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
Article date from January 12 2011So you still have the Intel parts/system?
Sorry! but i don't get you at all , it was already paid for & you went spending more money & buy an AMD system because all you do is gaming?
Your already paid I7 would have done that better anyhow...:confused:
As for Bulldozer it may be good as server chip but what we will be getting as desktop user , may not be all that good?
my guess is it will probably be as good as I7 is right now & nothing more... maybe?
Anyhow time will tell...
January 2010:mashable.com/2010/01/06/qualcomm-verizon-iphone-chip/
July 2nd:www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-02/iphone-on-verizon-would-boost-qualcomm-hurt-infineon.htmlwww.appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/26/cdma_inventor_qualcomm_seeks_iphone_developer_guru.html
I mean, you always need to take the stuff I post like this with a grain of salt. But if Qualcomm is making the CDMA chips for Verizon's iphone, they've already get a foot, and a leg, and another leg, into the iphone hardware. :laugh:
Point is that there is potential there, and Dirk sold it off. Profits are profits, no matter how large, and a lack of interest in Dirk's part is largely what lead to the situation @ AMD today. The "board" @ AMD has been reported as saying that this is specifically why Dirk was turfed, as Goodman's link shows.
;)
Anyway, this is far off-topic. :laugh:
see www.crucial.com/uk/store/listmodule/DDR3/~ECC~/list.html
I don't know if these will actually work on any supported ECC AM3 boards.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_n3wvsfq4Y
I suggest skepticism with this news. ;) It's not that he was lying, but 40% happened only in rare special circumstances that really leveraged the on-die communication. Otherwise Barcelona was no match for Kentsfield, especially with the bugs considered (TLB and XP Cool 'n Quiet). They will only say things that put their product in a positive light.
From what I've read, Bulldozer is designed to be (hopefully) exceptional for multithreaded loads but in single/poorly threaded stuff it will have some problems up against more traditional CPU cores, especially Intel's extremely efficient modern cores. So their claims here are likely for some highly threaded apps, meaning that these results could be meaningless for most people. I just hope that their design is clearly superior overall to Phenom II in every way. It's a big architectural change and there's a lot of risk to it.
This is why I am a strong proponent of benchmarks at launch and not before.
The 40% number was a server-only number (Randy ran the server division) but too many people had tried to take that number and compare it on client. To the same degree I have told people not to try to draw client conclusions from any server estimates. We look at throughput, they look at speed and you just can't draw accurate conclusions.
So (4) i7 cores with hyperthreading = 8 cores seen by the OS
Bulldozer with (8) interger cores = 8 cores seen by the OS
Bulldozer will be 50% faster in applications that CAN use all 8 cores to their full potential.
Now that I have said that. Bulldozer will be as fast at Nehalem, but not as fast as sandy-bridge clock for clock. Also Intel's processors will still be faster at the high end.
All in all AMD has set themselves up to win back a fair share of the server market with bulldozer and offer a competitive midrange product.
Don't compare this to AMDs current hex core as that processor can not even compete with Intel's i5 processor. Bulldozer is a big step up for AMD. If AMD can get bulldozer onto 28nm in early 2012 AMD has a good chance of maintaining competitiveness against Intel.
4 pci-e slots me thinks :p
Remember, AMD always has a trick up their sleeve...
Remember, AMD 64 FX was king of the hill back in 2006. The FX lineup is rumored to be coming back. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they were released Q4 2011 or Q2 2012Sauce
The top tier will ALWAYS be in the >$800 range US retail, regardless of who makes the chip.Also very true.
I sure hope the prices end up being a reflection of the performance compared to competing products.
If a single threaded quad core sandy bridge chip when overclocked can trade blows with the dual threaded 6 core gulftown core than what will double the cores and dual threading do?
Yes i know it will cost at least $1000 but if Intel is still beating AMD on the high end i don't think AMD can start charging whatever they want just yet.
I really want AMD to succeed but not by trading one overpricing CPU company for another.
If Intel is currently getting $100 for X amount of performance. Then AMD comes along and can beat Intels X performance then the market would demand it charge more then $100.
Now would they be smart to charge less and gain market share? Sure. But Intel will NOT be caught with thier pants down again like they did with the Athlon. AMD has to get what they can get NOW.