PCgameshardware : Bulldozer? Please. Intel Confirms 8 Core SB-E For Q3

[Castiel]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,8...-EP-mit-acht-Kernen-fuer-Herbst/CPU/Download/

At Cebit was Intel the (Sandy) cat out of the bag: The 2011er platform with base R, quad-channel memory interface and up to eight CPU cores and 20 MiByte L3 cache is produced in six months (without iGPU!) so just in the third quarter - for the fourth, the availability then be given continuously. The CPU models are powered by Intel called the "Sandy Bridge EP", which stands for Enterprise. Fits this was one Intel dual-socket system based on base R and ergo, two CPUs - details such as clock rates but did not mention Intel. But it was based on the Linpack benchmark on Linux the performance gain by AVX, which corresponds in this case the best-case, so a doubling of the Op / s. The average performance gain off this kind of show-case scenarios estimated Intel (already known) with 20 to 30 percent, matching software was expected for this year - especially since AMD's Bulldozer AVX also controlled.

 

[996GT2]

Intel: 1

AMD : 0

 

[podspi]

Intel: 1

AMD : 0

If it's just a race to core counts, AMD already has 8 and 12 core CPUs :whiste:

 

[Castiel]

If it's just a race to core counts, AMD already has 8 and 12 core CPUs :whiste:

Not sure why everyone stresses the cores. It's all about IPC with amd having to play catchup to intel in that department.

 

[996GT2]

If it's just a race to core counts, AMD already has 8 and 12 core CPUs :whiste:

Who said I was talking about core counts?

 

[ShadowVVL]

well the intel 8 core is probably going to be insane but im sure they will have you paying $1k-$1.1k for a $650 cpu.

but amds 8 core probably wont be cheap either, $499 maybe.

 

[Mopetar]

Considering we know nothing of how well Bulldozer chips actually perform or what they will cost, it's just a little bit silly to compare unreleased Intel parts to unreleased AMD parts.

Unless Bulldozer is miraculously good, an eight-core Sandy Bridge CPU will probably outperform it. But at what price? If it's as costly as the 980X and 990X, it's clearly aiming for the the top of the top. The performance crown is all well and good, but if it commends a king's ransom it's not terribly useful to most of us.

Regardless of how well AMD does with their Bulldozer release, they won't be able to rest on any laurels. Intel may have been ruthless in their business practices, but it seems they've transitioned that aggression to their chip design.

 

[ShadowVVL]

intels 8 core will probably be packing 1.9 or 2.4billion transistors it will destroy BD.
We shall call it...... {The Destroyer Of Worlds} or {The 8 Cores Of Doom}

 

[Castiel]

well the intel 8 core is probably going to be insane but im sure they will have you paying $1k-$1.1k for a $650 cpu.

but amds 8 core probably wont be cheap either, $499 maybe.

You actually think amd is going to price an 8 core processor at 499? Try 899 for an 8 core BD. There's a reason amd brought back the FX name.

intels 8 core will probably be packing 1.9 or 2.4billion transistors it will destroy BD.
We shall call it...... {The Destroyer Of Worlds} or {The 8 Cores Of Doom}

SB-E is going to Bull Doze Amd

 

[ShadowVVL]

wow 899 way to ruin my day.
I never got to experience fx and dont know much about it. But isnt it the same as server chip allowing 2 or more cpus on 1 board?
I think it was the chip set or something embedded in the cpu allowing them to connect.

 

[Castiel]

wow 899 way to ruin my day.
I never got to experience fx and dont know much about it. But isnt it the same as server chip allowing 2 or more cpus on 1 board?
I think it was the chip set or something embedded in the cpu allowing them to connect.

The FX-62 of old was 999.99 back in 06

 

[ShadowVVL]

I never knew amd was a wallet rapist.

I surly hope its not going to be that bad.

In 06 i was still on an old dell from 01 with a intel single core @766mhz

will the quads run fx aswell or just the 8c?

 

[itsmydamnation]

assuming L3 is still split/located per core how do you get 20mb of L3 with 8 cores, 2560 bytes of cache seems an odd number. wouldn't they just go with 16mb L3 and use the same cores.

 

[drizek]

Intel: $1250

AMD : $0250

They're totally different products.

 

[Martimus]

assuming L3 is still split/located per core how do you get 20mb of L3 with 8 cores, 2560 bytes of cache seems an odd number. wouldn't they just go with 16mb L3 and use the same cores.

Maybe they mean 20MB of total cache? It could be 512KB of L2 cach per core, and 2MB of L3 cache per core. Although that wouldn't make much sense being that it is inclusive cache. More likely it is 2.5MB of L3 cache per core. Although I wasn't there, and I do not know.

Too bad a native English speaking individual wasn't there and wrote an article on the processor. Then it would be easier to understand what was actually revealed.

 

[aigomorla]

If it's just a race to core counts, AMD already has 8 and 12 core CPUs :whiste:

most definitely...

But intel showed AMD, sometimes more isnt better in this nice article :whiste:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4193/cheap-and-low-power-server-cpus-compared

And yes here's crossing my fingers on a 8c16t 20meg cache x 2 Twin Big sisters of dear ol sandy!
Twins are always better!

 

[Arkadrel]

most definitely...

But intel showed AMD, sometimes more isnt better in this nice article :whiste:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4193/cheap-and-low-power-server-cpus-compared

And yes here's crossing my fingers on a 8c16t 20meg cache x 2 Twin Big sisters of dear ol sandy!
Twins are always better!

The Xeon L5630 2.14 4C does 323 Queries pr sec, costs=560$ (newegg)

Opteron 4170 2.1 6c does 299 Queries pr sec, costs= 203$ (amazon)
(Opteron 4170 was sold out on newegg, so couldnt see a price there)


The Xeon is about 8% faster in this benchmark, it costs about 270% more.
The Xeon uses more power than the opteron.

I wouldnt say that Intel walks all over amd, when it comes to servers, but your right that they use less cores, and give more performance (in this benchmark).

 

[AdamK47]

Want. Now.

 

[Edrick]

SB-E should use 2.5MB L3 per core as opposed to the 2MB and 1.5MB on the lga1155 models. At least that is what I am hearing. I guess we will wait and see.

 

[ElFenix]

and for those of us who can't afford $300 motherboards and $700 processors?

 

[Castiel]

Guys over at XS are speculating there will be no Quad core 2011 processors. The 2011 lineup will feature only 6 and 8 core processors. Hmm... Would make perfect sense.

1155 for Quad's and dual's
2011 for 6, 8 and 10 core's

 

[Edrick]

And I would bet 6 core SBs (low end of s2011) would only be in the $350-$500 range while the 8 cores are $600-$1000.

 

[Castiel]

And I would bet 6 core SBs (low end of s2011) would only be in the $350-$500 range while the 8 cores are $600-$1000.

Those prices would be Dependant on how well bulldozer perform's. If it's good those could be lower. If it flops they could be higher.

 

[Arkadrel]

and for those of us who can't afford $300 motherboards and $700 processors?

Phenom II x4 955 3.2Ghz 139$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103808
BIOSTAR A770E3 AM3 AMD 770 ATX AMD Motherboard 54$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-179-_-Product

OC that Ph II 955 -> 3.8-4.0ghz
Its "slower" than a sandy bridge but then again, its 139$+54$.

 

[Soleron]

Uh, the 8-core version is server only.

Desktop: 8 core BD, 6 core SB
Server: 16 core BD, 8 core SB and 10 core Westmere