AMD Bulldozer

I saw the Previews of intel's bulldozer the other day and I was wondering if intel's IGP can reach HD5450 standards, how powerful can AMD's next gen IGP be on the bulldozers considering they have ATI's development team on their side.


And the increase of performance on the Intel chips are enormous as well, what can I expect from the upcoming AMD chips ?
how much performance increase as oppose to the current Intel core i7-930

Does BD even have a GPU onboard? I thought that was Fusion? In all the slides I've seen of BDs core, I don't remember seeing a GPU.

Rumors are redwood performance for Llano, so some where between the 5550-5670 in terms of performance, a some what wide range.

How are we suppost to know?! We barely know what the retail SB IGP will be around! My time machine got towed, so i cant pop into the future to see, and when i washed my crystal ball in the dish washer it lost its magical powers, so im out of options. However, AMD was "quoting" 5770 like performance, and as far as the performance vs. i7 930, who knows, but its 2x the cores, 32nm and therefore likely higher clock rate, and IMO, and more effiicient and better architecture, so while i do definitely it will beat it, its more fair to compare it to the 980x. Both are 32nm, and HT gives the 980x the performance of say 8 cores.

Oh, because that isnt the voice of a intel fanboy. K7. Nuff said

The Sandy Bridge will be crushed by a Bulldozer.

Why? Common sense.

Cores? Architecture? What do they mean?
My 1st grade teacher told me Sandy Bridges are brittle old things you walk on and Bulldozers are scary mean machines that destroys buildings and bridges....

Stop fighting and there wouldnt have to be a battle of fanboys! Its like me saying, Ivy League is gonna be a better value than Halswell. Now how on earth would i know that. Do you have any proof BD wont perform well, or any clue of its performance at all? If you do, please tell, but you dont, so its vastly biased to say one cpu will beat another before either have come out, and there is no info on the other.

If the IGP/GPU is inside the die of the "CPU", then all models will have it. I don't see intel making another batch of SBs with a whole now new design that has the IGP part removed. The P (performance) chipset will probably just be lacking the outputs to take advantage of the IGP? Or perhaps it will have better bios options? The IGP is in the die, saying there will be SBs without one is like claiming it will be missing its IMC.

Edited for spelling.

True, Intel could just keep the IGP on due to cost, I wish that they get rid of the IGP in the P series and use that space for more PCIe lanes so we could have USB3,etc all running off of the CPU.

Thats why true fusion is needed. A higher end gamer will use his own card, but still have the very advanced FP power that the IGP provides on die. His 6870 powering his games, and his onboard 4100 converting an .avi to .vob when he does that.

Why?

I bought an i7-965 the week it was released, and I don't regret it at all. Almost 2 years later, I still have one of the fastest systems available (specifically, my CPU is behind only the i7-980, 975, 970, and possibly the PhII x6s if you just count multithreaded stuff). That, to me, was well worth the purchase price, and that level of futureproofness (yeah, I know that's not a word) is almost unheard of in desktop computers. I honestly can't think of any other system I've ever owned which was even close to the top two years after I bought it. When you consider that people who bought 1366 on release still have almost the top end architecture, they are actually doing quite nicely. The ones I feel sorry for are those who bought 1366 just recently, especially the high end like the 980x. Looking at the Anand preview, it looks like the top end quads for Sandy will be nearly as fast as the i7-980x for quite a lot less money.

Hey its all good - I was once 14 and didn't know *** either buddy.

Intel created a higher 2 tier system, where their lower end was more expensive than they were in the past.
In the past, it was just lower ram on the cpu, and you could get a better cpu for your mobo at anytime
Now, theyve created a 2 tier mobo setup, and even those on the lower end of the better setup has no upgrade path without reaching deep into their pockets.
This proves that cpus are good enough for average Joe, as hes bought the low end system, wont upgrade, couldnt if he wanted to, unless he redid his rig, which again, he wont.
So, to us, its a rip off, to average Joe, its good enough

Actually, that's a great reason not to feel sorry. Anytime something stays that static in the market, it means that the people who got it early had good timing on their upgrade. Similarly, anyone who bought a 5870 at release had good timing - it's still near the top a year later, which means that they can hold off on upgrades for longer than average.

Basically, technology will always progress. No matter when you buy something, it will be outdated at some point after that. The longer it spends near the top, the better of a buy it was, since that means you can hve high end performance for longer without upgrading. Nobody feels sorry for the people who bought an E6600 at release, even though it was a $300+ processor and it can be beaten for less than $60 now. Of course the technology is going to progress - the important thing is that the processor does what you want it to.

Now, the people I feel sorry for are those who pay a lot of money for CPUs that are either outdated or very close to being outdated. For example, anyone who spent $1500 on a QX9770 after the i7-965 was released is someone I feel sorry for.

Why? Because I run a lot of CPU-heavy stuff, and the 965 overclocked better than the 920. Granted, the 920 D0 routinely hit the same 4-4.2GHz that my 965 does, but the C0 (which was what was available at launch) tended to max out around 3.6-3.7 or so for most people. For gaming, it would have been pointless, but I didn't buy this CPU for gaming.

Oh, and even if you could get a CPU right now that beat mine for $20, I still wouldn't feel sorry for myself. Why? Because I got 2 years of good use out of it that I wouldn't have had if I had waited for what's available now.

Honestly, I don't care in the slightest about a "dead end". If I feel like replacing my CPU at some point, I expect to replace the motherboard too.

The funny thing is, this statement right here explains why the i7 was such a good buy 2 years ago. People who bought an i7-920/940/965 at release have had something close to the absolute top of performance for a nearly unprecedented period. The only CPUs that have come out that are a significant upgrade for these people are the >$800 6 core Westmere CPUs. If you look back at prior generations, this wasn't the case - people who bought a QX6700 for example were surpassed by the midrange stuff fairly shortly after the 45nm transition with the Q9550. People who bought the very early Core 2 Duos were surpassed by the introduction of the Core 2 Quad. People who bought the 45nm quads (QX9650 for example) were surpassed by the release of the i7. The i7-900 series is the only time I can think of in recent times in which a midrange product has not surpassed the old top end one in almost 2 years after launch.

Sort of how the people who bought c2 965's for 265.00 felt when the i5 750 launched at 199.99 ? Oh thats right, they have AM3, lol. I also expect to upgrade my m/b with each build. There is no perfect future proof m/b. Whether its for better disk access, sli support, esata, usb 3, faster memory standards. Or for better overclocking hobby/testing.

Why do you always have to put an anti AMD slaint on everything? We already know Intel is on top as far as performance. The 750 came out quite a while after the 955, and since then how much has the price dropped on the 750? And how much on the 955? Its also 2 different sockets, and im talking more about sockets within a company. If AMD released the 955 on AM3, then the thubans on AM3+, and found they needed a new socket for BD and got AM4, id be pissed, especially if i just got say a thuban. Thats the boat intel put its customers who bought the 750 in. i7s on 1366, not as much, but they DID screw the ones with 1156.

A successful competition in any market, including the cpu market, is wanted by most people.
Theres always leaners, those prefering a particular product/maker
Thats most of the people. Rare is it someone whos burned into just 1 product, as things change over time, and become obvious when theyre living in the past.
Others feel pushed into a greater "leaning" when their particular product is in the catch up mode, thats no biggie, and to be expected.
Looking at your join date ares, you missed most of the died in the wool fanboys, and it wasnt pretty, tho sometimes hilarious heheh

QFT: I got my i7 920 about a month after release, for the WCing set up a week after. I too think the investment on the LGA1366 was well worth it as I run CFD simulations quite a bit along with massive amounts of multi tasking. The Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz wasn't close to the i7. So I'd say the upgrade was worth it for me.

And yeah, like you said, those folks just getting LGA1366 boards,etc will be sorry. Even then, it depends on what will happen, for example, will Intel continue the LGA1366 Xeons? A 32nm die shrink on LGA1366?

I think your average joe number is a bit high. I would say the 'average joe' user is somewhere in the low 60s by now. People who buy Laptops and Desktop PCs generally know what they are doing these days. People who don't know wtf they are doing with computers stay away.

Nope, id actually say that number might to too low. Average joe is someone who goes to Dell/HP and buys a computer in their price range. The average person knows more is generally better, more RAM, faster CPU, more cores, bigger HDD, most people know that, also seen by higher price=better stuff. Now, if everybody is like that, which it is almost like, doesnt know anything about CAS Latency, cache, platter size, architecture, RAM Speed, and basically all the things that make computers fast. So the vast majority of the market is the typical "average joe". Builders, overclockers, and some hardcore gamers make up the other part, which is likely less than 5%.

Very true!!! I did forget Mac users. Saying a Mac user doesnt know anything about computers is repetitive, it goes with the name, so i have to include them too in that

Yeah, well, thats just barely, sooner or later they will have the voice activated "IStart" button

oh ya, any idea or estimation on release date of any of the AMD Fusion chips? I'm planning to upgrade only after Fusion and sandy bridge are out

Bobcat is manufacturing in Q4 2010, systems in Q1 2011.

Think he's more interested in Llano than bobcat, since he appears to be a desktop upgrader.

I guess TSMC has its yield problems straightened out by now.

And just an observation - if AMD had such a strong anticompetitive case against Intel, they should have pressed it home with the FTC, and perhaps asked for divestiture of the fabs from the design part of Intel. That way, AMD would have a third leading-edge fab they could go to for their chips. It would have been interesting to see Thuban and perhaps MC on 32nm HKMG, or BD on 22nm next year instead of 32nm.

Of course, since I'm not Dirk Meyer , I dunno if AMD didn't consider such a strategy. I know both AMD and Intel wanted to get the license and lawsuits behind them, but still - if I were in Dirk's shoes, I'd have really looked to the long-term advantage that such a breakup would have brought to AMD.