a new rig...


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 29, 2010)

mdm7923 said:


> You are exactly right, there is no real way to tell without benchmarks. Yes, in theory the architecture seems to be revolutionary in a way that Intel's new architecture is not. This does not however prove that it will run 10x better than the Intel chip. I will be going with whoever can provide me bleeding edge performance for a reasonable price. This generation it was the Core i7 920 that got my attention. We will see when the benchmarks come out. I'm pulling for AMD simply because, as I said I want the best, but at an affordable price, and I know the Intel octocore is going to cost $1000 given their recent pricing scheme, that much is predictable.
> 
> That being said, it would seem foolish to even think about replacing an i7 system at this point but my lust for
> a 7.9 is insatiable, even though the WEI, in most cases is a really crappy benchmark and, unfortunatley Due to Intel changing sockets
> every 3 seconds, I pretty much HAVE to buy a new rig...



I agree.

Really, until i see something concrete, evaluated, tested etc, im not buying the hype.


----------



## nt300 (Jul 29, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> How did Intel screw themselves in moving technology forward?, Because DDR3 was expensive? i don't see how they screwed themselves, its not like they forced everyone to move to DDR3. Of course is going to be expensive, it's new tech, that's just how they get priced like every other new tech when released. How are you ''leading the way'' by staying with old technology?


You misunderstand the point super is trying to make or I think what he is trying to say. If AMD and Intel roles were reversed, AMD would have failed long ago. Intel can afford to screw up which thy did many times in the past.

With DDR2 and DDR3, if you read up on past, Intel suffered very slow adoption because DDR3 was too much money. Many bought DDR2 based computers because it costs cheaper and the performance gap was none existent. Ony after AMD went full bore with DDR3 did it become rapidly popular.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 29, 2010)

nt300 said:


> You misunderstand the point super is trying to make or I think what he is trying to say. If AMD and Intel roles were reversed, AMD would have failed long ago. Intel can afford to screw up which thy did many times in the past.
> 
> With DDR2 and DDR3, if you read up on past, Intel suffered very slow adoption because DDR3 was too much money. Many bought DDR2 based computers because it costs cheaper and the performance gap was none existent. Ony after AMD went full bore with DDR3 did it become rapidly popular.



No ones saying Intel's not rich there's no mystery that they have a lot of cash(as does AMD), but in what way did they screw up, Intel pushed DDR3 out the doors and yet it's not like they themselves abandoned DDR2 altogether i don't understand how that's a screw up. no ones holding a gun to your head saying you have to buy new tech, Intel at the time was still pushing out support for DDR2, which of course as you said was cheaper and of course the performance gap wasn't to large, but im trying to address his point in the whole ''Intel keeps screwing up'' comment, i don't see how they did at all.Even if DDR3 adoption rate was slow, which wasn't a surprise, they still had a plethora of DDR2 support. Considering AMD is generally cheaper is no surprise it got pushed more into the mainstream when they included DDR3 with there PII's back in '09, but it's actually pushing technology forward, which is what Intel did in that case, it's not about omg poor little underdog AMD, Intel is so rich and yet AMD gives us what we want with such little incentives. No they're both companies and some times companies try and make wise business decisions that account the consumers which i thought Intel was doing by not only pushing out a new standard for memory, but also keeping DDR2 in check...but apparently not, according to your logic.


----------



## wahdangun (Jul 29, 2010)

i think why intel rush out DDR3, is because they don't implement OMC yet, and they need all available bandwidth they can get


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 29, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> i think why intel rush out DDR3, is because they don't implement OMC yet, and they need all available bandwidth they can get



What's an OMC ?

Onboard Memory Controller ? 

If that's it I believe they have.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 29, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> What's an OMC ?
> 
> Onboard Memory Controller ?
> 
> If that's it I believe they have.


They have now with the i7 but it they started wheb the c2d was out and when i7 wasnt released only on the map


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 29, 2010)

p_o_s_pc said:


> They have now with the i7 but it they started wheb the c2d was out and when i7 wasnt released only on the map



Oh yeah forgot about x48.


----------



## Super XP (Jul 30, 2010)

CDdude55 you make a great point. Yes I think you misunderstood my point, but at the same time I didn't explain it well enough either 
Anyway, I always liked the underdog (AMD). Anyway I like fair competition this is why I have a AMD based PC and a Intel based laptop. 
My main point is in the quote bellow.
*



			Role reversal: How it might have been!
If there had been a role reversal between Intel and AMD - that is, Intel had developed what AMD had brought to market and AMD had done the same with Intel's technology - AMD would have failed as a going concern long before this day.
		
Click to expand...

 *

As for DDR2 & DDR3, well my point in all of this was DDR3 was very slow to pick up popularity, but once AMD got support for DDR3, it became the popular DDR format.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 30, 2010)

why re quote what was misunderstood just put it in plain english

If AMD and Intel switched roles with AMD going along with things like rambus and BTX AMD as a company would have kicked the damn bucket ages ago


----------



## Super XP (Jul 30, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> why re quote what was misunderstood just put it in plain english
> 
> If AMD and Intel switched roles with AMD going along with things like rambus and BTX AMD as a company would have kicked the damn bucket ages ago


----------



## wahdangun (Jul 30, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> What's an OMC ?
> 
> Onboard Memory Controller ?
> 
> If that's it I believe they have.



yep OMC(Onboard Memory Controller)

and i mean pre core i7 era,



crazyeyesreaper said:


> why re quote what was misunderstood just put it in plain english
> 
> If AMD and Intel switched roles with AMD going along with things like rambus and BTX AMD as a company would have kicked the damn bucket ages ago



btw, i think why DDR3 is picking up is because the production have been increased and ramped up so it make the price lower hence it was adopted faster.

and i think why the BTX didn't take off is because AMD refuse to support it and its hard to change all the chase manufacture to support BTX format because it will need a huge money to invest in it.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 30, 2010)

Super XP said:


> CDdude55 you make a great point. Yes I think you misunderstood my point, but at the same time I didn't explain it well enough either
> Anyway, I always liked the underdog (AMD). Anyway I like fair competition this is why I have a AMD based PC and a Intel based laptop.
> My main point is in the quote bellow.
> 
> ...



I see what your saying and i agree to a certain degree(that AMD brought DDR3 to the masses).
I don't see AMD as the underdog at all(maybe to a certain extent),they just chose not to spend there billions of dollars on things like marketing and advertising as apposed to Intel. Does Intel have more money?, probably so. But AMD definitely isn't struggling. It is all fair competition, if AMD wants to one up Intel, they can. It just a matter of pushing out great architectures and trying to one up there competitors by doing so, just because they can't do that doesn't make them the underdog. It's not like they're operating outside there grandma's basement... they have loads of cash backed behind them. It's just a matter of picking where to spend it and whats more beneficial to the company. Just because you see an Intel sticker on every computer in the room, doesn't mean the other companies aren't doing well.

It all depends want the company whats to gamble on. and just because one has more money to do so, doesn't mean the others would have died out.


----------



## wahdangun (Jul 30, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> I see what your saying and i agree to a certain degree(that AMD brought DDR3 to the masses).
> I don't see AMD as the underdog at all(maybe to a certain extent),they just chose not to spend there billions of dollars on things like marketing and advertising as apposed to Intel. Does Intel have more money?, probably so. But AMD definitely isn't struggling. It is all fair competition, if AMD wants to one up Intel, they can. It just a matter of pushing out great architectures and trying to one up there competitors by doing so, just because they can't do that doesn't make them the underdog. It's not like they're operating outside there grandma's basement... they have loads of cash backed behind them. It's just a matter of picking where to spend it and whats more beneficial to the company. Just because you see an Intel sticker on every computer in the room, doesn't mean the other isn't doing well.
> 
> It all depends want the company whats to gamble on. and just because one has more money to do so, doesn't mean the others would have died out.



what are you saying, AMD already in red for several years, and they have to sell their fab, so intel sure have a lot more money than AMD, and its just this years amd can gain profit after their huge success with HD 5XXX, and btw i never seeing AMD commercial in my country but I'm seeing a bucket loat of intel. and when their Athalon 64 annihilated P4, intel sales still going strong and while AMD don't gain enough market share, and didn't you know what intel did with AMD back then, when hey use anti competitive practice and make their asses handed out to europe


----------



## DrPepper (Jul 30, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> yep OMC(Onboard Memory Controller)
> 
> and i mean pre core i7 era,



Yeah I had a complete brain failure when I wrote that lol.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 30, 2010)

wahdangun said:


> what are you saying, AMD already in red for several years, and they have to sell their fab, so intel sure have a lot more money than AMD, and its just this years amd can gain profit after their huge success with HD 5XXX, and btw i never seeing AMD commercial in my country but I'm seeing a bucket loat of intel. and when their Athalon 64 annihilated P4, intel sales still going strong and while AMD don't gain enough market share, and didn't you know what intel did with AMD back then, when hey use anti competitive practice and make their asses handed out to europe



What are you talking about?, AMD hasn't been in the red for ''several years'', hell if you look right know Intel is in the red to lol. They had enough to buy ATI in '06, that's for damn sure, and that has contributed to a lot of there success. And yes, as i just said, yes Intel has more money and yes even i haven't see an AMD commercial over here. And as i just said in my previous post, that's because Intel focuses heavily on commercials and advertising to get there product across. So just because AMD doesn't, they're the poor underdog with little money?. Though the Athlon 64 was in fact a fantastic CPU, as again, i have just stated before, no one knew who the hell AMD was because they didn't advertise the shit out of it like Intel did with the P4, so what do you expect?. Every company is different and uses different strategies.

To move back on topic, im really hoping Bulldozer is a great architecture, because if it is and it can steamroll my i7 rig, then i shall be moving to it.


----------



## twilyth (Jul 30, 2010)

CD:  I love AMD - 2 of 3 rigs now and the Intel one is getting ditched.

But AMD has lost money for a very long time - several years at least.  This past year was different because of that $1-2B (???) settlement with Intel - which they more than deserved so it should still count, but that's not how the bean counters look at it.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 30, 2010)

twilyth said:


> CD:  I love AMD - 2 of 3 rigs now and the Intel one is getting ditched.



I have no problems with you or anyone else having a preference towards AMD or any other company, but for legitimate reasons.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jul 30, 2010)

amd actually was bleeding money faster then they could ever make it currently there in the green it might stay that way it might not but fact remains if amd was profitable they wouldnt have sold there Fabs etc which they did for obvious reasons. The point being the settlement and ATI 4 series and 5 series sales to oems and soon to be Macs should help keep AMD afloat but this spin stuff off and hope to recoup later shit wont last forever.

at the end of the day i went amd for price to performance when i7 came out a Phenom II 940 8gigs DDR2 and 4870x2 combined cost me less then the DDR3 i7 920 and mobo without a gpu as a gamer ill go the route that gives me the best option at the time it was AMD if intels cpus werent so heavily overpriced in most situations along with motherboards when i tend to upgrade id be more willing to buy Intel, just seems most of the time im up to getting a new rig Intel is pricing way to high to even be remotely affordable


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 30, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> at the end of the day i went amd for price to performance when i7 came out a Phenom II 940 8gigs DDR2 and 4870x2 combined cost me less then the DDR3 i7 920 and mobo without a gpu as a gamer ill go the route that gives me the best option at the time it was AMD if intels cpus werent so heavily overpriced in most situations along with motherboards when i tend to upgrade id be more willing to buy Intel, just seems most of the time im up to getting a new rig Intel is pricing way to high to even be remotely affordable



Perfectly legitimate reason, if i didn't have the money at the time to go i7, i would have went straight for an AMD system.

But i usually go where performance goes.(if i can afford it)


----------



## erocker (Jul 30, 2010)

What AMD needs to do is release Bulldozer. Their stock is tumbling yet again.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 30, 2010)

erocker said:


> Their stock is tumbling yet again.



Same with intel.


----------



## erocker (Jul 30, 2010)

Intel market cap = 115 billion

AMD market cap = 5 billion

Just a drop in a very large bucket for Intel. You need 23 AMD's to equal one Intel.


----------



## Super XP (Jul 31, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> I see what your saying and i agree to a certain degree(that AMD brought DDR3 to the masses).
> I don't see AMD as the underdog at all(maybe to a certain extent),they just chose not to spend there billions of dollars on things like marketing and advertising as apposed to Intel. Does Intel have more money?, probably so. But AMD definitely isn't struggling. It is all fair competition, if AMD wants to one up Intel, they can. It just a matter of pushing out great architectures and trying to one up there competitors by doing so, just because they can't do that doesn't make them the underdog. It's not like they're operating outside there grandma's basement... they have loads of cash backed behind them. It's just a matter of picking where to spend it and whats more beneficial to the company. Just because you see an Intel sticker on every computer in the room, doesn't mean the other companies aren't doing well.
> 
> It all depends want the company whats to gamble on. and just because one has more money to do so, doesn't mean the others would have died out.


AMD is a major underdog. Anyway we all know about Intel bribing companies to not carry AMD products. The truth all came out with that law suit AMD won and quite deservingly.

Intel made 2.9Billion in profit Q2 2010 and AMD made $83 million in profit. 

But now it seems Intel is playing nice, and now we can have strong FAIR Competition. One this is for sure, I can’t wait for Intel’s Light Peak to gain traction and AMD’s Bulldozer’s release date.


erocker said:


> Intel market cap = 115 billion
> 
> AMD market cap = 5 billion
> 
> Just a drop in a very large bucket for Intel. You need 23 AMD's to equal one Intel.


Just my point,


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 31, 2010)

Super XP said:


> AMD is a major underdog. Anyway we all know about Intel bribing companies to not carry AMD products. The truth all came out with that law suit AMD won and quite deservingly.
> 
> Intel made 2.9Billion in profit Q2 2010 and AMD made $83 million in profit.
> 
> ...



I'm just gonna stop, i have already addressed the AMD being the underdog BS maybe times and still have yet to pull any concrete information from you as to why that is.

I really think fanboyism is strong on this one, and that's something i can never change, no matter what the facts are.



cissy said:


> Yes, I currently encounter problems Xpower900



What?

Start a new thread if you're having problems with something...unless you're trying to troll.


----------



## Super XP (Jul 31, 2010)

Intel has manufacturing power & billions in R&D something AMD cannot compete with at the moment. I believe erocker summed it up quite nice in his last post. 
I think I understand what you mean when you say AMD is not an underdog anymore.
I would agree that AMD used to be a major underdog just shadowing Intel but yes of course they've made an extremely strong recognisable name for themselves ever since the Opteron / Athlon 64 release in 2003 when AMD’s stock eventually grew in excess of $40 per share. Nevertheless, they are 2nd to Intel and will most likely remain 2nd place for eternity IMO.

I’ll stop too. 

Let's get back to the topic's purpose, AMD's Bulldozer. I can't wait for AMD to release more information.


----------



## largon (Aug 21, 2010)

Had to bump this; 
it just occur to me that there will definitely be no quad channel RAM for Bulldozer in "socket AM3r2". No matter what wikipedia says... But it's possible some high-end desktop Bulldozers would land as socket C32 parts with quad channel RAM and as such, C32 Bulldozers would become AMD's counterpart to Intel LGA1366 i7s while dual channel "AM3r2" 'dozers would counter LGA1156 (i5).


----------



## Super XP (Aug 22, 2010)

largon said:


> Had to bump this;
> it just occur to me that there will definitely be no quad channel RAM for Bulldozer in "socket AM3r2". No matter what wikipedia says... But it's possible some high-end desktop Bulldozers would land as socket C32 parts with quad channel RAM and as such, C32 Bulldozers would become AMD's counterpart to Intel LGA1366 i7s while dual channel "AM3r2" 'dozers would counter LGA1156 (i5).


What makes you think there will be no Quad-Channel ram inside Bulldozer? Intel went from Dual-Channel to Tri-Channel, it's only logical AMD would move to Quad-Channel. You should refer to Wiki's external links which states Quad-Channel for Bulldozer 

But we should get more info after Aug 24, 2010


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 22, 2010)

Super XP said:


> What makes you think there will be no Quad-Channel ram inside Bulldozer? Intel went from Dual-Channel to Tri-Channel, it's only logical AMD would move to Quad-Channel. You should refer to Wiki's external links which states Quad-Channel for Bulldozer
> 
> But we should get more info after Aug 24, 2010



Tri-Channel doesn't offer a big enough benefit. Thier trying to keep die space down I guess.


----------



## largon (Aug 22, 2010)

Super XP said:


> What makes you think there will be no Quad-Channel ram inside Bulldozer? Intel went from Dual-Channel to Tri-Channel, it's only logical AMD would move to Quad-Channel. You should refer to Wiki's external links which states Quad-Channel for Bulldozer


Not saying Bulldozer won't have a quad channel IMC. Only that the AM3 version will be just dual channel. QC would require way too many RAM I/O pins for a socket anything like AM3. On socket C32 they should be able to pull it off, though.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Aug 22, 2010)

it will most likely be quad channel it dosent effect much over all its sort of like 3 way dual channel on amd boards use to be that would force single threading its not the case today..  maybe AMDs boards might only be 4 DIMMs but maybe if all 4 are used it offers quad channel and if not filled its dual channel ever think of that possibility? we dont have the hardware so all we can make is assumptions and if quad or triple channel mattered why do current 1156 socket i7s keep up and in many situations beat the 1336 socket I7s in many tests aka i7 860 vs i7 920 etc  basically making a mountain out of a mole hill on the ram channels


----------



## dir_d (Aug 22, 2010)

This is a noob question but if the IMC is Quad channel on bulldozer why couldnt an AM3 board do Quad channel. Wouldnt it just need a bios update for bulldozer and thats it? or am i missing alot?


----------



## largon (Aug 22, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:
			
		

> maybe AMDs boards might only be 4 DIMMs but maybe if all 4 are used it offers quad channel and if not filled its dual channel ever think of that possibility?


Erm. 
That would be the obvious configuration. 
But simply put, anything plugged in a socket with as limited amount of pins as AM3 features, will be limited to dual channel. Socket AM3 doesn't even have enough pins to route tri channel RAM I/O through it.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 22, 2010)

We all have embargoes, some desperate people break it. Anyway, expect a detailed article from TPU on this date:


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Aug 22, 2010)

id like links to source info largon  after all it wasnt to long ago ppl said you couldnt do dual channel with 3 sticks of ram but obviously its now doable its just a wait and see situation


----------



## btarunr (Aug 22, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> id like links to source info largon  after all it wasnt to long ago ppl said you couldnt do dual channel with 3 sticks of ram but obviously its now doable its just a wait and see situation



Each memory channel takes hundreds of pins. 939~941 pin AM2(+)/AM3 don't have enough pins to connect to more than two channels. When you install more than one module per channel, you're simply piggy-backing them. So those modules talk to the memory controller over the same narrow path. 

By installing 3 modules in dual-channel, all you're doing is piggy backing two modules to share one of the two channels. You don't end up with any higher memory bandwidth.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 22, 2010)

btarunr said:


> We all have embargoes, some desperate people break it. Anyway, expect a detailed article from TPU on this date:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100822/bta9345.jpg



If I had more energy I wold find that with Google search in multiple languages and filters. Or some other places.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Aug 22, 2010)

true BTA but its still faster and offers better bandwidth then 3 sticks in single channel and thats my key point u get more ram but without the single channel performance hit


----------



## btarunr (Aug 22, 2010)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> true BTA but its still faster and offers better bandwidth then 3 sticks in single channel and thats my key point u get more ram but without the single channel performance hit



Huh?! 3 sticks in dual-channel does _not_ offer any higher bandwidth than two sticks in dual-channel.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 22, 2010)

So you think DDR2 would be a bottleneck for these chips?......(waits for half of TPU to kick me in the face through the monitor)


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 22, 2010)

amd.... give us bulldozer please...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 22, 2010)

So Bobcat is consumer class and Bulldozer is server class to start with? Am I correct?


----------



## largon (Aug 22, 2010)

Bulldozer is a high performance core for both for enterprise and consumer. 
Bobcat is a low power, mobile core.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 22, 2010)

If they actually make a CPU that beats my i7 this time and it's at a good price, i shall be switching over.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 22, 2010)

largon said:


> Bulldozer is a high performance core for both for enterprise and consumer.
> Bobcat is a low power, mobile core.



Thanks! I was confused as hell.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 22, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> If they actually make a CPU that beats my i7 this time and it's at a good price, i shall be switching over.



Really? Who cares?


Let me tell you AMD doesn't. Home users account for about 10% of sales...they have no business meeting OUR needs. WE are NOT AMD's customers. AMD wants to keep Dell, HP, etc happy, not us.

I'm kinda shocked people are even talking about it at this point. I doubt any new news is going to come out, other than maybe final clckspeeds, but I think it's too early to have that set in stone just yet.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 22, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Really? Who cares?



I care.


And chill out(sounding like a butt hurt AMD fanboy), of course Intel and AMD are more focused on the areas that give them more profit, no shit... wheres the mystery?. But me, as a person who wants good performance, have hopes that they put out something good, something affordable and something that i would want to switch over to from my i7.. of course it's to early to tell, but one can hope right?


----------



## Loosenut (Aug 22, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thanks! I was confused as hell.



So was I



cadaveca said:


> Really? Who cares?
> 
> 
> Let me tell you AMD doesn't. Home users account for about 10% of sales...they have no business meeting OUR needs. WE are NOT AMD's customers. AMD wants to keep Dell, HP, etc happy, not us.
> ...



Why so grumpy Dave?


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 22, 2010)

Not grumpy at all. Sarcasm never translates well, I suppose. 

Honestly. I wasn't really directing that @ CDdude either...


But that fact of the matter is that the design goals for these chips are pretty specific, and far from new. They have a final destination, and THAT is basically set in stone. At this point, we are merely waiting for final numbers and yeilds, IMHO. Until those figures are available, any talk about these chips is moot, even if the embargo is up in a couple of days.

And frankly, I think current cpus are basically fast enough for that 10% of the market that is home users. So at this ponit, they really are focused on that 90%...computing had a pretty major paradigm shift a few years ago, and people seem to have missed it.

Bobcat...ugh...can you say Iphone-type devices?

Bulldozer...is about 2 years too late.



CDdude55 said:


> But me, as a person who wants good performance, have hopes that they put out something good, something affordable and something that i would want to switch over to from my i7.. of course it's to early to tell, but one can hope right?



I think your hopes are mis-placed, is all. Really, why would you need more than a 1090t?

Why would you need more than an i920 @ stock?


----------



## Loosenut (Aug 22, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Not grumpy at all. Sarcasm never translates well, I suppose.



I was never very good with subtleties or sarcasm in forums...  

These talks may be moot but I like reading them


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Aug 22, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Huh?! 3 sticks in dual-channel does _not_ offer any higher bandwidth than two sticks in dual-channel.



didnt say its offering HIGHER bandwidth then 2 sticks im saying it offers higher bandwidth then 3 sticks in single channel. 

example it use to be

4 dimms need to populate 2 for dual channel correct.  and up untill recently that was pretty much law in a matter of speaking. But now we can run 3 sticks in dual channel meaning that 3rd stick dosent force the machine to in run in single channel on all sticks. thats my point i cant say what amd will do for quad channel but in my honest opinion triple and quad channel still isnt even needed in the consumer space evidence by the fact that dual channel i7s easily rival and out pace there triple channel siblings in everyday computing tasks etc.

My major point again is that things are not always so cut and dry maybe bulldozer wont support quad channel dosent mean the ability isnt there tho it could be disabled on the cpu i have no way of knowing nor does anyone else that can speak on it publicly currently but at the end of the day i highly doubt quad channel will improve my gaming or 3d rendering or any of those such tasks


----------



## largon (Aug 22, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Why would you need more than ...


Come on, it's not about _need_. It's all about _how much more_ can be had.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 22, 2010)

@cadaveca
I agree,

But nothing wrong in having hope thinking the architecture is going to do something to help you right?, i mean you said it yourself, this is nothing new, you think people in this thread are here about that 90%?, about that 90% that consists of putting these chips in Dell, HP, Acer, Asus etc systems. I doubt it.




cadaveca said:


> I think your hopes are mis-placed, is all. Really, why would you need more than a 1090t?
> 
> Why would you need more than an i920 @ stock?



I agree to an extent, i mean we are at a point where new CPU's are in fact not needed for an average consumer PC. But then again, it depends on the consumer, some may actually need more power or want to have the best hardware. It's not a matter of ''why do we need this'', technology changes all the time 24/7 all day every day, and whether or not someone whats to adopt it is all dependent on what one needs and can afford. It's not as simple as '' oh who the fuck needs this, CPU's are already powerful wtf!!,  fail'' everyone's different.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 22, 2010)

largon said:


> Come on, it's not about _need_. It's all about _how much more_ can be had.
> http://largon.wippiespace.com/smilies/poke.gif



Sure. I understand that.


However, some miss the fact we haven't gone over 3.x ghz cpus in how many years? How do we get "more" in today's computing? Instead of FASTER computing, really, we got the opposite...greater workloads.

The addition of more cores doesn't actually meet ANYONE's need for faster computing...as we are then left relying on software to help make that increase.


These chips that are coming out to feature fundamental changes to core design, however, because of a need to have compatibility with previous technology, the reall jumps in performance will be much smaller than anyone is really hoping for.


AMD has to go where the money is. that's pretty obvious. But is you look at thier strategy in getting that money, a big part of that is providing cheap, affordable products, with minimal financial impact when it comes time to upgrade.

you can't get that huge boost in performance without giving up "ease of upgrade".

AMD barely even has AM3 Opternons yet, because thier high-end platform is server-based...AMD innovations are in THAT socket, not @ the consumer-level.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 22, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So you think DDR2 would be a bottleneck for these chips?......(waits for half of TPU to kick me in the face through the monitor)



Depends on the application I guess. Probably not for most things but for benchmarking and high performance use it could be.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 22, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Depends on the application I guess. Probably not for most things but for benchmarking and high performance use it could be.



Meh, It was a joke. If you know me its been a current battle of mine. 1090T vs DDR2. Adding a Bulldozer to the mix would be retarded.


----------



## erocker (Aug 22, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> These chips that are coming out to feature fundamental changes to core design, however, because of a need to have compatibility with previous technology, the reall jumps in performance will be much smaller than anyone is really hoping for.



I am skeptical as well. Until I see some kind of performance number from a single Bulldozer core, my hopes remain low. Up until now AMD has been relying on their K8 archetecture and really hasn't come up with anything new. So far I have nothing to believe that this new archetecture will be anything outstanding especially with the lack of any performance numbers whatsoever.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 22, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Meh, It was a joke. If you know me its been a current battle of mine. 1090T vs DDR2. Adding a Bulldozer to the mix would be retarded.



I haven't been in the loop in tpu lately.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 22, 2010)

erocker said:


> I am skeptical as well. Until I see some kind of performance number from a single Bulldozer core, my hopes remain low. Up until now AMD has been relying on their K8 archetecture and really hasn't come up with anything new. So far I have nothing to believe that this new archetecture will be anything outstanding.



I got to agree. I'm looking at this as a potential future update. However my gut tells me this is just a stepping stone to better things down the road. Kinda like the 2900XT was to the 3870.



DrPepper said:


> I haven't been in the loop in tpu lately.



Shame on you! God, Country, TPU!


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 22, 2010)

I have pretty high hopes for it.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 22, 2010)

erocker said:


> I am skeptical as well. Until I see some kind of performance number from a single Bulldozer core, my hopes remain low. Up until now AMD has been relying on their K8 archetecture and really hasn't come up with anything new. So far I have nothing to believe that this new archetecture will be anything outstanding especially with the lack of any performance numbers whatsoever.



I just don't think we will get what I myself am looking for, until we change sockets @ the desktop space.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 22, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Shame on you! God, Country, TPU!



Best friend died I think that is enough of an excuse


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 22, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Best friend died I think that is enough of an excuse



Overclocking accident?


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 22, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Overclocking accident?



Watercooling accident if anything.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 22, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Watercooling accident if anything.



Fuck me sideways, that is the best outlook on that situation i have ever seen


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 22, 2010)

WhiteLotus said:


> Fuck me sideways, that is the best outlook on that situation i have ever seen



Is that a permanent offer ?


----------



## Loosenut (Aug 22, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Is that a permanent offer ?


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 22, 2010)




----------



## Techtu (Aug 22, 2010)

Back on track though...






Any price point heard of for these new line-ups?


----------



## wolf (Aug 22, 2010)

I want to see stock clocked chips at 4+ ghz, even just 4 cores, I have no need for more than that, just give me sheer speed already.

Having said that I really doubt AMD will be the first to throw a 4ghz stock clocker on the table, at least at the mainstream consumer grade.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 22, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Watercooling accident if anything.



Well at least he went with honor! My condolences. Here in honor of your friend have a beer on me!


----------



## Super XP (Aug 22, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> If they actually make a CPU that beats my i7 this time and it's at a good price, i shall be switching over.


Bulldozer is meant to complete with Intel's next gen or some may call it Nehalen 2. So obviously if Bulldozer does not beat Core i7 then AMD has major issues. Bring it on SandyBridge, we need competition to help drive prices down into the dirt.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 23, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well at least he went with honor! My condolences. Here in honor of your friend have a beer on me!
> 
> http://www.grapesandgrainsnyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/oktoberfest-girl.jpg



Cheers. 

I always try see the funny side of things.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Aug 23, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well at least he went with honor! My condolences. Here in honor of your friend have a beer on me!
> 
> http://www.grapesandgrainsnyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/oktoberfest-girl.jpg



plus Hofbrau (the beer) is fucking good drinking.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 23, 2010)

Super XP said:


> Bulldozer is meant to complete with Intel's next gen or some may call it Nehalen 2. So obviously if Bulldozer does not beat Core i7 then AMD has major issues. Bring it on SandyBridge, we need competition to help drive prices down into the dirt.



I agree.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Aug 23, 2010)

Wow, about time, been speculating on this with a tPU member or two and some personal friends. Cant wait to see what the prices and yields are. I would love to see just about most software now come out with at least dual cores in mind (if not quad cores). That would benefit greatly. Wonder if Windows 7 is optimized for Dual cores. Anyone know?


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 23, 2010)

Bah, waiting for tomorrow for news!

Looking forward to this chip, if its decent price/performance I'm getting an AMD platform next year.

Well unless their graphics turn out crappy next year.

And vice versa <_< or both.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

> Performance: We release benchmarks at launch, so don’t expect too much detail there anytime soon.  From a performance standpoint, if you compare our 16-core Interlagos to our current 12-core AMD Opteron™ 6100 Series processors (code named “Magny Cours”) we estimate that customers will see up to 50% more performance from 33% more cores.  This means we expect the per core performance to go in the right direction — up.  That is all I will say until launch.



http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02/what-is-bulldozer/


For those unaware, there is TONNES of info on the AMD website about these upcoming processors. When I said speculation is pointless, I really meant it.

We can extrapolate on the info I posted here form AMD, and suggest that each new Bulldozer core will offer about 4% more performance, clock-for-clock. Hardly what people are looking for, and hardly an i7 killer. Again, I said it's two years too late, and I stand by that comment.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 23, 2010)

we estimate that customers will see up to 50% more performance from 33% more cores.

So for a example we will say the 12 core system can execute 1000 standard complex threads in one second. 1000/12= 83.33 per core. So now we have a standardized core work number. 

So they say that the new processor will do 1500 standard complex threads in once second. 1500/16=93.75 threads per core per second, or a 12.5 clock efficiency increase per core.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

Steevo said:


> we estimate that customers will see up to 50% more performance from 33% more cores.
> 
> So for a example we will say the 12 core system can execute 1000 standard complex threads in one second. 1000/12= 83.33 per core. So now we have a standardized core work number.
> 
> So they say that the new processor will do 1500 standard complex threads in once second. 1500/16=93.75 threads per core per second, or a 12.5 clock efficiency increase per core.



Flawed logic. Try your math again. Your numbers are not correct. Uh, let's start with 93.75-83.33....reversing the math give 151+%.



I look at it this way... we added 33% more cores, but got 50% more performance. that leaves 17% extra performance, spread across 16 cores... I see your logic as interpreting the increase from only those extra 4 cores....


----------



## largon (Aug 23, 2010)

> that leaves 17% extra performance, spread across 16 cores


[rhetorical question]
If a quad core processor "A" is 17% faster than quad core processor "B", then how much faster is processor "A" per core? 
[/rhetorical question]

That's right. 17% increase per core would be really nice if you ask me.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

largon said:


> [rhetorical question]
> If a quad core processor "A" is 17% faster than quad core processor "B", then how much faster is processor "A" per core?
> [/rhetorical question]
> 
> That's right. 17% increase per core would be really nice if you ask me.



No doubt. I am expecting AT MOST 4& per clock...mind you, this core is so very different, that may be completely off-base.

So, if we look at Steevo's numbers, he says 12.5, but really, he gets "12" and not "1.2" by using a 1000-base number for the calculation instead of 100-base.

Anyway, it's more like 1.03% increase per core.


----------



## largon (Aug 23, 2010)

I *reeeaaallly* don't see why you're expecting that 4%.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

Hoping. That is all. If that's the case though, I'd be swapping out my server farm. I REALLY want to do this, so I gotta hope.


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

Looks like AMD may have some thing to finally bring to the table . Still I do not see myself getting a new system for another 3 years as well the Quad I have should be just fine for many more years to come . It would be nice to see AMD on top again but till I see some real chips tested no one can say for sure what Bulldozer will be able to do .


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

trickson said:


> Looks like AMD may have some thing to finally bring to the table . Still I do not see myself getting a new system for another 3 years as well the Quad I have should be just fine for many more years to come . It would be nice to see AMD on top again but till I see some real chips tested no one can say for sure what Bulldozer will be able to do .



Yeah, and AMD is last presenter tomorrow @ HotChips. So the info is most likely NOT gonna be known until long after that. We need yeild info, and that is too far off..we won't get real performance until launch, next year some time. Would be nice to see a pre-holiday launch, but I think that's more wishfull thinking on my part.


----------



## Techtu (Aug 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Yeah, and AMD is last presenter tomorrow @ HotChips. So the info is most likely NOT gonna be known until long after that. We need yeild info, and that is too far off..we won't get real performance until launch, next year some time. Would be nice to see a pre-holiday launch, but I think that's more wishfull thinking on my part.



No, not just on your part... seem's like pretty much all of us in this thread are wanting to see some results quicker than AMD can make them.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Aug 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Flawed logic. Try your math again. Your numbers are not correct. Uh, let's start with 93.75-83.33....reversing the math give 151+%.
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it this way... we added 33% more cores, but got 50% more performance. that leaves 17% extra performance, spread across 16 cores... I see your logic as interpreting the increase from only those extra 4 cores....



I've got to agree with Steevo and his math on this one, well since it's right...

Just clarifying his numbers using the 1000 threads per second example

33% more cores:  so 12 cores * 1.333333..... = 16 cores
50% more performance:  1000 * 1.5 = 1500 threads per second

So the old 12 core proc. would do 1000 threads per second while the new 16 core will do 1500 per second (threads of whatever, not relavent here... just some AMD spec'd performance numbers):  
that means old did 1000/12=83.33 threads per second per core
new will do 1500/16=93.75 threads per second per core

so that's 93.75 for the new and 83.33 for the old.  To find the percentage increase that's 93.75/83.33=12.5% faster per core than the old architecture.

Now I'm not sure if AMD's numbers are skewed and that 50% performance increase was more than likely on a specific test; however, going by those numbers they posted the math shows the new cores should be 12.5% faster per clock.


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

I just hope the AMD fanboys wont get all upsad if they are not what they expect . Nut I sure hope AMD finally gets it right . My hope is they are going to at the very least mach the core i7's . that is a tall order seeing as AMD has been trying for years now .


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> I've got to agree with Steevo and his math on this one, well since it's right...
> 
> Just clarifying his numbers using the 1000 threads per second example
> 
> ...



Again, flawed equation. If each core was 12.5% faster, there'd be more than 50% increase. 12.5%, times 16 cores= what? 200%? and 12 cores is 150%?


Please. FIX. THAT. math.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 23, 2010)

trickson said:


> I just hope the AMD fanboys wont get all upsad if they are not what they expect . Nut I sure hope AMD finally gets it right . My hope is they are going to at the very least mach the core i7's . that is a tall order seeing as AMD has been trying for years now .



I agree on that, there past two lineups have yet to truly past an i7. I'm hoping we will see a good resurgence with this architecture. As a person who doesn't cum my pants over a particular company(aka a fanboy), i truly won't be heartbroken if these chips don't succeed.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Aug 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Again, flawed equation. If each core was 12.5% faster, there'd be more than 50% increase. 12.5%, times 16 cores= what? 200%? and 12 cores is 150%?
> 
> 
> Please. FIX. THAT. math.



Um, no there wouldn't.  Simple math.  Very simple in fact.

You have a 50% increase with 33% more resources.

You want to do it the easiest way:
the old cpu had 1.00 (100% resources), new has 1.33 (33% more or 133%)
old cpu did 1.00 work (100%), new does 1.50 (50% increase)

That's now 1.5/1.33 = 1.125 ish.  So still your 12.5% increase per core.  AMD didn't use number of cores do denote how much faster they are, just 33% more cores make a 50% increase.  The 12 and 16 cores I'm assuming were just pulled out since they make that 33% more a very convenient whole number.  But still, if you think about it as 50% more work is done with only 33% added resources you can see that they should more than 4% faster.  They should be 1.5/1.33 faster.


----------



## largon (Aug 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Again, flawed equation. If each core was 12.5% faster, there'd be more than 50% increase. 12.5%, times 16 cores= what? 200%? and 12 cores is 150%?


You're making no sense. 
What can I say... 


> Please. FIX. THAT. math.


..._ditto_.


----------



## erocker (Aug 23, 2010)

trickson said:


> I just hope the AMD fanboys wont get all upsad if they are not what they expect . Nut I sure hope AMD finally gets it right . My hope is they are going to at the very least mach the core i7's . that is a tall order seeing as AMD has been trying for years now .



I hope the term "fanboy" dies, is never heard again, and AMD releases a good/competetive CPU at a good price.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> AMD didn't use number of cores do denote how much faster they are, just 33% more cores make a 50% increase.  The 12 and 16 cores I'm assuming were just pulled out since they make that 33% more a very convenient whole number.



I mean no offense by this, but really, your reading comprehension sucks big time.

The number of cores is explicity stated, even in what I quoted, that started the discussion down this avenue.

They said, and I quote,:


> From a performance standpoint, if you compare our 16-core Interlagos to our current 12-core AMD Opteron™ 6100 Series processors (code named “Magny Cours”) we estimate that customers will see up to 50% more performance from 33% more cores.



So, again, if each core is 12.5% better, over 16 cores, this would be a 200% boost, not 150%.



largon said:


> You're making no sense.
> What can I say...
> ..._ditto_.





I understand how that equation was formed, however, clearly, it isn't correct. The math may be properly calculated, however, the example is NOT accurate.


If they get 12.5% per core, AMD has a killer chip here. However, thier own numbers says differently.


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> I agree on that, there past two lineups have yet to truly past an i7. I'm hoping we will see a good resurgence with this architecture. As a person who doesn't cum my pants over a particular company(aka a fanboy), i truly won't be heartbroken if these chips don't succeed.



Same here .


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Aug 23, 2010)

Can I at least get an agreement that 50% more performance with 33% more cores means exactly this:

Old Proc:
12 cores / 1000 X's done per unit
16 cores / 1333.3 X's done per unit

So then New Proc:
12 cores / 1125 X's done per unit
16 cores / 1500 threads

Pretty sure we can agree on that.  So then that means each core of the old 12 core processor did 83.333 X's per unit.  The new 12 core processor then does 93.75 X's per unit.  So you get 12.5% increase per core again.  The same works if you want to use the math for a 6 to 8 core comparison.

Lets do it the opposite way now, making each core 12.5% faster (93.75 X's per unit rather than 83.33333 since 93.75/83.333333 = 1.125)

6 cores doing 83.33333 X's per unit per core = 500 X's done per unit of time
make them all 12.5% faster: 6 cores * 93.75 X's etc. = 562.5 X's done per unit of time
That's 562.5/500=1.125 (12.5% faster) not 6*12.5% faster (75%)

So then an 8 core would do 8 * 93.75 = 750 X's per unit of time or in other words 50% more performance than the 500 X's of the 6 core with 33% more resources.  Comprehension and application, not all can do it well.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 23, 2010)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> Can I at least get an agreement that 50% more performance with 33% more cores means exactly this:
> 
> Old Proc:
> 12 cores / 1000 X's done per unit
> ...



If i was good at math i would probably agree.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Aug 23, 2010)

Sorry for hijacking the thread, just percentages don't always go hand in hand with reasoning sometimes.  One last math post and I'll shut the hell up.

Say 1 core does 100 X's per second
6 cores then do 600 X's per second (in a perfectly threaded world)

12.5% faster cores then do 112.5 X's per second
6 of those will do 675 X's per second

That is still only a 12.5% improvement (675/600 = 1.125).

Saying a 6 core then would have 12.5% improvement on each core * 6 total cores gives you 75% more performance seems like it makes sense but it's the wrong way to think about it.  (that 75% improvement would mean 600*1.75 = 1050 X's per second)


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

All the math in the world will not make any difference any way , Till we get the chips all this is a moot point any way .


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

trickson said:


> All the math in the world will not make any difference any way , Till we get the chips all this is a moot point any way .



Ah, thank you. 




AMD]we estimate[/quote]



[QUOTE=Beertintedgoggles said:


> Sorry for hijacking the thread, just percentages don't always go hand in hand with reasoning sometimes.  One last math post and I'll shut the hell up.
> 
> Say 1 core does 100 X's per second
> 6 cores then do 600 X's per second (in a perfectly threaded world)
> ...




yes, yes, I said the math was correct, no? I also said the equation was wrong...because we don't know if that "promise" will ever materialize...I call to evidence, a certain blond, hyping the 3GHZ Phenom 1 chips...


The rest was me being silly, as I saw "my way" of looking at it as accurate as your numbers...both are speculation at this point, so both have equal weight on reality. We've got to wait until next year, which is at least 4 months away.

I did tell you to take no offense at my comment about comprehension...obviously you did, so I apologize.



> Saying a 6 core then would have 12.5% improvement on each core * 6 total cores gives you 75% more performance seems like it makes sense but it's the wrong way to think about it.  (that 75% improvement would mean 600*1.75 = 1050 X's per second)



Actually, I very purposely translated that to 200%, rather than the equivalent of having a 17 core cpu rather than a 16 core. It DOES give you 75% more performance...using your example...of an individual core, not the entire cpu.


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 23, 2010)

This discussion is confusing as hell, how did people end up adding together percentages?

Just to clarify if you have two processors with the same amount of cores, but one is 12.5% more Efficient per clock cycle per core, you get a net increase of performance of 12.5%


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 23, 2010)

I am bringing back Mailman math.

The new AMD processors will have approximately 150 more Mailman's then the previous generation. Thats a 3000% increase.


----------



## Techtu (Aug 23, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I am bringing back Mailman math.
> 
> The new AMD processors will have approximately 150 more Mailman's then the previous generation. Thats a 3000% increase.





about time I heard some proper calculations about this


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 23, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I am bringing back Mailman math.
> 
> The new AMD processors will have approximately 150 more Mailman's then the previous generation. Thats a 3000% increase.



150 more!

OUTSTANDING!


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

What is really more to the point is with out the chips in your hands how can one even try to do the math ? And we all know how well AMD did with the math on the Phenoms so why are you trying to make the point of how good it is with math ? I just do not get it .  I mean really you could say they are 1 million times faster but that would not add up to shit unless the chip was in your hands . So lets stop the math talk and get on with the bulldozer !


----------



## JATownes (Aug 23, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I am bringing back Mailman math.
> 
> The new AMD processors will have approximately 150 more Mailman's then the previous generation. Thats a 3000% increase.



The way I understand it the new Intel will have 152 more Mailmans, so I will get one of those.


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 23, 2010)

trickson said:


> What is really more to the point is with out the chips in your hands how can one even try to do the math ? And we all know how well AMD did with the math on the Phenoms so why are you trying to make the point of how good it is with math ? I just do not get it .  I mean really you could say they are 1 million times faster but that would not add up to shit unless the chip was in your hands . So lets stop the math talk and get on with the bulldozer !



It was the maths they were arguing over more than anything


----------



## erocker (Aug 23, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I am bringing back Mailman math.
> 
> The new AMD processors will have approximately 150 more Mailman's then the previous generation. Thats a 3000% increase.





trickson said:


> What is really more to the point is with out the chips in your hands how can one even try to do the math ? And we all know how well AMD did with the math on the Phenoms so why are you trying to make the point of how good it is with math ? I just do not get it .  I mean really you could say they are 1 million times faster but that would not add up to shit unless the chip was in your hands . So lets stop the math talk and get on with the bulldozer !



That's 50,000 more Trickson units to you and me.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> It was the maths they were arguing over more than anything



UH, actually...no...I said from the start that the math was correct. We were NOT arguing about it...I even said *THE EQUATION* was wrong....many just wrongly interpreted what I was on about, and It's not liek I really did anything to change those perceptions...I was being sarcastic, and that never translates well.



However, Mailman got it.


Many are hoping for new details tomrorow, I don't think very much new will be told...AMD has so much info out already, I am really starting to question why...

It really does remind me of how they were, pre-Phenom1. Except this time, they seem to exude far more confidence...with the 3GHZ Phenom1 stuff, it was obvious they were lying.


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 23, 2010)

English isn't your first language then I'm guessing.

Because from what you wrote on the previous pages you were saying the mathematics were wrong hence the guy getting so uppity dude


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

One thing is for sure , Once we get them there will be no need for all the speculation the math or any BS we will know for sure . I hope they are far better than there predecessors . I do not put must stock in all the math and Hype I want to see real world chips nothing less will do for me .


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> English isn't your first language then I'm guessing.
> 
> Because from what you wrote on the previous pages you were saying the mathematics were wrong hence the guy getting so uppity dude



Actually, he got uppity becuase I said his reading comprehension sucks. I said that because he said:



> The 12 and 16 cores I'm assuming were just pulled out since they make that 33% more a very convenient whole number



So I played a bit. He didn't even read the posts, clearly..he was jumping into the argument for the sake of the argument.

It's no big deal. But now i want to question YOUR reading comprehension...


And I say this because he posted in response:



> Comprehension and application, not all can do it well.




And no, I'm not serious. This is a speculation thread. Everything in it needs to be taken with a WHOLE LOT of salt. Including this post.

my first language is Martian, BTW. :shadedshu


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Aug 23, 2010)

That's all I've been trying to explain, the math behind it.  I never claimed to believe the numbers AMD posted, more than likely they were the best results on a very biased set of tests.... happens all the time.  I hope this round of processors finally proves to be the next leap for AMD architecture, I'm still rockin an ancient opteron on skt 939.

Edit:  I did get uppidy after you told Steevo he was wrong when he wasn't.


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

You what would really be funny ? If they come out and only 10% faster than my Q9650 I would  till I pissed myself .


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 23, 2010)

Sometimes the internet makes communication harder rather then easier eh?  

Cheers for posting the AMD blog last page by the by, not read that one myself yet.


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> Sometimes the internet makes communication harder rather then easier eh?
> 
> Cheers for posting the AMD blog last page by the by, not read that one myself yet.



LoL. you bet. that's a big part why I don't really take very much of it too seriously. 

By the by, there's quite a few blog posts about Bulldozer and Bobcat. If you want the info that's out there, hit up those blogs...best to get the info from the source, as always.


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

And what is with the names of these things bulldozer and bobcat ? Man makes me think I am at a construction site . Come on can't they come up with a cool name like Tinkerbell or jasmine ?


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

trickson said:


> And what is with the names of these things bulldozer and bobcat ? Man makes me think I am at a construction site . Come on can't they come up with a cool name like Tinkerbell or jasmine ?



Using a bunch of Bobcats and Bulldozers, they will "bury" the competition. Very purposeful naming, actually.




It's also why I say they are two years too late...they needed it back then, way more so than now. It will be nice to see better chips, but I don't see home users needing more computing power any time soon.


----------



## trickson (Aug 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Using a bunch of Bobcats and Bulldozers, they will "bury" the competition. Very purposeful naming, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah it would have been better like 2 years ago but to say that the bulldozer name is good as it says they will bury the comp is well yet to be seen . They have had a very hard time trying to compete with the Q9650 let alone the core i7 . Maybe the phenom should have been called the pinto ?


----------



## cadaveca (Aug 23, 2010)

I don't make that comparison. TO me, we have 8-core Intel chips vs quad AMD(ignoring 6-core cpus from both). Of course Intel performs better...8x4 isn't exactly a decent compare...


Phenom2 @ 3ghz is actually quite comparable to Q9650, clock for clock. not 100% even, but it's more than close enough for me. I never did say the Bulldozer and Bobcat names were "fitting", however, I think that was the plan when those names were decided upon. That are quite old now...


It's an interesting compare, now that Intel is using HT again in i7/i5/i3. Seems they aren't exactly in direct competition any more...


----------



## Techtu (Aug 23, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> *Using a bunch of Bobcats and Bulldozers, they will "bury" the competition. Very purposeful naming, actually.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They also did this idea with the Thoroughbred... I remember that chip well, I had one in use till not too long ago then it died due to user error  

I just like to hope that you correct with that statement (this time around for AMD).


----------



## largon (Aug 24, 2010)

The name Bulldozer was born the same way Hammer (K8) did. See the blockdiagram of each architecture.


----------



## trickson (Aug 24, 2010)

I just hate the names they give them is all . Phenom ? What the hell is that all about any way ? I mean a Phenomenal flop ??? What ? K8 sounds like a breakfast cereal ! K10 sounds like some school K-10 . Not at all what I would name them is all . some thing like B52 or F16 now that sounds like power ! Not bulldozer sounds to me like it is a huge power guzzler that will doze of on you . :shadedshu


----------



## nt300 (Aug 24, 2010)

trickson said:


> I just hate the names they give them is all . Phenom ? What the hell is that all about any way ? I mean a Phenomenal flop ??? What ? K8 sounds like a breakfast cereal ! K10 sounds like some school K-10 . Not at all what I would name them is all . some thing like B52 or F16 now that sounds like power ! Not bulldozer sounds to me like it is a huge power guzzler that will doze of on you . :shadedshu


No Bulldozer sounds like it can bulldoze the competition


----------



## Thrackan (Aug 24, 2010)

trickson said:


> I just hate the names they give them is all . Phenom ? What the hell is that all about any way ? I mean a Phenomenal flop ??? What ? K8 sounds like a breakfast cereal ! K10 sounds like some school K-10 . Not at all what I would name them is all . some thing like B52 or F16 now that sounds like power ! Not bulldozer sounds to me like it is a huge power guzzler that will doze of on you . :shadedshu



Now I wonder, am i7 or are you?


----------



## AltecV1 (Aug 24, 2010)

trickson said:


> I just hate the names they give them is all . Phenom ? What the hell is that all about any way ? I mean a Phenomenal flop ??? What ? K8 sounds like a breakfast cereal ! K10 sounds like some school K-10 . Not at all what I would name them is all . some thing like B52 or F16 now that sounds like power ! Not bulldozer sounds to me like it is a huge power guzzler that will doze of on you . :shadedshu


----------



## NAVI_Z (Aug 24, 2010)

some more news on BD and Bobcat.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2368186,00.asp

enjoy!!


----------

