Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[Accord99]

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

A quad SB can do 4x128 bit Add and 4x128 bit Multiply per cycle with SSE and 4x256 bit Add and 4x256 bit Multiply per cycle with AVX.

 

[Riek]

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?

yes:

Like previous poster mentions SB can do more. But also BD can do more: they can do up to 16*128bit with FMA support, 8x 256bit with FMA. (if you take an unused instruction AVX you might as well take another one with it).

 

[ed29a]

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

Oh boy, someone has an acute case of no reading comprehension. I said that it's hard to compare now the two platforms price wise because there are almost no boards out. 25 AM3+ on Newegg vs 191 1155 motherboards. If you compare to the low end AM3 boards, the equivalent Foxconn version is a good 10$ cheaper, and that's on the really low end. On high and mid range, AMD has a much bigger price advantage, see Sabertooth, ROG boards, etc.

Oh and, you compare a [redacted] Foxconn to an Asus? Really? Wow ...

Stop it with the personal attacks before I have to hit you with more than a clue-by-four. And we do not allow profanity in our technical forums.
-ViRGE

 

[AtenRa]

A quad SB can do 4x128 bit Add and 4x128 bit Multiply per cycle with SSE and 4x256 bit Add and 4x256 bit Multiply per cycle with AVX.

Each Bulldozer module has 2x 128bit FP FMACs (Fuzed Multiply Accumulate), that meas it can do 2x 128bit ADD and 2x 128bit MUL per cycle.

So, a 4 module Bulldozer can do 8x 128bit FMACs, that is 8x 128bit ADDs and 8x 128bit MULs, that's double what the SB can do.

 

[GaiaHunter]

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?

Yes, the 4 model can do 4x256bits instructions.

I was looking at it from the perspective of combining the the full FP resources of a module. I apologize for any confusion.

 

[JimKiler]

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 ??

Agreed, even for everyday use I noticed the responsiveness from my first dual core CPU and vowed never to go back to a single core machine. Given all the background tasks in windows dual cores are very helpful in day to day operations.

 

[bridito]

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).

Granted, but IMHO the majority of people who will end up with a BD in their systems will not have this level of comprehension of the finer points of cores. I believe that we can rather easily state that the definition of a core in i7 to Phenom II is very close, but the definition of that core from i7 to BD is considerably further apart. The question remains as to whether the generally uninformed customer is going to make the assumption (since most users wouldn't know a benchmark if it bit them) that the BD is twice as good as a similarly priced Intel CPU since it has twice the cores. Again IMHO, AMD is going to trap an inordinate number of consumers who are uneducated into the details of CPU architectures.

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.

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

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) .

First of all, I'm only responsible for the first three quotes you attributed me. So:

1) Do I have to put on my sig that I will buy BD IF the first real benchys show it to have performance that gives me a reasonable expectation that it can beat SB-E?

2) Threads. Check. We covered this already.

3) So take all the benchys, weight them, and come up with a reasonable real world average. This is splitting hairs.

Oh boy, someone has an acute case of no reading comprehension. I said that it's hard to compare now the two platforms price wise because there are almost no boards out. 25 AM3+ on Newegg vs 191 1155 motherboards. If you compare to the low end AM3 boards, the equivalent Foxconn version is a good 10$ cheaper, and that's on the really low end. On high and mid range, AMD has a much bigger price advantage, see Sabertooth, ROG boards, etc.

Oh and, you compare a [redacted] Foxconn to an Asus? Really? Wow ...

My dear friend. Please don't insult me. I can read perfectly well but it seems you have problems. What part of "cheapest" do you not understand? Both those boards will run their respective CPUs perfectly well for the vast majority of users who don't overclock, don't game, and don't have a clue what's inside their cases. And of course there are fewer AM3+ boards out since LGA1155 has been around much longer. Therefore your entire statement is incorrect. Have a nice day.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Granted, but IMHO the majority of people who will end up with a BD in their systems will not have this level of comprehension of the finer points of cores. I believe that we can rather easily state that the definition of a core in i7 to Phenom II is very close, but the definition of that core from i7 to BD is considerably further apart. The question remains as to whether the generally uninformed customer is going to make the assumption (since most users wouldn't know a benchmark if it bit them) that the BD is twice as good as a similarly priced Intel CPU since it has twice the cores. Again IMHO, AMD is going to trap an inordinate number of consumers who are uneducated into the details of CPU architectures.

So do you already know the performance of BD?

And by the way, the generally uninformed customer buys Intel - she/he probably heard of it before and it is more likely to see many more Intel machines in whatever place she/he buys a PC.

 

[psolord]

Yes, the 4 model can do 4x256bits instructions.

I was looking at it from the perspective of combining the the full FP resources of a module. I apologize for any confusion.

Why do you apologize for? It was a perfect opportunity to receive some more clarification from people with a better knowledge!

Thanks Riek, Accord, AtenRa.

Each Bulldozer module has 2x 128bit FP FMACs (Fuzed Multiply Accumulate), that meas it can do 2x 128bit ADD and 2x 128bit MUL per cycle.

So, a 4 module Bulldozer can do 8x 128bit FMACs, that is 8x 128bit ADDs and 8x 128bit MULs, that's double what the SB can do.

So, if BD can do 8x 128bit FMACs, does that mean that it can do 4X 256bit FMACs as well??

 

[bridito]

So do you already know the performance of BD?

And by the way, the generally uninformed customer buys Intel - she/he probably heard of it before and it is more likely to see many more Intel machines in whatever place she/he buys a PC.

Hmm... we do seem to be on the subject of reading comprehension... just a few lines before that I wrote:

1) Do I have to put on my sig that I will buy BD IF the first real benchys show it to have performance that gives me a reasonable expectation that it can beat SB-E?

So no one knows the performance of BD but I think you'd have few takers on this forum in a statement of: 8 core BD has exactly 2x performance of 4 core 2600K. But, hey, who knows, you might. Won't be me though.

Your "uninformed buys Intel" statement is ludicrous. You have no statistical basis for that. Back it up with a linky please.

 

[psolord]

A quad SB can do 4x128 bit Add and 4x128 bit Multiply per cycle with SSE and 4x256 bit Add and 4x256 bit Multiply per cycle with AVX.

Excuse me but I had to come back for a re-read and I need some more clarification.

What exactly do you mean? SB can do :

1) 4x128 bit Add + 4x128 bit Multiply per cycle with SSE + 4x256 bit Add + 4x256 bit Multiply per cycle with AVX

2) 4x128 bit Add + 4x128 bit Multiply per cycle with SSE OR 4x256 bit Add + 4x256 bit Multiply per cycle with AVX

I am sorry if I am analyzing it too much, but you never know...! :S

 

[ed29a]

The question remains as to whether the generally uninformed customer is going to make the assumption (since most users wouldn't know a benchmark if it bit them) that the BD is twice as good as a similarly priced Intel CPU since it has twice the cores. Again IMHO, AMD is going to trap an inordinate number of consumers who are uneducated into the details of CPU architectures.

Here is your average consumer. Remember when Intel boasted GHZ above all? Does that mean Intel trapped uneducated consumers? See what I did there? You are extremely delusional if you believe that the average consumer cares about GHZ, cores vs modules, cache, dual channel vs quad channel and other technical details about their computers. They care about two things: price and does it run their software. Software being a browser, some minor photo apps, maybe a simple video editing software, a word processor and Adobe Flash. Oh noes, big bad AMD is going to 'trap' uneducated consumers to buy CPUs that are way too powerful for their needs. Feel free to replace 'AMD' in previous sentence with 'Intel'.

Both those boards will run their respective CPUs perfectly well for the vast majority of users who don't overclock, don't game, and don't have a clue what's inside their cases.

Foxconn: Dead in 3 months. Asus: good for years. Yes, consumers shouldn't care about minor details like that right?

And of course there are fewer AM3+ boards out since LGA1155 has been around much longer. Therefore your entire statement is incorrect. Have a nice day.

My argument that you can't do an accurate compare for these exact same reasons is incorrect? Wow. Just wow. You are comparing a fairly mature platform to one that has a handful of boards and I am the one that is incorrect because I point out that fallacy in your argument? Wow, that's some interesting 'logic' you got there.

 

[bridito]

Here is your average consumer. Remember when Intel boasted GHZ above all? Does that mean Intel trapped uneducated consumers? See what I did there? You are extremely delusional if you believe that the average consumer cares about GHZ, cores vs modules, cache, dual channel vs quad channel and other technical details about their computers. They care about two things: price and does it run their software. Software being a browser, some minor photo apps, maybe a simple video editing software, a word processor and Adobe Flash. Oh noes, big bad AMD is going to 'trap' uneducated consumers to buy CPUs that are way too powerful for their needs. Feel free to replace 'AMD' in previous sentence with 'Intel'.


Foxconn: Dead in 3 months. Asus: good for years. Yes, consumers shouldn't care about minor details like that right?


My argument that you can't do an accurate compare for these exact same reasons is incorrect? Wow. Just wow. You are comparing a fairly mature platform to one that has a handful of boards and I am the one that is incorrect because I point out that fallacy in your argument? Wow, that's some interesting 'logic' you got there.

Logic? Foxconn is dead in 3 months, huh? Hmm... I guess the Foxconn mobo I've had running in a system since 2009 was made by Asus and had a Foxconn sticker placed on it.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, my friend. I can't argue with your "logic" and your "enthusiastic" support of one of the manufacturers. Like I said, have a nice day and please feel free to go debate your profound, evidence-based statements with someone else who takes you seriously.

 

[Phynaz]

And by the way, the generally uninformed customer buys Intel - she/he probably heard of it before and it is more likely to see many more Intel machines in whatever place she/he buys a PC.

So 90% of the world is uniformed? Pretty much all of corporate IT is uniformed?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Hmm... we do seem to be on the subject of reading comprehension... just a few lines before that I wrote:

1) Do I have to put on my sig that I will buy BD IF the first real benchys show it to have performance that gives me a reasonable expectation that it can beat SB-E?

So no one knows the performance of BD but I think you'd have few takers on this forum in a statement of: 8 core BD has exactly 2x performance of 4 core 2600K. But, hey, who knows, you might. Won't be me though.

Your "uninformed buys Intel" statement is ludicrous. You have no statistical basis for that. Back it up with a linky please.

You are already saying AMD is lying/cheating to the consumer with core counts without any benchmars - shouldn't we see if the 4 core/6 core/8 core acts like 2cores/3cores/4cores or 4cores/6cores/8cores in benches before passing judgments?

To the uninformed buys Intel you just need to look at market share - the biggest intel sales will be the dual-core processors and those compete in price with the Athlon II x4 which offer twice as many cores. Consumers don't seem too confused, do they?

 

[GaiaHunter]

So 90% of the world is uniformed? Pretty much all of corporate IT is uniformed?

I doubt people that wear uniforms make for 90% of the world population that buy PCs.

 

[bridito]

You are already saying AMD is lying/cheating to the consumer with core counts without any benchmars - shouldn't we see if the 4 core/6 core/8 core acts like 2cores/3cores/4cores or 4cores/6cores/8cores in benches before passing judgments?

To the uninformed buys Intel you just need to look at market share - the biggest intel sales will be the dual-core processors and those compete in price with the Athlon II x4 which offer twice as many cores. Consumers don't seem too confused, do they?

I'll paraphrase myself one more time: Benchys, Above All Benchys! Heck, I often think that a forum moratorium should be established on discussing the performance of any CPU unless independent reputable third party benchmarks have been published.

Sorry, but you made a categorical statement about the uninformed consumer purchasing one manufacturer over the other. Your "look at market share" statement proves nothing. Statistics, Above All Statistics!

 

[GaiaHunter]

I'll paraphrase myself one more time: Benchys, Above All Benchys! Heck, I often think that a forum moratorium should be established on discussing the performance of any CPU unless independent reputable third party benchmarks have been published.

Sorry, but you made a categorical statement about the uninformed consumer purchasing one manufacturer over the other. Your "look at market share" statement proves nothing. Statistics, Above All Statistics!

It is a shame you don't apply those guidelines to your own posts.

You say that BD cores aren't really cores based on what benches?

You say customers buy based on core count? Statistics for this?

 

[Riek]

First of all, I'm only responsible for the first three quotes you attributed me. So:

1) Do I have to put on my sig that I will buy BD IF the first real benchys show it to have performance that gives me a reasonable expectation that it can beat SB-E?

My remark wasn't that you need to buy BD. My remark was aimed that you wouldn't consider BD even if it performs better. Because you explicitly stated that BD has to be MUCH better. I was remarking you on the emphasis of your "much better".

 

[bridito]

It is a shame you don't apply those guidelines to your own posts.

OK, then based on your "nah nah nah naaaaaaaaaaaah nah" debate tactic I guess I'll have to put you in the same IGNORE pile as ed29a. It is a lovely summer day and I wish you and yours the very best! Have a great day!

Edit: I wrote this before you edited your post. So, another reason to IGNORE pile it. Bye!

 

[Makaveli]

I doubt people that wear uniforms make for 90% of the world population that buy PCs.

I lol on that typo

 

[bridito]

My remark wasn't that you need to buy BD. My remark was aimed that you wouldn't consider BD even if it performs better. Because you explicitly stated that BD has to be MUCH better. I was remarking you on the emphasis of your "much better".

OK let me clarify once again.

If BD gives me a "reasonable expectation" with real benchys that it will provide performance "equal to or greater" than i7 3820, and it is actually released months before that Intel CPU (as currently expected), and I can buy it with a mobo with more than 4 RAM slots (absolutely obligatory), AMD gets my $$$ on the first day of release.

 

[Idontcare]

Granted, but IMHO the majority of people who will end up with a BD in their systems will not have this level of comprehension of the finer points of cores. I believe that we can rather easily state that the definition of a core in i7 to Phenom II is very close, but the definition of that core from i7 to BD is considerably further apart. The question remains as to whether the generally uninformed customer is going to make the assumption (since most users wouldn't know a benchmark if it bit them) that the BD is twice as good as a similarly priced Intel CPU since it has twice the cores. Again IMHO, AMD is going to trap an inordinate number of consumers who are uneducated into the details of CPU architectures.

That is what marketing is here for...selling to the willfully ignorant.

Ignorant because they don't know jack about the products they are purchasing, willfully ignorant because in this day and age with internet access and forums such as Anandtech you would pretty much have to go out of your way to remain ignorant of the products you are purchasing.

In this case I would argue that being ignorant is choice, making that choice is a matter of luxury.

I am willfully ignorant of the quality of meat that most of my favorite restaurants use in their steaks and hamburgers, but I am inclined to remain blissfully ignorant and keep on thinking that the meat is top notch and not purchased out of the back of some dude's van in an alleyway.

My family is made up of a vast number of willfully ignorant computer consumers. They have the time to change that, but it simply is not a priority to them. So off to best buy they go, happy as a lark to come back with whatever some dude in a blue shirt convinced them was the "deal of the decade".

The point is that people don't always get what they pay for, but they never get what they don't pay for.

Folks like you and I prioritize spending our time arming ourselves with data such that we can make data-driven purchasing decisions to maximize the chances of getting what we pay for.

Not everyone has the same list of priorities, sometimes it is unintentional but other times it is intentional.

Either way though it is not really fair to blame the for-profit business for seeking out ways to enhance their marketshare amongst the willfully ignorant demographic.

 

[Acanthus]

I'll say what i've been saying all along... Bulldozer will excel at highly threaded apps and lose in single and dual threaded apps.

This means video encoding, maya, scientific apps, encryption/decryption, etc will go to AMD.

Most games, older apps, and general computing tasks will go to Intel.

Disclaimer** I do not give a fuck about synthetic benchmarks.

 

[podspi]

Uninformed consumers tend to go with whichever brand they recognize/have already purchased. For example, my mother's first laptop was an Acer, and so now she will only buy Acer.

I get asked for help in buying computers quite often, from family members, friends, and friends of family members. I have not at any point in time had anyone ask about processors, or request a certain brand of processor, or even a number of cores. Key characteristics EVERYONE I have helped recognizes are: manufacturer, screen size (in the case of laptops), and memory (whats the difference between a hard drive and memory?). Oh, and if the model has a Pentium that is almost universally seen as a plus. I still think Intel was foolish to drop the brand name. Everybody still thinks it is the bees knees.


So what is my point? Uninformed consumers are going to buy whatever the OEMs push at them. The OEMs are informed customers of Intel and AMD. That's why Bobcat-based netbooks/laptops have been so successful. They cream Atom. But the average consumer that I have interacted with cares about the size of the screen and hard drive more than anything else.


If BD isn't worth whatever price AMD puts on it, nobody will buy it, because the OEMs won't favor it. Sure, there may be a few token machines put out there, but design wins will be low.