Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[sm625]

You know its not intels fault you are to incompetent to install a BIOS update right?

It was an asus turd that would not take a bios update no matter which way I tried to install it. I finally ended up bricking the board during one of my vain attempts to update the bios. And this board was reviewed by anandtech back in 2006. It was highly recommended piece of trash. These morons dont have the first clue about what makes a board good. Asus is TRASH and all the morons who rushed out to spend $250 on trash asus crap are delusional. You just love wasting money and thats all there is to it. I feel sorry for the suckers that read that crap and rush out and buy asus thinking it got good reviews so it must be good. There is a reason most asus trash doesnt get good reviews on sites like newegg. Because it is trash!

Meanwhile my gigabyte AM2 board from 2007 is purring just fine after 3+ years and an AM3 cpu bios update that was easy as pie.

Personal attacks are not allowed here. This is your only warning.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[GaiaHunter]

Respectfully, it is my own personal opinion and specifically from my perspective that if BD does not overall outperform 2600K, it will be a letdown. If it outperforms 2600K by a margin which on launch date seems to be at least close to the anticipated approximate performance of SB-E Quad, then I'm going to forward my money to the nice folks at AMD!

Why will it be a letdown?

It will be a jump of what, some 50%, over Phenom II!

Anyone buying a new platform will in that circumstance have to choose between BD or SB. Today there is no such choice.

What you mean is that you, don't have a reason to upgrade. Either that or you have insane expectations.

Even matching Nehalem seems unbelievable much less SB and SB-E!

A large percentage of the forum members here will tell you it is practically impossible for BD match Nehalem.

Going from Phenom II performance to SB performance is a 4 years jump!

 

[bridito]

Honestly I think BD is going to be a marketing goldmine. Even if an Intel SB quad core is much faster at single threaded tasks: picture this scenario (let's assume BD is faster than 2600k similarly priced for multithreaded apps, but worse at single threaded)

Customer is comparing a 2600k and FX-8xxx computer

The customer will probably hardly be able to notice any speed difference in testing them both out
Bulldozer has 8 cores
Bulldozer has higher clockrate

Try explaining to them that they should get the 2600k because it's a little bit faster at single threaded applications

I guess I'm really hoping that a 8 core BD will be SLIGHTLY behind a stock 2600k in single threaded apps, and significantly above it in multithreaded. In that case even a slightly lower clocked 8 core BD should destroy a 2500k in multithreaded.

Similarly with 4 core BD vs core i3

It's just hard to recommend an AMD quad right now IMO when the i3 is so so much faster at single threaded apps

I personally like threads like this... I'm not trying to predict what BD is or how great it will be, I just like envisioning the different scenarios that could unfold

Without getting into the actual architecture which many other forum participants can explain in detail far better than I, BD is a bit of a hybrid, so the statement of Intel 4c vs. BD 8c is not entirely possible as it's apples vs. oranges. However, given that the vast majority of computer users don't know if there are hamsters with abacuses inside their cases, the 8c for the same money argument could sway a number of people. Higher clockrate is also an argument which wins out more in the marketing than in the engineering dept. Prescotts had real high clockrates out of the box, but would you want one in your PC today? I'd love nothing more than to see BD spank the 2600K across the board but... I live to be pleasantly surprised!

 

[bridito]

Why will it be a letdown?

It will be a jump of what, some 50%, over Phenom II!

Anyone buying a new platform will in that circumstance have to choose between BD or SB. Today there is no such choice.

What you mean is that you, don't have a reason to upgrade. Either that or you have insane expectations.

Even matching Nehalem seems unbelievable much less SB and SB-E!

A large percentage of the forum members here will tell you it is practically impossible for BD match Nehalem.

Going from Phenom II performance to SB performance is a 4 years jump!

Again, I stated clearly "Respectfully, it is my own personal opinion and specifically from my perspective..." I am in the market right now to replace my aging i7 940. Unless BD is the new performance leader outright, I will not take the chance that not hanging around waiting another few months for an SB-E is going to be the wrong decision. I am very interested in the overall market response to BD but nowhere near as much as I am interested in MY response to BD. I care first and foremost about my next system.

"it is practically impossible for BD match Nehalem"

So am I clear in comprehending that you think that BD cannot match i3 530 performance? I think you'd have some dispute on that point, and I might even dispute it!

 

[Edrick]

It is funny reading this thread and all the people making assumptions on pricing and marketing.

Lets just get 2 facts out there.
1. AMD does not like selling their CPUs so cheap.
2. Intel is not stupid.

If BD does beat the 2600K in most benchmarks, then it will cost more than the 2600K. Either AMD will price it higher, or Intel will drop their price.

If BD does come close or match SB-E, then Intel will not sell them for $1000 while AMD sells theirs for about $350. Either AMD will raise the price ot Intel will be forced off the $1000 plateau.

You simply can use the pricing market the past few years as a guideline because the performance gap between Intel and AMD has been quite large. If and when that gap closes, so will the price gap. It is Business 101.

So lets stop with all the dumb comments about how BD could match SB-E yet cost $700 less. Not going to happen. I hope it does match the performance. A price war does benefit the consumers, and I would rather spend less for my CPUs, as would most people.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I agree, Edrick. AMD isn't the noble, charitable company. It just happens to be the one that has the significantly worse performing CPUs.

And let's be honest here, even if FX-8130P or whatever it'll be called does fine against 2600K, it's got i7 970/980/990X to worry about. People keep forgetting that Intel has higher end chips than 2600K...

 

[GaiaHunter]

Again, I stated clearly "Respectfully, it is my own personal opinion and specifically from my perspective..." I am in the market right now to replace my aging i7 940. Unless BD is the new performance leader outright, I will not take the chance that not hanging around waiting another few months for an SB-E is going to be the wrong decision. I am very interested in the overall market response to BD but nowhere near as much as I am interested in MY response to BD. I care first and foremost about my next system.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion there is nothing in the market that warrants upgrading an i7 940. I agree.

So I also assume that in your opinion i7-2600K is a disappointment?

"it is practically impossible for BD match Nehalem"

So am I clear in comprehending that you think that BD cannot match i3 530 performance? I think you'd have some dispute on that point, and I might even dispute it!

I have no clue. It might. It might not.

In my opinion it is possible since BD is a new architecture, If BD was an improved Phenom II then I would say it was impossible.

New architectures on the other hand don't care if the previous architecture was great or poor (and sometimes it is possible to fix a bad architecture like X2900->3800->4800). That is something some people have problems to understand - architectures aren't in a continual evolving state they jump.

Still, there is no discussion that Intel has an advantage in manufacturing process and that also contributes.

 

[GaiaHunter]

It is funny reading this thread and all the people making assumptions on pricing and marketing.

Lets just get 2 facts out there.
1. AMD does not like selling their CPUs so cheap.
2. Intel is not stupid.

If BD does beat the 2600K in most benchmarks, then it will cost more than the 2600K. Either AMD will price it higher, or Intel will drop their price.

If BD does come close or match SB-E, then Intel will not sell them for $1000 while AMD sells theirs for about $350. Either AMD will raise the price ot Intel will be forced off the $1000 plateau.

You simply can use the pricing market the past few years as a guideline because the performance gap between Intel and AMD has been quite large. If and when that gap closes, so will the price gap. It is Business 101.

So lets stop with all the dumb comments about how BD could match SB-E yet cost $700 less. Not going to happen. I hope it does match the performance. A price war does benefit the consumers, and I would rather spend less for my CPUs, as would most people.

I agree (except the gulftown part).

Look at AMD vs NVIDIA with the 4870 vs GTX260 and GTX280.

In that case AMD decided to undercut the GTX260 price although being a bit faster. NVIDIA had no choice but to drop prices.

 

[Ares1214]

I agree, Edrick. AMD isn't the noble, charitable company. It just happens to be the one that has the significantly worse performing CPUs.

And let's be honest here, even if FX-8130P or whatever it'll be called does fine against 2600K, it's got i7 970/980/990X to worry about. People keep forgetting that Intel has higher end chips than 2600K...

All AMD has to beat is the 2600K, not only is it as fast or faster than those higher priced CPU's in many apps, but its also the only one people would buy.

 

[AdamK47]

This thread has moved onto debating opinion. It seems to be far too prevalent around here. I'm the kind of person who likes the analysis of facts.

Once the BD results have been proven false this thread should have died. Nope, not on Anandtech. Hubris has gotten in the way yet again.

 

[bridito]

Without filling up a few thousand vertical pixels with quotes, let me just say:

1) Current AMD offerings will beat the i3 530 in many benchmarks, so if BD can't meet that performance it would actually be in the position of underperforming Thuban... in which case, they might as well just fold up the high-end tent and go back to competing with Atom and ARM.

2) My goal is always to buy a (reasonably affordable) 3 year computer. I want to have a system that is absolutely state of the art on day one and still pretty damn good by the time I want to replace it 30-36 months down the road. I grabbed one of the first i7 940s and that has certainly lived up to this expectation. Therefore, since I believe that no one in their right mind believes that SB-E Quad will UNDERperform 2600K that's my goal UNLESS BD is a rocket on launch date and I do not have a reasonable expectation (at the time) that SB-E will beat it by a lot across the board on the real world apps I use (Photoshop).

3) My expectation (and that's just me, no insider knowledge other than just reading the same tech news everyone else is reading) is that BD will slot in around the 2400-2500 performance overall. That may be just hunky dory fine for many, but to me, I'd find more attraction in going on a panty raid at the old age home.

4) I repeat again... All of us don't know Jack, Jacques or any of their brothers when it comes to real BD performance as of today, anyway.

 

[yottabit]

This thread has moved onto debating opinion. It seems to be far too prevalent around here. I'm the kind of person who likes the analysis of facts.

Once the BD results have been proven false this thread should have died. Nope, not on Anandtech. Hubris has gotten in the way yet again.

I think in the absence of facts to analyze some people may prefer to do nothing, and some people like to debate opinions. To each their own

 

[GaiaHunter]

Once the BD results have been proven false this thread should have died. Nope, not on Anandtech. Hubris has gotten in the way yet again.

Oh it has?

Care to present the facts?

 

[formulav8]

Again, I stated clearly "Respectfully, it is my own personal opinion and specifically from my perspective..." I am in the market right now to replace my aging i7 940.

Aging i7? Some of you people really need to get a life

 

[GaiaHunter]

1) Current AMD offerings will beat the i3 530 in many benchmarks, so if BD can't meet that performance it would actually be in the position of underperforming Thuban... in which case, they might as well just fold up the high-end tent and go back to competing with Atom and ARM.

Why are you reducing Nehalem to Clarckdale?

When people talk about BD to match Nehalem they are talking about the full range, not just the bottom, and all round, not just a few specific benchmarks (even if it means losing some winning some).

 

[guskline]

All AMD has to do is release the BD! Till that happens all else about it is speculation. My Intel 2500k@4400 is fact because i have it. Sorry AMD, tired of waiting.

Bridito - loved today's Post!

 

[AdamK47]

Oh it has?

Care to present the facts?

http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5

 

[AdamK47]

I think in the absence of facts to analyze some people may prefer to do nothing, and some people like to debate opinions. To each their own

Maybe some people gain something by it. I don't see any value in it. It's just a big Internet void where words get sucked up and then... nothing. If it were me I'd probably just close this thread.

 

[bridito]

Aging i7? Some of you people really need to get a life

I earn my entire living on my PC so any reasonable investment I can make to improve my productivity even by fractions of a percent are well worth it on my bottom line.

Why are you reducing Nehalem to Clarckdale?

When people talk about BD to match Nehalem they are talking about the full range, not just the bottom, and all round, not just a few specific benchmarks (even if it means losing some winning some).

I don't want to split hairs, but you did state "Even matching Nehalem seems unbelievable much less SB and SB-E! A large percentage of the forum members here will tell you it is practically impossible for BD match Nehalem." That could seem to intend the entire range. I realize now you're talking about the top of the Nehalem 9xx series now.

Bridito - loved today's Post!

Thank you! Please send a token of your appreciation in cash to The Bridito Entertainment & Beer Fund.

 

[GaiaHunter]

http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5

Is that supposed to go anywhere?

The only thing it was first pointed at was the CPU-Z 1.57.1, and I was probably the first one to point it in these boards, but later I discovered while version 1.57 doesn't support BD, version 1.57.1 does.

 

[sm625]

So lets stop with all the dumb comments about how BD could match SB-E yet cost $700 less. Not going to happen.

But it does happen. It has happened. It could very easily happen again. Once upon a time you could buy an athlon 64 for $300 that outperformed the $1000 intel extreme edition 3.73GHz. And I bet that intel ripoff still sold more units than the athlon 64 did at the time. (The athlon 64 did end up eventually outselling it.) Not many people would pay more than $500 for an AMD chip, no matter how good it is, just because they were not brainwashed for years by an AMD version of some stupid tv jingle. Only a DOW30 component size corporation can afford to buy that much brainwashing.

 

[Cannibalskunk]

But it does happen. It has happened. It could very easily happen again. Once upon a time you could buy an athlon 64 for $300 that outperformed the $1000 intel extreme edition 3.73GHz. And I bet that intel ripoff still sold more units than the athlon 64 did at the time. (The athlon 64 did end up eventually outselling it.) Not many people would pay more than $500 for an AMD chip, no matter how good it is, just because they were not brainwashed for years by an AMD version of some stupid tv jingle. Only a DOW30 component size corporation can afford to buy that much brainwashing.

Please. Brand recognition != brainwashing.

I think we can expect competitive pricing on AMD's part to try and steal a bit of market share, but expecting insane performance for budget pricing just smacks of wishful thinking. If they can provide a BD enterprise part that can compete with a 990x, you would have to assume a similar but competitive price point. the same could be said of the more mainstream parts. It would be very nice to see some parity, if for no other reason than it might push prices down across the board.

 

[AnandThenMan]

It would seem to me, with my relative lack of understanding of the CPU biz, that if you have a company going toe to toe against one which is 27 times bigger in the same marketplace that it's just a matter of time until something cracks. Sure, there have been Davids triumphing against Goliaths before in the history of free enterprise, but they have been very few, very far between, and very damn lucky!

AMD has through it's history beaten Intel in many facets, including performance and innovation. AMD has many "firsts" in x86, let's not forget the only reason we are using 64bit computing in the x86 world is because of AMD. Intel is on record as saying 64bit is not needed on the desktop "at this time", and had full intentions of pushing Itanium into the desktop space. If x64 had not happened, we could have all been very well at the mercy of Intel with no viable competition. So it is dubious to say that AMD will "eventually crack". And luck has nothing to do with it.

Intel CPUs aren't 5x faster than AMD CPUs.

We don't know the performance of BD, but lets suppose it matches Nehalem clock per clock.

What will be the reaction of these forums?

"Fail!", "Crushing defeat", "AMD sucks!", "No reason to go AMD", etc.

But that means AMD will be 10% behind SB, so it depends of price, right?

If AMD is 10% behind NVIDIA performance but it costs 10-15% less, "big win", "AMD is competitive", "GTX580 is an overpriced turd", etc.

But in CPU land it seems to be different.

In fact we have some members that already declares BD to be a failure even if AMD matches SB because SB-E will spank it!

The overwhelming sentiment I see from reviewers and end users is, if Intel is 3-5x behind AMD in on-die graphics, everything fine, Intel's graphics are "fast enough". Or they'll just pair the Intel CPU with a discreet AMD card, and put that at the top of every chart. They will also put INTEL first in the graph, and the AMD product in brackets.

But when AMD is behind in CPU tasks by a much smaller margin, the sentiment shifts to being the end of the world for AMD, they can and never will compete, their products are mostly useless, Intel rules. This attitude is pervasive. Also of note, this argument that single threaded performance is of utmost importance is pure nonsense. No it isn't, any program that is single threaded aware only is almost always more than fast enough. The heavily threaded applications tend to be the modern applications that actually require and can take advantage of multiple cores, and are written to leverage as much CPU power as is available.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Please. Brand recognition != brainwashing.

There is often very little difference.

 

[bridito]

AMD has through it's history beaten Intel in many facets, including performance and innovation. AMD has many "firsts" in x86, let's not forget the only reason we are using 64bit computing in the x86 world is because of AMD. Intel is on record as saying 64bit is not needed on the desktop "at this time", and had full intentions of pushing Itanium into the desktop space. If x64 had not happened, we could have all been very well at the mercy of Intel with no viable competition. So it is dubious to say that AMD will "eventually crack". And luck has nothing to do with it.

The overwhelming sentiment I see from reviewers and end users is, if Intel is 3-5x behind AMD in on-die graphics, everything fine, Intel's graphics are "fast enough". Or they'll just pair the Intel CPU with a discreet AMD card, and put that at the top of every chart. They will also put INTEL first in the graph, and the AMD product in brackets.

But when AMD is behind in CPU tasks by a much smaller margin, the sentiment shifts to being the end of the world for AMD, they can and never will compete, their products are mostly useless, Intel rules. This attitude is pervasive. Also of note, this argument that single threaded performance is of utmost importance is pure nonsense. No it isn't, any program that is single threaded aware only is almost always more than fast enough. The heavily threaded applications tend to be the modern applications that actually require and can take advantage of multiple cores, and are written to leverage as much CPU power as is available.

The Redskins won SB (SuperBowl, not SandyBridge) XVII, XXII & XXVI, does that mean I should bet the ranch they'll win the next SuperBowl? (However, if you'd like to plunk some $$$ I'll be more than happy to take that bet!)

The land my house is on housed aboriginals for thousands of years. Does that mean they're going to throw me out and move in? Ancient history is just that: Ancient & History. In the PC biz five years is equivalent to five eons. What matters is what is going on right now and IMHO AMD needs a notch in the high end win column right now. They need the marketing win to help convince the lay public that they're actually competitive (on the high end).

However, it must be noted that the Intel vs. AMD longwinded discussions participants love to have on forums like these interest the barest tiny fraction of one percent of all PC users. Why? Because most computer users can only tell you if they have AMD or Intel in their PCs by the sticker on the case. I have a professional client who bought an all in one Asus PC and then wondered why Mac OS X wasn't preinstalled on it. Never overestimate the knowledge level of the general public.

Right now when you have a company like AMD which has been essentially rudderless at the CEO position for a prolonged period of time and continues to try to compete head on with the 27x larger competitor, I would say that betting on them is somewhat akin to the beloved patriot bet. Sure, it could happen that AMD triumphs over Intel and that the Skins win the next SuperBowl (whenever the heck that's going to be). While I won't take an AMD bet as I am not as up to date on CPU divinations as I am on NFL ones, I'll crawl across broken glass to take a bet on the Skins!

Having said all that, I remind all forum participants currently loading their flamethrowers with napalm to immolate the Intel Fanboi that I have stated innumerable times on this forum and this thread that I will buy BD on Day One if I have a reasonable expectation at the time that it will deliver even close to SB-E performance. Thank you. :thumbsup: