Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bulldozer to be showcased at CeBit

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 3, 2011 9:24:52 PM

Hello all,
It's been ages since I've posted here but Zambezi and Interlagos are reason enough.

Anyway, according to FudZilla, AMD will be showing off at least the desktop chip at CeBit in March. I can assume that ISSCC will have more Interlagos info and maybe a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) demo using FMA.


:bounce: 
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 12:33:21 AM

Welcome back. I can't wait to see Bulldozer myself.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 1:09:25 AM

I'm ready too. I think that we have waited long enough :D 
a c 127 à CPUs
February 4, 2011 1:13:38 AM

Here is hoping that it can actually keep up with Sandy Bridge.

And BM, long time no see. I thought you got lost in the AMDZone.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 2:13:08 AM

Yeah welcome back.I'd like to see how well Zambezi does too.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 2:15:09 AM

Welcome back Baron.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 2:20:17 AM

WB BaronMatrix! :bounce: 
February 4, 2011 2:33:02 AM

Im new here! I'm also waiting for Bulldozer to come out so i can build my new pc!. AMD is taking to damn long. Are they waiting till 2012 when the world ends :(  I atleast wanna try out the bulldozer before i die!
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 9:04:21 AM

Bigmac80 said:
Im new here! I'm also waiting for Bulldozer to come out so i can build my new pc!. AMD is taking to damn long. Are they waiting till 2012 when the world ends :(  I atleast wanna try out the bulldozer before i die!


Na they just moved it to 2013. MAHAHAHA!!!

On a serious note, from what i know, i do believe there launching it sometime either this or next quarter. Although no exact date yet unless im misinformed my self.
a c 110 à CPUs
February 4, 2011 10:39:04 AM

warmon6 said:
Na they just moved it to 2013. MAHAHAHA!!!

On a serious note, from what i know, i do believe there launching it sometime either this or next quarter. Although no exact date yet unless im misinformed my self.


I saw an article with risk production starting in April. Not sure about the planned wafer-starts but the fun will hopefully begin later in the month.

Probably safe to start the 90-day countdown clock.
February 4, 2011 12:28:58 PM

Client luanch in Q2
Server launch in Q3
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 12:38:19 PM

Q2 meaning initial manufacturing or product shipping?
a c 110 à CPUs
February 4, 2011 1:59:16 PM

Love to see some AM3+ motherboard action before CeBit

February 4, 2011 2:48:39 PM

Quote:
The module-based Bulldozer architecture should deliver impressive performance and more flexibility than AMD's current cores. According to AMD, the new processors should outpace its current six-core Thuban parts by about 50 percent. This would put the Bulldozer on a par with Intel's high-end Gulftowns.

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/21753-amd-to-sh...

I know this means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING without the official benchmarks in action, but it would be soooo worth the wait if this is true! With the recent fail Intel mobo's I'm very very very happy I didn't jump straight into Sandy Bridge. If it doesn't stack up then oh well, better luck next time AMD :) 
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 4:26:45 PM

If Bulldozer will be on par with Gulftown then it also will be on par with Sandy Bridge too.I would still guess that Intel would oc better though but dang that would be some nice competition.Honestly I was going to get a i7-2600K (until the chipset boondoggle) but if bulldozer compares favorably or even comes close then I will opt for that instead.

Honestly I would be pretty shocked if AMD came out with a CPU not a generation behind Intel.
For them to have caught up with Intel in terms of performance would be quite amazing.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 4:33:58 PM

This is a good move for AMD. Intel is supposed to be able to fix this madness by March-ish give or take, so if you cant have the product out by then, why not give people something to wait for? Good move AMD. :)  Im very anxious to see the results too. :bounce: 
February 4, 2011 4:46:54 PM

Thanks to all. I needed some alone time. :-)
Yeah, Zambezi will be great to see finally in a live demo. They should have the final revs by then, so any perf "examples." should be relevant for launch parts.

It'd also be great to see some more of Llano.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 5:16:59 PM

Quote:
From what i've read over at XS the IPC will be about 10% better then Thuban. Thats good from a standpoint if you have a thuban but considering SB has a 25-30% better IPC then Thuban it's not so good.


Where did you get 10% from?
February 4, 2011 5:53:26 PM

ares1214 said:
Where did you get 10% from?


You ask a good question since there is no available data from any source official/unofficial real/leaked or otherwise.

I'm going to say 40%. Or maybe 25%. Could be 28%. Or 22% or 18% or even 52%. (AND Guess what? Those quesses are just as valid as the 10% figure since they are based on the exact same available data.)
February 4, 2011 6:49:42 PM

Quote:
Pure speculation by the amd gods over there. Guys on here can hype BD all you want. Until i see a 4 module version beating a 2500K it's just not worth it to me.

Amd brought back the FX name for one reason.. To sell some expensive chips


Not to nitpick, but doesn't FX stand for extreme perf? If so, then Intel is doing the same thing with 980X. Charge what you have to to STAY IN BUSINESS.


Intel may, admittedly, take that a little too far....
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 6:57:01 PM

Offtopic, but found THIS link to Ivy Bridge speculation:

Quote:
"Ivy Bridge" 20 percent faster than "Sandy Bridge"?
In the second half of this year at the Intel 22-nm production start . First product for the mass market, the "Ivy Bridge" processor, which is considered to shrink with improvements to the current "Sandy Bridge" CPUs. Given the current rumors appear about 20 percent more performance used to be very high.

...

Our colleagues from VR-Zone also mention this fact, it is likely, however, benchmarks or forecasts are based on the Intel internal documents used. 20 percent at the same clock are based on the same architecture that has only experienced a shrink in the 22-nm process and has been optimized in some parts, but hardly realistic. Since the new 22-nm production, however, additional game at the clock frequency and hence the turbo gives that 20 percent should certainly show up somewhere at the end of may. Since Intel tends to compare products at the same price level, this possibility seems not to be unrealistic.


Sorry for the Germlish, but you get the idea :p ..
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 7:27:06 PM

Quote:
Pure speculation by the amd gods over there. Guys on here can hype BD all you want. Until i see a 4 module version beating a 2500K it's just not worth it to me.

Amd brought back the FX name for one reason.. To sell some expensive chips


This is the point. If you mean modules as in "2" cores, then its very likely a 4 module BD will beat SB quad cores. But if you mean module as in "1" core, then it wont, atleast probably not. Also, they wouldnt bring back the old FX name if they didnt think they would have some chips to compete in the high end.
February 4, 2011 8:32:14 PM

Quote:
I sure hope an 8 core would beat a 4 core cpu :lol: 

Hehe very true, but if that AMD BD 8 core / 4 module CPU is priced the same as the quad core Intel SB CPU its competing with, then its all good man.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 10:26:31 PM

Quote:
I sure hope an 8 core would beat a 4 core cpu :lol: 


You cant say it like that, a module isnt just 1 core, but it also isnt 2 full cores. So its like saying i sure hope 16 FP and 8 Integer Units beats 8 FP and 8 Integer Units with HT.
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 11:02:46 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Hello all,
It's been ages since I've posted here but Zambezi and Interlagos are reason enough.

Anyway, according to FudZilla, AMD will be showing off at least the desktop chip at CeBit in March. I can assume that ISSCC will have more Interlagos info and maybe a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) demo using FMA.


:bounce: 


Wow... you're still alive :) 

I am interested in seeing the pure Integer per clk performance of Bulldozer. An increase in efficiency is a welcomed addition to any consumer & enterprise oriented product. I am hoping that it can give Intel a bit more competition in that department as an increase in Performance per clk (while keeping the TDP in check) can result in more performance per watt (which is good for the environment).
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2011 11:35:32 PM

keithlm said:
You ask a good question since there is no available data from any source official/unofficial real/leaked or otherwise.

I'm going to say 40%. Or maybe 25%. Could be 28%. Or 22% or 18% or even 52%. (AND Guess what? Those quesses are just as valid as the 10% figure since they are based on the exact same available data.)


Not particularly true, as a quick Bing search will show:

http://techbuzzblog.com/gadgets/2011/01/amd-bulldozer-p...

Quote:
Taking a good look at it, all sort of details regarding AMD's claim of Bulldozer being 50% faster than the Core i7 950 come to light, including the strange method used by the Sunnyvale-based company to calculate the 50% performance boost.

In addition, AMD build its claims on only three benchmarks, far too few for a fair comparison.

Rendering performance is derived from running the Cinebench 11.5 application, media performance from the TV and movie sub-test found in PCMark and gaming performance from running the CPU sub-test found in 3DMark.

Cinebench is especially unfair since the benchmark is developed in order to take advantage of every thread that it can get its “hands” on, so the eight-core Zambezi CPU has a clear advantage in front of the quad-core Core i7 950.

You could, of course, argue that the Core i7 has HyperThreading support, but the four virtual threads don't scale so well in Cinebench, going from one to eight threads only providing a fivefold boost in performance.


February 5, 2011 12:07:12 AM

ares1214 said:
You cant say it like that, a module isnt just 1 core, but it also isnt 2 full cores. So its like saying i sure hope 16 FP and 8 Integer Units beats 8 FP and 8 Integer Units with HT.


Please explain why it isn't 2 full cores.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 1:06:01 AM

jf-amd said:
Please explain why it isn't 2 full cores.


Isnt 1 module like 2 cores however with the Integer Units (?) of just 1 core since AMD found that Integer isnt used in 90% of workloads? BTW, why is the JF in your name sometimes in caps, and sometimes not? :lol: 
February 5, 2011 3:06:37 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Not particularly true, as a quick Bing search will show:

http://techbuzzblog.com/gadgets/2011/01/amd-bulldozer-p...


Your "leaked" source could in no way be used to create an average approximation of 10% IPC for BD over Thuban.

The person attempting to spread the 10% FUD needs to try to find more credible data to support his claims which are currently only based on his wishful thinking. (And definitely NOT on any posts at XS.)

But we all know that isn't going to happen since there is no data available to support his opinion.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 3:30:00 AM

keithlm said:
Your "leaked" source could in no way be used to create an average approximation of 10% IPC for BD over Thuban.

The person attempting to spread the 10% FUD needs to try to find more credible data to support his claims which are currently only based on his wishful thinking. (And definitely NOT on any posts at XS.)

But we all know that isn't going to happen since there is no data available to support his opinion.

Oh the irony... this whole post... coming from you... is rich.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 3:38:56 AM

ares1214 said:
Isn't 1 module like 2 cores however with the Integer Units (?) of just 1 core since AMD found that Integer isn't used in 90% of workloads? BTW, why is the JF in your name sometimes in caps, and sometimes not? :lol: 


Single Module/2 core. Dual Module/4 core. Quad...

You get the idea.
February 5, 2011 4:23:24 AM

Where is JennyH?

I had an avatar bet with her that AMD would lose Server share to Intel in 2010, and of course she failed to listen to my FULL TRUTHS.

Hello to BaronMatrix and Keithlm, two of the funniest guys(unintentionally) on all of the interwebs. LOL
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 4:33:50 AM

CHAD! Welcome..sort of...
February 5, 2011 4:43:18 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Oh the irony... this whole post... coming from you... is rich.


Yes. Luckily I don't post FUD like that.

I know that some confirmed fanboys such as yourself and Chad think otherwise, but that is just your little problem. (Oh and BTW: ganging up on people with multiple posters STILL doesn't make your opinion anymore true when you have absolutely nothing to base those misguided opinions on.)
February 5, 2011 4:45:08 AM

keithlm said:
Yes. Luckily I don't post FUD like that.

Keith,
If you really believe even half the stuff you post, that is really scary.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 4:49:01 AM

Alright you two, don't make me pull out Ryan over here.
February 5, 2011 4:58:19 AM

Quote:
I honestly don't see the 8 core BD priced low. If it competes with Gulftown its going to be atleast 600 dollars.

That might be true but AMD has always been about the little guy and the lowest prices. And atm the cheap I7 2600K is competing with Gulftown. Just look at the current AMD 6 cores prices, cheap!

Oh oh this is all so exciting :)  Cant w8 to see what happens!
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 5:20:12 AM

...make that 2.

When is the CeBit conference?
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 6:23:24 AM

keithlm said:
Yes. Luckily I don't post FUD like that.

I know that some confirmed fanboys such as yourself and Chad think otherwise, but that is just your little problem. (Oh and BTW: ganging up on people with multiple posters STILL doesn't make your opinion anymore true when you have absolutely nothing to base those misguided opinions on.)

Confirmed Fanboy? Confirmed by who? You?

I doubt you are in any position to make any "Objective" analysis regarding anyone else on these forums. Peeps know that I am not a "fanboy". I spend half my time arguing with Intel fans and the other half with AMD fans.

Hell... I argue with everyone (sometimes just for the sake of argument). I didn't gang up on anyone. I made a comment and others appear to agree.

What misguided opinions exactly? The opinion I hold of you? I don't think it is misguided considering the amount of jibberish you have posted on these forums. You literally have a hard on for AMD and it is quite annoying. I'm just brave enough to speak up.

I could care less about Intel or AMD, I have various products from both companies running as we speak. I will admit to being bias towards AMD when it comes to graphics... I'll give you that... I'm an AMD fan when it comes to graphics... how's that?
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 6:26:50 AM

Its fine..since this is a CPU thread :D 
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 6:27:32 AM

Lian said:
That might be true but AMD has always been about the little guy and the lowest prices. And atm the cheap I7 2600K is competing with Gulftown. Just look at the current AMD 6 cores prices, cheap!

Oh oh this is all so exciting :)  Cant w8 to see what happens!


I'd argue against that proposition. AMD is, like any other Corporation, after profits. The profit motive is what AMD has always been about.

Several factors give the illusion that AMD is about the little guy. Here are two examples:

1. They're a relatively small company controlling a relatively small amount of marketshare when compared to their number 1 competitor (Intel). This means that they must compete with Pricing.

2. Their current architecture cannot compete with Intel on a performance level core for core. Therefore to compete AMD must place more cores on a die.

Put the two together and you've got their current Six Core Lineup.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 6:33:36 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
I'd argue against that proposition. AMD is, like any other Corporation, after profits. The profit motive is what AMD has always been about.

Several factors give the illusion that AMD is about the little guy. Here are two examples:

1. They're a relatively small company controlling a relatively small amount of marketshare when compared to their number 1 competitor (Intel). This means that they must compete with Pricing.

2. Their current architecture cannot compete with Intel on a performance level core for core. Therefore to compete AMD must place more cores on a die.

Put the two together and you've got their current Six Core Lineup.


True, but the only thing right now holding AMD close to Intel is price...

Hopefully, with this new Modular technology, "Bulldozer" can pull AMD right out of the hole:

And, give AMDfangirl and Jenny bragging rights over Chad.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 6:37:16 AM

dogman_1234 said:
True, but the only thing right now holding AMD close to Intel is price...

Hopefully, with this new Modular technology, "Bulldozer" can pull AMD right out of the hole:

And, give AMDfangirl and Jenny bragging rights over Chad.


I've said it before and I'll say it again... Bulldozer looks mighty interesting from an architectural perspective. I can't wait to see how well their modular design pans out.

To me it looks like a Sandy Bridge killer but we'll have to wait and see how what's on paper translates to in the real world :) 
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 6:39:28 AM

Exactly. Just implying the fact that everyone *might* forget that AMD has a budget, but can still perform under 300 dollars a chip.
February 5, 2011 8:39:19 AM

dogman_1234 said:
True, but the only thing right now holding AMD close to Intel is price...

Hopefully, with this new Modular technology, "Bulldozer" can pull AMD right out of the hole:

And, give AMDfangirl and Jenny bragging rights over Chad.

To get an idea of how 8 core Bulldozer is going to do on the desktop, looking at current workloads, let's take the AMD PHII Hex Core and a 4 core Nehalem with HT.

On those workloads where a AMD PHII Hex core is close to or faster than a Nehalem Quad, than 8 core Bulldozer should be faster than Quad Sandy Bridge.

Where Quad Nehalem easily beats AMD PHII Hex core, so too will Quad Sandy Bridge beat 8 core Bulldozer.

Quad Sandy Bridge will be a better processor than Octal Bulldozer for anything up to probably 6 threads, and after that Bulldozer may take the lead.

But where ever Bulldozer sits in relation to Sandy Bridge, it won't be that long before 6 & 8 core variants of Sandy Bridge comes along and Ivy Bridge as well.

AMD may regain some share in the 2nd half of 2011, but they will lose it all again by the 2nd half of 2012, if not earlier.
February 5, 2011 9:20:07 AM

AMD is about late and failed products. I want to see products to come out on time with better performance than Intel CPUs. Thats the main reason their prices are lower because the benchmark results are always lower.
February 5, 2011 9:27:12 AM

leon2006 said:
AMD is about late and failed products. I want to see products to come out on time with better performance than Intel CPUs. Thats the main reason their prices are lower because the benchmark results are always lower.

But Leon, didn't you know that the benchmarks are rigged and Intel is paying off everyone. :sarcastic: 

If it wasn't for that AMD would rule the Universe.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 12:11:47 PM

Chad Boga said:
To get an idea of how 8 core Bulldozer is going to do on the desktop, looking at current workloads, let's take the AMD PHII Hex Core and a 4 core Nehalem with HT.

On those workloads where a AMD PHII Hex core is close to or faster than a Nehalem Quad, than 8 core Bulldozer should be faster than Quad Sandy Bridge.

Where Quad Nehalem easily beats AMD PHII Hex core, so too will Quad Sandy Bridge beat 8 core Bulldozer.

Quad Sandy Bridge will be a better processor than Octal Bulldozer for anything up to probably 6 threads, and after that Bulldozer may take the lead.

But where ever Bulldozer sits in relation to Sandy Bridge, it won't be that long before 6 & 8 core variants of Sandy Bridge comes along and Ivy Bridge as well.

AMD may regain some share in the 2nd half of 2011, but they will lose it all again by the 2nd half of 2012, if not earlier.


You act as if AMD will release BD and then take a vacation until Ivy Bridge. You do realize its very likely AMD will release some new variant of BD by the time Ivy Bridge comes out, right?
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2011 1:26:16 PM

@Chad,

Bulldozer will beat the lower end SB platform, hence why everyone wants it to be great. It will allow AMD to truly compete against Intel, even at the price lever,(hopefully). When IB comes out, AMD will counterstrike with the Next-Gen Bulldozer in 2012.
a c 103 à CPUs
February 5, 2011 2:07:58 PM

Chad Boga said:
To get an idea of how 8 core Bulldozer is going to do on the desktop, looking at current workloads, let's take the AMD PHII Hex Core and a 4 core Nehalem with HT.

On those workloads where a AMD PHII Hex core is close to or faster than a Nehalem Quad, than 8 core Bulldozer should be faster than Quad Sandy Bridge.

Where Quad Nehalem easily beats AMD PHII Hex core, so too will Quad Sandy Bridge beat 8 core Bulldozer.

Quad Sandy Bridge will be a better processor than Octal Bulldozer for anything up to probably 6 threads, and after that Bulldozer may take the lead.

But where ever Bulldozer sits in relation to Sandy Bridge, it won't be that long before 6 & 8 core variants of Sandy Bridge comes along and Ivy Bridge as well.

AMD may regain some share in the 2nd half of 2011, but they will lose it all again by the 2nd half of 2012, if not earlier.


I Think thats the most (possibly only) logical and sensible post on this thread, I think it will be the price that will make or break it.
!