Is Ivy Bridge the answer to AMD Bulldozer ?

[Edrick]

There are no fixed goal posts when you are comparing.. each person has his own way of determining which is better. A college student like me looks for performance/price.. a hardcore enthusiast looks for absolute performance.. he does not care if a product costs 30% more and yet is only 15% faster. he just wants what is best out there.

Exactly. As someone already said comparing technology and price are 2 totally different subjects. And I already said my arguement focuses on the technology side. I have not/will not get into the price comparison since that is not my "goal".

But I would still like to have this discussion/comparison on technology without the budget people telling me I am wrong. Different conversations in my opinion.

 

[AtenRa]

Ok IMO we always compare components by price/performance standards.

Intels SB is the price/performance standard the BD will have to compete an so we have to compare at that standard.

I will agree that BD will use more silicon to overtake the SB performance point but we dont compare CPUs by the transistor count but as consumers we compare them in Price/performance and at the end of the day at the same price the better performance will win.

If we would like to compare CPU architectures by technical standards, we could compare all the other different stuff like TDP, IPCs, Transistor Count etc etc but thats not what the consumer compare CPUs.

 

[Bearach]

I think everyone has an idea on what suits them best. Castiel and others have a point for what they want, and Dresdonboy too has a point. It all really depends on how we use our computers. It also depends on whether the architecture is to be admired or not for some.

We all want to be able to do different things on our computers and consider a buying point to be something different to another. Just because it's your buying point (IPC, or less but more powerful cores) doesn't make it always the right thing.

Some people are blind to the fact there is a market for every single type of chip somewhere, what some will look at and say wow that is some chip... doesn't mean it's going to wipe the floor with another. Just that you have to give credit for the design and choices made.

More cores will work for some, and less but more IPC, or higher frequency might work for others. Whether Ivy is in fact Intel's answer to BD we don't know... We don't even know if it will be a answer to SB yet.

 

[bandgit]

High TDP = HEAT.. The hell with power consumption

I don't OC so any extra heat at normal operation is welcome here in frosty Canada. Instead of putting another log in the stove, I'll run F@H!

 

[SlowSpyder]

Then what is the whole point of comparing apples to oranges? Comparisons are only valuable if comparing similiar products. Otherwise they are just useless tidbits of information. Granted there are many ways to compare a CPU (price-speed-cores-TDP-etc), but it really only matters if comparing CPUs within the same range/market.

I think the vast majority of us use price as the common denominator when comparing products. Let's look at it like this, if Nvidia priced the GTX480 at $155 and AMD priced the 5770 at $150, which would you buy? Would you say, "Holy crap, the GTX480 uses a much bigger chip and a 512 bit connection to 1.5GB of memory... that's not fair!"? I know which one I would buy.

Both companies use different methods to achieve a goal. Whether it's a huge single GPU, two smaller GPU's, a wider bus, higher clocked memory, VLIW4, SP's clocked twice the GPU's speed, etc. etc. Likewise AMD and Intel offer competing products and similar price points (well, not above the mid range as AMD currently can't compete with SB on the high end). When Bulldozer is released, most of us will compare it to Intel chips that are priced near it. If AMD gives me more cores for the money, and I could use more cores, that's what I'll buy. If my software would benefit more from Intel's higher IPC (assuming that Intel has the higher IPC) then that's what I'll buy.

And lastly I wouldn't compare the GTX580 and 6990... they are not at similar price points. Just my $.02

 

[OCGuy]

Seriously? The BD speculation thread is bad enough. This whole thread is based on a premise that Intel needs an answer to a product that we still know little about as far as raw performance.

 

[podspi]

IB is just a shrink of SB. Since AMD didn't really have any major releases since the PhII (and I think Nehalem was a response to PhII) -- SB is really a response to Intel's own Nehalem. IB is just a shrink. Haswell will be a response to BD, if it warrants one -- which I think it will, at the very least in heavy-threaded code.

 

[Phynaz]

I think Nehalem was a response to PhII

A modern cpu takes four years to design and test. Unless Phenom came out in 2005, Nehalem wasn't a response to it.

 

[RobertPters77]

A modern cpu takes four years to design and test. Unless Phenom came out in 2005, Nehalem wasn't a response to it.

I believe Nehalem was meant to drive the nail further in the coffin.

Btw a friend of mine who studies Native American cultures and history said that the world 'Nehalem' in the early salish language meant 'to crush' or 'to conquer one's enemy.'

 

[Martimus]

Then what is the whole point of comparing apples to oranges? Comparisons are only valuable if comparing similiar products. Otherwise they are just useless tidbits of information. Granted there are many ways to compare a CPU (price-speed-cores-TDP-etc), but it really only matters if comparing CPUs within the same range/market.

Again, you can compare the products. Why wouldn't you? If you need a low power processor more than you need a high performing processor, then the Atom has an advantage. If you need performance more than power savings, then the i3 has the advantage. Of course, comparing the CPUs by themselves only tells you a portion of the story. The cost of the platform is much higher for an i3 than Atom. Same as the cost of the platform is higher for a i5-2400 than it is for a 1100T.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Btw a friend of mine who studies Native American cultures and history said that the world 'Nehalem' in the early salish language meant 'to crush' or 'to conquer one's enemy.'

That means nothing. Nehalem is merely a river or a town in US. I remember reading thread about Tejas in another forum and one poster said it means "friend". No, its a town or a river.

Core 2 on the desktop was a direct response to AMD's products. After they got that lead though, things like Penryn and Nehalem were more to serve Intel's own needs. Though I guess you can say it was Nehalem that kept it ahead of AMD after Phenom II arrived, so in some terms Nehalem is Intel's response to Phenom II, it just arrived earlier.

 

[AtenRa]

Exactly. As someone already said comparing technology and price are 2 totally different subjects. And I already said my arguement focuses on the technology side. I have not/will not get into the price comparison since that is not my "goal".

But I would still like to have this discussion/comparison on technology without the budget people telling me I am wrong. Different conversations in my opinion.

Even if we compare SB/IB vs BD on the technological side as you say the architectures are so different that at the end we will not be able to come to a final conclusion as to which CPU is better.

Ill give you an example by counter answer the two arguments, more Cores (8 vs 4) and less TDP (95W vs 125W)

Starting from the architectural point of view, the two CPUs have been designed with a different philosophy that comparing them is futile (I love Borgs ). SB focuses on high IPC per core and SMT (Simultaneous MultiThread) when BD focuses on CMP (Chip MultiProcessor) per Module.

Because SB core size is almost 18,4mm2 and BD module size is at 18-19mm2 (Core Size Factor) then technically we should compare one SB core to one BD Module.

But because of the difference in architecture we cannot directly compare them because SB will be superior in Single thread applications and gain a maximum 20-30% with HT in multithreaded apps when BD will be inferior to single threaded apps but it will be superior in multithreaded apps (Application Performance Factor).

So at the end, the determining factor will be the applications the individual user will use but BD will always be faster in multithreaded apps and SB will always be faster in single thread performance.

Lets see the TDP factor,
It is wrong to compare different CPU architectures solely on TDP.

At 80W a AMD Opteron 12 core 6176 will crush any SB desktop CPU in multithread apps and doing so with less TDP(Performance per TDP Factor). Another example is the Atom vs i3, in this case i3 will be more efficient because it will complete the work faster so it will have a higher work to Watt/hour factor than Atom even with higher TDP (Work produced per Watt/Hour Factor).

Even if you want to compare only with TDP in mind then an 8 Core BD at 95W TDP could be faster in multithreaded apps than a 4 core 8 Threads 95W TDP SB. But if the BD CPU cost double than the SB CPU will you consider this to be a fair comparison??

 

[IntelUser2000]

Now I'm starting to regret the Bulldozer thread I created. Way too many threads talking about Bulldozer/Sandy Bridge/Llano/Ivy Bridge.

See, questions like the thread asks can really be posted without creating another thread.

 

[WildW]

Boredom drives me to add my own opinion - I'll try to be quick

In the context of these beloved forums, the only thing that I think is going to matter for any given CPU is instructions-per-clock multiplied by clock-speed, i.e. the top single core performance, once installed in a solid motherboard, with a pound of sculpted copper strapped on top, and slightly more volts than is wise pumped into it.

So long as a chip can be made for a reasonable unit cost, the price will be determined by performance relative to the competition, so we're not going to see a hypothetical "what if Bulldozer costs $1500?" situation.

Similarly, there would be no glory in 8 mediocre cores matching up to 4 good ones. It would be just like the early days of quad cores - fine and dandy for the server and distributed computing people, but of no use for the average Anandtech types - i.e. gamers. The X6 Thubans are a fine example of this - no real benefit over the quad core Phenoms - at least not for gaming.

The consensus on which chip is "best" is going to be which one pushes more frames per second in Crysis, which still only really uses 2 cores. Only when some new games arrive that use 4 or 6 cores effectively will adding more cores really make a difference. The only way anyone is going to admit that Bulldozer beats Sandy Bridge is with a bar-chart with "Crysis" written at the top, "frames per second - higher = better" written up the side, and a big red bar being the longest.

 

[Arkadrel]

Only when some new games arrive that use 4 or 6 cores effectively will adding more cores really make a difference.

From Medal of Honor to Civ 5: 17 Games that already benefit from six cores CPUs
(year old artical, by now theres probably more games that should be on that list)

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/


Most if not all of the newer games will be able to use 6-8 cores.... as time goes on it ll grow and grow.

In a perfect world, useing 6 cores instead of 4 cores of same CPU/MHZ, would mean +50% performance, but most of these games only gain like 20-30% fps increase from 2 more "cores".
Still.... free +30% performance? why not. There are games that use 6-8 threads or more atm.

The consensus on which chip is "best" is going to be which one pushes more frames per second in Crysis, which still only really uses 2 cores.

Crysis is conquered (a 6990 alone does that).... and it would be a "bad" representation of cpu scaleing in gameing (because as you said it isnt coded for it). Obviously if you want to show how multi cpu scaleing helps gameing, you would need to pick games that can show it (which means no old games from 2006 ish).

 

[WildW]

wowie, fair enough, I'm surprised. My head is clearly still trapped in the past.

I'm not buying Civ5 though. . . I mean, I did buy it, and I feel stupid for doing that, I mean the multi-core part. I've sat and watched task manager while it runs and I'm sure we decided it doesn't really use more than 2 cores. Maybe it was patched.

That said, my point stands that the per-core performance in gaming is what will make up most people's minds here. As AMD showed you can't make up for that by adding two more cores (i.e. X6 vs Intel). If (and its a big IF) Bulldozer ends up outperforming SB on a per-core basis, I doubt that moving from a 6-core SB to an 8-core IB would pull it back with games we're likely to see in the near future.

 

[toyota]

an i5 quad will easily beat Phenom X6 even in games that use more than 4 cores.

 

[tweakboy]

an i5 quad will easily beat Phenom X6 even in games that use more than 4 cores.

I thought the X6 was faster then that. Doesn't seem right. is it hyperthreaded so it sees 12 logical cores to 4 logical cores,, AMD wins right or no ?

 

[toyota]

I thought the X6 was faster then that. Doesn't seem right. is it hyperthreaded so it sees 12 logical cores to 4 logical cores,, AMD wins right or no ?

what? AMD does not have hyperthreading. ipc matters so 6 slow cores are not as fast as 4 fast cores. RE 5 uses mores than 4 cores but even the 2.66 i5 quad is faster than the 3.2 Phenom X6. http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_phenom_ii_x6_1090t_be_1055t,6.html

 

[Arkadrel]

an i5 quad will easily beat Phenom X6 even in games that use more than 4 cores.

Sadly your right about that... most things still dont multi thread well enough.

exsample metro 2033:

what? AMD does not have hyperthreading. ipc matters so 6 slow cores are not as fast as 4 fast cores. RE 5 uses mores than 4 cores but even the 2.66 i5 quad is faster than the 3.2 Phenom X6. http://www.legionhardware.com/articl...e_1055t,6.html

Resident Evil 5 is the only game we tested with that makes use of all six-cores. That said, when testing with the Phenom II X6 processors most cores were only being used at about 50% of their capacity,..

Still not coded very well... most people would be angry if they saw their GPU at only 50% load, and getting bad FPS.

They d be like... bish wtf is up with this sucky arsed codeing in this game! arrrrgggh!
Same thing with CPUs and no one mentions it...

Im kinda hopefull that game coders get better at it as it becomes more common to see 6-8cores/treads, which means... once Intel does it, too few use amd for game coders to bother.

Above is why its a bad statagie for AMD.






Who cares if your makeing 1,000,000 core cpus, if 80% of people use Intel that only use 4, and programmers thus only optimise stuff for 4 cores. However it seems Intel is gonna take the jump up to 8 cores too, so stuff will come thats suited for it in the future.

I think AMDs best bet is still makeing 8 cores that are smaller than Intels, and selling them cheaper.
a "core" race isnt gonna put you ontop of Intel, when people that make software dont bother codeing for it.

To beat Intel and take back market share, AMD would most likely need to beat them in IPC... Intel has to much market share for anything else to work.

 

[Dresdenboy]

Hmm.. a totally new thought : Isn't an improved turbo modus (better measurement, better control) plus power gating of inactive cores a feasable way to achieve both higher single thread performance and higher multi thread performance?

 

[Idontcare]

Hmm.. a totally new thought : Isn't an improved turbo modus (better measurement, better control) plus power gating of inactive cores a feasable way to achieve both higher single thread performance and higher multi thread performance?

It's true provided you are not multi-tasking a bunch of single-threaded apps.

 

[Martimus]

The thing that gets me is that it was maybe 2 months ago that the prevailing belief on these forums was that Bulldozer would be inferior to Sandybridge (and probably Nehalem as well), and now it seems that the prevailing belief is that it will be so much better than Sandybridge that Intel will need Ivy bridge to compete with it.

Based on the known architecture improvements, the IPC should improve to the point where it is competitive with current Intel processors, but to be honest we don't know if those improvements will indeed show up in the performance of the processor. We don't have a single benchmark to show the BD's processing power, so I wouldn't put any real effort into figureing out what future processor will be able to outperform it, since we don't even know if current processors are going to outperform it yet.

 

[exar333]

We really need some BD performance numbers already to stop all this speculation! At least if we saw a preview from AT we could extrapolate based on some actual data...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Again, Sandy Bridge on socket 2011 is slated to have 6 and even 8 core parts while the first Ivy Bridges will only be for 1155 and likely only 4 core.

And considering the oft rumored high cost of an LGA2011 system, my guess is Bulldozer fits somewhere in between.