• 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 93 - 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.
bgt said:
Exactly. Thats the way to do it. I told many custommers to hold on till Llano is released, for laptops primarily, and by the time you can buy them I will tell my custommers to order. Llano will be a real laptop killer CPU/GPU.
Click to expand...

arrrr everyone keeps saying this, and I agree that the IGP performance will be a real boon. I still am concerned about power consumption though, that can cause problems.
 
nonameo said:
arrrr everyone keeps saying this, and I agree that the IGP performance will be a real boon. I still am concerned about power consumption though, that can cause problems.
Click to expand...

Core i7-2630QM "sandybridge" vs A8-3510 "Llano" engineering sample.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74

Near the end you see the i7-2630QM SB hit upwards of 75-78watts, vs the A8-3510 doing around ~55 watts.

And in this benchmark, its clearly spanking the i7-2630QM.

Powercomsumption vs performance, should be good on these things.
 
nonameo said:
arrrr everyone keeps saying this, and I agree that the IGP performance will be a real boon. I still am concerned about power consumption though, that can cause problems.
Click to expand...

I think that for a laptop with Llano APU alone should consume less power than a SB with an onboard non Intel GPU together. If the AMD video that showed the comparison between Llano and SB is legit with Llano having less and more even power draw, then it could be very true that Llano should not impact negatively upon the battery life.
 
Yes, but I'm looking at price vs power consumption... most fusion laptops will probably be sold with more minimal configuration, which means no discrete graphics. I mean sure, if your'e comparing SB w/ discrete to llano with IGP then yes, the SB laptop will probably consume more power, but you'll probably also get quite a bit more performance too. However, there will be SB cpus with a TDP of 17w but the lowest llano looks to be 45w, and both of these CPUs include both GPU and CPU. The next best AMD cpu is the E-350 which consumes 18w and has both lower CPU and GPU performance than any mobile SB.

know what I mean vern?
 
nonameo said:
Yes, but I'm looking at price vs power consumption... most fusion laptops will probably be sold with more minimal configuration, which means no discrete graphics. I mean sure, if your'e comparing SB w/ discrete to llano with IGP then yes, the SB laptop will probably consume more power, but you'll probably also get quite a bit more performance too. However, there will be SB cpus with a TDP of 17w but the lowest llano looks to be 45w, and both of these CPUs include both GPU and CPU. The next best AMD cpu is the E-350 which consumes 18w and has both lower CPU and GPU performance than any mobile SB.

know what I mean vern?
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that you will have better CPU performance with a SB powered laptop but it is not going to be cheap or something might not be included to keep costs down. For Intel, CPU > GPU performance unless you're willing to pay a little bit more for a GPU from AMD/Nvidia. For AMD, CPU and GPU performance should be about 50/50.

Not too sure where you get a SB with 17W TDP as the lowest that is shown is 35W on the Core i3 2310M.

EDIT : There are variants of SB Core i7 and Core i5 that is 17W TDP with 2C/4T but I wonder how much would it cost to have it in a laptop, might not even be in the cheaper lower end like the Core i3 2310M. :hmm:
 
Last edited:
dma0991 said:
EDIT : There are variants of SB Core i7 and Core i5 that is 17W TDP with 2C/4T but I wonder how much would it cost to have it in a laptop, might not even be in the cheaper lower end like the Core i3 2310M. :hmm:
Click to expand...

Wikipedia lists 3 17W mobile SB processors available: i5 2537M, i7 2617M, and i7 2657M. The price range for these is $250 to $320. There isn't a price listed for the i3 2310M, but it's probably somewhere between $100 and $150 based on my best guess.

I'd expect it to be quite a lot more expensive.
 
But.. who cares?

Remember back in the day, when having the fastest CPU actually meant something? When going with an Athlon meant you could get a couple more fps in games at real resolutions(or, more to the point, we were actually gaming at 1024x768 in those days).

Now its like... I don't really care that much. I mean, it is marginally useful for photo editing and stuff, but... it's not particularly exciting. I sometimes edit photos on my 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo. We're talking about a system with 1/8th the performance of 8-core bulldozer, and it still works fine, just not quite as smooth.

There has never been another time when a system could be 1/8th the speed of another and still be able to perform the same tasks, with such little sacrifice in "use" performance. The difference in the experience between having a 300MHz Pentium 3 and a 3GHz Pentium 4 is astronomical. For 90% of people, a Core 2 Duo with an SSD will feel faster than Bulldozer with a HDD, even if the Bulldozer scores 10 times higher in Handbrake.

Am I the only one that finds PC hardware to be less exciting now than it was 5 years ago? And the consoles have made the PC graphics world kinda boring as well.
 
drizek said:
But.. who cares?

Remember back in the day, when having the fastest CPU actually meant something? When going with an Athlon meant you could get a couple more fps in games at real resolutions(or, more to the point, we were actually gaming at 1024x768 in those days).

Now its like... I don't really care that much. I mean, it is marginally useful for photo editing and stuff, but... it's not particularly exciting. I sometimes edit photos on my 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo. We're talking about a system with 1/8th the performance of 8-core bulldozer, and it still works fine, just not quite as smooth.

There has never been another time when a system could be 1/8th the speed of another and still be able to perform the same tasks, with such little sacrifice in "use" performance. The difference in the experience between having a 300MHz Pentium 3 and a 3GHz Pentium 4 is astronomical. For 90% of people, a Core 2 Duo with an SSD will feel faster than Bulldozer with a HDD, even if the Bulldozer scores 10 times higher in Handbrake.

Am I the only one that finds PC hardware to be less exciting now than it was 5 years ago? And the consoles have made the PC graphics world kinda boring as well.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post, but it's just always interesting to see what manufacturers can put out, in my opinion. I use an old single core AMD CPU everyday right now and it's fine with me...
 
Convert 40 hours of raw DVI video to a high quality MPEG2 system stream, with a little cleanup thrown in.

That's an overnight job on the fastest desktop system you can buy.

Also, more compute power opens up new possibilities that we haven't even tried yet.

But yeah, I get what you mean. For a lot of tasks what we have today is fast enough.
 
Well 99% of people don't do that, and thats a conservative estimate.

But thats the other thing, it is an overnight job regardless. If these CPUs were fast enough to encode in real time or ray trace in real time, they could enable new use cases. But if it takes even just a few hundred milliseconds to render a frame, you don't get "real time", and you get the same experience you get on a slower system, its just that it will start idling at 6am instead of 10am.
 
drizek said:
But.. who cares?

Remember back in the day, when having the fastest CPU actually meant something? When going with an Athlon meant you could get a couple more fps in games at real resolutions(or, more to the point, we were actually gaming at 1024x768 in those days).

Now its like... I don't really care that much. I mean, it is marginally useful for photo editing and stuff, but... it's not particularly exciting. I sometimes edit photos on my 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo. We're talking about a system with 1/8th the performance of 8-core bulldozer, and it still works fine, just not quite as smooth.

There has never been another time when a system could be 1/8th the speed of another and still be able to perform the same tasks, with such little sacrifice in "use" performance. The difference in the experience between having a 300MHz Pentium 3 and a 3GHz Pentium 4 is astronomical. For 90% of people, a Core 2 Duo with an SSD will feel faster than Bulldozer with a HDD, even if the Bulldozer scores 10 times higher in Handbrake.

Am I the only one that finds PC hardware to be less exciting now than it was 5 years ago? And the consoles have made the PC graphics world kinda boring as well.
Click to expand...


To be honest Im actually pretty excited about the APUs.
I like the idea of price/power going down, and the level of performance possible to extract at low price/power points. I also like the idea of them pushing GPGPU with these units.

I get the giggles over being able to get a motherboard/cpu+gpu in one/heat sink for 80-99$.
Remember when PCs used to cost a fortune? and youd get like a 166mhz pentium? today a E-350 motherboard/APU combo for 80-99$ will even be enough to play some lowend gameing... say 1024x768 World of Warcraft or so, with fair graphics settings and have playable fps rates.

1_38-343.jpg

Adorable little silent pcs, barely longer than your Ram slot 🙂



But Im excited about the bulldozer too, mainly because I want to put another AMD cpu in my pc. AMD was missing something.. in the single thread performance.

But yeah.... back when 166mhz-200mhz pentiums where the fastest things out there, and MMX was the new shinny thing, the differnce between the slower cpu and even just the model over it, could play a big differnce in terms of precived performance. For gerneral pc use (just checking email, browseing the web, ect), most people today would probably hardly notice the differnce between a E-350 and a i5-2500.

The area Id be most likely to notice a differnce would be gameing, but lately most things seem to run pretty well because of consol ports. Topend CPU/GPU arnt really needed that badly (by me anyways).
 
Last edited:
drizek said:
There has never been another time when a system could be 1/8th the speed of another and still be able to perform the same tasks, with such little sacrifice in "use" performance. The difference in the experience between having a 300MHz Pentium 3 and a 3GHz Pentium 4 is astronomical.
Click to expand...

Back in 2003-2005 I ran a pentium 300 right along side my P4 northwood. I used to run powerleveling macros in a game called shadowbane, which is about as graphically demanding as WoW was when it was first released. It surfed the web just fine, and in fact it did most things just fine. Even today it would run just fine, as long as you are fine with windows 98 lol.
 
Last edited:
Arkadrel said:
Is that from the 4core or the 8core version?
Anyways... that CPU seems to be a little bit faster than the 2600k in Cinebench.

7.37 score vs 2600k's 6.23 score.... about 19% differnce.

Im guessing thats a engineering sample of a 8core version?
Click to expand...

That's not ES.
 
Arkadrel said:
Is that from the 4core or the 8core version?
Anyways... that CPU seems to be a little bit faster than the 2600k in Cinebench.
Click to expand...

There's no way it's the 4 core. I'd say that more than likely, it's the 8 core. However, whether it is the 8110 or the 8130, can't say. Actually, there's no telling what the clockspeeds might be as it could be an engineering sample.

In any case, if it's an 8 core and the benchmarks are real, and the clockspeed is close to production, I was kinda expecting bulldozer to be more potent in highly multithreaded apps. In any case, this doesn't really bode well for single threaded performance. I think AMD will be better off than they were with phenom I though, and they have a revision right around the corner...
 
@Nonameo

I think the bulldozer will have better single threaded performance compaired to the phenoms, because of coreboost 2.0 makeing use of spared TPD when some cores are off, and because of the way everything is shared between "cores", thats bound to cost abit in the highly threaded performance, but payoff in the single treaded performance, when a single core has double the resources.

But yeah.. was kinda expecting a real 8 core cpu, to walk all over a 4 core one with HTT to do 8 threads.
Hopefully the Single treaded performance is much better than the phenoms 🙂
 
Tuna-Fish said:
It could be the 6-core?
Click to expand...

It could be, especially when you consider that thuban is already in sandy bridge range when it comes to cinebench. Moreso when you consider the claim "50% more performance with 33% more cores"

8 core bulldozer should be 50% faster than thuban, which it sure doesn't look like in that benchmark.
 
The scores don't appear to match properly. 28k is slightly ahead of a 980x in R10, but 7.37 is quite a bit behind in 11.5. It could be an artifact of the new architecture of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top