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

[Edrick]

Maybe you should have read who and what I was replying to. He said "every current AMD cpu is a complete waste of money because a $200 SB". I replied back with information about a current AMD chip since HE brought it up showing his blanket statement is false for the majority of people.

Reading skills, you ever learn them? :hmm:

Actually he said: "So essentially you are saying that every current AMD cpu is a complete waste of money because a $200 SB will wipe the floor with it every time? ". He was talking about performance, not value. And his statement is true, when talking about performance today. Everybody already knows AMD offers good systems at a good price for the people who wish to go that route. Really not a need to mention it once again. But this topic is not about value systems.

No need for personal attacks when you are clearly trolling here and offered nothing useful to the topic.

 

[Vette73]

Actually he said: "So essentially you are saying that every current AMD cpu is a complete waste of money because a $200 SB will wipe the floor with it every time? ". He was talking about performance, not value. And his statement is true, when talking about performance today. Everybody already knows AMD offers good systems at a good price for the people who wish to go that route. Really not a need to mention it once again. But this topic is not about value systems.

No need for personal attacks when you are clearly trolling here and offered nothing useful to the topic.

No you trolled and I am calling you out on it. he said "$200" not performance. If it was JUST performance he would say 6core extreme cpu, not a $200 dollar one.

Again, reading skills? E-N-G-L-I-S-H?

 

[Edrick]

No you trolled and I am calling you out on it. he said "$200" not performance. If it was JUST performance he would say 6core extreme cpu, not a $200 dollar one.

Again, reading skills? E-N-G-L-I-S-H?

1. I have been participating in this thread from the beginning (unlike you), so clearly not trolling.

2. "will wipe the floor with it every time" generally referes to performance and not value.

3. Resorting to childish comments like that when your arguement is shown to be not valid, clearly shows your maturity.

I am done with you. Have a nice day.

 

[Vette73]

1. I have been participating in this thread from the beginning (unlike you), so clearly not trolling.

2. "will wipe the floor with it every time" generally referes to performance and not value.

3. Resorting to childish comments like that when your arguement is shown to be not valid, clearly shows your maturity.

I am done with you. Have a nice day.

AGAIN you keep leaving out part of the sentance...

"a $200 SB will..." He brings up price. I made a comment about CURRENT amd cpu since he also said $200 and current AMD cpus.
You got your panties in a troll twist and are now trying to twist it to fit you non-reading ability views.

So sorry it did not work out in your trollish twisted way, but how about some reading comprehension leasons?

 

[Idontcare]

Come on guys, the zingers and snide commentary is not productive.

 

[exar333]

Maybe you should have read who and what I was replying to. He said "every current AMD cpu is a complete waste of money because a $200 SB". I replied back with information about a current AMD chip since HE brought it up showing his blanket statement is false for the majority of people.

Reading skills, you ever learn them? :hmm:

My point was not to derail the thread, nor do I think AMD is a waste of money. I was responding to JFAMD's comment about how we should compare a "$800 server CPU" against another "$800 server CPU". If we take this same comparison on the DT side, Intel would win hands-down every time with existing products.

What I was trying to say is that the 8M/16C BD SHOULD significantly lead the 8C/16T SB by a large margin, or BD will not be very competitive. Value arguments aside, there are different ways to compare products. Price point comparisons are indeed valid, but I was talking about comparing core counts from AMD against core counts from Intel. If AMD needs 16 cores to compete with 8 core from Intel (just an example) that is a huge detriment to AMD because of (1) single-threaded performance gap and (2) size/complexity of the CPU.

My post was not to enflame but point out that the logic was flawed to compare one set of CPUs one way, but not apply that same logic elsewhere. Be honest, if you had $200 budget for a CPU, what would you choose, all other parts/existing build nonwithstanding.

 

[exar333]

I am really interested to see the socket E prices. If I can get a 6-core for less than $400 or an 8-core for less than $600 then I will probably bite. Otherwise, with IB around the corner, it would be a little tough for me to swallow a $1k processor that will be replaced rather quickly. If I can get a MB/CPU combo for <$1000 on SB-E I will definitely be interested.

 

[aigomorla]

But if it was $5, you'd need to get in line behind me.

no... i already pulled a chair and tent for that spot.

Dude, you don't want a $5 server. Trust me. The last time I tried to buy one I got a hobo with an abacus in the mail. The FP ability of those things is crap.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA operation costs on that must of been a bitch.

Maybe you should have read who and what I was replying to. He said "every current AMD cpu is a complete waste of money because a $200 SB". I replied back with information about a current AMD chip since HE brought it up showing his blanket statement is false for the majority of people.

Reading skills, you ever learn them? :hmm:

ummm you talking about the editor or me?
I never said one was better then the other.

I just said Intel could do with less cores what AMD can do.

Looking at the package in complete, the AMD system which costs less, would make more sense, because u can just add ONE MORE and still = the cost of the intel system.

But once again, i didnt say were looking at the financial motif.

I just said Intel can do what Amd does with less cores.

Its like how the Old Esprit's which were only i4 could keep up with V6 sport cars.

 

[Edrick]

I am really interested to see the socket E prices. If I can get a 6-core for less than $400 or an 8-core for less than $600 then I will probably bite. Otherwise, with IB around the corner, it would be a little tough for me to swallow a $1k processor that will be replaced rather quickly. If I can get a MB/CPU combo for <$1000 on SB-E I will definitely be interested.

I am expecting to see the entry level 6 core SB-E cpu's in the $399-$499 range. They have to be more money than the highest end LGA1155. And seeing how they dropped the price of the 970 recently, I do not see them keeping 6 core cpu's at that high level going forward.

 

[Phynaz]

So, let's address Barcelona. First, keep in mind that the 40&#37; number people seem to throw around a lot was connected to server, NOT desktop (Randy was my boss and he was in charge of the server business at the time, not the desktop business.) Barcelona was 40% faster than Xeon in many benchmarks (STREAM, FP, most 4P benchamrks.)

So those are the "wide variety of workloads" Randy was talking about?

 

[exar333]

So those are the "wide variety of workloads" that Randy was talking about?

That is a lot of spin from JFAMD. Interesting because Anand compared the Barcelona (brand-new at the time) to the Harpertown Xeon's and the Xeon's handily beat-out the Opterons.

Edit: Not sure if JFAMD might have been comparing an older Xeon CPU, that could be why the performance was different too.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2330/9

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

...a simple CMP implementation.

So, 1000 grit or 2000 grit wetsand?

 

[JFAMD]

The comparison was to clovertown.

 

[AtenRa]

My point was not to derail the thread, nor do I think AMD is a waste of money. I was responding to JFAMD's comment about how we should compare a "$800 server CPU" against another "$800 server CPU". If we take this same comparison on the DT side, Intel would win hands-down every time with existing products.

Be honest, if you had $200 budget for a CPU, what would you choose, all other parts/existing build nonwithstanding

Depends on the application, at the same price 6-core Phenom is equal or better than 4 Core SB and don’t forget that Phenom is on a 45nm when SB is on 32nm.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-913-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-072-_-Product

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...el-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested

If AMD needs 16 cores to compete with 8 core from Intel (just an example) that is a huge detriment to AMD because of (1) single-threaded performance gap and (2) size/complexity of the CPU.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2134911&page=47

BDs module excluding L2 cache is 18-19mm2 when SB core excluding L3 cache is 18,4

By taking your logic, I could say that BD design is superior to SB because at the same size it has double the cores.

At the end of the day, If BD is competitive at the same price as SB it will be a win for both AMD and the consumer

 

[itsmydamnation]

i think most people would be dissapointed if the 8 core BD doesn't smash a 4core 8 thread in throughput. The question that needs to be answered is how will 2>4 threaded workloads perform.

then the 6 core Sb to 8 core BD will be really interesting. I dont think anyone expects 8 core BD to beat 8 core SB in thoughput.

 

[exar333]

Depends on the application, at the same price 6-core Phenom is equal or better than 4 Core SB and don’t forget that Phenom is on a 45nm when SB is on 32nm.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-913-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-072-_-Product

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...el-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2134911&page=47

BDs module excluding L2 cache is 18-19mm2 when SB core excluding L3 cache is 18,4

By taking your logic, I could say that BD design is superior to SB because at the same size it has double the cores.

At the end of the day, If BD is competitive at the same price as SB it will be a win for both AMD and the consumer

Are we looking at the same graph here? In every benchmark there is both a SB and i7 (bloomfield) quad faster than the x6. Even if you look at the old 920 which is over 2 years old, that is still faster than every X4 available and is close to the X6 with around 1 ghz less speed and the same # of cores.

45nm and 32nm have nothing to do with it. Intel is faster and uses less power. I like competition too, but if you are only comparing CPUs, AMD pretty much gets killed.

 

[AtenRa]

Be honest, if you had $200 budget for a CPU, what would you choose, all other parts/existing build nonwithstanding.

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T @ $229,99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...AMD-_-19103913

Intel Core i5 2500K @ $219,99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tel-_-19115072

I suggest you look again, at the same price ($200) both CPUs are equal

 

[Martimus]

Are we looking at the same graph here? In every benchmark there is both a SB and i7 (bloomfield) quad faster than the x6. Even if you look at the old 920 which is over 2 years old, that is still faster than every X4 available and is close to the X6 with around 1 ghz less speed and the same # of cores.

45nm and 32nm have nothing to do with it. Intel is faster and uses less power. I like competition too, but if you are only comparing CPUs, AMD pretty much gets killed.

He showed a bunch of benchmarks where the $200 X6 beat the $200 SB processor. So his argument is valid.

Although seeing that their top desktop CPU is only $200 and is forced to be there based on performance is pretty sad, at least to me. Competition on the desktop side seems almost non-existant right now.

 

[bryanW1995]

My point was not to derail the thread, nor do I think AMD is a waste of money. I was responding to JFAMD's comment about how we should compare a "$800 server CPU" against another "$800 server CPU". If we take this same comparison on the DT side, Intel would win hands-down every time with existing products.

What I was trying to say is that the 8M/16C BD SHOULD significantly lead the 8C/16T SB by a large margin, or BD will not be very competitive. Value arguments aside, there are different ways to compare products. Price point comparisons are indeed valid, but I was talking about comparing core counts from AMD against core counts from Intel. If AMD needs 16 cores to compete with 8 core from Intel (just an example) that is a huge detriment to AMD because of (1) single-threaded performance gap and (2) size/complexity of the CPU.

My post was not to enflame but point out that the logic was flawed to compare one set of CPUs one way, but not apply that same logic elsewhere. Be honest, if you had $200 budget for a CPU, what would you choose, all other parts/existing build nonwithstanding.

huh? so a $100 amd cpu isn't better than a $100 intel cpu? when you factor in the system cost, it's probably more like $125 amd cpu vs a $100 intel cpu. still prefer intel here? what about if you want to OC?

 

[bryanW1995]

I am expecting to see the entry level 6 core SB-E cpu's in the $399-$499 range. They have to be more money than the highest end LGA1155. And seeing how they dropped the price of the 970 recently, I do not see them keeping 6 core cpu's at that high level going forward.

based upon what? if BD isn't competitive or experiences more delays then a base model 6 core sb-e could still cost $900+. for the record, I hope that you're right however.

 

[bandgit]

So, let's address Barcelona. First, keep in mind that the 40% number people seem to throw around a lot was connected to server, NOT desktop (Randy was my boss and he was in charge of the server business at the time, not the desktop business.) Barcelona was 40% faster than Xeon in many benchmarks (STREAM, FP, most 4P benchamrks.)

Since Barcelona we introduced the following:

Shanghai, about a quarter early, ~200MHz over anticipated clock speed
Istanbul, about 2 quarters early, ~2-300MHz over anticipated clock speed
Magny Cours, about a quarter early, ~200MHz over anticipated clock speed

Thank you for your reply. These are all laudable achievements but the bottom line still remains that on the higher end for enthusiasts and powerusers, AMD has not been able to field a single competitive CPU for almost five years now. The midrange and lower end has been adequately covered, but there is still nothing in the AMD range that can even come close to my bottom of the barrel i7 920 which has been powering my rig for almost two and a half years now. Yes, there are ample merits in other AMD CPU ranges, but the enthusiast and poweruser has been left out in the cold by AMD for an inordinate amount of time. My query is simple: Will BD offer performance above the currently marketed SBs? I understand that due to company policy you may not reveal that data, but I assure you I am not alone in wondering if AMD will ever be competitive at the consumer high end again.

 

[JFAMD]

I have no idea about client performance. But if you look at the numbers, ~60&#37; of the client market is mobile these days, so desktop is probably ~40%.

~80% of what gets sold is sold through OEMs like HP, Acer and Dell, and those are not going to enthusiasts, they tend to build their own.

Of those that build their own, probably no more than 5% are actually buying the top bin processors (and it is probably closer to 1%.)

So, when you take 40%, of the cleint market, layer on the 20% that build their own systems and then look at the 5% (overly generous) that are concerned about having the top speed at all costs, you are really looking at about .4% of the market that is focused on those top bin desktop SKUs. So, the corollary is that 99.6% of the market is determined outside of that top performance SKU.

Hmmmmm, I'm just a server guy, I don't know much about the desktop market, but to me it seems like some might be putting a bit too much emphasis on certain parts of the market that only result in small numbers of CPUs bing sold.

Now, before you use the words "halo effect" (everyone always does), let me ask you this question: If AMD beat the top intel part by 20% and priced it at $1500, would that cause you to buy an AMD part even if there was a faster, better price on an intel part?

My guess is you would buy the best part for your budget, which is why the "halo effect" doesn't pan out.

 

[bandgit]

"If AMD beat the top intel part by 20&#37; and priced it at $1500, would that cause you to buy an AMD part even if there was a faster, better price on an intel part?"

Of course it would all depend on what the price on the Intel CPU would be. If we're comparing an Extreme Edition Intel at $999 and that was the one I was going for, then I would seriously look at a clear 20% speed gain for 50% more money. That's within the range of reasonable for my demands and my budget. What concerns me is what you are basically stating about ".4%" of the market being the enthusiast and prosumer. Intel has been serving this market very well, and essentially it seems that AMD is not really interested in participating in a high end battle, but filling in the mid and low range. That interests me about as much as a treatise on armadillo umbilical cords, so I guess I'm an Intel guy from now on.

 

[podspi]

Halo effect has nothing to do with enthusiasts. Someone from these forums might look at benchmarks and try to educate themselves on what they're buying, but most consumers just aren't interested in doing that. My mother just bought a Fusion based laptop because "Fusion sounded good". Maybe AMD should re-think dropping all those fancy names from their line-up

 

[exar333]

Halo effect has nothing to do with enthusiasts. Someone from these forums might look at benchmarks and try to educate themselves on what they're buying, but most consumers just aren't interested in doing that. My mother just bought a Fusion based laptop because "Fusion sounded good". Maybe AMD should re-think dropping all those fancy names from their line-up

In the past 8-9 years, the company with the 'halo' CPU (either AMD or Intel) generally also dominated in the mid to high-mid market as well. This was true with AMD during the A64 and early X2 times and Intel since C2D was released. The only time I can think of in recent history where this didn't hold true was when the P4EE (Northwood) was around. It generally was faster than AMD's offerings, but generally the Athlon/(early) A64 was a better option than the bread-n-butter P4's.

In my opinion, it is less the 'halo' effect and more marketing. Intel does a good job at bombarding the 'average joe' with how Intel=quality. Many people will choose a similar performing low-end desktop or laptop with an Intel CPU, and often for a little more money (justified or not) because they think they are getting better.

AMD should step-up their marketing and get more people to think they are on-par with Intel for quality and not just a 'budget' alternative. We (enthusiasts) know this, but many people still don't.