why no 2 core bulldozer?

[frozentundra123456]

At least it pounds the i3 into the ground either way. Bad argument is bad.

Where did you get your information? I have seen no benchmarks where an Athlon 2X4 beats the I3 2100 in CPU performance. They may be close to equal in heavily multihreaded tasks, but that is the best AMD can do. The I3 2100 is even competitive to the Phenom II x4 models in most cases.

Granted Llano would be superior in graphics performance to the IGP of the 2100, but that is really just a tease, because the graphics of either is still not good enough to play modern games at decent settings and resolutions.

 

[frozentundra123456]

...Really? Do you also think that p4 had to be superior to k7 because "MEGAHURTZ MEAN POWAH!"? Performance per watt and performance per $, thats all that matters.

I agree with you about perfromance per watt and performance per dollar being important. But absolute performance is important too. A bicycle gives more "performance per dollar" than a car, but I would not want to ride one across the country just because it uses less gas than a car and costs less to purchase!!

But even accepting you arguments, Intel is ahead in performance per watt (except for maybe laptop Llano), and close in performance per dollar. Given the small difference in price relative to what we spend on a system plus games, plus other recreation, I would still go with Intel.

And please AMD, just get Bulldozer to the market!! Llano was another disappointment except for the laptop market.

 

[Arzachel]

Granted Llano would be superior in graphics performance to the IGP of the 2100, but that is really just a tease, because the graphics of either is still not good enough to play modern games at decent settings and resolutions.

This seems kinda backwards. I can name you quite a few games that are unplayable on the 2100 due to the GPU. Can you name a single app/game that is unusable/unplayable on Llano due to the CPU? Why the hell are you focusing on the CPU that is already "good enough" with Zacate for most users? GPU power is the bottleneck, so Llano is far better than 2100 imo.

I agree with you about perfromance per watt and performance per dollar being important. But absolute performance is important too. A bicycle gives more "performance per dollar" than a car, but I would not want to ride one across the country just because it uses less gas than a car and costs less to purchase!!

That analogy would be valid if instead of bicycle and a car, you'd used a Camry and an E-class Mercedes. You'll get to the end faster and more comfortably with the Mercedes, but there isn't a place where it could go and the Camry couldn't.

Still, you're right in saying that we should chose the right tool for the job.

But even accepting you arguments, Intel is ahead in performance per watt (except for maybe laptop Llano), and close in performance per dollar.

A node advantage does that.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Arzachel, I wont try to quote what you said because it gets too long to keep carrying on all the quotes. However, I will reply to some of your points.

Obviously, I was overstating the case and being somewhat facetious in the analogy about the bicycle and the car. If you want to make a more serious analogy, you could compare AMD to the american automakers in the 80s versus the japanese automakers at the same time. The american car makers got by for years on technology and quality that was a generation behind the japanese cars, but claimed it was "good enough" (we dont need them thar overhead cams and independent rear suspensions). But eventually it caught up to them and the japanese cars completely dominated the market. This is where AMD is in CPU performance now. Maybe bulldozer will change this, but I will believe that when I see the chip on the market and actual performance figures.

And as for the graphics of Llano, while they are an improvement, I have a 2 year old 9800GT that was already old technology when I bought it. I dare say it would give better graphics performance than the highest performing Llano. Granted, it is a discrete card, but in a desktop, so what?? I just stuck the card in an off the shelf system with a cheapo power supply and have used it 2 years without problems.

I grant you that the CPU in a Llano is sufficient to play almost any modern game, but that argument in a way proves my point. It is the GPU that is insufficient, and that is supposed to be its strong point. Using an intel CPU and a 100.00 discrete card gives superior performance in both areas. If AMD could have made the GPU on Llano more powerful, at least to 5670 or even 5770 levels, then I would have felt it might be a good trade off to accept the outdated CPU architecture for graphics performance that was at least low to mid range.

I do see a place for Llano in a laptop or other portable device, but in the desktop, it is just mediocre at everything.

 

[Arzachel]

You wouldn't put your 9800GT in a nettop, or a desktop thats only used for office, internet browsing and some facebook games and definitely not into a laptop.

Anything better than i3 from intel is more expensive and a dedicated GPU adds to that. And hybrid crossfire could mean that the Llano rig with a dedicated GPU gets equal or more performance, though its support is still spotty at best.

If you want to game at 1080p with every graphical setting cranked to max and are prepared to pay for it, then Llano just isn't for you But think of what it brings to the market: gaming at 1680x1050 with high settings on the cheap and playing games on a inexpensive notebook and still getting good battery life. The only reason I'm underwhelmed with Llano is because hybrid crossfire isn't working decently yet.

 

[Mr. President]

I do see a place for Llano in a laptop or other portable device, but in the desktop, it is just mediocre at everything.

Yes and no. For gamers/enthusiasts/professionals, it goes without saying, but for other use cases it's not that simple. The market for high-performance CPUs simply isn't what it used to be because the times of upgrading CPUs for general office work are pretty much over. Where I work (a hospital) we have basically stopped the old tradition of replacing computers after a 3-4 year period because of their obsolescence and now just replace old Core 2 Duo machines when they die.

The iMac and similar desktop all-in-ones, for example, could also see a huge advantage over competing products. Same goes for office machines like Dell's Optiplex line and even their workstation Precision line. Simply having a dual-core CPU (or, in limited cases, quad-core) with a functional on-die GPU is more than enough for anything you throw at it in such cases. If anything, the biggest performance killers nowadays are Flash-based websites (rather than anything work-related) and is where proper support for acceleration will shine.

As a case in point, just 4-5 years ago we were ordering high-end full tower Precisions for medical imaging work. Nowadays, we're buying low-end ultra small form factor Optiplexes for the same exact work (like this one). The only exceptions to that is when the system needs to use a dedicated medical video card in a PCI or PCIe slot.

It's not that I particularly disagree with you (I wouldn't buy a Llano for my own desktop) but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a place in the market.

 

[avatar82]

dual core? i think my grandfather has a dual core, and he's old!

 

[Xpage]

Dual core Bulldozer is called Trinity, it's the next set for bobcat. Wait 8 months for it, enjoy the lower power consumption