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

[ShadowVVL]

Arcania - Gothic 4
Lost Planet 2

both run about the same on core i3 530 gtx 460 and c2q 9550,gtx 260

Only game ive seen have problems with 2 cores was just cause 2.

so I dont think a 6 core will give you better gameplay.

 

[Arkadrel]

Arcania - Gothic 4
Lost Planet 2

both run about the same on core i3 530 gtx 460 and c2q 9550,gtx 260

Only game ive seen have problems with 2 cores was just cause 2.

so I dont think a 6 core will give you better gameplay.

..As you can see, Core i3 lost only Turbo Boost which doesn't make that big of a difference, but keeps the most important Hyper Threading feature, enabling it to process four threads on two CPU cores at the same time...

Intels i3, even if it only has 2 cores, acts like a 4 core cpu.



You only need 2 cores? 2 threads? look below:


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


17 games that benefit from haveing 6 cores vs only 4.
(will continue to grow, and Im sure there are more out there than this)


Medal of Honor (Multiplayer): Up to 10 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Civilization 5: Up to 40 per cent plus compared with Quadcore (time of a turn!) [Source: PC Games Hardware]
(6 vs 4 cores, 40% gain)

Ruse: Up to 20 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Dead Rising 2: Up to 20 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: Capcom]

Dragon Age Origins: Up to 5 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Arcania - Gothic 4: Up to 30 per cent plus compared with Quadcore (Attention: in preview-version only - the release patch with improved multi-core-support coming soon!) [Source: PC Games Hardware]

F1 2010: with "8core.xml" up to 10 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Lost Planet 2: Up to 15 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Anno 1404: Up to 30 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Metro 2033: Up to 20 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Prince of Persia: Up to 10 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

ArmA 2: Under certain conditions up to 5 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source]

Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Up to 10 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Grand Theft Auto 4: Up to 10 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: y33H@]

Colin McRae Dirt 2: with "8core.xml" up to 10 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Resident Evil 5: Up to 15 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: PC Games Hardware]

Splinter Cell Conviction: Up to 10 per cent plus compared with Quadcore [Source: Ubisoft]



These are just from a quick google.... and reading 1 page.

In a perfect world... 4 vs 6 cores, would mean 50% boost.
But most only gain 15-30%, with a single game like Civ5 getting 40%+ gains.

However with time, game makers will get better at optimiseing games for it, and you ll see %s improve.

 

[Accord99]

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

Thought I would leave this here.

On the other hand, in the most recent PC Games Hardware comparison, the 2600K and 2500K are the fastest gaming CPUs over 6 games they tested, faster than even the 980x:

http://translate.google.com/transla...e-i5-2400-auf-dem-Pruefstand/CPU/Test/?page=3

And in their 2600K review, it beats the 980x in 3 games that are listed as benefiting from 6 cores:

http://translate.google.com/transla...e-i5-2400-auf-dem-Pruefstand/CPU/Test/?page=3

 

[maddie]

You only need 2 cores? 2 threads? look below:

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

17 games that benefit from haveing 6 cores vs only 4.
(will continue to grow, and Im sure there are more out there than this)

In a perfect world... 4 vs 6 cores, would mean 50% boost.
But most only gain 15-30%, with a single game like Civ5 getting 40%+ gains.

However with time, game makers will get better at optimiseing games for it, and you ll see %s improve.

And that's with only the game running. Bring on Bulldozer.

 

[ShadowVVL]

I am looking at it in a more budget perspective.

Yes i3 acts like a quad even though its kind of just cramming 4 threads through 2 cores. but the games are still varry playable on only 2 cores and even more on 4 so why pay more for 6 cores? yes 6 cores will give you 60 or 80fps but it more then what you will need to play the game.

yes in time we will see more cpu intensive games and maybe right around the corner. So if your going for a future proof system or plan to run heavly threaded apps then 6 and 8 cores are what you should be looking at.

I dont think we will be seeing any games that will be to much for a high end quad this year. Im pretty sure atleast 40% of the games might knock dual core out, but i think quad will still be a good buy for this year and maybe the next.I cant say for sure its just my opinion.

 

[bryanW1995]

I think ernie and julio gallo said it best when they said no wine before its time. We will release when everything is done, we aren't going to rush to market.

yeah, we don't want another tlb bug or "SB gate", but if it was close and just needed a little nudge, now would be the time for it!

 

[bryanW1995]

Why would Nvidia not license to them? That doesnt make any sense, they would sell more cards with all platforms fully supporting there products. I know AMDs market share is very small compared to intel but there is still alot of AMD boards out there.

Besides AMD licence to intel for CF and that is there direct competetion, why would it be any differnt for nvidia and AMD.

b/c jhh works at nvidia, not amd.

 

[bryanW1995]

Those hacked drivers are actually cracked drivers. nVidia drivers contain DRM that prevents SLI from working unless the BIOS contains encrypted keys which you must buy from them. All boards with two slots are capable of SLI, but all SLI "capable" boards are ones who paid nvidia their extortion money for those keys. The cracked drivers merely remove the DRM which would otherwise disable SLI.
Another thing the DRM does is disable GPU physX if an AMD GPU is detected, that includes an AMD IGP.

The only reason they have not been sued for anti competitive practices is because this is self sabotaging behavior, plus damages get to accrue so it will hurt more when AMD finally does complain to the US government.

AMD cannot prevent a board maker from paying nvidia for those keys and including them in the board, so you could potentially see SLI capable AMD boards.

it seems like the higher end amd mobos would have sli enabled if nvidia was willing to allow it at a somewhat reasonable price.

 

[bryanW1995]

I have and while the speed increase was there, the smoothness was pretty much non existent. And, unless it was churning out very high fps...it felt like a single card despite it saying it was putting out higher frames.
Its absolutely horrible, I can tell microstutter from a mile away. Ive had 2 SLI setups.
Theres just nothing that compares to a single card / gpu still.

since you have a single gtx 460 768 then I assume that your previous sli setups are several years old, correct? while sli/xfire still isn't the first option for discerning gamers, they are both lightyears better than they were a few years ago.

 

[bryanW1995]

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.

jfamd might be able to comment on this, but I've always thought that they keep aggressively increasing core counts b/c they are aiming more at the server market than the desktop consumer. more cores/threads/performance per watt/etc is what drives the server industry, and if BD is even close to what they've been talking about then they'll regain the lead there.

 

[bryanW1995]

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.



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.

I'll probably get a BD 8 core unless they price them outside my comfort zone (~ $300 for a cpu). my 1055t is fantastic in seti, much better even at lower clocks than my i7 920. I can't wait to see what BD will do.

 

[Voo]

These are just from a quick google.... and reading 1 page.

In a perfect world... 4 vs 6 cores, would mean 50% boost.
But most only gain 15-30%, with a single game like Civ5 getting 40%+ gains.

Yeah and they funnily don't list FPS anywhere. Just let take DA for example because I've played that at length with my e8400 at 4.4ghz and a i5-750. And since I really can't notice the difference between 70 and 120fps or whatever the result is completely uninteresting.

Heck look here even an Athlon x2 gets more than the refresh rate of a normal LCD. The same for many many other games on your list.. No interesting would be those games where you get 60 instead of 40 FPS, not 120 instead of 100.

 

[JFAMD]

jfamd might be able to comment on this, but I've always thought that they keep aggressively increasing core counts b/c they are aiming more at the server market than the desktop consumer. more cores/threads/performance per watt/etc is what drives the server industry, and if BD is even close to what they've been talking about then they'll regain the lead there.

What makes you think that consumers don't want more cores?

Intel is at 6 right now, they are rumored to be at 8 cores sometime after AMD.

People that think that moving to more cores is not the direction the market is heading over the next few years have not been paying attention.

First they said nobody needs more than one core.
Then they said nobody needs more than two cores.
Then it was four cores.

Trust me, the people that say there is no need for more than four cores are the same people that own quad cores today. And used to say dual was fine.

Call me in a year and tell me you still recommend quads.

 

[Arkadrel]

Proof is in the pudding:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/

17 games that have gains from useing 6 cores/6 threads instead of *just* 4.
Also Im sure there are probably more than these 17 games, at the current time. Plus with time the amount of games supporting 6-8 threads is bound to grow as the cpus go that direction.


If cpus are hitting their "wall", and adding more cores can help esp in the gameing community, Im sure the consumers will want more cores too, even on the client side. More cores isnt just for the server market, software/game developers need to start optimiseing stuff for more cores is all, because thats where the future of cpus are heading.

 

[Skurge]

Won't games use more cores if people actually own them?

I'm not saying we should buy more cores so that companies use them. Just saying, if we consumers don't have 4core+ cpus, who would bother to code for more than that?

 

[yottabit]

Honestly the way I think about it, lots of games are optimized for quad cores now. So thats a perfect reason to get a 6 core. Just like the jump from dual to quad did provide some performance benefit once games were optimized for duals, and more significantly from single to dual. Offloading the background process onto the extra core(s). I wouldn't be surprised if that's where these 5-15% performance increases are coming from, even if the game only runs on 4 threads. Plus, many games are just a patch away from many core support, and a surprisingly many games are CPU bound these days.

 

[HW2050Plus]

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

Normally that is stuff which is already that fast that multi threading simply does not make sense. Or do you have something special in mind?

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)

90% of the software out there is fast enough, means that performance does not matter. None of these will ever be able to fully utilize even a single core. The applications which hurt user experience because of not enough processing power are really rare. That is also why you will never see text editor, calculator or software clock benchmarks here.

Then have a look at the benchmarks used here on Anandtech. There is no single benchmark which uses only one thread. So ask why?

Seriously your post is ridiculous.

Sure? Then where are all the programs which need more than a CPU can deliver but only employs a single thread and are up to date?

As you think there are so much out there according to your post I am waiting for examples.

It has do to with mathematics: There is no real large sequenced problem out there (though you could construct an artificial one). Problems get large by magnitude, but those can therefore be splitted into parts.

Of course there are different problems, with low to high dependency. However that affects only the scaling factor and that only marginally. If an application scales bad it is mainly a problem of the developers. But even if they did their job bad and/or the problem is not scaling well it will scale!

 

[evolucion8]

There's some games that aren't mentioned often here that indeed uses over 75% of my Quad Core, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Mafia 2 and RE5 which I monitored CPU usage with Rivatuner. While they do have eye candy, they seems to scale well with the number of cores, so while those games runs over 110fps in most setups, getting an hexacore will give you more fps which will not change the playability of the game, but shows that games are getting closer into the multicore bandwagon.

 

[beginner99]

Normally that is stuff which is already that fast that multi threading simply does not make sense. Or do you have something special in mind?

Not while I wrote the post.

90% of the software out there is fast enough, means that performance does not matter. None of these will ever be able to fully utilize even a single core. The applications which hurt user experience because of not enough processing power are really rare. That is also why you will never see text editor, calculator or software clock benchmarks here.

Anything non-instantaneous can benefit. And It's nothing new that it doesn't really matter if something takes 5 or ten seconds, because the user just thinks it's too slow. (Yeah i'm not talking about encoding but like a search).
Well compare opening a 20 MB file in Notepad with like Notepad++. we all know which one will be a lot faster. And I actually need to do this sometimes at work so it' s not that far fetched.
I must admit that it is probably not a CPU issue, just crappy programming.

Then have a look at the benchmarks used here on Anandtech. There is no single benchmark which uses only one thread. So ask why?

Cinebench Single Threaded Performance is one and IMHO a pretty telling one which I usually look at a little longer than others.

 

[IntelUser2000]

the background process onto the extra core(s). I wouldn't be surprised if that's where these 5-15% performance increases are coming from, even if the game only runs on 4 threads. Plus, many games are just a patch away from many core support, and a surprisingly many games are CPU bound these days.

What background processes? Your windows processes? Don't be ridiculous. I've had this argument come up enough times to be a nuisance. Unless you are really running things on the background. What could you be running in the background anyway?

Windows processes and Aero should be shutting down and offload its power to the fully open program. Even if that <1% is taken up by them, its MORE than enough to be offset by the presence of Hyperthreading, maybe just the fact that "quad core" games don't really bring your cores to 100% and have still headroom.

Cinebench Single Threaded Performance is one and IMHO a pretty telling one which I usually look at a little longer than others.

Cinebench Single Thread performance isn't accurate, because its still a rendering benchmark, and uses FP units more than ALUs. So for example if you benchmark a Pentium 4, it would show better on Cinebench than it would normally because the pipelines and caches are optimized for such rendering situations.

Or how Atom sucks extra on Cinebench because the FP unit isn't fully pipelined.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, we were talking about games and not in general.

As of now there are some games that can use more than 2 cores and actually have a bigger impact in frame performance. The debate was if you going to take a big performance hit with a dual core and the game will be unplayable. The answer is NO, most of the games will play just fine with a high frequency dual core CPU.

That doesn’t mean that we all can operate with dual cores or that all of us really need quad or more cores. Its up to the individual to choose what’s best for him for the use they want the PC and for the money they are willing to spend.

 

[JFAMD]

It will be fun to resurrect this thread in about 2-3 years and see this same set of people arguing "no games use more than 12 cores, you'd have to be an idiot to buy one of those 16 core processors..."

 

[Arkadrel]

AtenRa

its not only games that use more than 2 cores, there are games that use more than 4 cores/threads. So for some games, you need 6cores/threads to get optimal performance in them. Im willing to bet once the 8core/8thread cpus start comeing out, we ll see much more software getting optimised for 8cores.

and like some people said already, even if the game only uses 6cores/6threads, haveing 8 cores, means the background stuff like antivirus protection/software firewalls ect, can be running on those 2 last cores along with all the other stuff you keep in the background.

It will be fun to resurrect this thread in about 2-3 years and see this same set of people arguing "no games use more than 12 cores, you'd have to be an idiot to buy one of those 16 core processors..."

I could happend ^-^

 

[zebrax2]

I agree with HW2050Plus that if the program doesn't use more than say 1 core then it probably doesn't need it or is not supported anymore by the developers.

 

[ShadowVVL]

Well, we were talking about games and not in general. As of now there are some games that can use more than 2 cores and actually have a bigger impact in frame performance. The debate was if you going to take a big performance hit with a dual core and the game will be unplayable. The answer is NO, most of the games will play just fine with a high frequency dual core CPU.

That doesn&#8217;t mean that we all can operate with dual cores or that all of us really need quad or more cores. Its up to the individual to choose what&#8217;s best for him for the use they want the PC and for the money they are willing to spend.

I think AtenRa said it best.

It will be fun to resurrect this thread in about 2-3 years and see this same set of people arguing "no games use more than 12 cores, you'd have to be an idiot to buy one of those 16 core processors..."

lol indeed, it would be like see an old thread from 1996 that was about how games would never use more then a single core lol.

btw jf I remember reading about a fiber optic cpu that intel had been doing research on and im wonder is amd doing the same? Or is fiber optic cpu way to far in the future?