Thursday, January 13th 2011
Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II
Here, take some salt. AMD reportedly gave out performance figures in a presentation to its partners, performance figures seen by DonanimHaber. It is reported that an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture is pitched by its makers to have 50% higher performance than existing processors such as the Core i7 950 (4 cores, 8 threads), and Phenom II X6 1100T (6 cores). Very little is known about the processor, including at what clock speed the processor was running at, much less what other components were driving the test machine.
Taking this information into account, the said Bulldozer based processor should synthetically even outperform Core i7 980X six-core, Intel's fastest desktop processor in the market. Built from ground-up, the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based. The processor is backed by new 9-series core logic, and a new AM3+ socket. AMD is expected to unveil this platform a little later this year.
Source:
DonanimHaber
Taking this information into account, the said Bulldozer based processor should synthetically even outperform Core i7 980X six-core, Intel's fastest desktop processor in the market. Built from ground-up, the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based. The processor is backed by new 9-series core logic, and a new AM3+ socket. AMD is expected to unveil this platform a little later this year.
424 Comments on Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II
:laugh:
I'm not arguing over pricing for Intel or AMD chips, that's a different debate in itself. More of just that it is possible for most if needed/wanted can afford the high end platforms if determined to get it and needed for what they want to do with their system. No where was i saying that Intel chips/chipsets are not the best current performing platform at the moment and that AMD is the price for performance champ. I'm not trying to take anything to far, just saying that it is in fact possible to afford what is considered the unaffordable by many if need be, though of course it largely depends on the circumstance of the persons needs and financial well being in the end.lol Go for it if you think you have the right stuff. Plus being a fellow TPU member that would give me an opportunity to get a discount.:D lol
Recently i did a slight down/sidegrade to a 1055T though, as the X58 platform was getting under utilized. As i said before, no point in keeping the Enzo Ferrari around if im just going to be driving it around the block (all i manly do is gaming), so i'm planning. to sell the parts off.
Are there any games in which the t1055 pulls ahead? Most reviews vouch for the i7 for gaming and te t1055 for productivity, where you may need more cores...
in gaming its all about clocks, they are all really close, you can have any high end quad core/higher and have blazing framerates
I realise that taking a $750 hit is a lot, but if you put $300 aside and save up then as prices go down and bank balances increase with interest, it tends to be more cost effective.
Or am I missing something?
When i bought the motherboard it basically pushed me to get the rest of the parts to complete it, it's tough to wait because eventually something will more likely come up and i'll end up having to wait longer. When you buy the parts in increments it feels satisfying to know you still have a good chunk left in your pay check for your priorities while at the same time satisfying your needs to build a kick ass system.
Come on, you've got a captive audience. Pitch the sale !
I guess I can understand why some people are dying information to be released right now or soon (tax refunds), but I'm fine with waiting. I'm not building until the summer anyways.
Again, end results are identical.
I just can't wait for bulldozer to come out so we can see some real performance numbers and one thing i really want to see is how well the launch models overclock, i hope that they can at least be pushed up to 4.20GHz if not more.
But there are many people like myself running an AM3 phenom on an AM2 board with DDR2, i want to increase my ram capacity an speed and i see little point in buying 8GB of DDR2 as i have 4 1GB sticks so they would need to be fully replaced plus this board just does not like me pushing my north bridge so in this specific case an AM3+ board with my current CPU and new ram should help increase performance and give me the ability to get a bulldozer in the future assuming that would be a good choice.
In the case with people running an AM3 CPU on an AM2 board it is easier/cheaper to upgrade in a way that could (not saying it would) show performance increases while staying with AMD, in that case it's almost like running an i5 on a board for the core 2 quad with DDR2 and skipping the 1156 board to go straight to an 1155 board using the exact same CPU but with DDR3 so i understand from that point of view but an AM3 CPU on an AM3 board being put into an AM3+ board would be more like putting an 1156 i5 on an 1155 board so kind of pointless.
Of course i know none of those Intel based examples would work i was just trying to use the CPU generations and boards as examples as to why people still say it's easier with AMD as there is still some compatibility between boards and CPU's.
Even though no matter what sticking with the same CPU wont give any major performance increase for some it would be the best choice assuming they intended to stick with AMD before knowing how well bulldozer performs and costs.
*edit*
:laugh: most of what i just said has been pointed out before i posted.
2GB sticks is the best you can get in DDR2, and it limits you to 800Mhz to run 4 of them.
DDR3 you can move to 4GB sticks on 1600Mhz.
double the ram amount, double the Mhz - that IS quite a boost. sure, 8GB+ of ram isnt for everyone... but its not a non issue.
That reminds me of one other reason why i want an AM3+ board with some DDR3, i have 4GB of 1066mhz ram that i can push to 1092hmz or 1120mhz depending on the timings but at that point it becomes a major limit to my overclock reducing how far i can push my north bridge and HT unless i drop the memory down to 800mhz and push up from there, i would hope buying some 1866mhz ram would remove the sticks as the limiting factor and put it back to the CPU allowing me to get around or over 1600mhz while also pushing the speed of the north bridge and HT further than i can now giving me a better overall increase.
Is your memory modules one sided? that may be why it works well for you. If thats the case, then yes, 2GB sticks (double sided) would cause you the same problem.
moving to DDR3 solves those problems, yes. not sure what the upper limit there is, as i've got a BE chip and never bothered looking into it.
The mhz makes no real difference in performance, but the amount possibly could, tho I don't know anyone that could benefit from 16GB of ram that is using an AM3 chip in an AM2+ board. That has to be one of the smallest niches out there. If they don't benefit from 16GB of ram, there is no point in upgrading.
So, instead of AMD worrying about this small niche, what could they have done to make Dozer or it's platform any better?
No matter how many scenarios I come up with, I just see no point in keeping AM3 support on the new platform. I just don't think there is really anyone out there that will see a real performance benefit from using an AM3 cpu on a dozer board, even if they only currently have DDR2. I just don't buy it.