Originally Posted by narmour
AMD's 2 modules per core gives a quad core 8 modules so a lower clocked Bulldozer chip will urinate on SB quad core. So the article even if fake is logical.
However, and a big however, personally I don't see Bulldozer chips having HUGE overclocks like some we've seen from SB.
Once this community has it's hands on a few of these chips we will KNOW!
Sir, did you even read the article?
3.5Ghz stock, 4.2Ghz turbo boost. Assuming this is on all cores (hey, if they can push 16 cores 500Mhz up in turbo boost, they can push 8 even further). Even higher than that for less cores.
EH? NOW WHAT
Also, the way the modules/shared resources work, the 8 core Bulldozer die isn't going to be that much bigger at all than Intel's 4 core Sandy Bridge die 1 integer core = 12% of the space on the module, or only 5% on the entire chip. AMD = win-win here, they can maintain low manufacturing costs, may be able to maintain the low-pricing standard, and will be able to excel in performance.
Oh right, and if you actually read the article, this is a quad core processor they're comparing to 4 core/8 thread Sandy Bridge. That's right, 4 cores, not even 8 (assuming going by integer core count), no hyperthreading. Beating LGA1155 Sandy Bridge, clock for clock, and thread for thread. This means even the 6 core and 8 core variants will kick the crap out of LGA1356 and LGA2011. Intel, you're screwed over this year. It's AMD's turn to shine.Edited by xd_1771 - 2/14/11 at 3:54pm