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

[Idontcare]

AMD Phenom X6 1100T ($189,99) is very competitive against Intel Core i7 950($259,99) both in CPU/Platform price and performance in Multithreaded apps and Gaming (High res with filters enable).

You can argue all day long that Core i7 950 has better single thread performance(higher IPC) but for home use and Gaming both CPUs are equals with the exception that socket 1366 is a dead horse and AM3+ can be upgraded with BD in the near future.

Wow, $190 for the 1100T!? I had no idea the price had fallen so much.

I was still thinking it was selling for its old MSRP ($270).

Yeah, at that much of a discount to the i7 950 I agree the price/performance is definitely inline to make the comparison valid.

The platform longevity is also a plus in 1100T's favor. Although unfortunately we also know the AM3+ platform is probably going to be limited as well because Bulldozer refresh (trinity) has dGPU and that will mean a new socket like FM2 or some such.

But still, that's a lot more future than the 1366 has going for it on the eve of SB-E release.

 

[Idontcare]

No doubt for whom has more than a few KB of working neurones,
for the others , it will serve as some reminder..

Let's try and keep it civil please. No need to start making references about intelligence and brains.

After all, there are some that still insist that on BD , IPC decrease..

Speaking of terrace215, haven't seen him around here much lately.

JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
.....}
until (interrupt by Movieman)

Regards, Hans

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Wow, $190 for the 1100T!? I had no idea the price had fallen so much.

I was still thinking it was selling for its old MSRP ($270).

Yeah, at that much of a discount to the i7 950 I agree the price/performance is definitely inline to make the comparison valid.

The platform longevity is also a plus in 1100T's favor. Although unfortunately we also know the AM3+ platform is probably going to be limited as well because Bulldozer refresh (trinity) has dGPU and that will mean a new socket like FM2 or some such.

But still, that's a lot more future than the 1366 has going for it on the eve of SB-E release.

The i7 950 is a bit faster than the 1100T, but there's definitely a big price disparity. The 1100T is around the same speed as the i7 940.

There's no point in getting the Nehalem i7s, though: they're too expensive, and they're slower than Sandy Bridge Core i5 (Quad-Core). If you need more than 4 cores/threads, it's because you use multi-threaded programs like encoding, 3D rendering, and the like. For that, there's really only three options that make a lot of sense if you want good bang-for-buck: the Phenom II X6 1055T ($145), the Core i5 2500K ($220), and the Core i7 2600K ($315).

Getting any of these to over-clock to maximize potential, you'll get 4GHz on average out of the 1055T, and 4.6GHz out of the 2500K/2600K. At those speeds, the 2500K will be around 30% faster, and the 2600K 50% faster. Whether that justifies the higher price or not will depend on the person, though the 1055T at such a low price simply cannot be ignored.

 

[RobertPters77]

@Axel

I honestly don't see how you can recommend a Hexa-Phenom, when a Quad Sandy for a few dollars more, beats it in throughput for a majority of programs. Hell my old g73's 720qm was faster then my 945 in some apps.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

@Axel

I honestly don't see how you can recommend a Hexa-Phenom, when a Quad Sandy for a few dollars more, beats it in throughput for a majority of programs. Hell my old g73's 720qm was faster then my 945 in some apps.

$70 extra isn't "a few dollars more". I already said it: this CPU makes sense for people who will take advantage of the threads in rendering and encoding. They're decent for gaming as well.

In rendering and encoding, at the same clock speed, the Core i5 2500K will only be 15% faster. Both OCed to their average (4GHz and 4.6GHz), the 2500K will be 30% faster. It's up to you if you think the extra 45% you have to pay for it is worth the 30% higher performance.

And again, I'm referring directly to people who will take advantage of the extra cores.

 

[AtenRa]

The platform longevity is also a plus in 1100T's favor. Although unfortunately we also know the AM3+ platform is probably going to be limited as well because Bulldozer refresh (trinity) has dGPU and that will mean a new socket like FM2 or some such.

Trinity is a Fusion CPU that will replace Llano, Llano have STAR CPU cores Trinity will have BD CPU cores. We don't know for sure yet if it will be Socket FM1 compatible.

Komodo will replace the BD Zambezi CPUs. There is a speculation coming from the bellow picture that Komodo will also use FMx socket and not AM3+.

Edit: IMO this is a printing mistake and i do believe that Komodo will use AM3+.

 

[Ben90]

RTS. Which goes back to the original discussion of more then enough. At that point it becomes primarily unit measurement and unless it dips below about 10 frames per second its actual affect on play, or really even the eyes, is almost minimal.

It may be more than enough for you, but realize that you stance is entirely an opinion.

The fact of the matter however, is that in intense Starcraft II custom games, Phenom processors under 4GHz will slow down the game for those of us with faster computers. For this game specifically, there is very fine line in which performance under is unacceptable for most. The servers themselves. Having even 10% more umph and throwing it over this line can increase the framerate tenfold.

I honestly wish people would stop judging performance from their own perspective as if it is the only way.

 

[AtenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI675P-Xc8&feature=player_embedded

 

[Abwx]

In rendering and encoding, at the same clock speed, the Core i5 2500K will only be 15% faster. .

Not systematicaly...

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Not systematicaly...

Hmm... I stand corrected, though that's a good thing.

If you're rendering or encoding, the Phenom II X6 will be the same speed or faster than the Core i5 2500K at the same clock speed.

If you do this for a living or it takes up a significant amount of your time, you'd be a fool to not go for the $150 Phenom II X6 1055T and save $70.

Another thing I forgot: video editing.

 

[Arkadrel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHI675P-Xc8&feature=player_embedded

A FX-8130P (not the top model?)

idles at 1400mhz, turn on a benchmark jumps upto -> 3200mhz (default) then jumps higher (when it sees TPD room is there) -> 4200 mhz (with turbo on).

That seems pretty neat

So right off the bat, for "not to many threaded" applications, you ll be running 4.2ghz with bulldozers cpus or higher (without any manual overclocking at all).

I like the fact that there will be stock cpus, running at those speeds.


Idle:
200.7mhz x 7 multipler = 1404mhz @0.936 core voltage.

Default (8 cores/8 threads running):
200.7mhz x 16 multipler = 3210mhz @(not really readable, cuz of the turbo core activation jump)

Turbo on (less than 8 threads running):
200.7mhz x 21 multipler = 4214mhz @1.392 core voltage.


CPU-Z 1.58 version, video.

To bad the person that made the video makes the window small so you dont ever see the score of the Super-Pi benchmark hes running.

 

[Phynaz]

If you do this for a living or it takes up a significant amount of your time, you'd be a fool to go for the $150 Phenom II X6 1055T and waste hours upon hours of your time for a measly $150.

Another thing I forgot: video editing.

Fixed that for you.

 

[grimpr]

Fixed that for you.

Second quoted. For 100$ the 1055t makes a great render/encoding farm system and a little undervolted a great virtual machine workhorse, but besides these examples there's not enough excuses not to go Sandy Bridge.

 

[piesquared]

I guess intel might as well throw out everything in it's product bag that isn't sandy bridge. They'll go broke, but apparantley the only thing in existance worth buying is sandy bridge.

 

[bridito]

...besides these examples there's not enough excuses not to go Sandy Bridge.

I tend to agree with you, but I have to confess I am dismayed by the lack of any "truly significant" high end CPU launch since the 2600K. Actually, if we ignore the LGA1366 based Extreme CPUs (a grand to get about the same perf as a 2600K???) there has been a long drought of truly high end CPUs since the first i7s came out 32 long months ago punctuated only by the SBs. The SBs are great, but they weren't exactly a quantum leap over my old and trusty i7 940. It wasn't that long ago when AMD was truly in the high end game and CPUs would leapfrog each other every few months. We're now down to a cycle of at least two years. To me that's not exactly progress, but I'm a speedfreak so I'm not exactly your average computer user!

Edit: One more thought... If SB-E is issued by the end of Q1 '12, say Mar., it will have been 40 months between high end CPU launches (SBs excluded), so an average of 20 months between "leaps." I know I'm spoiled but that's too long! And no, I'm not counting BD as a truly high end CPU yet... until I see indy benchys that conclusively prove it!

 

[Phynaz]

I guess intel might as well throw out everything in it's product bag that isn't sandy bridge. They'll go broke, but apparantley the only thing in existance worth buying is sandy bridge.

When time = $, SB is the only thing worth buying.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Fixed that for you.

Fanboys always make me laugh. You can't waste any hours. The Core i5 2500K at the same clock speed is the same speed in aforementioned applications, and 15% faster when the X6 1055T is at 4GHz and the 2500K at 4.6GHz. It's also 45% more expensive. That, and AMD's platform is cheaper.

If you're a video editor, if you do lots of rendering, or you spend a lot of time encoding videos, there's no better bang for buck than the Phenom II X6 1055T. If you want to game, then the Core i5 2500K, Core i3 2100 and the Phenom II X4 955 are much better value propositions.

 

[996GT2]

Fanboys always make me laugh. You can't waste any hours. The Core i5 2500K at the same clock speed is the same speed in aforementioned applications, and 15% faster when the X6 1055T is at 4GHz and the 2500K at 4.6GHz. It's also 45% more expensive. That, and AMD's platform is cheaper.

If you're a video editor, if you do lots of rendering, or you spend a lot of time encoding videos, there's no better bang for buck than the Phenom II X6 1055T. If you want to game, then the Core i5 2500K, Core i3 2100 and the Phenom II X4 955 are much better value propositions.

Funny how you say that, yet you try to spin everything in AMD's favor in every post you make. Let's be real here. AMD is not competitive with Intel's current breed, and Bulldozer will cease to be competitive once Intel's SB-E and Ivy Bridge roll in at the beginning of next year (which, incidentally, is when Bulldozer CPUs are supposed to be available in large numbers).

Onto your post. We'll start with pricing. 2500K is $219.99 at Newegg. 1055T is $159.99. Is that 45% more expensive, as you say? No, it's 37.5%. Now let's say you have a Microcenter near you. 2500K is $179.99 without any combo deal there. 1055T is $154.99. Even less of a difference.

Now let's talk performance. I present:

Of the roughly 30 benchmarks presented, guess how many the 1055T wins in? ONE. And it wins by a paltry 6%, whereas the 2500K wins by as much as 100% in some of the benchmarks.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Funny how you say that, yet you try to spin everything in AMD's favor in every post you make. Let's be real here. AMD is not competitive with Intel's current breed, and Bulldozer will cease to be competitive once Intel's SB-E and Ivy Bridge roll in at the beginning of next year (which, incidentally, is when Bulldozer CPUs are supposed to be available in large numbers).

You say this without seeing a single benchmark. :sneaky: And you can predict the future as well, 88 mph?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Funny how you say that, yet you try to spin everything in AMD's favor in every post you make. Let's be real here. AMD is not competitive with Intel's current breed, and Bulldozer will cease to be competitive once Intel's SB-E and Ivy Bridge roll in at the beginning of next year (which, incidentally, is when Bulldozer CPUs are supposed to be available in large numbers).

Onto your post. We'll start with pricing. 2500K is $219.99 at Newegg. 1055T is $159.99. Is that 45% more expensive, as you say? No, it's 37.5%. Now let's say you have a Microcenter near you. 2500K is $179.99 without any combo deal there. 1055T is $154.99. Even less of a difference.

Now let's talk performance. I present:

Of the roughly 30 benchmarks presented, guess how many the 1055T wins in? ONE. And it wins by a paltry 6%, whereas the 2500K wins by as much as 100% in some of the benchmarks.

The point--------------------->you.

I was never arguing over stock performance, and I was never arguing that the Core i5 2500K is overall faster, which it is. I was saying that clock-for-clock it's the same speed in multi-threaded apps like 3D rendering, encoding, and video editing. This is the third time I mention this, but your bias, as always, doesn't let you see through that. On mildly threaded apps and single-threaded apps the Core i5 2500K is faster. It can also over-clock higher, so taking into account average over-clocks for both it'll be 15% slower in multi-threaded apps. I was making an argument for better bang-for-buck in apps that will take advantage of all the cores.

Another thing: you mistakenly compare everything using Newegg when Amazon is at many times cheaper, and Microcenter isn't near everyone. You can get the Phenom II X6 1055T on Amazon for either $140 or $147. The cheapest reputable online retailer that has the 2500K is Newegg at $220. If you do the math, it's certainly around 45% more expensive. Both OCed (4GHz and 4.6GHz), it'll be 15% faster in apps that take advantage of all the cores of both. Your choice. I'm making the argument for better bang-for-buck for people that make a living off these programs or spend a lot of time using them.

Oh, and also: AMD will release Bulldozer Enhanced in 2012, but you're not so keen on mentioning that either.

And I'm typing this from a Core 2 Duo T9600. Nice try.

 

[Phynaz]

Fanboys always make me laugh.

Yep, I laugh and shake my head at fanboys too. And also people that can't seem to comprehend that time = money.

 

[grimpr]

Funny how you say that, yet you try to spin everything in AMD's favor in every post you make. Let's be real here. AMD is not competitive with Intel's current breed, and Bulldozer will cease to be competitive once Intel's SB-E and Ivy Bridge roll in at the beginning of next year (which, incidentally, is when Bulldozer CPUs are supposed to be available in large numbers).

Onto your post. We'll start with pricing. 2500K is $219.99 at Newegg. 1055T is $159.99. Is that 45% more expensive, as you say? No, it's 37.5%. Now let's say you have a Microcenter near you. 2500K is $179.99 without any combo deal there. 1055T is $154.99. Even less of a difference.

Carefull there, because BD is not engraved in stone but is AMDs new architecture and comes with a bag full of tricks which they'll incrementaly roll out til the full FSA materializes, in about 2015.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Yep, I laugh and shake my head at fanboys too. And also people that can't seem to comprehend that time = money.

Which is why I made my argument based on bang-for-buck rather than outright performance. It's not like we're talking very significant advantages in terms of performance.

You also seem to forget the 45% difference in price. That, and the difference between finishing an editing job in 26 minutes and 30 minutes isn't really significant. If you want to make this argument, though, it could be almost endless. I could go on to say that "time is money" to someone that wants a 2500K and recommend a 2600K and say it'll be 20% faster in these applications, even though it costs 40% more. And then I could recommend to someone mentioning the 2600K the i7 970 and say that it'll be 20% faster even though it costs 90% more. The thing you don't seem to get is that people have budgets for things, even if they need them to complete their jobs.

The Phenom II X6 at 4GHz will make short work of encoding, rendering, and editing, and the 1055T is a great value. Like I've said several times now, it's great for those applications, and decent for gaming as well--if it's mostly a gaming machine, though, it's better to get the Core i3 2100, Core i5 2500K or Phenom II X4 955 instead (depending on the budget).

 

[bridito]

AMD will release Bulldozer Enhanced in 2012.

Personally, I don't believe ANY launch dates any longer. My $ is on Sepang/Terramar in 2013 at the earliest.

 

[ed29a]

Wow, $190 for the 1100T!? I had no idea the price had fallen so much.

I built a Linux box recently, 160$ for 1090T, 100$ for a 880G AM3+ mobo and 70$ for 8 gigs of ram, around 330$, 6 real cores, runs my virtual machines like a champ.