Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II

[Wile E]

you can boost ram CAPACITY very large amounts going to DDR3.


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.

There are 4GB DDR2 sticks. Too pricey tho.

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.

 

[Goodman]

Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad

I didn't know that about dirk but from what i read that is recent & not a year like you said or i miss read you?

Article date from January 12 2011

Citing people familiar with the matter, a story in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) said that AMD's board had been concerned for the past year over Meyer's seeming lack of motivation and interest in expanding the company's reach into mobile devices. Following a meeting in November, the board grew more impatient, eventually forcing Meyer to resign on Monday.

The Journal was unable to reach Meyer for comment yesterday.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20028285-92.html#ixzz1BH83l6P7

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.

So 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...

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...

 

[pr0n Inspector]

Noone seems to understand why AMD fired Dirk, here. Almost a year ago(basically to the day), AMD sold mobile graphics division to Qualcomm. Now guess who is going to be powering the next iPhone and iPad?

Qualcomm.

No. It's rumored to use qualcomm's GSM/CDMA/UMTS chipset. it's rumored to use Cortex A9-based CPU and PowerVR SGX543 GPU. no one ever said it will use Scorpion CPU or Adreno GPU.

 

[wahdangun]

But moving to DDR3 on current AMD cpus doesn't really provide much benefit. No matter how the current AMD owners look at it, they still have to buy both a board and cpu, at minimum, to see the performance benefits of dozer.

There are 4GB DDR2 sticks. Too pricey tho.

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.

err, maybe why AMD still keeping AM3 support is to keep current AM3 CPU on the market, maybe they will lower the price on to move it to lower end market, its just like intel moving platform LGA 775 to lower end consumer, but without any compability problem

 

[cadaveca]

I didn't know that about dirk but from what i read that is recent & not a year like you said or i miss read you?

I said almost a year ago Dirk sold the mobile stuff off to qualcomm. Your quote says for almost a year they have been concerned...seems to fit.

No. It's rumored to use qualcomm's GSM/CDMA/UMTS chipset. it's rumored to use Cortex A9-based CPU and PowerVR SGX543 GPU. no one ever said it will use Scorpion CPU or Adreno GPU.

Yes. You are right. It is a rumour, but one that is near a year old as well:

January 2010:

Qualcomm’s CEO Paul Jacobs has openly expressed interest in inserting a Qualcomm chip into Apple’s popular iPhone. New rumors reported by TheStreet.com indicate that Qualcomm’s endeavors were successful: A Qualcomm chip will power a new version of the iPhone on Verizon in the summer.

http://mashable.com/2010/01/06/qualcomm-verizon-iphone-chip/

July 2nd:

July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Qualcomm Inc. stands to get its technology into millions of new phones if Verizon Wireless begins offering Apple Inc.’s iPhone, because the device would have to start using Qualcomm’s chip designs.

Qualcomm is the only company that can provide the signal processor that the iPhone would need to connect with Verizon’s network, said Will Strauss, an analyst for Tempe, Arizona-based Forward Concepts. Infineon Technologies AG, the provider of that chip for the AT&T Inc. version of Apple’s phone, would suffer by losing out on the Verizon shipments, he said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...rizon-would-boost-qualcomm-hurt-infineon.html

Qualcomm, which has long been rumored to supply a CDMA chipset to Apple for a Verizon-compatible iPhone, is looking to hire an "iPhone Developer Guru" for a "secret" project.

"The iPhone has no secret for you?" the job listing posted earlier this month reads. "Well, that's what you think... join us and develop the most challenging product of your life!"

Qualcomm built the first CDMA-based cellular base station in the early '90s. Today, CDMA is used by a number of carriers around the world, most notably Verizon Wireless in the U.S. Recent rumors have suggested that Apple is eyeing an early 2011 launch for a Verizon-compatible CDMA iPhone.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...tor_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.

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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I warned you guys not to question Cadaveca. Now look what you did! Reads and faps. I waned you. Have mercy on your tech soul.

 

[MikeX]

some AMD boards support ECC memory. The ECC stick are like 4GB, 8GB, 16GB individual.
see http://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.

 

[jtleon]

Geez I hate to post off-topic...but Kudos to AMD! Its about time for some more Intel Pwnin'!

 

[swaaye]

AMD says Barcelona 40% faster than Intel Quads.
http://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.

 

[JF-AMD]

And Intel said that Netburst would go to 10GHz (just to be fair.)

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.

 

[jtleon]

Not to be a Debbie Downer here....but if AMD can match the perf of Intel's flagship CPU....I will be plenty happy!

 

[Mussels]

Not to be a Debbie Downer here....but if AMD can match the perf of Intel's flagship CPU....I will be plenty happy!

indeed. cause they're likely to do it at lower cost

 

[mackintire]

Bulldozer will match the i7 quad processors.

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.

 

[pantherx12]

*twiddles thumbs* I'm anxious to change my mobo already, will get something highend me thinks : ] ( may not change cpu right away, but watch for benchmarks and overclocking info)

4 pci-e slots me thinks

 

[Thatguy]

Bulldozer will match the i7 quad processors.

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.

Looking at some of the key design eement of bulldozer and how they are really trying to streamlin everything and balance the chip. It may actually end up with high IPC then comparable intel chips.

 

[alexsubri]

Bulldozer will match the i7 quad processors.

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.

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 2012

AMD's Bulldozer is set to receive the "FX" branding, which has been absent since the Athlon 64 FX-70 back in 2006, according to DonanimHaber. The flagship 4-module, 8-core CPU Zambezi will be branded as Vision Black FX. 4-core and 6-core Bulldozer CPUs will be branded as Ultimate Vision FX.

In the past, AMD's "FX" branding was an equivalent to Intel's "Extreme Edition" moniker. The resulting products are flagships with unlocked multipliers and exorbitant ~$1000 price tags. However, since the onslaught of Intel's "Core" CPUs, AMD has been restricted to the <$300 market, with no FX CPUs. Bulldozer is AMD's most major architectural change since K8 in 2003, and arguably since K7 in 1999. Judging by the rumoured branding, it is entirely possible that the branding will be radically altered as well, with "FX" not signifying the high-end, extreme performance (and price tag) as it did in AMD's glory days. However, DonanimHaber does indicate that AMD are confident of Bulldozer's performance. Whether it will be a match for Intel's Gulftown (let alone the 8-core Sandy Bridge CPU) remains to be seen.

Bulldozer is set to release with a new platform based around AMD's upcoming 900 series chipset. While previously expected to be AM3 compatible, Bulldozer is now based on an pin-compatible AM3+ platform. Current AM3 Athlon/Phenom CPUs will be compatible with the 900 series, although there is no solid information of the level of compatibility of Bulldozer with previous AM3 motherboards. Certainly, some features will be disabled, at least.

AMD is expected to release Bulldozer in Q2 2011.

Sauce

 

[CDdude55]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...vity/files/2009/09/1-ace-up-sleeve-zp.jpg&t=1

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 2012



Sauce

Don't see why that matters, back then the FX chips were so super expensive for the average person that it really didn't matter that they performed well. Just because the naming scheme is coming back doesn't mean they'll be cheap and beat out everything out there. We still have yet to see how a regular Bulldozer chip performs, so assuming that just because they are bringing back the top end FX chips that somehow it's going to magically turn the tables and make AMD the top performer again isn't right, but you may have your fantasy, but in the real world we'll just have to keep waiting.

 

[Wile E]

And Intel said that Netburst would go to 10GHz (just to be fair.)

This is why I am a strong proponent of benchmarks at launch and not before.

Both very true.

indeed. cause they're likely to do it at lower cost

No they aren't. You are deluded if you believe that. Their chips sold for just as much as Intel when they could compete at the top.

The top tier will ALWAYS be in the >$800 range US retail, regardless of who makes the chip.

Don't see why that matters, back then the FX chips were so super expensive for the average person that it really didn't matter that they performed well. Just because the naming scheme is coming back doesn't mean they'll be cheap and beat out everything out there. We still have yet to see how a regular Bulldozer chip performs, so assuming that just because they are bringing back the top end FX chips that somehow it's going to magically turn the tables and make AMD the top performer again isn't right, but you may have your fantasy, but in the real world we'll just have to keep waiting.

Also very true.

 

[magibeg]

I have to say, I think it would be truly amazing if AMD had performance competitive parts against Intel again. I have personally never owned an AMD CPU and would love to try it if they have a good product. If AMD released a chip that was 100% equal in performance and cost (including motherboard) I would honestly pick AMD just for something different. (I missed out of the AMD FX days because my parents bought a P4, needless to say quite a few years have gone by and things have changed)

 

[newtekie1]

indeed. cause they're likely to do it at lower cost

Not likely if you pay attention to history. When AMD was matching and outperforming Intel's flagship processors, AMD was also charging the same or more. AMD has only charged less in times when they couldn't compete with the high end.

 

[bear jesus]

Not likely if you pay attention to history. When AMD was matching and outperforming Intel's flagship processors, AMD was also charging the same or more. AMD has only charged less in times when they couldn't compete with the high end.

But winning market share won't happen so easily if they are priced the same as same performing Intel parts, i think AMD needs to try and carry on competing on value as well as performance.

 

[TheMailMan78]

But winning market share won't happen so easily if they are priced the same as same performing Intel parts, i think AMD needs to try and carry on competing on value as well as performance.

They didn't have market share when the did it the first time. As a matter of fact no one even heard of them before. I think we will be looking at paying through the nose again. Why? Because they can.

 

[GSG-9]

They didn't have market share when the did it the first time. As a matter of fact no one even heard of them before. I think we will be looking at paying through the nose again. Why? Because they can.

Yes, they had been heard of. They had the entire K7 architecture before the Athlon 64s (not to mention the K5s and K6s!) which put them ahead, and before those break away chips they manufactured intel clone chips for IBM. Its not a long read to get a history of AMD.

I sure hope the prices end up being a reflection of the performance compared to competing products.

 

[bear jesus]

They didn't have market share when the did it the first time. As a matter of fact no one even heard of them before. I think we will be looking at paying through the nose again. Why? Because they can.

But back then AMD was beating Intel on the top end, to be honest i still don't think an 8 core bulldozer with dual channel memory will beat a dual threaded 8 core quad channel sandy bridge CPU.

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.

 

[HTC]

Not likely if you pay attention to history. When AMD was matching and outperforming Intel's flagship processors, AMD was also charging the same or more. AMD has only charged less in times when they couldn't compete with the high end.

Agreed, which is why i posted this:

Personally, i won't like it if this 50% over I7 turns out to be true. My reasoning is simple: dominance = overpricing!

What i want is for AMD to put out a chip that is within 2% of I7 and Sandy's performance (lower or higher) but with the same or lower power consumption. If Bulldozer is that chip, then great for all consumers.

If Bulldozer turns out a bit better then this or if power consumption is a bit higher, it's OK, but not ideal.

If Bulldozer turns out to be quite a bit better then I7 or Sandy's, then we have a problem, in the sense that it will be AMD's turn to overprice and i would really hate that!

The prices only come down with competition and, let's face it, there has been no competition, which is why Intel can charge whatever they want. The same was true when AMD led in the FX days.

I really want AMD to succeed but not by trading one overpricing CPU company for another.