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

[drizek]

If you look at what happened with the original 65nm Phenom, take into consideration the relatively minor architectural improvements made to it that resulted in Phenom II, and look what happened to the 65nm Athlon (over that of their 90nm predecessors)...IMO I have come to view the achilles heel as being none other than the 65nm process tech itself having failed to enable a competitive product lineup more so than the architectures.

Had AMD been more aggressive with the 65nm process, enabled better clockspeeds and better sram density (two things that PhII had for it over PhI), then I think Phenom would have generated a very different legacy for itself.

65nm vs. 90nm: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5000+

Sure the TLB bug didn't help Phenom but that was mere 3 month stepping correction, but something was generally amiss with that 65nm node shrink and everything that was produced from it showed this in one area or another.

It was almost like 65nm was to AMD what 90nm was to Intel. I think Phenom would have done just fine at the time had the underlying 65nm process tech really differentiated itself from the existing 90nm process tech at the time as Intel's managed to do (Cedar Mill vs. Prescott).

My 4850e was a pretty nice chip at 45w. I dont think amds 65 nm was that bad. Intel on laptops was basically looking at 2ghz single core chips with 25w TDP on 90nm.

 

[Barfo]

Reading this thread reminded me of this guy. I hadn't been to his blog in several months, but it's worth for a good laugh (guy has predicted Intel's death at the hands of AMD several times now).

 

[dma0991]

Reading this thread reminded me of this guy. I hadn't been to his blog in several months, but it's worth for a good laugh (guy has predicted Intel's death at the hands of AMD several times now).

He puts to shame all the other regular AMD fanboys. Truly his fanboyism is on another level.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Reading this thread reminded me of this guy. I hadn't been to his blog in several months, but it's worth for a good laugh (guy has predicted Intel's death at the hands of AMD several times now).

Every so often I think, who are the people constantly whining about bias and fanboyism talking about when it seems like I see people incessantly mention this (either CPU, video card, Apple vs Android/PC, etc), it often seems more the person is the one actually biased and they're constructing straw men to justify it. But then, I see stuff like that, and realize that maybe these people are interacting with people like them on a regular basis and its driving the backlash.

 

[Pontius Dilate]

C'mon, he's comparing a CPU with twice the number of cores in apps that are multi-threaded. Pretty much impossible for it to lose, unless AMD really botched it badly - which I don't believe they did.

Now an 8 core BD against a 6 core SB, or 4 core against 4 core, that will be interesting.

Fair enough, I read a bit too much generality into it. I sincerely hope that AMD hasn't botched it that badly.

 

[smartpatrol]

Reading this thread reminded me of this guy. I hadn't been to his blog in several months, but it's worth for a good laugh (guy has predicted Intel's death at the hands of AMD several times now).

LOL sure enough, from August 2006 through February 2007, all he does is rave about how "K8L" is just around the corner, ready to clobber Core 2 Duo any day now.

"In conlusion, K8L will be 400% faster than Clovertown on FP, and 40% faster than Clovertown on integer. . . Basically, AMD is saying that K8L is so advanced that nothing in Intel's known roadmap can catch up. In other words, not only Clovertown and Conroe will be fragged, the next generation of Intel is pre-fragged, even with Intel going 45nm."

Just amazing.

 

[krumme]

C'mon, he's comparing a CPU with twice the number of cores in apps that are multi-threaded. Pretty much impossible for it to lose, unless AMD really botched it badly - which I don't believe they did.

Now an 8 core BD against a 6 core SB, or 4 core against 4 core, that will be interesting.

I dont agree:

Now what if AMD had decided to call a module a core, would you say the same then?

Do you think its relevant to compare 80 AMD gfx cores to say 72 cuda NV cores?

Should it be compared to dual core Atoms?

What matters is TCO vs. benefit - cost vs performance in real world scenarios for a clear user pattern. A 200usd processor vs a 200usd processor.

You can focus on single threaded performance all the way, and back it up with irrelevant bm, but BD and SB is not Atom class, and the weak link - where you wait for the processor - will hardly ever be the single threaded performance. There is a huge chance AMD have hit the right spot for performance balance with this product. What is of interest is A. Power and power granularity and B production scalability. AMD have a lot to prove here to, if they want to earn their own money.

 

[AtenRa]

So in a game that can use 4 cores, your prediction will still be true? Or are we going to have to take the flagship 8-core chip and benchmark programs that can use 8 "cores" in order to show BD being superior to SB?
What about your mythical "Average joe" walking into Best Buy who isn't going to consider anything over a quad-core. What is BD going to do for him compared to a SB quad?

It isn't the high-end 8 core BD or the SB-E 2011 6 core chips that are going to make or break quarterly profits for either company.

If im not mistaken the 4 core 8 threads is the current SB Flagship and it is only natural to compare it with the BD equivalent (4 module 8 Core).

BD will have a dual module 4 core to compete with SB Dual core i3 ($150 region??), the 3 module 6 core BD will compete against SB quad core i5 ($200 region??).

AMD puts more cores in the fight instead of les but larger cores like Intel does and though a core to core comparison is not apples to apples.

From a consumer point of view, we really have to compare CPUs with price and not with core count, so if a three Module 6 core BD is competitive at the same price or less against a 4 core SB it will be fine for all of us.

 

[Phynaz]

If im not mistaken the 4 core 8 threads is the current SB Flagship and it is only natural to compare it with the BD equivalent (4 module 8 Core).

BD will have a dual module 4 core to compete with SB Dual core i3 ($150 region??), the 3 module 6 core BD will compete against SB quad core i5 ($200 region??).

AMD puts more cores in the fight instead of les but larger cores like Intel does and though a core to core comparison is not apples to apples.

From a consumer point of view, we really have to compare CPUs with price and not with core count, so if a three Module 6 core BD is competitive at the same price or less against a 4 core SB it will be fine for all of us.

If you are comparing flagship CPU's why limit the Intel to SB? SB is far from Intel's flagship CPU.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

? C2D was definitely a successor to P4. Of course you can compare them. C2D replaced P4 on the desktop. The original Core Duo was a dual-core Pentium M, and was basically a stop-gap product for laptops until C2D came out.

his whole point was the Intel just didn't pull C2D out of their ass, they had it all along with the Pentium 3 which kept evolving on the sidelines of Pentium 4 until it was brought back to save that sinking ship.

Again, if Intel would have just gutted it out with what they already had instead of developing Pentium 4 as a chip to advertise for itself with its gaudy but ineffective clock rates we would have had Pentium M type chips for the desktop that would have competed very well with the likes of Athlon 64 and X2 and Core 2 Duo really wouldn't have looked all that revolutionary and world-beating

 

[smartpatrol]

Again, if Intel would have just gutted it out with what they already had instead of developing Pentium 4 as a chip to advertise for itself with its gaudy but ineffective clock rates we would have had Pentium M type chips for the desktop that would have competed very well with the likes of Athlon 64 and X2 and Core 2 Duo really wouldn't have looked all that revolutionary and world-beating

I disagree with this. Intel demoed a 4GHz Pentium 4 in 2002, and projected that the architecture would reach 8-10GHz eventually. Nobody predicted how bad the problem of leakage/heat would become. The Prescott architecture would've been called Pentium 5 if it reached the clock speeds & performance Intel were aiming for.

Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[AtenRa]

If you are comparing flagship CPU's why limit the Intel to SB? SB is far from Intel's flagship CPU.

Yes you are right, i was trying to compare at the same price point. It all comes to the price/performance at the end and i believe AMD will not price them higher than Intel's Core i7 2600K.

 

[Cerb]

his whole point was the Intel just didn't pull C2D out of their ass, they had it all along with the Pentium 3 which kept evolving on the sidelines of Pentium 4 until it was brought back to save that sinking ship.

Again, if Intel would have just gutted it out with what they already had instead of developing Pentium 4 as a chip to advertise for itself with its gaudy but ineffective clock rates we would have had Pentium M type chips for the desktop that would have competed very well with the likes of Athlon 64 and X2 and Core 2 Duo really wouldn't have looked all that revolutionary and world-beating

Sure was nice for AMD, though, wasn't it?

 

[Phynaz]

Yes you are right, i was trying to compare at the same price point. It all comes to the price/performance at the end and i believe AMD will not price them higher than Intel's Core i7 2600K.

I believe AMD will price them right in line with their performance. AMD will not initiate a price war. Although Intel might just to take the wind out of their sails (and sales) - it has happened before.

 

[RobertPters77]

Something I've been wondering for the past few days. If hyperthreading can be turned off on intel chips. Can the bulldozer module be forced to run with one core and dedicate resources solely to that core?

 

[GlacierFreeze]

Something I've been wondering for the past few days. If hyperthreading can be turned off on intel chips. Can the bulldozer module be forced to run with one core and dedicate resources solely to that core?

Task Manager -> Set Core Affinity. I would assume.

The thing a lot of people are forgetting is they aren't going to market modules. "Module" isn't going to be anywhere on the packaging. "Module" is just a made up term to describe how they rearranged and combined resources together to be shared by a pair of cores. It's still 2 cores. People need to start forgetting that word.

 

[Cerb]

Something I've been wondering for the past few days. If hyperthreading can be turned off on intel chips. Can the bulldozer module be forced to run with one core and dedicate resources solely to that core?

Not really. All that gets dedicated to that one core is a small amount of front-end resources (and a bunch of shared secret sauce that AMD's not going to talk much about, at least for awhile). So, you wasted 90% more performance total, to improve one thread's by 5-10%, and most of the time, it probably wouldn't even be that much of an improvement.

Look at this way:
Intel: "we can add 5% to die space, and get 20-30% performance in a bunch of applications." (forget the P4 w/ HT ever existed, for this comparison)
AMD: "we can combine some front-end units, it will only minimally drop performance per core, and we can save 20-30% die space, which also automatically saves us per-unit cost and power consumption."

It's really an apples to oranges comparison. The BD module is two cores, with intelligent sharing of certain resources, to save the most space/power/cost, while keeping the performance impact to a minimum. HT is one core, with an additional thread context to keep it busy more often.

 

[videoclone]

I have hope for AMD in this round of CPU wars! and thats due to AMD's 32nm process vs Intels 32nm process.

If you look back on other AMD Product launches they were always one manufacturing process behind intel. But not this time around!

All it comes down to is who has the better design.

Intel has the latest improved CPU ( update of a 4 year old Core )
AMD has a completely new redesigned CPU from the ground up. ( well overdue )

 

[bart1975]

I really fail to see the importance of how fast bulldozer is compared to SB. For me the whole point in going with an AMD cpu is that I can decent speed multicore processor for under $100 that lets me play games. For example I am currently running a X3 450. Sure it is not the fastest cpu out there but I can run any game at a playable speed.

 

[videoclone]

bart1975 - Its about AMD improving the brand by showing off technology that leads the market... not just about price... If AMD could sell you that X3 450 for $1000 dollars they would But to be able to justify a higher price they must come up with the faster product

Intel's 6 core X980 cpu when it first came out was $1500 at some stores, all because AMD had nothing out at the time that could even come close to it.

 

[Phynaz]

Look at this way:
Intel: "we can add 5% to die space, and get 20-30% performance in a bunch of applications." (forget the P4 w/ HT ever existed, for this comparison)
AMD: "we can combine some front-end units, it will only minimally drop performance per core, and we can save 20-30% die space, which also automatically saves us per-unit cost and power consumption."

It's really an apples to oranges comparison. The BD module is two cores, with intelligent sharing of certain resources, to save the most space/power/cost, while keeping the performance impact to a minimum. HT is one core, with an additional thread context to keep it busy more often.

THAT needs to be stickied.

Best summary I've heard yet, even better than what AMD has put out there.

 

[chihlidog]

I really fail to see the importance of how fast bulldozer is compared to SB. For me the whole point in going with an AMD cpu is that I can decent speed multicore processor for under $100 that lets me play games. For example I am currently running a X3 450. Sure it is not the fastest cpu out there but I can run any game at a playable speed.

Competition. It has excellent benefits for the consumer. If BD shows up and performs on par with SB, it drives prices down for both CPUs and drives intel to make something better, and so on and so forth. In the end, WE, the enthusiast community, benefit greatly when both companies are making leaps forward.

And, of course, some of us are AMD fanboys and would love not to have to go with intel to get a screaming fast PC.

 

[DrewSG3]

so uh

When will now if AMD has brought the goods? I'm about due for an upgrade, I'm eyeing a I7-2600k, or something equivalent from AMD?

 

[richierich1212]

3 more weeks Drew.

 

[3DVagabond]

so uh

When will now if AMD has brought the goods? I'm about due for an upgrade, I'm eyeing a I7-2600k, or something equivalent from AMD?

I would imagine it's going to depend what you are going to use your PC for. I don't think Bulldozer is going to be as fast as Sandy Bridge clock for clock/core for core. This hasn't been established yet, just my gut feeling. If you use apps that can leverage all of BD's cores and throughput, I think it will be faster. Apps that aren't as multi-threaded though, I think will still be faster on SB. Unless the turbo technology on BD is enough to make up the difference. Even then, if you are going to O/C these chips I don't think that will matter. You'll eat up the headroom that it would gain you. AMD's turbo technology isn't going to help with limited thread apps against SB running at >4GHz. Again, assuming SB will be faster per core.