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
Desktop Bulldozers will be released soon after that and expected to be a 4 core, 6 core, and 8 core versions with a clock around 3.4 Ghz.
While I can vouch for the server chips coming out first and core counts, the clock speed and number of chips released at first are best guess.I hope that is not true. As stated before, the i7 950 is faster than the 1100T in synthetic benchmarks. If I recall the 1100T sits a fraction below the i7 920.
So I am going with i7 950 8 cores (The system said it saw 8 cores so we go with that) vs. Bulldozer 8 cores = Bully wins by 50%. And knowing AMD that was a 3Ghz i7 vs. a 3.3 Ghz Bully so minus 10% due to clock speed and we get 40% better performance....synthetic.
Truth is, this means nothing. Without specs or details about the test setup and what the 50% relates to, this info. is pointless. I have to write this off as AMD's marketing keeping the buzz up about their upcoming chip since CES for them was all about the Bobcat APUs. Good job keeping us talking, but they better not disappoint us. There is a point that hype turns into a monster no amount of awesome can slay.
If AMD can get 20% faster than current at the same clocks and 12 cores out... they may not win over intel fanboys and their single threaded games/benchmarks, but everyone else will be damned glad for the excessive multithreaded performance.
Do you remember the Barcelona disappointment? Initial selective numbers showed a nice bump over Core2 for both int and fp, and we all know how it turned out to be in the end...
I smell more of the same. Hopefully to a lesser extent.
i knew that post on fudzilla couldnt be right, AMD wouldnt bring back FX for same as i7
Performance improvement always happens. I want a giant leap of improvement to put us back in a head to head fight. Then maybe AMD's new CEO will buy a marketing department and fight for real.There are no more delays. The chip is done and being manufactured. It is all waiting for real numbers, real benchmarks, real samples, and then release. I can speak for everyone when I say to AMD, "We are frustrated and need a release ASAP. Move the release date up if anything."FX is coming back. AMD was serious about that announcement.
Excited!
What amaze me is that if AMD's bulldozer run @1.8ghz on that presentation.
If that is true, that is some serious shit coming from AMD.
And since AMD plans to revive the FX brand again, it's coming back to the glorious days of Athlon64. 1.8ghz A64 3000+ OCed to 3ghz.
Hype from AMD has always tended to lead to disappointment. As Becker would say, no expectations, no disappointment. +1 to the skeptical kitty.
"AMD sure drag their hole, 'The Future is fusion' motto they have been using in their logo for ages now has still bared no fruit to my knowledge. Intel beat them at that too with the release of their Sandy Bridge processors, before AMD could even release their Bulldozer CPU's. Here's to hoping though, I want cheaper CPU's."
Skeptically 50% faster, at a 50% slower release rate.
"Everything beat the Intel CPU's (Pentium 4's / Pentium D's which were using the horrible Netburst architecture at the time) when AMD's FX series were out. Then if you rightly remember Intel's Core 2 Duo's came out mopping the floor with them and have been miles ahead since.
The FX's I'm betting will struggle to keep up with the current 'high-end' Intel Socket 1366 i7's, since the six-core Phenom's (proof as per mentioned on here elsewhere) are only about as powerful as the top 'mid-range' Intel Socket 1156 i5's. So I doubt they will ever reach anywhere near being able to compete against the new Intel Sandybridge architecture Socket's 1155 (the new i5 and mid-range i7 socket) and 1356/2011 (the new high-end i7 socket TBA). For that to happen they would have to have one hell of a trick up their sleeve so to speak, cos they would have to jump above like 3-4 series of Intel CPU's in performance to be able to claim top dog. Also doesn't make too much sense, having their logo being 'The Future is fusion' for quite sometime now, and Intel release their integrated graphics CPU's before them."
Hmmm, perhaps a ploy by AMD to hold back technology from the public so they can seem as though they are still in the game at later dates as they see fit in accordance to the competitions various releases. I sure hope not. I don't want to start a conspiracy, but if these suggested improvements are indeed true, they sure randomly made one hell of a big jump out of nowhere.
and lets not forget that the tested chip only have 4 bulldozer module. so they should have comparable power consumption and die size as the quad core core i7.