Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[ed29a]

They'll sell some to the AMD faithful and to people who can play BIOS tricks with their current AM3 mobos, as well as to users who don't know s##t from shinola and will go "oooooh I can get 8 cores for the price of 4!" IF this is true then it's a total snore.

Or they'll sell to people who don't need a 990x for 1080p gaming.
Or they'll sell to people who are happy AMD customers.
Or they'll sell to people who want a lower system price.
Or they'll sell to people who want more cores without the 1136 price tag.
Or they'll sell to people who don't like convicted monopolists.

And you know what, if they sell to people who get dazzled by 8 core marketing, good. Intel will react, they'll sell affordable 6+ core CPUs, and before you know, software makers will actually write lot more software that uses many cores. Winners: consumers.

I also rather play a BIOS "trick" for an upgrade that only costs the price of the CPU vs upgrading the motherboard and CPU. Wow! "BIOS tricks", is that some jaded fanboi version of the term "Upgrade Path"?

 

[formulav8]

I agree. Way to many people think in a nutty enthusiast only mindset. There is more to a computer than running super pi benchmarks or worrying about game performance that already gets 200fps. 9x% of consumers out there wouldn't notice a dual core cpu upgraded to a quad or amd upgraded to intel. People mainly focus on the benchys because thats about the only way to see the difference between two cpu's in most areas. I'm guilty as a bench babe at times as well...

 

[aphelion02]

Or they'll sell to people who don't need a 990x for 1080p gaming.
Or they'll sell to people who are happy AMD customers.
Or they'll sell to people who want a lower system price.
Or they'll sell to people who want more cores without the 1136 price tag.
Or they'll sell to people who don't like convicted monopolists.

And you know what, if they sell to people who get dazzled by 8 core marketing, good. Intel will react, they'll sell affordable 6+ core CPUs, and before you know, software makers will actually write lot more software that uses many cores. Winners: consumers.

I also rather play a BIOS "trick" for an upgrade that only costs the price of the CPU vs upgrading the motherboard and CPU. Wow! "BIOS tricks", is that some jaded fanboi version of the term "Upgrade Path"?

Most of these people would buy a 2500k.

 

[wuliheron]

I agree. Way to many people think in a nutty enthusiast only mindset. There is more to a computer than running super pi benchmarks or worrying about game performance that already gets 200fps. 9x% of consumers out there wouldn't notice a dual core cpu upgraded to a quad or amd upgraded to intel. People mainly focus on the benchys because thats about the only way to see the difference between two cpu's in most areas. I'm guilty as a bench babe at times as well...

The only reason most people care about the operating system or what processor it has is because the technology is still primitive. Eventually it should become so standardized and cheap most people won't put much more thought into it then they might for buying a toaster oven. Either it fits in your budget or it doesn't. Either it has the looks and features you want or it doesn't. All the internal parts and most of the software will become as obscure to them as the parts of their toaster oven.

 

[bridito]

If your application is multithreaded then,

why dont you have a look at dual socket C32 Bulldozer platform like ASUS KCMA-D8 ?
You would be able to install a single 8 core Bulldozer and then install a second BD with double the Memory

I believe that you will be able to put a Dual Valencia C32 3.0GHz 8 core Bulldozer (~$300-350) + the motherboard ($270.00) for $900-1000 and that setup will be much faster in multithreaded apps than any single 6c12t SB-E CPU

If your apps dont scale that much with more cores then ignore it

That explains why i couldn't understand the meaning of it

I have stated elsewhere that I do a lot of image manipulation but also have one client who has proprietary software I have to run which was designed in the stone age, so it's strictly single threaded and I need to run it fast. That's why I'm leaning towards the i7-3820 as it's higher GHz but I might be tempted to go i7-3930X. As for BD, I would be interested only if the performance is not what we are currently anticipating but much faster than the i7-3820... which isn't likely but I can still hope!

As for the quote, it's a baklava recipe!

Or they'll sell to people who don't need a 990x for 1080p gaming.
Or they'll sell to people who are happy AMD customers.
Or they'll sell to people who want a lower system price.
Or they'll sell to people who want more cores without the 1136 price tag.
Or they'll sell to people who don't like convicted monopolists.

And you know what, if they sell to people who get dazzled by 8 core marketing, good. Intel will react, they'll sell affordable 6+ core CPUs, and before you know, software makers will actually write lot more software that uses many cores. Winners: consumers.

I also rather play a BIOS "trick" for an upgrade that only costs the price of the CPU vs upgrading the motherboard and CPU. Wow! "BIOS tricks", is that some jaded fanboi version of the term "Upgrade Path"?

More cores... hmmm... do we want to start a thread that defines just why BD's 8 cores are really 4 or some sort of weird hybrid of 4? You cannot compare an Intel core to a BD core as they are structured in a very different manner. I also think that the lower system price is an illusion. What's the difference between the cheapest AM3+ and an LGA1155 mobo? Ten bucks? Twenty? As for getting a BD to run on an AM3 rather than the intended AM3+, that is a BIOS trick in my book, and I'm not a fanboi of either manufacturer.

I agree. Way to many people think in a nutty enthusiast only mindset. There is more to a computer than running super pi benchmarks or worrying about game performance that already gets 200fps. 9x% of consumers out there wouldn't notice a dual core cpu upgraded to a quad or amd upgraded to intel. People mainly focus on the benchys because thats about the only way to see the difference between two cpu's in most areas. I'm guilty as a bench babe at times as well...

I want to be an honorary bench babe too! In Benchys We Trust!

 

[Vesku]

Might as well just get a Sandybridge now if your main requirement is based on old single threaded software. All indications are that BD has been tuned for current and future software demands. Almost non-existent chance it will beat out Intel in running anything that was tuned for Intel chips from 10ish years ago.

 

[GaiaHunter]

More cores... hmmm... do we want to start a thread that defines just why BD's 8 cores are really 4 or some sort of weird hybrid of 4? You cannot compare an Intel core to a BD core as they are structured in a very different manner. I also think that the lower system price is an illusion. What's the difference between the cheapest AM3+ and an LGA1155 mobo? Ten bucks? Twenty? As for getting a BD to run on an AM3 rather than the intended AM3+, that is a BIOS trick in my book, and I'm not a fanboi of either manufacturer.

It might be interesting. We might even conclude that your i7 is not a quad core or even a processor at all.

 

[drizek]

Funny, since AM3+ is more or less identical to AM3.

 

[ed29a]

More cores... hmmm... do we want to start a thread that defines just why BD's 8 cores are really 4 or some sort of weird hybrid of 4? You cannot compare an Intel core to a BD core as they are structured in a very different manner.

I am perfectly aware that AMD module is two integer units and some shared parts. Which is better for heavily multithreaded tasks? I'd have my money on AMD vs a 4C + HT Intel CPU of similar price. I don't care if little green martians run in hamster wheels inside the AMD CPU or if Intel uses black magic and sacrifices puppies to run their processors. If for 300$ I get a better performance running heavily threaded apps and multiple virtual machines compared to Intel, I'll get AMD. Duh!

I also think that the lower system price is an illusion. What's the difference between the cheapest AM3+ and an LGA1155 mobo? Ten bucks? Twenty?

Hard to compare now when only a handful of boards are out. I can get a ROG AM3+ board for 220? Cheapest ROG 1155 board? 340?

As for getting a BD to run on an AM3 rather than the intended AM3+, that is a BIOS trick in my book, and I'm not a fanboi of either manufacturer.

Quoted for future reference when Ivy Bridge processors come out.

 

[Arkaign]

Might as well just get a Sandybridge now if your main requirement is based on old single threaded software. All indications are that BD has been tuned for current and future software demands. Almost non-existent chance it will beat out Intel in running anything that was tuned for Intel chips from 10ish years ago.

It's not really an issue of tuning for a particular mfg, it's more of the following :

- Many simple apps wouldn't benefit at all from multi-threaded recoding, but those are usually so simple that they're fast on anything anyway.

- Some apps are apparently ludicrously difficult to code for multi-threading in any meaningful way. Parametric modeling (AutoCAD, SolidWorks, etc) is by nature extremely linear and functionally useless to try to adapt to multicore. There are a few other examples as well, such as certain aspects of gaming code (don't shoot me, it's just the truth). Much of the multicore gaming coding has it where certain tasks are relegated to available cores (AI/Game logic on one, etc), and some of the linear aspects of intrinsic functional components can't be efficiently broken down into multiple cores.

on the plus side, even apps that aren't multi-thread aware can benefit from running on a system with more cores as the windows scheduler is much more likely to find an open core to load them onto. Think average joe system with ~80-100+ processes running. This is where multi-core shines even with single-threaded apps/processes.

 

[Vesku]

It is an issue of tuning in that a program from 2000 doesn't use any of the extensions added after it. Add to that their current CPU lines P6 ancestry and Intel's expertise in prefetchers and other speed enhancements, it would actually be quite amazing if BD runs legacy x86 software better than Sandybridge.

 

[Arkaign]

True enough, but I think most really old legacy software runs fine on anything anyway, so it's kind of moot, and even without optimization, windows process scheduler will shuffle things around so that app A is on core 0, app B is on core 1, etc.

 

[anikhtos]

Μην ξεχνάτε ότι πήρε το ρωμαϊκό συμπατριώτες μου για να ισιώσει σας Έλληνες έξω από το να καταστραφεί από τους βαρβάρους!

by the way this is no greek
i imagine a google translation?????
the words are greek but there is no syntax there thus there is no meaning to understand. translating to greek is not possible yet it is killing the context.

 

[bridito]

Might as well just get a Sandybridge now if your main requirement is based on old single threaded software. All indications are that BD has been tuned for current and future software demands. Almost non-existent chance it will beat out Intel in running anything that was tuned for Intel chips from 10ish years ago.

The main requirement is image software but every once in a while I have to plough through hundreds of GB of data with this guy's prehistoric software...

It might be interesting. We might even conclude that your i7 is not a quad core or even a processor at all.

I object to the terminology which calls BD an 8 core. Maybe an 8 module, but it is not a core in the manner that i7 or Phenom is. And I am not going to get into a technical dissection as there are far more adept individuals on this forum.

FYI, I also objected when Phenom II used the 9xx numbering scheme after i7's. That was a prototypical and IMHO intentional misdirection which led some to believe that a 9xx from AMD was equivalent to a 9xx from Intel, when we all know it wasn't even close.

Funny, since AM3+ is more or less identical to AM3.

That may be, but BD is set for AM3+ but there are some BIOS tricks that make it work on AM3 without accessing all features, much to AMD's chagrin.

I am perfectly aware that AMD module is two integer units and some shared parts. Which is better for heavily multithreaded tasks? I'd have my money on AMD vs a 4C + HT Intel CPU of similar price. I don't care if little green martians run in hamster wheels inside the AMD CPU or if Intel uses black magic and sacrifices puppies to run their processors. If for 300$ I get a better performance running heavily threaded apps and multiple virtual machines compared to Intel, I'll get AMD. Duh!

Hard to compare now when only a handful of boards are out. I can get a ROG AM3+ board for 220? Cheapest ROG 1155 board? 340?

Quoted for future reference when Ivy Bridge processors come out.

I agree fully on the BD "vs a 4C + HT Intel CPU of similar price" (pure speculation on my part follows) now that AMD has gulped and realized that they can't get the clocks they expected, so they're dropping the price to slot in between 2500K and 2600K where they're competitive. But... what happened to the "BD will beat SB-E, BD will beat IB, BD will beat IBM Watson..." that I've been hearing for years from the AMD fan camp? IF the performance actually is around there, BD is nowhere near a paradigm-breaking CPU. It's just another "close but no cigar" from AMD. And I repeat, I still hold a microscopic glimmer of hope that the benchys will eventually show BD>Skynet.

I specifically stated "the cheapest" mobos. Sure, we can go to all sorts of extremes in the mobo game but that is not as relevant as the lowest bottom line so:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131728

Cheapest Newegg AM3+ $59

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813186213

Cheapest Newegg LGA1155 $54

So go Intel and save a big fiver!

by the way this is no greek
i imagine a google translation?????
the words are greek but there is no syntax there thus there is no meaning to understand. translating to greek is not possible yet it is killing the context.

I typed into Google Translate:

Remember that my Roman countrymen saved you Greeks from the Barbarians!

I dunno what came out since...

It's Greek to me!

 

[podspi]

People said the same thing about the original dual-cores as well, maintaining that dual-cores weren't actually two cores because they shared cache, memory lanes, etc.


Personally, I prefer to talk about threads because it ignores all of that nonsense. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter, as long as the performance is there.

 

[bridito]

People said the same thing about the original dual-cores as well, maintaining that dual-cores weren't actually two cores because they shared cache, memory lanes, etc.

Personally, I prefer to talk about threads because it ignores all of that nonsense. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter, as long as the performance is there.

I'm with you 100% on the threads. But that still leaves the nomenclature (official or not) of BD having 8 cores as an essentially erroneous statement which can lead the unsophisticated lay customer as checking out a 2600K at $315 and a BD at $270 and deciding that they can get twice as many cores and save almost fifty bucks.

 

[GaiaHunter]

BD can do 1 128bits instruction per core. Actually it has more FP resources than Phenom II per core.

The major difference BD has vs SB in terms of FPU, is that SD can do 1 256bits instruction per core, while BD has to combine 2 FPU to do a 256bits.

For example Phenom II and Nehalem cannot do 256bits instructions.

So a costumer buying a BD will get a 8 processor CPU as advertised.

If it is a better buy or a worse buy than other CPUs, it surely isn't the fault of it being an 8 core.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not sure what your point is, but a %19.5 explosion on 80 million shares doesn't happen everyday. In fact it is pretty rare, so evidently investors don't need Bulldozer numbers as bad as you suggested. In fact, they might just be realizing that Fusion products are much more important overall...

If fusion is that important, then AMD is in trouble. When people finally get past the marketing hype and realize that a stand alone CPU (Intel or even AMD quad core) and an $80.00 graphics card blows desktop fusion out of the water AMD will be in more trouble.

Fusion has a place in the mobile market, but for the desktop, it is just another gimmick to keep on using an outdated CPU architecture from five or six years ago. Mediocre at everything and exceptional at nothing.

 

[Idontcare]

I'm with you 100% on the threads. But that still leaves the nomenclature (official or not) of BD having 8 cores as an essentially erroneous statement which can lead the unsophisticated lay customer as checking out a 2600K at $315 and a BD at $270 and deciding that they can get twice as many cores and save almost fifty bucks.

I don't see how the statement is erroneous, no two cores are the same and if the purchasing decision is being made merely on a cores/dollar basis then the customer has a lot of options to go with...those options may not necessarily translate into higher performing products but that is not the metric of choice here (cores is).

You can buy a quad-core phenom for pretty cheap, or a quad-core Q6600 for cheap too, in comparison to a quad-core 2600K. Doesn't make the cores on older chips any less of a "core", just means the potency of the "core" itself is a function of the underlying microarchitecture (which we all knew).

 

[beginner99]

With that out of the way, let me explain why AMD is on the right track and has been for many years now. Single Core is dead. It no longer matters what the IPC of what a Core is, it has virtually met its' limits and going forward Multi-Core is where the true Performance lies. Not only is that the case, but the traditional CPU is nearing its' end as well, it too has reached the limits of its' usefulness. Nvidia is doing it with ARM, Intel and AMD are doing it with x86, and within a few years it is very doubtful that we will be buying anything that isn't an APU(I'll be using "APU" for all CPU/GPU hybrids). On the x86 side, AMD is clearly ahead of the curve with its' APU, whether they stay ahead of Intel or not is another question, but AMD is certainly off to a better start.

So far that has resulted in some pretty good Sales for AMD, but only time will tell how it ultimately plays out for them. It's also unknown just how fast Software Developers take advantage of these new features, once they do though, I suspect the true advantages of such devices will prove the APU as a vastly superior design. The current discussion reminds me a lot of what was being discussed when AMD released their first X2 CPU's years ago. Even those poo-pooing the idea then would not even consider buying a Single Core system today for their main Gaming/Intense Performance PC, hell, they wouldn't even buy a dual Core(unless it could be unlocked to 4) system anymore. Once again the Processor is in transition and like last time we'll all look back to this time and wonder why there was resistance or even doubt about it.

Single Core IPC does matter most probably for like 90% of the users still and even me for most things I do. I have no proof but just take the cheapest SB dual-core, disable a core (=single core) and but it in a system with a good SSD. Build a second system with with a 6 core thuban, all cores enabled and take a standard 1 TB 7200 rpm hdd.
I think we all know which system will be perceived as being faster by a normal, clueless user for doing a little MS Word and facebook. They will start the test with booting.
Now you will cry it's an unfair comparison and I agree because 5 of those 6 thuban cores will be pretty much useless, which proves my point.

"APU" is nothing more than a marketing name. You have to be a constant liar or completely clueless if you are in AMD marketing. Anyway intel was about 1.5 years before AMD with their first "APU" (Arrandale), which is nothing else than CPU and GPU on same die.
Their second one was also about half-a year before AMDs first and besides AMDs it actually has at least 1 feature (QuickSync) that makes it somewhat deserving of the APU name.
GPU in Llano is too good for facebook users and too bad for real gaming. And what do casual gamers usually do? They buy a console. They should rather put in more fixed function stuff like intel for QuickSync which could speed up frequent operations a lot.

IMHO: They've come up with a very competive CPU for what's on the market now. It's nice but not earthshaking.

They need 40 W more power and double the core count of a i7 2500. Not to mention that in the i7 the GPU is included so if you add the needed discrete GPU it will be more like 60 W - 80 W.

This is also a Problem for Llano. The GPU is too beefy for the target market but not beefy enough for anything really useful. Most of the time it just a waste of die space and (battery) power. But of course they need to crush the competition in at least 1 type of benchmark, useful or not. It's for marketing only.

 

[Riek]

I have stated elsewhere that I do a lot of image manipulation but also have one client who has proprietary software I have to run which was designed in the stone age, so it's strictly single threaded and I need to run it fast. That's why I'm leaning towards the i7-3820 as it's higher GHz but I might be tempted to go i7-3930X. As for BD, I would be interested only if the performance is not what we are currently anticipating but much faster than the i7-3820... which isn't likely but I can still hope!

As for the quote, it's a baklava recipe!

So basically you favor intel by a big degree? because you wouldn't choose the competitor if it was faster... it should be 'much' faster. Or did you ment it differently.

More cores... hmmm... do we want to start a thread that defines just why BD's 8 cores are really 4 or some sort of weird hybrid of 4? You cannot compare an Intel core to a BD core as they are structured in a very different manner. I also think that the lower system price is an illusion. What's the difference between the cheapest AM3+ and an LGA1155 mobo? Ten bucks? Twenty? As for getting a BD to run on an AM3 rather than the intended AM3+, that is a BIOS trick in my book, and I'm not a fanboi of either manufacturer.

I think most people talk in threads to overcome this hurdle. No discussions needed about architecture.

agree fully on the BD "vs a 4C + HT Intel CPU of similar price" (pure speculation on my part follows) now that AMD has gulped and realized that they can't get the clocks they expected, so they're dropping the price to slot in between 2500K and 2600K where they're competitive. But... what happened to the "BD will beat SB-E, BD will beat IB, BD will beat IBM Watson..."

It would be extremely difficult to price a cpu that performs between the 2500 and 2600. they have the same single threaded performance and the former has 20% advantage in extreme multithreaded. BD will probably beat SB-E (the 4core at least, which will perform like the 2600+% Mhz difference) .

Single Core IPC does matter most probably for like 90% of the users still and even me for most things I do.

If there is something thats only one element of things that matter then that this single core IPC. the clock matters just as much. Seeing from the 'leaks' AMD will have the first chip that turbo's over 4GHz. Just for reference, thats 8.8-7.6% difference compared to 2500 ->SB-E in single threads.

They need 40 W more power and double the core count of a i7 2500. Not to mention that in the i7 the GPU is included so if you add the needed discrete GPU it will be more like 60 W - 80 W.

Funny according to your logic, intel needs 40W more power to add half the cores on i7. (SB-E 6core => 130W)
But ofcourse you are wrong as AMD will launch 8core within 95W TDP.

APU" is nothing more than a marketing name. You have to be a constant liar or completely clueless if you are in AMD marketing. Anyway intel was about 1.5 years before AMD with their first "APU" (Arrandale), which is nothing else than CPU and GPU on same die.

Wrong APU is not only gpu and cpu on same chip, but gpu that can also be used for calculation purposes, intel has still nothing like that.

This is also a Problem for Llano. The GPU is too beefy for the target market but not beefy enough for anything really useful. Most of the time it just a waste of die space and (battery) power. But of course they need to crush the competition in at least 1 type of benchmark, useful or not. It's for marketing only.

funny because the other side says the cpu power is to beefy for the target market and its done to crush to competition in at least 1 type of benchmark.

 

[AtenRa]

Single Core IPC does matter most probably for like 90% of the users still and even me for most things I do. I have no proof but just take the cheapest SB dual-core, disable a core (=single core) and but it in a system with a good SSD. Build a second system with with a 6 core thuban, all cores enabled and take a standard 1 TB 7200 rpm hdd.
I think we all know which system will be perceived as being faster by a normal, clueless user for doing a little MS Word and facebook. They will start the test with booting.
Now you will cry it's an unfair comparison and I agree because 5 of those 6 thuban cores will be pretty much useless, which proves my point.

Nice example, i will use this one to show people that AMD Quad Core Phenom II 955 ($120) with a SATA-3 SSD is faster than an Intel 6 core 12 Threads $999 CPU with 1 TB 7200 rpm HDD.

I will use exactly your words,
"I think we all know which system will be perceived as being faster by a normal, clueless user for doing a little MS Word and facebook. They will start the test with booting. "



You got to be kidding right ??

 

[sandorski]

Nice example, i will use this one to show people that AMD Quad Core Phenom II 955 ($120) with a SATA-3 SSD is faster than an Intel 6 core 12 Threads $999 CPU with 1 TB 7200 rpm HDD.

I will use exactly your words,
"I think we all know which system will be perceived as being faster by a normal, clueless user for doing a little MS Word and facebook. They will start the test with booting. "



You got to be kidding right ??

Thanks for saving me the time. :thumbsup:

 

[psolord]

BD can do 1 128bits instruction per core. Actually it has more FP resources than Phenom II per core.

The major difference BD has vs SB in terms of FPU, is that SD can do 1 256bits instruction per core, while BD has to combine 2 FPU to do a 256bits.

For example Phenom II and Nehalem cannot do 256bits instructions.

So a costumer buying a BD will get a 8 processor CPU as advertised.

If it is a better buy or a worse buy than other CPUs, it surely isn't the fault of it being an 8 core.

I thought the 4 module model had 4 full 256bit FPUs?

Its FlexFP can do 16x64bits, 8x128bits or 4x256bits, while quad SB can only do 4x128bits or 4x256bits!? Have I got it wrong?

 

[psolord]

Single Core IPC does matter most probably for like 90% of the users still and even me for most things I do. I have no proof but just take the cheapest SB dual-core, disable a core (=single core) and but it in a system with a good SSD. Build a second system with with a 6 core thuban, all cores enabled and take a standard 1 TB 7200 rpm hdd.
I think we all know which system will be perceived as being faster by a normal, clueless user for doing a little MS Word and facebook. They will start the test with booting.
Now you will cry it's an unfair comparison and I agree because 5 of those 6 thuban cores will be pretty much useless, which proves my point.

Single core IPC matters only for gamers and for some very specific applications. The today's clueless user (ie the non enthusiast PC gamer with a firm grasp of hardware knowledge), will probably use his PC for Internet, Online videos and Offline videos. You can do that with the processing power available since 2006. Actually since all that stuff is gpu accelerated, all you need is a semi decent gpu to accompany the system.

I do agree that an SSD will play a much more important role to the clueless person, as far as responsiveness goes, but you got your answer from AtenRa I guess.