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

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by grimpr, Jan 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Edrick

    Edrick Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Notice that they say i7 950 on the right, yet on the left they say package 1156?
     
  2. Castiel

    Castiel Golden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bulldozer is just BULLSHIT till some real results are released.
     
  3. bryanW1995

    bryanW1995 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    11,098
    Likes Received:
    0
    if BD 8 core is strong enough to trump 2600k then that will be a win imho. remember, it was originally supposed to go up against nehalem, if it's ~ SB then that's going to bode very well for amd for a few years.
     
  4. Emulex

    Emulex Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2001
    Messages:
    9,759
    Likes Received:
    0
    so bulldozer needs to be lga-1156 standard or its chipset is going to nail it's coffin.

    amd needs to make pin compatible cpu's again.
     
  5. IntelUser2000

    IntelUser2000 Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,073
    Likes Received:
    5
    The 3 tests are all very well threaded, so it shows the advantages of 8 cores in the best light. Still, the results are really good.

    Overall: Probably there's few % to gain in multi-threading just because Thuban was a hackjob to get 6 cores without expanding at all on the cache subsystem. It'll also gain from having Turbo Core that can be active when all cores are active. Currently, Thubans don't have that ability.

    Cinebench: From the score, the gains in pre-AVX FP performance is pretty good. I wouldn't be surprised if there's 20% or so gain from the FP on Cinebench.
     
    #180 IntelUser2000, Jan 24, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2011
  6. maddie

    maddie Golden Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,379
    Likes Received:
    18

    Is this really true? Where have you seen this?
     
  7. busydude

    busydude Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    0
  8. JFAMD

    JFAMD Senior member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why couldn't it be 95W? There are 95W client parts today.

    There will be a 35W TDP 8-core server part and there will be a <95W TDP 16-core server part as well.
     
  9. Martimus

    Martimus Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    1
    AMD has been using the same pin configuration since May 23, 2006, when they released the socket AM2 configuration. They have yet to release a different pin configuration in the following 5 years for consumer desktop processors.

    Why would they release a chipset that uses a dead-end intel pin configuration? I don't understand the logic in that.
     
  10. JFAMD

    JFAMD Senior member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2009
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pin compatibility is meaningless because the chipset will determine what you can plug into that socket.
     
  11. Cogman

    Cogman Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    14
    Why? The last pin compatible AMD processor was the K6 back in 1997.

    The problem with basing your standards off of another company is that you have no control over what they do with those standards.
     
  12. Cogman

    Cogman Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    14
    That too. Even if AMD could magically work with intel's chipset (highly unlikely) they would pretty much have to completely redesign their chips to be compatible.
     
  13. out.of.order

    out.of.order Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah that's a AMD slide, i think they show pro-AMD benchmarks... that's marketing ;)

    just my estimate, 300-330 mm2...

    well... why compare a 95W CPU with two 125-130W cpus? btw... if that performances come from a 95W bulldozer you shoud change the name in "GODZiller" ^_^
     
    #188 out.of.order, Jan 24, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2011
  14. out.of.order

    out.of.order Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    maybe a typo...

    i'm agree, 1155 is a mainstream platform that will compete with Llano, bulldozer should compete with the enthusiast socket of intel, maybe 2011 or 1356...

    btw all depend on the price/performance ratio and availability
     
  15. sawtx

    sawtx Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about price, never even thought that the comparison being based on TDP. Newegg has the 1100T at $270 and the 950 at $295, so maybe this Bulldozer comes in that price range.
     
  16. AtenRa

    AtenRa Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    11,399
    Likes Received:
    137
    4 core SBs are 220mm2 vs a 4 Module 8 Threads BD at 320mm2 ??

    what about 4 core SBs vs 2 Module 4 Threads BD at 200-230mm2 ??
     
  17. Castiel

    Castiel Golden Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    SB is more a 80W TDP Processor then a 95W. IGP is factored in to that number and with it disabled in a P67 chipset the number comes down.
     
  18. out.of.order

    out.of.order Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    4 core SB without GPU are around 180 mm2
     
  19. Riek

    Riek Senior member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because they do not match?

    column it is listing the desktop platform for the intel and AMD for 2010. Next to it they do a test between an intel cpu and amd cpu that are comparable with each other in performance. But it is nowhere stated which platform the tested cpu has. that is something you make of it :)
     
  20. SickBeast

    SickBeast Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    Messages:
    14,330
    Likes Received:
    0
    If that leaked slide is accurate, AMD has a beast of a CPU on their hands that can only be viewed as an enormous success for the company. Just looking at that graph, it looks like SB will absolutely crush Intel's CPUs in gaming and rendering. I really hope it's accurate!
     
  21. reb0rn

    reb0rn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don`t see anything spectacular about BD slide, it even look like PR crap...
     
  22. Arkadrel

    Arkadrel Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,683
    Likes Received:
    0


    Its a fake, why?

    1) would AMD really write "Cinibench" (comments on the slide's bottom)?
    2) "Industry's first and only native 8-core processor" - did they forget Nehalem-EX existed?
    3) would AMD use words as "epic" in marketing slides?
    4) use horizontal bars(which they didn't use in the past) instead of vertical bars?
    5) would PR people would use such insanely drab colours in a marketing slide?
    6) the box around the results wouldn't extend off the slide like that. It looks sloppy and unprofessional.

    copy-pasted from SA, a few of the things that make people think its a fake.



    Also JF-AMD is quoted for saying he wont tell any performance #s until launch day. I doubt this came from him or his people, its simply a fake some guy made in photoshop to score hits on his tech page or something.




    That said Im looking forwards to the bulldozer, because of things like:

    flexible floating point Unit (supposed to make it a FP monster)

    Moduals where for 12&#37; extra die space they get a extra core, saveing on diespace/power useage (allowing them to put more cores into the cpu, at the same thermals/powerdraws as exsisting cpus).
    --Performance/watt should improve drastically from this.

    HyperTransport technology 3.1.
    AES encoding acceleration

    4 threaded workloads: (this one has me excited, and it can still do well on 8 threads)
    "A single thread gets all of the front end, all of the FPU and all of the L2 cache if there is not a second thread on the module." (JF-AMD)

    Turbo Core, makes use of "headroom" in watts, so it ll probably give differnt increases depending on how many cores are in use. Again this should help with stuff that isnt highly threaded. Ive heard upwards of atleast +500mhz (if this is for all 8 cores, then I imagine when only 1-4 cores are in use, it ll be much more).


    I think bulldozer is promising ^-^
     
    #197 Arkadrel, Jan 25, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2011
  23. ShadowVVL

    ShadowVVL Senior member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    0
    So is BD going to be 4 cores and 4 half cores or 8 cores and 8 half cores or just 8 cores?
     
  24. Edrick

    Edrick Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. :p
     
  25. Arkadrel

    Arkadrel Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    3,683
    Likes Received:
    0
    There wont be a differnce between the 2 cores in a modual,... so its not like 1 core will be differnt from the one next to it. And their both "real" cores, they simply share some stuff (that doesnt impact performance when your only useing 1 thread in a modual, and when your useing all your threads... well... do intel make 16 cores / thread cpus? any program that can use so many threads these processors will be extremly fast in)

    besically this means the bulldozer will be really fast both in lightly threaded aplications, and in ones that can make use of many threads.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.