+1
I think the prices would be around 1000$, but the most important thing is that we will see performance jumps from both camps. I have heard that GPU companies needed to fulfill their products in base of the cpus, meaning that if there is not enough cpu power, there can't be any new jumps in gpus. Also the fight for the king of cpu, will make big jumps in gpu technology!

Aleksander Dishnica+1
I think the prices would be around 1000$, but the most important thing is that we will see performance jumps from both camps. I have heard that GPU companies needed to fulfill their products in base of the cpus, meaning that if there is not enough cpu power, there can't be any new jumps in gpus. Also the fight for the king of cpu, will make big jumps in gpu technology!

This maybe was true some years ago, but with stuff like CUDA its not.

suraswamiWhat I meant was use quality high end circuit and design like I see on most I7 platforms. Doesn't matter if the board is based on AMD or NV chipset.

No idea if this fits what your saying but the best designed and most reiliant board I have had for overclocking was an old 780a crosshair ii and it still blew phases with a quad frozen to it.

cdawallNo idea if this fits what your saying but the best designed and most reiliant board I have had for overclocking was an old 780a crosshair ii and it still blew phases with a quad frozen to it.

Nothing can withstand your level of torture, companies will pray not to get a RMA request from you lol :roll:

May be you should try a high end I7 based board and chip and see how soon you make the board fart or poop :D

suraswamiNothing can withstand your level of torture, companies will pray not to get a RMA request from you lol :roll:

May be you should try a high end I7 based board and chip and see how soon you make the board fart or poop :D

ask freaksavior not long :nutkick:

bear jesusI'm probably asking for a lot but really i want bulldozer to beat the i7's clock for clock and preferably be close to sandy bridge, have a good amount of overclocking ability while not costing too much for the 8 core models.

I dare say this is a lot to ask for, but hope springs eternal.

If this is true it is good news for everyone,competition is awesome:)

What is the point buying the same priced CPU's? I mean what is it 4 u guys? Only if FX will smoke the intel's extremes at least by 1% or more for lets say: $100 less! Than u can call is a win.

I wonder if these are 8 full cores or the 4 x dual shared cores that most of the hardware sites implied after Hot Chips 2010 (i.e. 2 int schedulers, one fp scheduler, 2 full int pipelines, 1 full FP pipeline, shared fetch and decode stages for each 'dual core' block. This could end up in performance that somewhere between 2 full cores and 1 hyper threaded i7 core, depending on the application.

Link

Even so, a high-end 4/8 core could be competitive with a 980x if the IPC is high enough and clock speeds are competitive. Here's hoping...

I must mention that 6-cores against 8-cores is not the same, so if amd wants to claim the winner with 8 cores that would be a big lie! As if 6 workers against 8 workers, but you must pay them all equally. The 6 core would be more power efficient.

Aleksander DishnicaI must mention that 6-cores against 8-cores is not the same, so if amd wants to claim the winner with 8 cores that would be a big lie! As if 6 workers against 8 workers, but you must pay them all equally. The 6 core would be more power efficient.

That is only true if the 8-core actually uses more way more power than the 6 core. Or any number or cores. But I doubt it will. I don't know anything about Bulldozer power draw (have there been any info on that? I'm completely lost in new tech), but I assume it will be pretty power effecient. IF it's less effecient than Intels 6 cores it's pretty failish imo. I can live with more power, but if it's too bad I mean.

Musselsthen you'll be glad to know that AMD can in fact be faster than intel, if you stop looking at such a narrow subset.

look here:


being slower clock vs clock doesnt tell the whole story when they have two more cores. the FX line they mention is going to improve the IPC, and if they maintain the advantage of having more cores then thats going to make quite an impact.

I can never speak for every situation. I use my PC for games, primarily, and as such, with multiple gpus, Intel is much faster for me and my uses.

Of course it's a narrow subset...I ran my AMD with 1600mhz CAS6, and Intel with i5 760 and i7 870, with the exact same memory in 4x2gb, I run @ CAS 7 at 2000mhz. I recently got a kit @ 2400mhz on Intel, if you check peet's memory thread.

That's 800mhz of memory speed Intel gives me. Those tests were done with equal memory speed, but for me, they are NOT equal in that department.

And with that said, you are also looking within a narrow context.

I never said AMD was bad...overall, they are cheaper to build, for me. But I don't care about cost...performance is number one...

To me.

Lots of "me" in there. I can only speak for myself here, not overall.

Man I stayed quiet because I knew a post like this would bring the claws out.

Good show people, good show.

Yep, ATI managed to kick Nvidia's, arse when these green goblins were sitting on 10 billion $ cash. Can AMD push Bulldozer so hard in CPU world?

It would be nice to Assume AMD could pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat but to assume just makes an ASS out of U and ME so we'll be waiting for reviews before making up my mind on which way to go in the next great Upgrade

AthloniteIt would be nice to Assume AMD could pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat but to assume just makes an ASS out of U and ME so we'll be waiting for reviews before making up my mind on which way to go in the next great Upgrade

Yeah people tend to jump the gun when you have false reviews out 4 months before the product is released that shows a 1000% improvement over the competition only to find out its just meant for the bargain type shopper..AMD is known for that..

cadavecaI can never speak for every situation. I use my PC for games, primarily, and as such, with multiple gpus, Intel is much faster for me and my uses.

Of course it's a narrow subset...I ran my AMD with 1600mhz CAS6, and Intel with i5 760 and i7 870, with the exact same memory in 4x2gb, I run @ CAS 7 at 2000mhz. I recently got a kit @ 2400mhz on Intel, if you check peet's memory thread.

That's 800mhz of memory speed Intel gives me. Those tests were done with equal memory speed, but for me, they are NOT equal in that department.

And with that said, you are also looking within a narrow context.

I never said AMD was bad...overall, they are cheaper to build, for me. But I don't care about cost...performance is number one...

To me.

Lots of "me" in there. I can only speak for myself here, not overall.

With a good kit I can get the same performance on am3 as 1156 it depends on the ics and clocker memory is not equal on diff platforms. Cas6 2000 and cas 8 2400 won't be much if any different and 890 series chipsets can push 2000 and higher for amd.

All I have to say about this press release is: I'll believe it when I see it.

Dave65Yeah people tend to jump the gun when you have false reviews out 4 months before the product is released that shows a 1000% improvement over the competition only to find out its just meant for the bargain type shopper..AMD is known for that..

*Whistle blow* Fanboy Foul. Spouting unprovable non-sense to make a point about nothing that has been discussed.

First, a product preview is not a review, nor does AMD ever market it as such. They have never boasted a 10 fold improve....hell I don't think any technology in history have even come close to that in a one generation jump.

So far AMD, to my knowledge has not directly compared Bully to Sandy, but I could be wrong about that. What they have promised is significant improvement across the board when compared to their current gen. CPU's. They have practically bragged about the Fusion system and where they plan to push the market.

This FX returns is the first time AMD has said anything about going after the performance section of chips. I am glad to hear (even if they fail) that the new chips have shown them enough potential in lab testing to justify the return of FX and direct competition with Sandybridge's top end. Since Sandy has shown to be, from what I gather, only a marginal improvement over the current chips, AMD may not be just hoping for the best outcome here. They maybe hold something back that has not been released to the public. Either way, 2011 is going to be a good show.

OneCoolI wonder if the saying is copyrighted because thats not how you say it?

No, it's not copyrighted.

Musselsyes and im not arguing that they dominate anything, or that they are a clear winner - but the i7 doesnt exactly win in every category all the time.

these new CPU's are meant to improve the CPU speed per clock cycle, and if they do a new challenger will have appeared.


it just annoys me when i see people scream 'i7 is faster!' when its certainly not as simple as that. in the encoding i do (handbrake/H264) the AMD 6 cores have quite an advantage over the i7's

Though I agree with you, truthfully it all has to do with spanking new CPU architecture completely built from the grounds of hell. I too have seen many times AMD’s Phenom II x4 & X6 compete with Intel’s Nehalem in games very well though other apps not so. The 2 extra cores do indeed make a plethora of difference though.

It's been clearly identified that AMD’s last CEO which stepped down took the company on a rollercoaster ride into the ditch. Hence AMD's been greatly struggling ever since, i.e.: we have an unsuccessful Barcelona etc.... This is where AMD’s current CEO (Dam Smart I may add) that’s pushing the new Bulldozer Architecture and helped make Phenom II what it is today just to buy AMD some time until Bulldozer gets released.

If my sources are correct, we are going to witness with Bulldozer, another Hammer Core style release but this time with more computing power that should bring AMD equal or better in Clock for Clock with Intel’s latest and greatest.

Super XPThough I agree with you, truthfully it all has to do with spanking new CPU architecture completely built from the grounds of hell. I too have seen many times AMD’s Phenom II x4 & X6 compete with Intel’s Nehalem in games very well though other apps not so. The 2 extra cores do indeed make a plethora of difference though.

It's been clearly identified that AMD’s last CEO which stepped down took the company on a rollercoaster ride into the ditch. Hence AMD's been greatly struggling ever since, i.e.: we have an unsuccessful Barcelona etc.... This is where AMD’s current CEO (Dam Smart I may add) that’s pushing the new Bulldozer Architecture and helped make Phenom II what it is today just to buy AMD some time until Bulldozer gets released.

If my sources are correct, we are going to witness with Bulldozer, another Hammer Core style release but this time with more computing power that should bring AMD equal or better in Clock for Clock with Intel’s latest and greatest.

even if they only match the i7's out today (and not what comes next) AMD will have a clear winner if they can deliver that performance at a lower price, or with more physical cores.

hmmm it will be interesting to see what sort of pricing they'll have for them I could do with a new quad

Athlonitehmmm it will be interesting to see what sort of pricing they'll have for them I could do with a new quad

quad? why aim so low! go for hexa or octa!

Musselsquad? why aim so low! go for hexa or octa!

I agree. Once you go 6 you can't go back.