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

[podspi]

It takes an 8 core BD to beat the 950 so i was correct with the 4 module beating a 2 core SB

AFAIK there are no benchmarks of BD available for you to be able to say that. The 950 and 1100T are about as fast at multithreaded code (advantage:950). Do you honestly believe AMD is gearing up to launch a product that is barely faster than the 1100T, and lower derivatives? Let's face it, they've already done the 32nm shrink of Stars, if BD sucked that badly they could just use Stars and punch the clockspeed.



And single-threaded does. If you look at the Bobcat/Atom benchmarks, because of hyperthreading a dual-core Atom has about as much throughput as a dual-core Bobcat (both at 1.6ghz). Ask anybody which feels faster, and they'll invariably tell you the Bobcat machine, because it has faster single-threaded performance. IPC by itself does not matter, (really IPC and clockspeed) but single-threaded performance is important!

 

[ShadowVVL]

wouldn't the BD quad be something like a phenom ll x4 970 with 20 or 30% more performance? or Will BD x4 replace athlon ll x4 series?

 

[busydude]

wouldn't the BD quad be something like a phenom ll x4 970 with 20 or 30% more performance? or Will BD x4 replace athlon ll x4 series?

AFAIK, Llano will replace Athlon II X4(Mainstream).. and BD -> Phenom II X4/X6(Enthusiast).

 

[Red Hawk]

So, the moral of the story is that AMD needs twice the amount of cores in order to beat Intel? Somehow I am not impressed...

 

[AtenRa]

So, the moral of the story is that AMD needs twice the amount of cores in order to beat Intel? Somehow I am not impressed...

Intel had the advantage all this years with 4 more threads via HT, nobody complained.

It is nice that a new AMD CPU will bring a big increase in performance but im more concern about the price.

I believe a 4 Module 8 threads BD will be priced very high (at least until SB 2011 be released) and a 2 Module 4 threads BD will not be that much competitive(performance) vs 4 core SB (i5) not to mention a 4 core + HT SB (i7).

It’s all have to do with price at the end of the day, if BD is priced aggressively vs SB then it could be a very nice alternative with better Price/performance.

 

[Mopetar]

So, the moral of the story is that AMD needs twice the amount of cores in order to beat Intel? Somehow I am not impressed...

Really depends on die area. If AMD can fit 8 cores into the same amount of die area that it takes for Intel to pack in 4, and they both come out equal, it's really a wash. An individual Intel core is more powerful than an individual AMD core, but it's also more bloated.

Typically Intel has enjoyed a higher IPC than AMD has on their chips which is part of the reason AMD has grown their core count. The reasons for this probably stretch back to the P4 where Intel got burned trying to design a low IPC chip with room for high clock rates. After that they made significant changes in their architecture plans and have since generally focused on increasing IPC, even at the expense of clock rates or core count.

We don't know what kind of single threaded performance BD will yield yet, so it's a little premature to declare the doom of either Intel or AMD. The claim is 50% better performance with 33% more cores. This suggests that BD will be an improvement on a core level and allow for more cores therefore further increasing the chip-level performance. It may be more or less than that, but it's a ballpark figure. Unless the end results are incredibly better than estimated, it's likely that an individual BD core will be less powerful than a SB core, but there's no indication which chip will perform better or which will have better performance per die area, per watt, or per price.

 

[beginner99]

I do not think that single thread performance is that important. This is because if an application does not need performance there will be no more than one thread started. If it needs plenty performance then it will start many threads.

Very helpful for stuff that inherently can't be multi-threaded.

Therefore I think it doesn't matter that much, except you are having quite old software you do not want to update.

Like 90% of software out there...anything multi-threaded out there is rather an exception than the norm. And even then it's usually limited to 2 threads (GUI / Logic)

Seriously your post is ridiculous.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

i was talking about GRAW

I was talking about Crysis - the counter-point, comparison, contrast. The video didn't do a good job showcasing what Crysis can do. Or for that matter what GRAW can do. Can GRAW's trees be cut multiple times into small pieces, at the point where you actually aim at the tree?

 

[Castiel]

AFAIK there are no benchmarks of BD available for you to be able to say that. The 950 and 1100T are about as fast at multithreaded code (advantage:950). Do you honestly believe AMD is gearing up to launch a product that is barely faster than the 1100T, and lower derivatives? Let's face it, they've already done the 32nm shrink of Stars, if BD sucked that badly they could just use Stars and punch the clockspeed.

Thats the problem indeed... There are no benchmarks. Everyone remember 6 months ago when the first SB 5Ghz shot was leaked? Why hasn't that happened with BD? If its that good something should have been leaked.

 

[Rifter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HW2050Plus
I do not think that single thread performance is that important.

:Facepalm:

that deserves a double facepalm

 

[Riek]

It takes an 8 core BD to beat the 950 so i was correct with the 4 module beating a 2 core SB

euh whut?
if you take the numbers from that (fake) slide it takes a 8core BD to beat the 950 by 50%. (4modules vs 4cores+HT)
Even a 6core which increases performance by 33% you don't get there. an SB 6core might be close to a 4module BD according to the numbers in the first post.

That said on some dutch forums someone is talking about a clock for clock difference against nehalem:
Equal clocks -> 3-4% slower worst case, typical 30% faster in case of BD. (don't know if this is including turbo boosts or not. and that was talking about 2.8Ghz BD.
If that is the case all will depend on clockspeeds BD. But that would also mean (from those numbers) that on average BD is faster at the same clock as SB. (4modules vs 4cores+HT) (possibly gaining the most on threaded programs and the least for some single threaded applications).

 

[JFAMD]

Not sure why I said 12, I meant 16.

Are you saying that there will be a 12 core bulldozer or are you talking about Magny Cours?

There will be 12-core bulldozer server products and there are 12-core magny cours products.

So, the moral of the story is that AMD needs twice the amount of cores in order to beat Intel? Somehow I am not impressed...

Let's take a look at Opteron vs. Xeon.

So, we could also say:
The moral of the story is intel needs 50% more clock speeed to beat AMD (2.2GHz vs. 3.3GHz)
The moral of the story is that intel needs 42% more cost to beat AMD ($1165 vs. $1663)
The moral of the story is intel needs 2X the power per core to beat AMD

The reality is PEOPLE DON'T BUY CORES. People buy processors. How much performance per socket is what matters, along with how much you pay for it.

Thats the problem indeed... There are no benchmarks. Everyone remember 6 months ago when the first SB 5Ghz shot was leaked? Why hasn't that happened with BD? If its that good something should have been leaked.

Maybe the difference is intel leaks benchmarks and AMD does not? The other question is was SB leaked because they were afraid of BD? People automatically assume that everything that intel does is right and everything AMD does is wrong. That is not the case.

 

[Axon]

The reality is PEOPLE DON'T BUY CORES. People buy processors. How much performance per socket is what matters, along with how much you pay for it.

I agree with this, but you know, given that many games rely on one or two cores exclusively - not the fault of AMD, mind you - clock for clock power does play a role in any real-world assessment.

Maybe the difference is intel leaks benchmarks and AMD does not? The other question is was SB leaked because they were afraid of BD? People automatically assume that everything that intel does is right and everything AMD does is wrong. That is not the case.

Agreed, AMD just doesn't leak all that much. When the 5xxx GPU series was launching I don't remember any leaks until a week before release. Perhaps that's just my own perception. Certainly the 68xx series had some slide leaks but nothing really substantial until the NDA dropped.

Still, the time to strike is right now. I've said I would buy a BD system today if it was out in another thread and I mean that 100%. I doubt I'm entirely alone. The boys poked a little fun at me, but unless BD performs like a Phenom II X4 965 in gaming, I can't see how it can't be at least solid.

 

[wanderer27]

There will be 12-core bulldozer server products and there are 12-core magny cours products.



Let's take a look at Opteron vs. Xeon.

So, we could also say:
The moral of the story is intel needs 50% more clock speeed to beat AMD (2.2GHz vs. 3.3GHz)
The moral of the story is that intel needs 42% more cost to beat AMD ($1165 vs. $1663)
The moral of the story is intel needs 2X the power per core to beat AMD

The reality is PEOPLE DON'T BUY CORES. People buy processors. How much performance per socket is what matters, along with how much you pay for it.

This really sums it all up.

I don't care if AMD has 16 Cores to equal the performance of Intel at 2 Cores.
If they cost the same and the Wattage is approximately the same, then it's wash.
Odds are though, if you have more Cores you're going to get a bit more performance out them.

At that point, you start looking into overclockability (not something I'm really into) for comparisons.

Most people are looking at maximum performance per $, plain and simple.




.

 

[beginner99]

How much performance per socket is what matters, along with how much you pay for it.

Not so for consumers because we actually do still care about single-threaded performance (that's why AMD CPUs can't be recommended right now for gaming rig especially SC2).
I don't need to run as many "low usage" server VMs as possible on one socket.

But then we all know where margins are way higher.

 

[tincart]

Most people are looking at maximum performance per $, plain and simple.

This is where I sit. The technology is interesting to talk about, but when I'm buying I look at price and performance and take into account secondary concerns like upgrade path (my choice of AM2+ has served me well and saved me $) and power requirements.

 

[Accord99]

This really sums it all up.

I don't care if AMD has 16 Cores to equal the performance of Intel at 2 Cores.
If they cost the same and the Wattage is approximately the same, then it's wash.
Odds are though, if you have more Cores you're going to get a bit more performance out them.

No it's not, as the 2 core CPU will be faster in virtually everything on the desktop since you need to run at least 16 CPU intensive applications simultaneously just to get a draw.

 

[Rifter]

This really sums it all up.

I don't care if AMD has 16 Cores to equal the performance of Intel at 2 Cores.
If they cost the same and the Wattage is approximately the same, then it's wash.
Odds are though, if you have more Cores you're going to get a bit more performance out them.

At that point, you start looking into overclockability (not something I'm really into) for comparisons.

Most people are looking at maximum performance per $, plain and simple.

This would only be true in very well threaded applications, such as encoding/transcoding or folding, etc.

Alot of games and applications still rely on 1 or 2 cores for the majority of the work so single threaded performance is still VERY relevant.

Its getting better and more well threaded in a few games but we are still years away from most games and apps running well threaded on 4+ cores.

 

[JFAMD]

I am going to go out on limb here but I am guessing that 95% of processor conversations start with the statement "I have $XXX in my pocket, what is the best performance that I can get for the apps that I am running?"

In those discussions it isn't the number of cores, it is the best price/performance.

 

[drizek]

But the more cores you have, the cooler your task manager screenshots are.

I do agree though that single threaded performance is important. I would be very tempted by a dual core 6GHz processor, or even a 7GHz with hyperthreading.

 

[OCGuy]

I am going to go out on limb here but I am guessing that 95% of processor conversations start with the statement "I have $XXX in my pocket, what is the best performance that I can get for the apps that I am running?"

In those discussions it isn't the number of cores, it is the best price/performance.

The first question I would ask them would be "What do you use your computer for?"

If it is for Facebook, gaming, and internet, then a 8 core processor that can maybe equal a 4 core processor in programs that can take advantage of that many cores would not be the answer.

 

[drizek]

I am going to go out on limb here but I am guessing that 95% of processor conversations start with the statement "I have $XXX in my pocket, what is the best performance that I can get for the apps that I am running?"

In those discussions it isn't the number of cores, it is the best price/performance.

But for values of XXX where the first X isn't a 0, and you are a desktop user, intel wins pretty much every time. Once you start spending real money on Phenom processors, price/performance goes out the window.

 

[Arkadrel]

But for values of XXX where the first X isn't a 0, and you are a desktop user, intel wins pretty much every time. Once you start spending real money on Phenom processors, price/performance goes out the window.

if you compair at say... around 150$ mark.

phenom II x4 965 vs i3 560

The Phenom II x4 at stock vs stock i3 560, the Phenom II x4 is the better buy (performance wise). So I wouldnt nessarly say you cant buy amd above 100$ and get good value still.


cpu bench's 1cpu vs other:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/769/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_%28140W__BE%29_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-560.html

 

[OCGuy]

if you compair at say... around 150$ mark.

phenom II x4 965 vs i3 560

The Phenom II x4 at stock vs stock i3 560, the Phenom II x4 is the better buy (performance wise). So I wouldnt nessarly say you cant buy amd above 100$ and get good value still.


cpu bench's 1cpu vs other:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/769/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_%28140W__BE%29_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-560.html

I would take a Yorkfield over that still. And you can get one for $150.

 

[wanderer27]

No it's not, as the 2 core CPU will be faster in virtually everything on the desktop since you need to run at least 16 CPU intensive applications simultaneously just to get a draw.

equal the performance

That's why I highlighted this.


I'm still running single Core, but it's been argued that ever since multiple Cores came out that they do benefit performance to some degree over single Cores.

Even so, I'm referring to overall performance.
I realize each Architecture will likely have better performance in certain areas/apps, but if overall performance is basically equal, it doesn't matter how many Cores there are.