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
Honestly, I'd just ignore the "numbers" and wait until actual reviews are out. Now as long as it'll run -bigadv fairly well I'll be very happy.
My worries
- quadfather fiasco will fx be released on am3+ or server socket
- 6 core chips will be 16% faster clock for clock (estimated) still not faster than i7 much less sandybridge
- will the coldbug be back with the redesign
All that being said I want a 990fx based asus board (crosshair v extreme or m5a series 980gx) If 8 core is only faster than a 950 I see amd releasing it just over 950 prices if it beats a i7 6 core well I still don't see $1000 price tags maybe $500-600 amd still needs to bring its name out of the dirt unlike intel. Whoever said board will be expensive is oblivious to amd it appears am3+ is an all inclusive chipset 980G will still be midrange 940G low end Amd still has to sell dual and quad core chips cheap to be competitive with i3 and i5.We are in the middle of quiet period so you would never see AMD making a performance statement. I have no idea about the validity of the article because, amongst other things, I don't speak turkish.
To date the only performance statement we have made is around the server throughput of Bulldozer.
But, to address some of the comments.Actually every core has its own dedicated FMAC for floating point. If you want to do 256-bit floating point with AVX you can merge the 2 FMACs. Intel handles 256-bit AVX by merging their 128-bit FPU with the SSE functions (and you have to recompile all of your code to make SSE into AVX-128.Modules are an architectural facet of the design, we will not market modules. The cores are cores. They are not "half cores" as some suggest. If you look at what defines a core, it is the integer execution pipeline. When the system boots up it will see all of the cores as integer cores, the OS will see them and the application will see them. All arguments have fallen flat on their face.AMD has already said in public Q2 for client, Q3 for server, so you don't need to say rumored.Yes, for server. Server will have 8, 12 and 16-core models.
Client will have 8-core and something below that (I don't know the models, I am in server.)Not sure how you can vouch for the server chips coming out first because I know the launch dates and server chips launch in Q3 with client launching in Q2.
As for 1P, most of those platforms will be C32, we will not share infrastructure with client.
And the dual dual channel or quad channel memory bus the rumor mill is playing with is that a pair of 128bit mem controllers with the ability to run in ganged/unganged mode similar to the current chips? And will each die of a 12/16 be able to access its own individual memory ie one of the dual channels of a quad channel setup
Quad channel on servers. The 128-bit memory controllers can be unganged to allow simultaneous read/write on the different channels.
The memory channel structure is identical to what we do on the AMD Opteron 6100 series today.
i think the HT was internal on CPU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs1CxuUrpc
"AMD chose to go with performance per watt over performance per clock, which is perfectly fine, but it does mean that I don't think we'll see such a big gain.
There's a lot of speculation and wishful thinking going around. Personally I hope BD earns its FX title and isn't just another chip they threw more cores on.
It all comes down to perception, and that can VERY easily be controlled by carefully chosen benchmarks. Thuban wins enough tests that a full review could determine AMD wins 100% of the tests and blows Intel's much more expensive processors out of the water. Something has to change, it's not good from an enthusiast perspective. Maybe it's great from a shareholder or employee perspective though.
The marketing of "FX" is obviously working, folks are already sold on the FX moniker alone without knowing much about the product performance because of past associations.
My understanding has been that BE AMD chips are like the 'K' series of Intel chips and the FX's were the Extreme Edition equivalents. I believe all parties should leave all their chips unlocked.
Typically when companies are silent, it means their product isn't living up to par. Even with the most optimistic projections, its already well understood that bulldozer won't match up with SB or necessarily be even close in terms of IPC. AMD seems to have gone with a high throughput design, which is fine, but that means you have to have realistic expectations.
K10 and 10.5 derivatives have been around since June 23, 1999.
They don't compare it to the high end i7s. Saying 50% over i7 is just wrong."
I want my cores so I can snap em' off and eat em lol