Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[RussianSensation]

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.

It is different. Every 15-18 months, GPU performance will increase 50-75% or even more. So why pay $200 more for a GTX580 for 15% more performance when in 6-8 months you'll be able to sell your old card and reinvest that "$200 saved" into a card 50%-75% faster?

On the CPU side, the market is totally different:

1) We use a CPU daily for tasks outside of games. Not everyone plays games every day, but every time you use a computer, you use a CPU.

2) We buy a CPU + Mobo and keep it for 2-3 years. In that time we will have gone though 2-3 GPUs. So an extra $75-100 spent on a faster CPU works out to about $23-35 a year in total, but we use CPU for every day tasks and not just for gaming. Also, going with a faster CPU ensures no CPU bottlenecking.

3) It takes 2 years+ before we see 10-20% performance increases in IPC on the CPU. So if you buy a $225 CPU with the fastest IPC today, you know for a fact that in 6 months from now nothing will come out that will really blow its doors away like a new generation of GPUs. So it's more of an "investment" than buying GPUs is. You buy it and forget about it for 2-3 years.

4) In a situation when you build a brand new desktop for $700, spending $100 extra on an Intel setup is 14% more expensive. But even if you get 10% more performance, that isn't an unreasonable price increase. Of course since Phenom II, AMD has been behind by way more than 10% every single year.

If Bulldozer is within 10% of Sandy Bridge and costs 10% less, that's much better then what Phenom II offers today. Right now AMD is pretty much giving away the X6 for < $200 and Microcenter even gives you $10 mobos and still hardly anyone cares.

 

[bridito]

It is different. Every 15-18 months, GPU performance will increase 50-75% or even more. So why pay $200 more for a GTX580 for 15% more performance when in 6-8 months you'll be able to sell your old card and reinvest that "$200 saved" into a card 50%-75% faster?

On the CPU side, the market is totally different:

1) We use a CPU daily for tasks outside of games. Not everyone plays games every day, but every time you use a computer, you use a CPU.

2) We buy a CPU + Mobo and keep it for 2-3 years. In that time we will have gone though 2-3 GPUs. So an extra $75-100 spent on a faster CPU works out to about $23-35 a year in total, but we use CPU for every day tasks and not just for gaming. Also, going with a faster CPU ensures no CPU bottlenecking.

3) It takes 2 years+ before we see 10-20% performance increases in IPC on the CPU. So if you buy a $225 CPU with the fastest IPC today, you know for a fact that in 6 months from now nothing will come out that will really blow its doors away like a new generation of GPUs. So it's more of an "investment" than buying GPUs is. You buy it and forget about it for 2-3 years.

4) In a situation when you build a brand new desktop for $700, spending $100 extra on an Intel setup is 14% more expensive. But even if you get 10% more performance, that isn't an unreasonable price increase. Of course since Phenom II, AMD has been behind by way more than 10% every single year.

If Bulldozer is within 10% of Sandy Bridge and costs 10% less, that's much better then what Phenom II offers today. Right now AMD is pretty much giving away the X6 for < $200 and Microcenter even gives you $10 mobos and still hardly anyone cares.

I agree with most of your points except that I bought my first computer in the early 80s. I have had countless of them since. I have never changed the video card from what I originally bought. So I don't know who these people are who "buy a CPU + Mobo and keep it for 2-3 years. In that time we will have gone though 2-3 GPUs." Maybe hard core gamers, but there are very few of those (as compared to the overall installed PC base).

 

[ElFenix]

i usually upgrade the video card once per mobo. partly that's due to carry over of video cards (so maybe i upgrade mobos once per video card?) usually i don't upgrade the processor during that time, but during the socket A days i upgraded my processor a few times (fry's specials were just too good).


dell pro200n started with millenium and voodoo combo, upgraded to voodoo3

dell t700r stared with geforce, upgraded to geforce 3

socket a started with geforce 3, upgraded to 9800 pro

opteron 165 started with x800 (as side grade, needed a pcie card to hold over until the new stuff came out), quickly upgraded to x1900xt and then to 4870

current c2q carried over the 4870. still plays games ok because i'm still using a 2005fpw. would like to put together a new computer this fall.

 

[GaiaHunter]

It is different. Every 15-18 months, GPU performance will increase 50-75&#37; or even more. So why pay $200 more for a GTX580 for 15% more performance when in 6-8 months you'll be able to sell your old card and reinvest that "$200 saved" into a card 50%-75% faster?

Or I can just buy that card for free with the money saved from the CPU.

On the CPU side, the market is totally different:

1) We use a CPU daily for tasks outside of games. Not everyone plays games every day, but every time you use a computer, you use a CPU.

Yeah, every time I open my browser or word/excel, if I don't have 15% more performance I'll really notice it.

2) We buy a CPU + Mobo and keep it for 2-3 years. In that time we will have gone though 2-3 GPUs. So an extra $75-100 spent on a faster CPU works out to about $23-35 a year in total, but we use CPU for every day tasks and not just for gaming. Also, going with a faster CPU ensures no CPU bottlenecking.

3) It takes 2 years+ before we see 10-20% performance increases in IPC on the CPU. So if you buy a $225 CPU with the fastest IPC today, you know for a fact that in 6 months from now nothing will come out that will really blow its doors away like a new generation of GPUs. So it's more of an "investment" than buying GPUs is. You buy it and forget about it for 2-3 years.

Why would you buy a new CPU for a 10% increase in performance, unless you have a strong professional need?

4) In a situation when you build a brand new desktop for $700, spending $100 extra on an Intel setup is 14% more expensive. But even if you get 10% more performance, that isn't an unreasonable price increase. Of course since Phenom II, AMD has been behind by way more than 10% every single year.

Why would I buy a brand new desktop every time I upgrade?

 

[AdamK47]

I agree with most of your points except that I bought my first computer in the early 80s. I have had countless of them since. I have never changed the video card from what I originally bought. So I don't know who these people are who "buy a CPU + Mobo and keep it for 2-3 years. In that time we will have gone though 2-3 GPUs." Maybe hard core gamers, but there are very few of those (as compared to the overall installed PC base).

Yes, very few of us. I've had far more video cards if you count the individual cards in CrossFire and SLI configurations.

In the past 3 years:
2x GTX 280s --> 2x 2GB GTX 285s ---> 3x 5870s ---> 3x GTX 480s ---> 3x GTX 580s (current).

13 cards in three years.

 

[Cannibalskunk]

Yes, very few of us. I've had far more video cards if you count the individual cards in CrossFire and SLI configurations.

In the past 3 years:
2x GTX 280s --> 2x 2GB GTX 285s ---> 3x 5870s ---> 3x GTX 480s ---> 3x GTX 580s (current).

13 cards in three years.

That PC you're rockin' in your sig is rad. How many FPS do you get in qtest DM1?

Oh, and on topic, I tend to game more than any other intensive task, I usually go through a video card every two years or so. I can put up with being a generation behind the curve, but two is just too much.

 

[AdamK47]

That PC you're rockin' in your sig is rad. How many FPS do you get in qtest DM1?

At 640x480 in GLQuake the Voodoo was in the 30ish FPS range while the V1000 was in the 20ish FPS range. That's roughly what I remember from timedemo demo1. It's been 15 years since I've had that system. The parts have probably been recycled a couple times over or they could be sitting in some dump in China.

 

[SHAQ]

Are we supposed to run out and buy AMD stock now?

 

[bridito]

Yes, very few of us. I've had far more video cards if you count the individual cards in CrossFire and SLI configurations.

In the past 3 years:
2x GTX 280s --> 2x 2GB GTX 285s ---> 3x 5870s ---> 3x GTX 480s ---> 3x GTX 580s (current).

13 cards in three years.

I don't know if you're being facetious (which you're more than welcome in being) however note:

1) The biggest selling game "Half-Life 2 has sold 12 million copies since 2004" (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0228/technology-gabe-newell-videogames-valve-online-mayhem.html) and not all of those were on PC.

2) You have to estimate that less than half of those buyers were "hard core" enough to spend the big bucks it takes to keep tossing in video cards into their PCs like hot dogs on a grill, (remember that at least half of all installed PCs are in relatively undeveloped countries).

3) The best current guesstimate for PC installed base is around 1.5 billion (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=703807).

So even if the gamer estimates above are way off and there are 50% more than 6 million hard core gamers that's still close to half of one percent of all computer users.

Yeah, that's a fairly small market (in comparison to the whole).

 

[GaiaHunter]

Are we supposed to run out and buy AMD stock now?

Buy commodities. QE3 incoming.

 

[notty22]

There were 19 million discrete video cards shipped last quarter, no breakdown on where they end up. Some are going directly in to new computers and others are for upgrades.

http://www.itp.net/585176-small-growth-in-graphics-card-market-in-q1
JPR said that the market is driven at the high end by gamer enthusiasts, which only account for around nine million units shipped per year, but with a spend of $300 on a card, while the volume of the market comes from performance and mainstream segments.

 

[bridito]

There were 19 million discrete video cards shipped last quarter, no breakdown on where they end up. Some are going directly in to new computers and others are for upgrades.

Interestingly enough those JPR figures jibe pretty well with my estimate of 50&#37; over 6 million, and that's on the FAR outside. I must be smarter than I look!

 

[notty22]

Interestingly enough those figures jibe pretty well with my estimate of 50&#37; over 6 million, and that's on the FAR outside. I must be smarter than I look!

Oh is that what you were saying ?

Didn't know where you were going with Half Life II sales, since 2004.

 

[bridito]

Buy commodities. QE3 incoming.

The zombie apocalypse is coming but instead of human zombies they'll be PIIGS. I know what commodities I should be buying: Food. Water. Ammo.

Oh is that what you were saying ?

Didn't know where you were going with Half Life II sales, since 2004.

Yeah, my seat of the pants estimate is that out of 1.5 billion PC users, about 6-9 million are hard core gamers who are committed enough and can afford the latest greatest GPUs.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The zombie apocalypse is coming but instead of human zombies they'll be PIIGS. I know what commodities I should be buying: Food. Water. Ammo.

Nah it is just a monetary collapse. PIIGS are just an appetizer. When we reach US thats when we are talking about mayhem.

 

[bridito]

Nah it is just a monetary collapse. PIIGS are just an appetizer. When we reach US thats when we are talking about mayhem.

Hmm... what would you like after your PIIGS appetizer, sir? How about a nice big slice of default?

If QE3 hits hard I think that the last thing on all of our minds will be which CPU to buy next. It may be which fields we can go thorough to glean some dropped grain to feed our kids. :'(

 

[pantsaregood]

I really don't understand how SB-E can do anything unexpected to Bulldozer. Quad-core SB-E is going to perform identically to current SBs clock-for-clock. Some benches may show very slight performance enhancements due to increased memory bandwidth, but that's the extent of it. SB-E isn't going to have any extra overclocking room to speak of, either. It's still Sandy Bridge.

Six-core SB-E will more than likely outpace BD in most benchmarks. There will more than likely be an occasional bench where raw core count and clock speed manage to pull a win for BD.

Ivy Bridge is a die shrink. Clock speeds will incur a boost and power consumption will be lowered. The CPU will perform nearly identically to SB clock-for-clock.

Something that seems to be overlooked is that, as of now, there is no low-power variant of Bulldozer announced. A 125W TDP is quite high at this point in time. Sandy Bridge TDPs peek at 95W, and rarely ever reach that point.

 

[AdamK47]

I don't know if you're being facetious (which you're more than welcome in being) however note:

Nope I'm being serious, I truly did own each configuration over the past three years just to play games on a PC. If you want, I can show you a screenshot of some of the games I have installed.

 

[toyota]

Sandy Bridge E could also easily have more cache and be clocked much higher. a 2500k only pulls about 55 watts and it has a gpu in there taking up space so Sandy Bridge E has a lot of wiggle room for its likely 130 watt TDP. I think Intel is just waiting to see how Bulldozer does before finalizing clocks and prices for Sandy Bridge E.

 

[pantsaregood]

More cache isn't going to do much. 2500K has 2MB less than 2600K, and at equal clocks with HT off, they perform pretty much identically.

Clock speeds will undoubtedly be at least a little higher. They'll all peak out at around 4.5-4.8GHz at reasonable voltages, though. It won't take you any further than current SB does.

 

[AdamK47]

I really don't understand how SB-E can do anything unexpected to Bulldozer. Quad-core SB-E is going to perform identically to current SBs clock-for-clock. Some benches may show very slight performance enhancements due to increased memory bandwidth, but that's the extent of it. SB-E isn't going to have any extra overclocking room to speak of, either. It's still Sandy Bridge.

Oh, it's going to be the same you say?

 

[AdamK47]

More cache isn't going to do much. 2500K has 2MB less than 2600K, and at equal clocks with HT off, they perform pretty much identically.

Clock speeds will undoubtedly be at least a little higher. They'll all peak out at around 4.5-4.8GHz at reasonable voltages, though. It won't take you any further than current SB does.

Well, at least I agree with you on one thing; Pants are good.

 

[toyota]

More cache isn't going to do much. 2500K has 2MB less than 2600K, and at equal clocks with HT off, they perform pretty much identically.

Clock speeds will undoubtedly be at least a little higher. They'll all peak out at around 4.5-4.8GHz at reasonable voltages, though. It won't take you any further than current SB does.

well a little more cache and higher clocks and quad channel memory will help a few fps for those pushing extreme gpu setups. and I would certainly think that nearly a year later they could get much higher overclocks over regular 1155 Sandy Bridge. again there is so much more to work with a 130 watt TDP.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I agree with most of your points except that I bought my first computer in the early 80s. I have had countless of them since. I have never changed the video card from what I originally bought. So I don't know who these people are who "buy a CPU + Mobo and keep it for 2-3 years. In that time we will have gone though 2-3 GPUs." Maybe hard core gamers, but there are very few of those (as compared to the overall installed PC base).

I had a E6600 @ 3.6GHz on a 965P-DS3 Rev 1.0 that started with an X1900XT, then a 8800GTS 320MB, 4850 and finally 4890 (needed the 4850 for another system).

 

[bridito]

Nope I'm being serious, I truly did own each configuration over the past three years just to play games on a PC. If you want, I can show you a screenshot of some of the games I have installed.

No, no, that's ok. I believe you!

Quad-core SB-E is going to perform identically to current SBs clock-for-clock.

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? You're comparing the LGA1155 with LGA2011 as equivalent?

I had a E6600 @ 3.6GHz on a 965P-DS3 Rev 1.0 that started with an X1900XT, then a 8800GTS 320MB, 4850 and finally 4890 (needed the 4850 for another system).

Let me guess. Your a gamer, right?