Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[Phynaz]

Do you have a source saying it cant?

There's an argument for you.

 

[bridito]

Hah, that's a bit before my time Personally I think the rumored pricing is close to correct, but I of course have nothing to back that up. It makes sense that BD would be positioned against the 2600k to me given what we've seen so far.

If AMD has placed the pricing at a competitive position against the 2600K and the overall performance matches it, I have ZERO interest in it. I'm in the market for a CPU that shreds, not competes. That way I can keep it for 2-3 years and still have something at the end that is pretty close to state of the art.

At this point we have no idea, and unfortunately foreign rumored reserve pricing is of little use. I don't know if $320 is real or just more FUD, or was an intended price for a particular SKU but it's all gone out the window due to delays or what.

At this point we don't know jack honestly.

IMHO all the BD benchys to date are well summed up by that statement. We don't know jack.

 

[Gikaseixas]

If AMD has placed the pricing at a competitive position against the 2600K and the overall performance matches it, I have ZERO interest in it. I'm in the market for a CPU that shreds, not competes. That way I can keep it for 2-3 years and still have something at the end that is pretty close to state of the art.

but for someone that does not have a pc and is looking to buy a new one it provides him/her with more options to choose from.

If i had a 2600K i would have ZERO interest also so i'm assuming u have a SB already.

 

[bridito]

but for someone that does not have a pc and is looking to buy a new one it provides him/her with more options to choose from.

If i had a 2600K i would have ZERO interest also so i'm assuming u have a SB already.

I have one of the very first i7 940s which is still running great but it's getting a bit long in the tooth. As for the strategy of AMD coming in with a neck to neck competitor to 2600K I really don't see how that could be an overly successful strategy. Most computer users are not the enthusiasts that many of us on these forums are so they're just looking for what suits their needs best. There will always be a strategic advantage in the marketplace for the undisputed performance champion in any field, not just CPUs. The aura of having the performance crown is what IMHO AMD needs right now to boost its image and stock price, even if it's shortlived for a few months before SB-E trounces it again. This is evident especially in light of the Street's recent view of the company:

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/07/11/amd/?mod=BOLBlog

JMP Securities chip analyst Alex Gauna cut his rating on shares of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) to Market Underperform from Market Perform, writing that the company’s “Accelerated Processing Unit,” or APU, chips in the “Fusion” family, with integrated graphics circuitry, are falling flat.

“Our view stems from interviews with various computing retailers and OEMs where representatives are not only unsupportive of new APU offerings but are also discontinuing offerings, such as in the case of Dell (DELL) where we were surprised to learn we could not even purchase an AMD model on-line.”

Gauna notes reviews of the chip family are “sparse and lackluster.”

“We believe many investors have been gravitating to the name [AMD] on the view that APU offerings could close some of the gap [with Intel], when in fact it appears the reverse is happening as Intel ramps its Visibly Smart 2nd Generation Core offerings.”

 

[GaiaHunter]

From the same blog

By Tiernan Ray

Longbow Research’s JoAnne Feeney this morning rebuts claims made by JMP Research’s Alex Gauna regarding a weak start for the “Fusion” family of processors from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD): She argues AMD is selling out of the chips, across different price ranges, and looks set to be supported by PC makers.

Regarding Gauna’s claim that OEMs are not supportive of AMD’s “Accelerated Processing Units,” or APUs, Feeney notes that the “Llano” version, meant for “mainstream” PCs, “is just starting to ship in volume this quarter so we would not expect systems to appear on websites until later in the summer.”

And regarding Gauna’s claim that Dell (DELL) doesn’t offer systems with the chip, she writes, “Dell would be not be the first OEM to receive the new Llano chips – it has not been AMD’s strongest customer in the past, as compared to Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), for example.”

Even Dell, though, she contends is “preparing for the new AMD APUs. We also directly confirmed with a sales rep that Dell will be offering AMD systems based on Vision (Llano) in the near future.” Press releases from HP, Toshiba (6502JP), and Lenovo support the “Vision” line-up of APUs as well.

As for what Gauna said were “lackluster” reviews of the Fusion family, Feeney reads them differently:

Recent reviews have shown that Llano has finally enabled AMD to offer comparable battery life in notebooks as Intel CPUs. Reviews also show superior graphics support, but reveal (as expected) that Sandy Bridge will offer superior performance for high-end computing tasks. AMD is not aiming this product at that market – it is targeted to the mainstream consumer, not a buyer willing to spend $1000 or more on a laptop. Also, Llano for desktops was shown in a very recent review as offering 58% better performance than Intel’s Sandy Bridge, so expect better margins on the desktop side (AMD has ~27% of the desktop CPU market already).

Feeney reiterates a Buy rating on AMD shares and a $12 price target.

AMD shares this afternoon are down 15 cents, or 2%, at $6.80.

Can we please stop all this evaluation of products based on opinions of financial groups/people that are unable to see a train on a collision course until it is crashing into their noses?

 

[Gikaseixas]

even if it's shortlived for a few months before SB-E trounces it again

Hey, be careful there, your magic ball might mislead you just like others did to millions prior to the Phenom launch. We cannot say what we don't know can we?

 

[frostedflakes]

There's not really any questions about SB-E's performance, isn't even comparable to the Phenom debacle. SB-E is the same high performance architecture and 32nm process we're already familiar with, just with the on-die GPU removed to free up more die space for additional CPU cores, cache, etc. It will be a beast and handily beat Bulldozer unfortunately. Will probably be very expensive as well and will use expensive motherboards (requiring a multiple of four memory modules to take full advantage of the quad-channel controller) just like 1366, though, so I don't think it would be much of a threat to Bulldozer. Intel will take the performance crown again, but that's more of a symbolic thing. Most people don't buy $1000 processors, as long as they can remain competitive with Intel in the <=$300 market, that's probably what really matters.

 

[grimpr]

Whos that Alex Gauna? that same expert that downgraded Apple? LOL. Man, those so called financial market chip analysts are the worst, seriously, their opinion is worth the weight of toilet paper and still somehow make a living and fame out of it and the clueless that take them seriously, personally i pay homage to the true hardcore enthusiasts and pros that reside in this and other forums, i'd take Nemesis_1s posts any day than Alex Gaunas "heads in the a**" anal ysis. :biggrin:

“So forgive me if I place some of the blame for what happened Wednesday on an analyst named Alex Gauna at JMP Securities. I never thought much of Gauna’s work — his Q4 2010 predictions were among the worst of 38 Apple analysts Fortune surveyed (see here) — but he really distinguished himself Wednesday by downgrading Apple and casting aspersions on its product sales even as customers were still (five days after launch) lining up outside Apple Stores in the early morning hours to buy the latest iPad.”

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/17/the-day-apple-landed-in-guana/

 

[AnandThenMan]

It will be a beast and handily beat Bulldozer unfortunately.

I'm glad you know this. How much do you charge for other 100% accurate predictions of the future?

 

[frostedflakes]

I should have added a disclaimer: Assuming the benchmarks in this thread for the flagship Bulldozer CPU are legit, SB-E will handily beat Bulldozer. In the benches it can't even keep up with Intel's last gen 6C/12T Gulftown CPU, so again assuming the benches are legit (which they seem to be IMO), it obviously doesn't stand a chance against 6C/12T Sandy.

 

[grimpr]

Sure, now create a poll and find out whos going to pay 500$ to 999$ for an 6c SB on a 350$ SB-E platform, let me guess, 1.2&#37; ?

 

[frostedflakes]

As I mentioned earlier, probably not many. AMD will continue to compete at the low-end and mid-range like they have for years.

 

[classy]

I should have added a disclaimer: Assuming the benchmarks in this thread for the flagship Bulldozer CPU are legit, SB-E will handily beat Bulldozer. In the benches it can't even keep up with Intel's last gen 6C/12T Gulftown CPU, so again assuming the benches are legit (which they seem to be IMO), it obviously doesn't stand a chance against 6C/12T Sandy.

You may be right, but they are going to be expensive.

 

[frostedflakes]

Very expensive. D:

Probably going to have some insane performance, though.

 

[Topweasel]

“Our view stems from interviews with various computing retailers and OEMs where representatives are not only unsupportive of new APU offerings but are also discontinuing offerings, such as in the case of Dell (DELL) where we were surprised to learn we could not even purchase an AMD model on-line.”

Don't know why they said that at least as of last week I could order a couple AMD models, both in consumer and business ends. Its also hard to talk about growth of a product that is only just now hitting the retail world. Just because I can't order an AMD CPU PC online through a specific manufacturer doesn't mean that they aren't developing a platform. Specially Dell, their interests in the business market doesn't allow them to skate out an infant system they have had little experience with. They are practically the last one to launch any specific comparative model in any market.

 

[Ares1214]

Very expensive. D:

Probably going to have some insane performance, though.

Eh, only 15% faster or so that the 990x is all odds. BD @ 3.8GHz would be around 19% faster than the ES in these benchmarks, so if clock speeds scale perfectly and everything is right, things might be closer than you think.

 

[tweakboy]

Too late they messed up a little too late there, , 2600k is champ until Ivy as for ATI AMD , I dont talk to them. pfff gg and gb

It looks as if AMD competition is back?


Outpaces Sandy Bridge in early tests

The donanimhaber.com crew has run an engineering sample of AMD’s new FX-8130P through its paces and the results are very positive.

Although the chip fails to keep up with Intel cores in the SuperPI test, as we have already seen, it pulls ahead in other tests. For example, in x264 encoding tests, Bulldozer scores 136fps in the first pass and 45fps in the second pass, whereas the Core i7 2600K manages 100fps and 36fps respectively.

Bulldozer manages to stay ahead in 3Dmark 11 tests as well. It scores P6250, while the 2600K hovers around the 6000 mark. In Cinebench R10 AMD’s new flagship pulls off a score of 24434 and outpaces the 2600K, but it ends up somewhat slower than the Core i7 990X.

Compared to the Thuban-based Phenom II X6 1100T, Bulldozer ends up about 50 percent faster in most tests, which is equally impressive.

It’s still too early to render a verdict, but at this point Bulldozer looks like a winner, especially if AMD manages to keep the price around the rumoured $320 mark. With Brazos and Llano doing fine, Bulldozer could be the last piece of the puzzle that turns things around for AMD in the high end. For the first time in years, AMD will truly have a competitive line up across its product range.

More here.

http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...-Bulldozer-FX-islemcisi-ve-test-sonuclari.htm

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/23381-bulldozer-performance-figures-are-in


Do to popular demand, I am editing the title.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Who needs turbo when you can just OC the crap out of the Intel chip?

*Intel K chips.

 

[ed29a]

[redacted]
-VIRGE

 

[Rifter]

You can do the same out of both lol

Do you have a source saying it cant? If we are to believe these sources, then OB got his up to 5.1GHz at i think 1.57ish maybe 1.55ish volts. Thats if we are to believe, which it seems this is a rumour thread, so we might as well just pretend all these rumors are true in this context. Seeing as how its an AMD CPU, id say around 1.6v is the max safe voltage. This was also an ES, so that may or may not affect it, but obviously a production model might push a bit more.

Your argument is silly, its up to you to back up your statement. SB overclocking is well documented and recorded. Its up to you to prove with equallaly reliable sources BD can overclock well if you are going to make that statement.

Right now we know nothing about BD, nothing is confirmed from a reputable source or multiple reputable sources. SB is well established.

Personally untill Anand has one or some other reliable source has a review up all the discussion of performance is based on nothing.

 

[Kevmanw430]

Look, if these benches are legit, and the 8-Core Bulldozer is priced aroung $300, it will be the best choice at that price point. Also, the fact that most programs (notice the most?) aren't going to use the extra 4 threads from a 6-core SB-E CPU, I'm going to say that this will be a great chip. Also, those saying you need to compare Intel's best with AMD's best are wrong. Compare similar price points, which, if these benches are legit, shows AMD has the superior chip. However, who knows. This may be fake.

 

[Gikaseixas]

SB-E is the same high performance architecture and 32nm process we're already familiar with

but do we even know what AMD might have prepared to counter it. I mean it could have a top secret project just to counter SB-E. At this stage nobody knows, everybody's speculating. Now don't tell me this is highly unlikely unless you have a magic ball to tell what's coming in 2012.

 

[frostedflakes]

Eh, only 15% faster or so that the 990x is all odds. BD @ 3.8GHz would be around 19% faster than the ES in these benchmarks, so if clock speeds scale perfectly and everything is right, things might be closer than you think.

Is the retail CPU supposed to run at 3.8GHz and not 3.2GHz? I know originally I had read 3.8/4.2 for the flagship 8-core Bulldozer, but I thought the information released lately had been pointing to 3.2/4.2. If the non-turbo clock is 3.8GHz, it would definitely boost performance quite a bit.

 

[Mopetar]

but do we even know what AMD might have prepared to counter it. I mean it could have a top secret project just to counter SB-E. At this stage nobody knows, everybody's speculating. Now don't tell me this is highly unlikely unless you have a magic ball to tell what's coming in 2012.

I doubt it. If they did, it would be on the road map. Bulldozer being competitive with Sandy Bridge will be a huge win for AMD and the ability to get Trinity out sooner rather than later could make them more relevant than they've been in a long while.

There is no secret project and there probably won't be anything from AMD to challenge Intel at the extreme high end for a while. They need to claw their way back to parity on the rungs between the low end and there first.

 

[Ares1214]

Is the retail CPU supposed to run at 3.8GHz and not 3.2GHz? I know originally I had read 3.8/4.2 for the flagship 8-core Bulldozer, but I thought the information released lately had been pointing to 3.2/4.2. If the non-turbo clock is 3.8GHz, it would definitely boost performance quite a bit.

Even if it did stock at 3.2GHz, then a clock for clock comparison would put the 990x and BD at around the same level.