I hope not. Will all the people from AMD jumping ship lately, its scary, but i beleive(and hope) that bulldozer will be the first step in the right direction for amd to get back ontop of the cpu market.
what? intel kids have been comparing intel's cpu(8 threads) vs AMD's 4 cores for years and bashing amd...why do we amd people have to wait now?
Because core per core performance is the only way to compare the two.
A quad i7 with HT off still beats a Phenom II when at the same clock so why not compare Bulldozer's 8 cores to Ivy Bridge with HT off?
Or for arguments sake pit the Sandy Bridge 2600K to the 8 core AMD for a more accurate/ current matchup of newer tech.
I'd like to see how BD comes out against Sandy Bridge. Hooray for AMD for being able to beat the 2 year old i7-950, but how about the 2 month old 2600K?
I'm not saying Bulldozer will fall to Intel once again, but at least show some benchmarks against a new tech chip.
That's like saying my DDR3 RAM is faster than DDR2 ram and expecting people's minds to be blown.
New tech > old tech. So why compare Bulldozer to a hyperthreaded quad that was released in 2009 when everyone is holding on to the edge of their seats waiting for BD vs SB benchmarks.
will it beat Sandy Bridge? im pretty sure it will. 8 physical threads>4 physical & 4 logical threads :/
ivy bridge will beat it, but at 1000 bucks. meh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JedixJarf
AMD is always at least a step behind intel
trolololol!
you seem to forget K6 vs Penticrap II and Athlon vs Pentium III AND Athlon 64 vs Penticrap 4.
or just K8 vs Netcrap arch in the first place
They're very different platforms though. I don't doubt that Intel will win in sheer calculations per clock-cycle vs. AMD, since they've had lots of time to gain headway with the last few architecture releases. But Bulldozer will most definitely do some tasks more efficiently that Sandy Bridge given the drastic change in architecture. It's just too soon to even know.
My idea (and it might be wrong) is:
Sandy Bridge = CPU with on-die GPU, not much different from previous i5 or i7 CPU's.
Bulldozer = APU to do more efficient parrallelized tasks, even with single-threaded applications. It's a poor generalization though.
My prediction is AMD holds there market position and will perform great at it's price point. Does this mean it will beat the best I7's and Sandy Bridges i doubt it but it will not cost as much either!
Because core per core performance is the only way to compare the two.
A quad i7 with HT off still beats a Phenom II when at the same clock so why not compare Bulldozer's 8 cores to Ivy Bridge with HT off?
Or for arguments sake pit the Sandy Bridge 2600K to the 8 core AMD for a more accurate/ current matchup of newer tech.
I'd like to see how BD comes out against Sandy Bridge. Hooray for AMD for being able to beat the 2 year old i7-950, but how about the 2 month old 2600K?
I'm not saying Bulldozer will fall to Intel once again, but at least show some benchmarks against a new tech chip.
That's like saying my DDR3 RAM is faster than DDR2 ram and expecting people's minds to be blown.
New tech > old tech. So why compare Bulldozer to a hyperthreaded quad that was released in 2009 when everyone is holding on to the edge of their seats waiting for BD vs SB benchmarks.
LOL you are comparing a $300 cpu to a $150 cpu...is that fair?
It is my opinion that Intel is planting the Ivy to get ready for the Bulldozer. But AMD just fired the CEO and there are some major Trimmers going on in wonderland. I wish they would just get back to making great Processors.
Because core per core performance is the only way to compare the two.
A quad i7 with HT off still beats a Phenom II when at the same clock so why not compare Bulldozer's 8 cores to Ivy Bridge with HT off?
Or for arguments sake pit the Sandy Bridge 2600K to the 8 core AMD for a more accurate/ current matchup of newer tech.
I'd like to see how BD comes out against Sandy Bridge. Hooray for AMD for being able to beat the 2 year old i7-950, but how about the 2 month old 2600K?
I'm not saying Bulldozer will fall to Intel once again, but at least show some benchmarks against a new tech chip.
That's like saying my DDR3 RAM is faster than DDR2 ram and expecting people's minds to be blown.
New tech > old tech. So why compare Bulldozer to a hyperthreaded quad that was released in 2009 when everyone is holding on to the edge of their seats waiting for BD vs SB benchmarks.
wouldnt it be better to compare SB HT off with a BD Quad?
Hooray for AMD for being able to beat the 2 year old i7-950, but how about the 2 month old 2600K?
Can AMD's best chip even beat the 950? Maybe in some instances, but as far as I knew, they couldn't beat the 2 year-old 950.
I'm not a fanboy, either. Right now I love Intel. If Bulldozer ends up being better, then I'm going to love AMD again. I don't care which side is faster. I'll gladly jump back and forth if one comes out trumping the other. I very much prefer they trade blows for the top-performance market. It makes it better for us as customers. I don't quite understand why some people here have this unbridled connection with one or the other.
Here's to hoping Bulldozer comes out and puts Sandy down. Competition is awesome.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!