Supposed Bulldozer Benchmarks Outpace Sandy Bridge

31

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Gutter96

Can't wait for Bulldozer. I have a new 990FX board w/a 955 Black right now for the mean time. I really don't care if Bulldozer dominates Sandy Bridge or not. As long as it's close it's good enough for me! No matter what, Bulldozer will trash the Phenom II and those perform very well for the average user. I also don't care if it has 1, 2, 8 or 150 cores... As long as it's faster than the last gen chip. Let's not forget that Intel's R&D budget is prolly more than AMD's operating cost for a year! They SHOULD put out the fastest thing available!

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Now why doesn't MaximumPC editors have access to an Engineering sample? I remember a long time ago MaximumPC would have the president of the company in the office to do an article showcasing the Engineering sample. Or at least have a model or two show case it as was done several years ago with a video card that was destroyed by the female model holding it wrong. 

What happened to MaximumPC? Why don't you guys go out and frame people with dead hookers if they don't give MaximumPC an exclusive story. What has happened? Why no letting the cat out of the bag stories any more? Why no we said it first stories? 

avatar

kixofmyg0t

Prolly for the same reason as why ANYTHING I click on here brings me to the "a word from our sponsors" page.

 

Money. 

avatar

Kinetic

Granted, I'll wait for a real review here or elsewhere to make the final call, but right now color me unimpressed. Don't get me wrong, right now I'm ready to go for Bulldozer. AMD sort of made it sound like this architecture change would... well, bulldoze everything else. This however is pretty disappointing.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

I seriously can't wait for Bulldozer. I'll be honest I prolly won'tjump right in until they have another stepping but I'm on the verge of building another PC....I'm working with a $1K budget. I refuse to buy Intel (ever since I had a Prescott P4 overheat and literally caught fire) so it's AMD all the way for me.

Currently have waiting a Bulldozer ready MB

8 GB Ram

Radeon HD 6850

Crucial M4 SSD, along with a 1TB WD enterprise grade HDD

 

.....just waiting on Bulldozer and that new fandangled H100 water cooler from DM'11.

avatar

sparkey247

@ Caboose - the 2600k is not intels flagship cpu its the bargain chip. the 990x is intel's flagship.

AMD has come a long way. i remember when agena's were about to hit and all the hype added up to a cpu that could not keep up with the slowest easily avalable kentsfield (Q6600) im not sure how the Q6400 measured up. none the less its hard to compare the two now that both companies have different views on what a core is. so you can say ok amd needed 8 cores to beat intel's 4 core but really the bulldozer is a 4 core.

all it is is ammo for the die hard FANBOYS to argue over. i say use what you like and be happy with it. personally i think we have not utilized what we currently have. that and a faster cpu and or video card is not going to make you a better gamer.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Technically it's 4 cores with two processors in each core. It's an 8 core quad core processor. LOL.. To just call it a quad core doesn't do it justice though. There are 8 legit processors in there.

avatar

Caboose

Ah ok, thanks for the info. I've heard a lot of talk about the 2600K and just thought that it was the flagship.

avatar

DU00

In my opinion, as far as comparisons between AMD and Intel chips go the 2600k may as well be the high end. Its not really fair comparing the $1000 990x to a processor that will cost probably not even half that.

 

I don't mean that as a dis on AMD, just saying that AMD doesn't have $1000 chip...yet.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

AMD used to, the FX processor was the $1000 dollar CPU for each generation just like Intels Extreme Processors. I think Intel had a different name for their unlocked super duper processors that cost a cool grand and I can't remember it at all. 

avatar

Nyarlathotep

In recent history it was Intel's Extreme Edition (EE) chips you're thinking of.

 

Edit- I clicked to reply to Keith but it went to the OP instead...

avatar

Hamburger

Any ETA as to when this will hit the market?

avatar

afunyun

I'm thinking AMD will be the mainstream value winners for a while until Ivy Bridge, still not seeing anything that will be a threat to Sandy Bridge-E in high performance, and I'm not sure AMD is even trying to compete with Intel there.

avatar

DU00

Why are people so excited that Bulldozer can keep up with and maybe out pace SB? Shouldn't this be compared to the upcoming Ivy Bridge? Just wondering

 

Nevermind, just saw that Ivy Bridge is more tha 6 months away.

avatar

draven913

 

As sugested, I read up on this subject more and am now slighly more impressed.  You really can't compare the 2 directly and as Jasker said, real world testing is what really matters.  It's great that AMD has finally made some major changes to their processor architecture and assuming that this is process is going to be the base for future chips, in one form or another, it will be going up against Ivy Bridge.

 

Don't forget about tri-gate.  It's the first major breakthrough in transistor technology in 50 years.  I know we haven't really seen any benchmaks of demos yet but it seams to me that AMD has caught up just in time to get left behind again. 

 

avatar

petrol42

With no disrespect, one thing you fail to realize is these are different times.  Back in the day, AMD had a faster chip with it's Athlon 64 vs P4 but due to Intel's dominance in the market, Intel strongarmed the manufacturers into only using Intels chips.  AMD lost out on a lot of market share due to that even though it had a faster consumer chip and a faster server chip.  Because of this, AMD didn't have the money to spend on R&D, Intel made the Core line of CPUs and the rest is history.

But these are different times.  In 2009, Intel got slapped down with a nasty penalty in Europe (as they should) due to an anti-trust suit and that cost them 1.45 billion (not sure if it's Euros or Dollars).  Then Intel gets slapped with an anti-trust suit here in the good 'ol USA.  At this point, Intel decides to play nice with AMD, gives them $1.25 billion bucks and access to some of their Intellectural Property that allows AMD to use Intel technology in their CPUs.  AMD drops the suit against Intel and the USA drops anti-trust against Intel.

So without market interference from Intel, some of Intel's technology, and at least $1 billion bucks to spend on R&D, AMD has a good chance to keep cranking out killer chips that won't let them fall behind. 

avatar

DU00

That's kind of what I was getting at. It's great that AMD has a product that can compete with Intel's current offerings, but they are already 7 months behind. Isn't Ivy Bridge supposed to replace the 1366 platform at the high end?

avatar

draven913

 

As far as I know it's gonna be socket 2011 but I am by no means an expert on the subject.  

 

I think 1366 is dead..anyone know for sure?  I guess I could stop being lazy and find the info myself.

 

avatar

rsnation

Concerning the 4 cores versus 8 debate, one thing to consider is that Bulldozer is actually a quad "module" processor, with 2 cores to each module. However, the two cores in each module actually share a lot of resources, so the result isn't quite the same as a traditional multicore processor. Instead of being 8 truly independent cores, Bulldozer is actually somewhere in between Intel's quad core with hyperthreading and a processor with 8 fully independent cores, which is why the performance is only slightly better with twice as many "cores."

avatar

AnglicDemon00

I have to agree with Draven913 about this new AMD chip.As for 2600k series chips, they are so great because they can hold their own against the 980X, with the fact it only had 4 cores compared to 6. The fact AMD had to put 8 cores to come out on top makes it seem less impressive. I have no issues with AMD and if those specs are true, it would make it easier for AMD to compete with Intel market wise ( I know people who purchase AMD chips, but most people systems when they buy from major manufactures are from Intel). 

Though something I would like to see is pricing, since AMD normally prices their chips a bit better then Intel. 

avatar

kixofmyg0t

Don't forget that AMD has blurred the definition of what "core" means. AMD's 8 "core" is 4 actual cores, but each one has two integer units.

They now refer to it as a "module". One module equals 2 "cores". It's like Hyperthreading but with FPU's.

So AMD's 8"core" is a 4 "module" CPU.....that's standing up to Intel's hyper-threaded quad-cores. I think that deserves some respect.

avatar

draven913

And all they had to do was use twice as many cores.....I am not impressed.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

Intel and AMD differ on the definition of what a "core" is now. Read up about bulldozer. 

That's like saying an AMD GPU is faster because it has more shaders than the nVidia card does. You can't directly compare the two.

avatar

Caboose

How much do you want to bet, that an 8-core Bulldozer will cost the same (if not slightly less) than Inte's flagship CPU?

avatar

maleficarus™

Good point! That would be like racing a V12 vs. V6...and then braggin that the V12 won...

avatar

Jasker

How many cores they use to be better is not relevant if price and power are similar.  Real world testing is what matters.  If they use 100 cores and it consumes as much power as a 2600k, costs the same, and performs better, why does it matter?

avatar

maleficarus™

It matters because it is not apples to apples. They are comparing an apple and an orange here. 8 core vs. 4 core. No brainer dude...

avatar

DU00

He's right though. When you build a PC you try to get the most for your money. If AMD sells an "8" core processor for around the same price as an Intel quad core and offer better performance, which one would you pick?

 

This is all theoretical of course because who knows how much this thing may cost.

avatar

lindethier

Pretty much.

avatar

dgrmouse

Fake

avatar

lunchbox73

I hope it's true. I miss the days of AMD dominance.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.