• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bulldozer press kit pictures

Black96ws6

Black96ws6

Member
whole_01.jpg


whole_03.jpg


fx_01.jpg


fx_05.jpg


fx_03.jpg


From OBR, so take it with a grain of salt. Looks legit though...he still seems to think these will be a huge fail...hope he's wrong.

If he's right and this thing can't beat a 2600k, and\or still lags behind in games, I have a 2600k already in my shopping cart and I just need to decide between the Asus Maximus Gene-Z or the ASRock Extreme 4 as the motherboard to go with it 😉
 
The colour scheme and artwork are really nice. Of course that does not help me in the slightest, still not for sale. D:
 
It does look very slick, especially considering the price at release. Reminds me of the $999 FX processors of yore...
 
Ooh ooh where are the benchies? 😀

Thanks for the pics OP. The packaging looks great. Hope the performance follows suit.

Yeah I hope this guy is dead wrong as well. Already have two Intel PCs and one AMD. The AMD one will surely go and I'd like the new one, which will become my primary, will be an AMD as well. Having my eyes fixed on the Asrock proffesional Z68 Gen 3 here. I have no idea which mobo I will be getting if BD wins, lol.
 
I'm also hoping that OBR is once again being a super troll. All these "it's going to fail" posts and then 'BAM!' on release date he says 'I fooled you all, I have this thing OCed to 5.5GHz on air and it is amazing.'

Not likely though, *sigh*.
 
Why is it that people expect AMD's CPU's to rock?

The only time the bested Intel...was due to Intel's own doing, not AMD's?

And don't get me started on X64...we should have dropped x86 a long time ago and moved to something better...but oh no..."64 bit computing to gamers" FUBAR'ed that up...thx AMD *chough*
 
I'm not so sure you can say that the only time AMD "bested" Intel was "Intel's own doing". I assume you are talking absolute performance (as at no time period has one side or the other owned top to bottom market dominance across all price points) and the Pentium 4 era. There were actually points in time when the fastest x86 chips on the market were based on the Pentium 4 (not for long stretches of time or at very attractive price points but they existed). On the other side, the original K7 Athlon outpaced the Pentium 2/III of the era for major stretches, if not the majority of the generation. Considering the Core era chips from Intel are (in at least design principals) derived from the P6, how could you consider that Intel's own fault. In the grand scheme of things, Intel is the (MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH) larger company and simply has the budget and manufacturing advantage that, with all other variables being equal, the faster performing chips. However, an acceptable margin to Intel is not exactly the same as one for AMD and this allows for AMD to pick it's battles and carve out a nice little niche for itself. If BD can secure the some spots in the <$250 market, then it should be considered a success, much akin to the 4000 series Radeons.
 
I'm not expecting AMD to rock Intel but if it happens that should mean either a price war or a binning war. Considering AMD is just now hitting 32nm and their current top end parts are equivalent to high clocked Core 2 quad- and hex- core chips, if they come within fisticuff distance of Sandybridge that will be pretty impressive.
 
I saw a guy buying a $270 motherboard in anticipation of the bulldozer release. I hope it's good for his sake... I can't imagine putting down that much money on an unreleased processor.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Why is it that people expect AMD's CPU's to rock?

The only time the bested Intel...was due to Intel's own doing, not AMD's?

And don't get me started on X64...we should have dropped x86 a long time ago and moved to something better...but oh no..."64 bit computing to gamers" FUBAR'ed that up...thx AMD *chough*
Click to expand...

Perhaps you failed to notice the fact that companies, including Intel, have tried to kill x86 for the past 30 years with absolutely no success?

Also, why, other than assembly programmers, would anyone actually care what the underlying architecture of the CPU is?
 
Lonbjerg said:
And don't get me started on X64...we should have dropped x86 a long time ago and moved to something better...but oh no..."64 bit computing to gamers" FUBAR'ed that up...thx AMD *chough*
Click to expand...

Wait. Let me get this straight. AMD does the hard work of coming up with a viable 64-bit extension to x86, and you chide them for innovating? Even Intel had to follow suit and copy
AMD's extensions.

Would you have preferred the entire industry to move to Itanium? (shudder) It has a whole host of other issues with architecture.

It's my opinion that you are nothing but a troll.
 
That board is awesome, and $100 cheaper than the ROG Z68 board that has the same features... man I hope BD rocks so I can buy that instead. :/
 
Bill Brasky said:
I saw a guy buying a $270 motherboard in anticipation of the bulldozer release. I hope it's good for his sake... I can't imagine putting down that much money on an unreleased processor.
Click to expand...

I paid $270 for my 2500k AND a good Z68 motherboard. That's crazy.
 
acx said:
Programmers who care about performance might care.
Click to expand...

But only if they're actually programming assembly routines.

Otherwise who cares if the processor is executing

mov r15, var1

instead of

lw $t0, var1

ISA doesn't really matter (except to snooty CS professors). What does matter is implementation.
 
Last edited:
jhu said:
Perhaps you failed to notice the fact that companies, including Intel, have tried to kill x86 for the past 30 years with absolutely no success?

Also, why, other than assembly programmers, would anyone actually care what the underlying architecture of the CPU is?
Click to expand...

Because it greatly affects performance in desktop workloads...? IPC is very important for desktops and laptops, despite what AMD would rather have everyone believe.
 
jhu said:
But only if they're actually programming assembly routines.

Otherwise who cares if the processor is executing

mov r15, var1

instead of

lw $t0, var1
Click to expand...

What if you knew you were going to execute your programs on a 8 core cpu vs a 1 core cpu? If you could divide your program into 8 independent pieces and launch 8 threads you could see a significant speedup.

What if you knew you were operating on a cpu with 256KB of L2 data cache vs a cpu with 512KB of L2 data cache? If you could squeeze your critical data section to be less than 256KB large your code could see a speedup.

What if you knew your were executing on a cpu with an 16 bit floating point alu that was twice as fast as the 32 bit floating point alu? If you could use half precision calculations for your program it could be twice as fast.
 
jhu said:
oops, I meant ISA, not architecture.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why virtually all desktops and laptops use CISC (x86) instead of RISC (IBM PowerPC, ARM, and others). IPC and performance/watt are among the main ones, and I think most consumers would care about that.
 
Last edited:
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
There's a reason why virtually all desktops and laptops use CISC (x86) instead of RISC (IBM PowerPC, ARM, and others). IPC and performance/watt are among the main ones, and I think most consumers would care about that.
Click to expand...

First, CISC and RISC are meaningless terms nowadays.

Second, the reason most people use (and have been using) x86 is because of compatibility and performance/price. Back in the '90s PowerPC, MIPS, and Alpha were all faster than any x86 processor of the day. The only saving grace for x86 back then was how much cheaper it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top