Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TC Magazine] Leaked roadmap shows 10-core AMD desktop CPUs in 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TC Magazine] Leaked roadmap shows 10-core AMD desktop CPUs in 2012 - Page 16

post #151 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by broke View Post
yeah cool 10-core amd cpu's that'll still get owned by a quad-core IB. im no fanboy but maybe AMD should stop throwing more cores at their problems. epeen and nothing else.
No offense, but read up on the architecture and you'll know that Bulldozer will be achieving at the very least Nehalem-level IPC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post
The comparison between AMD and NVidia is a flawed. One does not dominate the other in terms of resources at their disposal. Not the case with AMD and Intel in the CPU market.

Here's why it's not likely that AMD will catch up to Intel in IPC anytime soon:
(Notice I said not LIKELY instead of impossible).

---------------
AMD:
Revenue US$ 6.494 billion (2010)
Operating income US$ 848 million (2010)
Net income US$ 471 million (2010)
Total assets US$ 4.964 billion (2010)
Total equity US$ 1.013 billion (2010)
Employees11,100 (2010)

Intel:
Revenue US$ 43.623 billion (2010)
Operating income US$ 16.045 billion (2010)
Net income US$ 11.464 billion (2010)
Total assets US$ 63.186 billion (2010)
Total equity US$ 49.430 billion (2010)
Employees82,500 (2010)
-----------------


With such a big gap, it would take more than a new architecture for AMD to regain the performance lead. It will take a monumental failure from Intel at the same time (e.g. their decision to develop Netburst instead of the PIII architecture).
A bit off-topic, but see how AMD's net income is one thirteenth of their revenue, while Intel's is a quarter? Intel charges too much. But it's monopolistic "competition", so they can do whatever they want.

Remember that this is an entirely new architecture from the ground-up. It's entirely possible. Also, AMD did beat the Pentium III, just not the Core and later architectures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post
AMD had the performance lead with Athlon 64 because of Intel's ill-fated decision to continue developing the Netburst architecture.

At the time, Intel had a very competitive architecture on their hands in the form of Pentium M and later Core Duo, which were developed from the PIII lineage. Feel free to look up the benchmarks: Pentium M and Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) had higher IPC than the Athlon 64s and Athlon X2s of the same era.
So it's not that Intel didn't have something in their hands that could compete with A64. Rather, they made the error of not developing their Pentium M architecture into the desktop space and instead trudged on with Netburst.

Now the tables have turned. AMD has been slowly evolving the Athlon 64 architecture for the last 6 years. They're the ones doing what Intel did back in the Pentium 4 era. Phenom I was a huge failure. Phenom II barely caught up with the Core 2 architecture that was 3 years old at the time of Phenom II's release. AMD's most recent Phenom II X4(the 980) is just another speed bump @ 3.7 GHz. Remind you of Pentium 4 at all?

The difference between AMD and Intel is that Intel has huge amounts of resources at their disposal. They can afford to make a mistake and still recover.

When the real BD benchmarks come out in a few months, we'll see how it really performs.

But a few things prevent me from believing that Bulldozer will be some miracle that totally crushes Sandy Bridge.

The biggest point is the importance of clock speeds. Bulldozer was delayed because it could not clock high enough to be competitive with Sandy Bridge.

From Xbitlabs:


This alone does not bode well for Bulldozer's IPC. In addition, Sandy Bridge has lots of headroom to go up to 4+ GHz, so if a Bulldozer chip is competitive with a stock 2600K, it's incredibly easy for Intel to release a 4 GHz or even 4.5 GHz Sandy Bridge quad core without much additional spending on their part.
Your argument contradicts itself. You talk about how Intel just kept pushing the P4, and that was their mistake, but once they got back on track they beat AMD again. Then you say that AMD is doing what Intel did with the P4 but with the Athlon 64/Phenom, but ignore that if you're right that means that AMD can and will make a comeback.

Then you say how Bulldozer is a failure because early steppings could not compete with Sandy Bridge because they had trouble clocking higher than 2.5 GHz, and that's bad for BD's IPC (SB comes clocked at up to 3.4 out of the box, what kind of insane IPC are you expecting?). Then you go on to mention that Sandy Bridge easily overclocks to 5 GHz. So it's a no brainer AMD needs to get the clocks higher to be competitive unless BD can execute twice as many instructions per clock as SB (read: no).
Kalki
(25 items)
 
Alienware
(18 items)
 
ASUS A53Z
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320 @ 4.73GHz Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Radeon HD 7950 @ 1200/1800 8GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 @ 2000MHz 11-11-11-28-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
128GB Crucial M4 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 2TB Seagate Barracuda ST 7200 RPM who cares 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC Raystorm XSPC Razor HD 7970 XSPC EX240 Swiftech MCP50X 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Black Ice GT Stealth 240 2x XSPC Xinruilian 1650rpm 2x Yate Loon Slim 1800rpm Alphacool Light Tower 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 Gentoo GNU/Linux Dell UltraSharp U2412M CM Storm Trigger MX Brown 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX750 Corsair Carbide 300R Logitech G400 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD OPTERON BULLDOZER 16-CORE 2GHZ (32GHZ TOTAL) ALIENWARE 3+1 PHASE ITX GAMING BOARD 4GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GT 430 32GB GAMING DDR3 800MHZ CL13 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2TB 5400RPM GAMING HDD GAMING BLU RAY BURNER ONE GAMING CASE FAN UBUNTU W/ UNITY (I AM 1337 H4X0R) 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HD-READY 24" 1366X768 PENTILE TN PANEL GAMING M... ALIENWARE TACTX UBER 1337 BACKLIT RUBBER MEMBRA... OFF-BRAND 200W GAMING PSU; 65% EFFICIENCY  ALIENWARE GAMING CASE WITH THE COOL GLOWING ALIEN 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
ALIENWARE TACTX GAMING MOUSE ALIENWARE MOUSEPAD IT'S DESIGNED FOR GAMING AND... BEATS AUDIO 1337 ALIENWARE TACTX 8-CHANNEL GAMING HEADSET/M... 
OtherOther
16 CORES!!!! 4GB VRAM!!!! FASTER THAN 3960X + 7... ALIENWARE GAMING CARPET 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A6-3420M OC 2.2GHz / 3GHz Turbo 1.10625v ASUS A53Z AMD Radeon HD 6520G 6GB DDR3 1333MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB WD Scorpio Black yes. really good Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Fedora GNU/Linux 1366x768 LED-backlit TN panel Decent + numpad ~5hr 6-cell li-ion 
Audio
Altec Lansing 
  hide details  
Reply
Kalki
(25 items)
 
Alienware
(18 items)
 
ASUS A53Z
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320 @ 4.73GHz Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Radeon HD 7950 @ 1200/1800 8GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 @ 2000MHz 11-11-11-28-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
128GB Crucial M4 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 2TB Seagate Barracuda ST 7200 RPM who cares 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC Raystorm XSPC Razor HD 7970 XSPC EX240 Swiftech MCP50X 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
Black Ice GT Stealth 240 2x XSPC Xinruilian 1650rpm 2x Yate Loon Slim 1800rpm Alphacool Light Tower 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Windows 7 Gentoo GNU/Linux Dell UltraSharp U2412M CM Storm Trigger MX Brown 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX750 Corsair Carbide 300R Logitech G400 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD OPTERON BULLDOZER 16-CORE 2GHZ (32GHZ TOTAL) ALIENWARE 3+1 PHASE ITX GAMING BOARD 4GB NVIDIA GEFORCE GT 430 32GB GAMING DDR3 800MHZ CL13 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2TB 5400RPM GAMING HDD GAMING BLU RAY BURNER ONE GAMING CASE FAN UBUNTU W/ UNITY (I AM 1337 H4X0R) 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
HD-READY 24" 1366X768 PENTILE TN PANEL GAMING M... ALIENWARE TACTX UBER 1337 BACKLIT RUBBER MEMBRA... OFF-BRAND 200W GAMING PSU; 65% EFFICIENCY  ALIENWARE GAMING CASE WITH THE COOL GLOWING ALIEN 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
ALIENWARE TACTX GAMING MOUSE ALIENWARE MOUSEPAD IT'S DESIGNED FOR GAMING AND... BEATS AUDIO 1337 ALIENWARE TACTX 8-CHANNEL GAMING HEADSET/M... 
OtherOther
16 CORES!!!! 4GB VRAM!!!! FASTER THAN 3960X + 7... ALIENWARE GAMING CARPET 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD A6-3420M OC 2.2GHz / 3GHz Turbo 1.10625v ASUS A53Z AMD Radeon HD 6520G 6GB DDR3 1333MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
320GB WD Scorpio Black yes. really good Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Fedora GNU/Linux 1366x768 LED-backlit TN panel Decent + numpad ~5hr 6-cell li-ion 
Audio
Altec Lansing 
  hide details  
Reply
post #152 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usario View Post
Your argument contradicts itself. You talk about how Intel just kept pushing the P4, and that was their mistake, but once they got back on track they beat AMD again. Then you say that AMD is doing what Intel did with the P4 but with the Athlon 64/Phenom, but ignore that if you're right that means that AMD can and will make a comeback.
Notice the part where I mentioned the huge difference in resources between the 2 companies. AMD doesn't have nearly the amount of money to put into R&D as Intel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usario View Post
Then you say how Bulldozer is a failure because early steppings could not compete with Sandy Bridge because they had trouble clocking higher than 2.5 GHz, and that's bad for BD's IPC (SB comes clocked at up to 3.4 out of the box, what kind of insane IPC are you expecting?). Then you go on to mention that Sandy Bridge easily overclocks to 5 GHz. So it's a no brainer AMD needs to get the clocks higher to be competitive unless BD can execute twice as many instructions per clock as SB (read: no).
I think you're misinderstanding what I'm saying.

Here are the facts. We already know how SB performs because it's been out for almost a year. AMD chose to delay Bulldozer because they knew that at 2.5 GHz with 3.5 Turbo, Bulldozer would have no chance against SB (see the Xbit article for source). If a BD chip @ 3.5 Turbo is so far away from SB that AMD has to delay the processor for 3 months, then that is obviously not a good sign for Bulldozer's IPC being out of this world.
Edited by 996gt2 - 7/26/11 at 12:02am
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
post #153 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post
Notice the part where I mentioned the huge difference in resources between the 2 companies. AMD doesn't have nearly the amount of money to put into R&D as Intel.



I think you're misinderstanding what I'm saying.

Here are the facts. We already know how SB performs because it's been out for almost a year. AMD chose to delay Bulldozer because they knew that at 2.5 GHz with 3.5 Turbo, Bulldozer would have no chance against SB (see the Xbit article for source). If a BD chip @ 3.5 Turbo is so far away from SB that AMD has to delay the processor for 3 months, then that is obviously not a good sign for Bulldozer's IPC being out of this world.
Totally agree with everything you've said so far except sb has only been out for 7 months. It was released on january 9th
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz @ 1.288v Asus Maximus IV Extreme EVGA GTX 590 G. Skill 8Gb DDR3 2133 - 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Western Digital 1Tb Black Acer GD235hz Corsair AX1200 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz @ 1.288v Asus Maximus IV Extreme EVGA GTX 590 G. Skill 8Gb DDR3 2133 - 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Western Digital 1Tb Black Acer GD235hz Corsair AX1200 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #154 of 352
sigh..... when will they learn that more cores =/= faster processor.
my first child
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 @ 3.2ghz Evga X58 Sli3 2x Gtx 460 @ 820Mhz [SLI] 12GB G skill 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Force GT 120gb SSD x2 1TB Western digital Caviar Black 1TB 5900 rpm Seagate (Storage) Corsair H50 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 pro 64 bit Samsung 27" 1920x1080 Saitek Eclipse II Corsair AX 850w 
CaseMouseAudio
Haf X R.A.T. 7 Albino Klipsch Promedia 2.1 w/ 200W sub 
  hide details  
Reply
my first child
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 950 @ 3.2ghz Evga X58 Sli3 2x Gtx 460 @ 820Mhz [SLI] 12GB G skill 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Force GT 120gb SSD x2 1TB Western digital Caviar Black 1TB 5900 rpm Seagate (Storage) Corsair H50 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 pro 64 bit Samsung 27" 1920x1080 Saitek Eclipse II Corsair AX 850w 
CaseMouseAudio
Haf X R.A.T. 7 Albino Klipsch Promedia 2.1 w/ 200W sub 
  hide details  
Reply
post #155 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usario View Post
A bit off-topic, but see how AMD's net income is one thirteenth of their revenue, while Intel's is a quarter? Intel charges too much. But it's monopolistic "competition", so they can do whatever they want.
First of all:

A Thuban 4 Core die is 258 mm^2
A Thuban 6 Core die is 346mm^2

A Sandy Bridge 4 Core die is 216 mm^2

Do you know what that means? Intel can get more CPUs out of every wafer, so their profits will be higher no matter what.

Second of all:


Intel's pricing is totally in line with the performance of their CPUs. A $220 Core i5-2500K costs more than AMD's offerings because it's faster than all of AMD's offerings.

And to be honest, I don't think $220 is very expensive at all. It's basically a drop in the bucket for most people with disposable income.

If you say that Intel prices their CPUs too high, then you also have to look at AMD's offerings. A Phenom II X4 980 costs $190, 86% of what a 2500K costs. Yet in most benchmarks the X4 980 doesn't deliver anywhere near 86% of the performance of a 2500K while drawing a lot more power. So, some of AMD's CPUs are even more "overpriced" than Intel's.
Edited by 996gt2 - 7/26/11 at 12:22am
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
post #156 of 352
Some great info in this thread, but personally, I think AMD will further develop the new architecture to compete with SB and with more testing etc to accelerate into the IB range by late 2012.
ContrastFX
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100T GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 XFX Radeon HD 6870 Mushkin Blackline 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Barracuda 500GB LG DVD±RW SuperMulti Drive Corsair H60 Windows 8 Developer Preview 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS MS246 1920x1080 iRocks RF-6570 Antec HCG-520 LIAN LI Lancool PC-K58W 
  hide details  
Reply
ContrastFX
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X6 1100T GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 XFX Radeon HD 6870 Mushkin Blackline 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Barracuda 500GB LG DVD±RW SuperMulti Drive Corsair H60 Windows 8 Developer Preview 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS MS246 1920x1080 iRocks RF-6570 Antec HCG-520 LIAN LI Lancool PC-K58W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #157 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post
Notice the part where I mentioned the huge difference in resources between the 2 companies. AMD doesn't have nearly the amount of money to put into R&D as Intel.



I think you're misinderstanding what I'm saying.

Here are the facts. We already know how SB performs because it's been out for almost a year. AMD chose to delay Bulldozer because they knew that at 2.5 GHz with 3.5 Turbo, Bulldozer would have no chance against SB (see the Xbit article for source). If a BD chip @ 3.5 Turbo is so far away from SB that AMD has to delay the processor for 3 months, then that is obviously not a good sign for Bulldozer's IPC being out of this world.
To be frank, anybody that thought that was/is delusional.

No way was a bulldozer at 2.5GHz/3.5GHz going to be able to be up with Sandy at 3.4GHz/3.8Ghz. Nehelam can't even dream of doing that and when overclocked Nehalam is a great gaming chip even for CFX/SLI. This is why AMD people get mad when Intel owners try to put unrealistic expectations on 'dozer. *sigh*

Current rumors have the first bulldozers being 3.6GHz/4.2GHz. In a single thread benchmark where turbo is active for both SB and BD, there would be a 10.5% advantage in clock speed for dozer (3.8GHz compared to 4.2GHz).

Assuming the whole point of AMD's aggressive turbo is to catch sandy in lightly thread situations then we can expect bulldozer to be about 10% slower than Sandy clock for clock. (Obviously guessing here.) That would still be fast. In fact that would be faster than Nehalm which, as I said, is a great gaming chip.

Bulldozer very likely will not catch SB in IPC, but it doesn't need to in order to push modern GPUs. Not to mention that bulldozer will be much better in heavily threaded work making it very appealing to people who do more than just game.
Edited by JCPUser - 7/26/11 at 12:27am
post #158 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCPUser View Post
To be frank, anybody that thought that was/is delusional.

No way was a bulldozer at 2.5GHz/3.5GHz going to be able to be up with Sandy 3.4GHz/3.8Ghz. Nehelam can't even dream of doing that and when overclocked Nehalam is a great gaming chip even for CFX/SLI. This is why AMD people get mad when Intel owners try to put unrealistic expectations on 'dozer. *sigh*

Current rumors have the first bulldozers being 3.6GHz/4.2GHz. In a single thread benchmark where turbo is active for both SB and BD, there would be a 10.5% advantage in clock speed for dozer (3.8GHz compared to 4.2GHz).

Assuming the whole point of AMD's aggressive turbo is to catch sandy in lightly thread situations then when we can expect bulldozer to be about 10% slower than Sandy clock for clock. That is still fast. In fact that is faster than Nehalm which, as I said, is a great gaming chip.

Bulldozer very likely will not catch SB in IPC, but it doesn't need to to push modern GPUs. Not to mention that bulldozer will be much better than heavily thread work making it very appealing to people to do more than just game.
I think this is a reasonably fair and objective post. Although we don't know how Bulldozer will perform in heavily multithreaded environments at this point because no solid benchmarks are out. So the jury is still out on that one, just like it is with every other aspect of BD's performance.

Now, posts like these, on the other hand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seronx View Post
AMD Plans to "Bulldozer" Sandy Bridge to dirt, then "Piledriver" Ivy Bridge to dirt

Edited by 996gt2 - 7/26/11 at 12:28am
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
Reply
post #159 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post
Now, posts like these, on the other hand:
Yeah, even to people who like AMD, Seronx can be a bit over-the-top and know-it-allish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post
I think this is a reasonably fair and objective post. Although we don't know how Bulldozer will perform in heavily multithreaded environments at this point because no solid benchmarks are out. So the jury is still out on that one, just like it is with every other aspect of BD's performance.
Yeah, I edited my post some to say I was guessing.

However, you would expect real cores to out perform HT especially IF AMD thinks they only need about 10% more clock speed to get close to sandy in lightly threaded workloads.
Edited by JCPUser - 7/26/11 at 12:34am
post #160 of 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conner View Post
Some great info in this thread, but personally, I think AMD will further develop the new architecture to compete with SB and with more testing etc to accelerate into the IB range by late 2012.
Amd needs to worry about haswell as ib is mostly just a shrink

Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post
I think this is a reasonably fair and objective post. Although we don't know how Bulldozer will perform in heavily multithreaded environments at this point because no solid benchmarks are out. So the jury is still out on that one, just like it is with every other aspect of BD's performance.

Now, posts like these, on the other hand:


QFT! Seroxs posts come off as a guy who is just making assumptions to appease his wants of what bd should be.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz @ 1.288v Asus Maximus IV Extreme EVGA GTX 590 G. Skill 8Gb DDR3 2133 - 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Western Digital 1Tb Black Acer GD235hz Corsair AX1200 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core I5 2500K @ 4.6Ghz @ 1.288v Asus Maximus IV Extreme EVGA GTX 590 G. Skill 8Gb DDR3 2133 - 9-10-9-24 
Hard DriveMonitorPowerCase
Western Digital 1Tb Black Acer GD235hz Corsair AX1200 Antec 1200 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TC Magazine] Leaked roadmap shows 10-core AMD desktop CPUs in 2012