• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rumour: Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II.

Page 109 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
OCGuy said:
People actually trust AMD for launch targets now? Haha.

I would trust a magic 8-ball before I trusted anything AMD said about CPU roadmaps.
Click to expand...

True .. but still the hard part in Trinity was the naming .. the release should be doable w/ 3 months late bulldozer-type fail release schedule.

Let's face it, replacing the athlon with bulldozer and the 6550d with the next ATI chip -- doesn't look like many ways to fail in there.
 
guskline said:
Bulldozer has conveniently been "plowed over" by the Llano hype.
Click to expand...

Joker-clap.gif
 
videoclone said:
So is anyone buying the new 990 chipset boards and waiting on the cpu's to come out?
Click to expand...

NOPE! Not betting on something no one is even sure is going to be useful when (if? ) it comes out.

I'm just holding out all together until there is real news either way. I'd love to buy AMD again but I'm honestly not holding my breath.
 
ummduh said:
NOPE! Not betting on something no one is even sure is going to be useful when (if? ) it comes out.

I'm just holding out all together until there is real news either way. I'd love to buy AMD again but I'm honestly not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

I think with the new launch prices that came out recently atleast AMD and Intel might trade a few blows in the middleweights. I am guessing the victories wont come in sysmark benches though 🙂. Maybe a select few real world apps that have smp support might tie or slightly beat intel price points.
 
videoclone said:
So is anyone buying the new 990 chipset boards and waiting on the cpu's to come out?
Click to expand...

I did. I couldn't find an 1155 system I would be happy with. I wanted to be able to SLI so I bought the Asus Sabertooth 990FX. My X3 720 will get me by until I can find a bulldozer for cheap. Either they will be expensive and worth it or slow and cheap. Either way, it should be more than enough performance for me.
 
Its going to be interesting to see how the finished retail product turns out. I cant remember so much interest in a CPU befor. 🙂 Dont think that interest will turn into sales but its really been a talking point on many forums.
 
videoclone said:
Its going to be interesting to see how the finished retail product turns out. I cant remember so much interest in a CPU befor. 🙂 Dont think that interest will turn into sales but its really been a talking point on many forums.
Click to expand...
Yikes,surely you haven't forgotten the Conroe launch of 2006😱...now that was a banner day,both in page hits and troll slaying😛.
Personally I hope the 'Dozer does well,AMD has done very well with its GPU performance....hopefully they can make a big move to catch up with Intel as well.*wishful thinking disclaimer*:sneaky:
 
videoclone said:
some new performance figures off a sample of bulldozer, pitting it against i7. Taken with a grain of (engineering sample) salt, these look pretty good. http://wccftech.com/amd-bulldozer-4ghz-es-pitted-intel-core-i7990x-gaming-benchmarks/27686/
Click to expand...

The certainly are not bad, if they are true. The key word here would ES, meaning I'd be hoping for something even better for the final version.

The 990X is basically a nehalem, right? And being a six core part, does not make the test any more interesting, since its six cores would be largely underused. A 4 core nehalem would produce the same results anyway.

So, slightly less clock for clock performance, of an ES, is not so bad I guess. If the final version can make it, from slightly less, to slightly more it will be great. It will essentially be on par with SB, clock for clock.

That coupled with better performance in heavily threaded apps, will surely make it a winner. I hope it clocks well though, 'cause I am primarily a gamer.
 
videoclone said:
some new performance figures off a sample of bulldozer, pitting it against i7. Taken with a grain of (engineering sample) salt, these look pretty good. http://wccftech.com/amd-bulldozer-4ghz-es-pitted-intel-core-i7990x-gaming-benchmarks/27686/
Click to expand...

eeeeeehhhhh... That doesn't look like the best comparison for CPU performance. Look at the title of the benchmark, it is basically maxing out all of the video settings (8x AA, 16x AF, 2560x1600 resolution). This looks like it could be GPU bound.

This looks more like the author was trying to hide the disparity at lower resolutions/AA/AF settings.
 
psolord said:
The 990X is basically a nehalem, right? And being a six core part, does not make the test any more interesting, since its six cores would be largely underused. A 4 core nehalem would produce the same results anyway.
Click to expand...

If the bench is legit , that s great...🙂
It would be the comparison of a 990X using at most 4 cores with
a BD using at most two modules , since AMD stated that 4 threads
will be handled by two fully used modules rather than by four
half used modules..
 
If those GAMING benchmark numbers are close to true, thats about enough for me to make AMD BD my next upgrade, i'll support the AMD team if they are withint 10-15% of intel chips 🙂

not 30-40% as the Phenum2 vs i7 2600 in GAMING of today.
 
Right, thats because AT Bench doesnt have or use, Futuremarks PCMark TV & Movies sub-test, Cinebench R11.5 and Futuremarks 3DMark06 CPU-test that the slide BASES the projections on and clearly states...with maximum zoom 🙂 at the bottom of the slide.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top