Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Bulldozer?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:09:42 AM

I was looking at the AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE which I can get on Newegg for $129.99. I was wondering if waiting for bulldozer would be worth it, or just going with Phenom II. So, I have a few questions, so here they are:

When will Bulldozer come release?
How much would Bulldozer probably cost?
Which CPU should probably be good? (e.g. the 4-core, 6-core, 8-core)
What is the inverse hyperthreading people are talking about?
Which socket will it use? (I am pretty sure it will use AM3+, but I am not sure)
Will a Bulldozer CPU come at a price of $129.99 and be as good as a AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE?

I am pretty eager for bulldozer, but I am not sure if I should wait or or grab something now.

Thanks in advance! ;) 

More about : bulldozer

a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:11:16 AM

Also, two more questions, will it be as good as Sandy-Bridge, and will the MoBos cost a lot?
Score
0
a c 190 à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:17:01 AM

I believe it was set for late Q2 of 2011 so within the next 3 months.

Somewhere between $50 and $600, it really depends on how well it performs how high it will be priced.

We have no idea, i havent seen any legitimate benchmarks and i doubt any will be out until about a week before the release date.

Bulldozer is going to be made up of modules that have two physical cores in each, each has its own scheduler, execution pipeline and integer unit, but they share their L2 cache. Hyper threading really just doubles up the registers so that it can save the state and do quick context switches without taking a large penalty, bulldozer will have two physical cores per module versus hyper threadings two logical cores per physical core.

It will be AM3+ which will support AM3 processors, however, AM3+ CPUs will not work on AM3 boards.

We have no idea.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:34:23 AM

hunter315 said:
I believe it was set for late Q2 of 2011 so within the next 3 months.

Somewhere between $50 and $600, it really depends on how well it performs how high it will be priced.

We have no idea, i havent seen any legitimate benchmarks and i doubt any will be out until about a week before the release date.

Bulldozer is going to be made up of modules that have two physical cores in each, each has its own scheduler, execution pipeline and integer unit, but they share their L2 cache. Hyper threading really just doubles up the registers so that it can save the state and do quick context switches without taking a large penalty, bulldozer will have two physical cores per module versus hyper threadings two logical cores per physical core.

It will be AM3+ which will support AM3 processors, however, AM3+ CPUs will not work on AM3 boards.

We have no idea.

Okay, so the quad core CPU will have two cores, the 6 core CPU will have 3, and the 8 core CPU will have 4?
Score
0
March 18, 2011 2:38:14 AM

HostileDonut said:
I was looking at the AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE which I can get on Newegg for $129.99. I was wondering if waiting for bulldozer would be worth it, or just going with Phenom II. So, I have a few questions, so here they are:

When will Bulldozer come release?
May with systems in June(don't quote me - the Q1 conference call (next month) will pin it to probably a day)
How much would Bulldozer probably cost? The same and more than current AMD chips
Which CPU should probably be good? (e.g. the 4-core, 6-core, 8-core) Bulldozer is the 6-core-killer - find your budget
What is the inverse hyperthreading people are talking about? It's a complicated process where program threads are divided by instructions\data over multiple cores - that isn't BullDozer
Which socket will it use? (I am pretty sure it will use AM3+, but I am not sure) AM3+
Will a Bulldozer CPU come at a price of $129.99 and be as good as a AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE? IMHO - yes.

I am pretty eager for bulldozer, but I am not sure if I should wait or or grab something now.

Thanks in advance! ;) 



I'd say if you want a new system, NO CURRENT CHIP will be too slow <insert Atom joke> for what you need.

Decide and buy.
Score
0
a c 190 à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:39:41 AM

The quad core will still have 4 cores, they will just be in two modules, the 8 core will have 8 cores in 4 modules. Im not sure if there will be a 4 core or a 6 core option out for a while, i believe they are planning on releasing the 4 module version first, others may come later.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:41:53 AM

right now the best are the 4-cores, 6-cores / 8-cores today is a waste of money.
applications today usually dpeneds on 2-4cores, a 6core or 8core is potential.
if you bought a pc today with 4-cores its fast enough for your needs and you will surely upgrade it the next 3yrs,
and that i think is the best time to buy a 6-core desktop.
if you buy a 6/8core today, yes future proof, even the next 4 yrs your still on top, but do you think after 4yrs it wont wear up? i doubt it if you still keep your 4yr old 6core processor and just upgrade the mobo and the psu and the videocard. you will surely buy a new set after 3 yrs.
its quality will degrade after 3 yrs of using it, it will tear down, so you will buy again another 6-core/8core so whats the future proof is all about?
every year intel and amd always comes up with a better processor, so no matter what you buy, there will always a better one.
so just buy whats the best and useful today than trying to advance yourself to a technology that is still not stable.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 2:44:07 AM

right now the best are the 4-cores, a 6-cores / 8-cores today is a waste of money.
applications today usually dpeneds on 2-4cores, a 6core or 8core today is a wasted potential.
if you bought a pc today with 4-cores its fast enough for your needs and you will surely upgrade it the next 3yrs,
and that i think is the best time to buy a 6-core desktop.
if you buy a 6/8core today, yes future proof, even the next 4 yrs your still on top, but do you think after 4yrs it wont wear up? i doubt it if you still keep your 4yr old 6core processor and just upgrade the mobo and the psu and the videocard. you will surely buy a new set after 3 yrs.
its quality will degrade after 3 yrs of using it, it will tear down, so you will buy again another 6-core/8core so whats the future proof is all about?
every year intel and amd always comes up with a better processor, so no matter what you buy, there will always a better one.
so just buy whats the best and useful today than trying to advance yourself to a technology that is still not stable.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 3:08:45 AM

Well, yes I know that, but are all bulldozers going to have 2 cores? If so, that would mean the 8 core would have two real cores, and 6 logical cores, which is really stupid.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 3:47:03 AM

No,the Bulldozer CPU's have what's called modules.Each module will have 2 cores (shared cores).
Thus a 2 module Bulldozer CPU will have 4 cores,a 3 module one 6 cores and a 4 module one 8 cores.

They should be released sometime after the third week of June ,2011 or so.
Pricing would probably be comparable with Intel's Pricing on cost vs performance.
Thus a 4 module (8 core) Bulldozer if it performs the same as the Intel Core i7-2600k will likely have a similar price.

Perhaps a engineering sample will get out a month early and we will be able to see some early benchmark comparisons
Score
0
a c 108 à CPUs
March 18, 2011 10:54:21 AM

1 module / 2 integer cores:



If you are gaming there are bargains to be had --- nothing wrong with pairing that PhII955BE with something like the Asus M4A79XTD EVO AM3 790X if you are looking at a potential CrossFire.

I snagged a new Asus 790FX a few months ago for $94 after rebate.
Score
0
March 18, 2011 12:37:42 PM

Release date tentatively June 11th
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 6:26:36 PM

Quote:
The 8 core bulldozer is on target to be as fast as the 2600K.. IMO not worth it

I am not saying you are wrong, but why arn't they worth it? If it is as strong, at the same price, what is wrong? Also, AMD tends to have lower priced boards.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 18, 2011 10:33:18 PM

Quote:
Takes 8 cores to match the performance of what intel can accomplish in 4. Then there's the TDP issue. BD 8 core will have a whopping 130W TDP where Sandy Bridge has an 80W TDP in P67 boards

Oh, but when you don't need the cores, it turns them off. It will take 0 watts when they are not needed. The 130TDP will only come when gaming or editing. I disagree. The TDD will normally not be that high.
Score
0
a c 190 à CPUs
March 18, 2011 11:03:39 PM

Quote:
Takes 8 cores to match the performance of what intel can accomplish in 4. Then there's the TDP issue. BD 8 core will have a whopping 130W TDP where Sandy Bridge has an 80W TDP in P67 boards


You mean what intel can accomplish in 8 logical cores? Or did you forget that hyper threading helps it out there in some things? And you know damn well core count doesnt matter nearly as much in most apps since it cant split a process into more threads than it already has.

130W isnt bad for a TDP, the 2600K is rated at 95W, and when you OC it you get well over that "whopping 130W TDP" that you say Bulldozer will have(it probably will but 130W isnt high) at 4.6GHz yours must be pulling well over 150W which would be absolutely outrageous to sell a processor with that TDP based on your previous statement, oops, guess intel used to have the QX9775 rated at 150W, makes 130W seems far more reasonable dont it?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Psycho, you flip flop more than all of congress combined.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 12:36:14 AM

Quote:
Now you have me curious on how much powa mine puts out at 4.6Ghz and i'm a man of many opinions


Full Load you're looking at a power draw of 135W for a 2600K Oc'ed to 4.6GHz with a VCore of 1.33v. You're likely around 133-134W with a VCore of 1.326.

http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

In other words... your Sandy Bridge 2600K at 4.6GHz can be compared, performance/power efficiency wise, to a BullDozer 4 Module variant (8 Integer Cores) which is set around 130W according to slides I've seen.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 12:40:46 AM

Quote:
Whats weird is how cool this processor is even with that huge TDP. I onlt pull 55C with an H70 in gaming at this speed and voltage.

Edit .. At 4.6Ghz i'm putting out the same heat as a BD at 3.2Ghz.. Yikes

Don't forget, you are using a h70 cooler though, so your temps won't be so high.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 12:42:27 AM

Quote:
Whats weird is how cool this processor is even with that huge TDP. I onlt pull 55C with an H70 in gaming at this speed and voltage.

Edit .. At 4.6Ghz i'm putting out the same heat as a BD at 3.2Ghz.. Yikes

Indeed... hopefully Bulldozer doesn't disappoint performance wise.


HostileDonut said:
Don't forget, you are using a h70 cooler though, so your temps won't be so high.

Definitely noted.
Score
0
March 19, 2011 1:01:50 AM

Quote:
Takes 8 cores to match the performance of what intel can accomplish in 4. Then there's the TDP issue. BD 8 core will have a whopping 130W TDP where Sandy Bridge has an 80W TDP in P67 boards

Just because BD has a TDP of 130W, doesn't necessarily mean that the first BD chips will be consuming that much power, as TDP is being specified for the family of chips that may come out and AMD has to specify a TDP for the motherboard makers to design around.

Also, whilst I prefer a lower TDP chip myself(hence why I got a Lynnfield over a Bloomfield), Intel's socket 1366 chips belong to a TDP family of 130w and that doesn't seem to have hurt it too much.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 1:10:47 AM

Chad Boga said:
Just because BD has a TDP of 130W, doesn't necessarily mean that the first BD chips will be consuming that much power, as TDP is being specified for the family of chips that may come out and AMD has to specify a TDP for the motherboard makers to design around.

Also, whilst I prefer a lower TDP chip myself(hence why I got a Lynnfield over a Bloomfield), Intel's socket 1366 chips belong to a TDP family of 130w and that doesn't seem to have hurt it too much.

I think he is comparing it to Sandy Bridge because that slide placed the 2600K in the same price category as the high end AMD Bulldozer 8 Integer Core model (4 Modules).
Score
0
March 19, 2011 1:26:12 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
I think he is comparing it to Sandy Bridge because that slide placed the 2600K in the same price category as the high end AMD Bulldozer 8 Integer Core model (4 Modules).

Yes, but my argument(s) still apply.

There are people today buying socket 1366 over socket 1156, despite socket 1366's higher TDP, so I don't see why this will be an insurmountable problem for BD.

BD's biggest problem is going to be its weak cores compared to Sandy Bridge.
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
March 19, 2011 3:10:40 AM

Until BD motherboards and CPU's start shipping to the review sites, all you guys are guesstimating performance and TDP.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 3:41:07 AM

jsc said:
Until BD motherboards and CPU's start shipping to the review sites, all you guys are guesstimating performance and TDP.

Yeah, but it is still nice to be able to anticipate.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 19, 2011 4:06:46 AM

HostileDonut said:
I am not saying you are wrong, but why arn't they worth it? If it is as strong, at the same price, what is wrong? Also, AMD tends to have lower priced boards.


Yes AMD does have lower priced mobos. If you purposly choose to look at them. But if you look at a P67 Asus mobo and a 890FX Asus mobo, the pricing is about the same and give the same features.

I have seen one too many people comparing some $60 dollar ASrock POS mobo to a nice Asus $150 P8P67 mobo. I could do the same by looking at low end Intel mobos but its pointless. Never sacrifice quality. Always try to put the best you can in a machine. Thats the purpose of a self built PC. To build something that will last longer than crap OEM (Dell, HP etc) machines.

I just retired my Pentium 4 machine (fiance was using it, got her a Athlon II X2 with a decent Asus mobo) that was 8 years old. Ran on a Asus P4P800 Deluxe. Probably could have gone 2 more years before the mobo gave up but it deserves the rest.

My current machine is 4 years old (built in 2007) and running on a Asus P5K-E.

Overall, BD will be a good CPU and Sandy bridge is a good CPU. Either way there its quality. But do not go with Bulldozer because you can get a $50 dollar mobo. You will regret it. I have seen one too many low end mobos in OEM machines just stop working.

Quote:
Whats weird is how cool this processor is even with that huge TDP. I onlt pull 55C with an H70 in gaming at this speed and voltage.

Edit .. At 4.6Ghz i'm putting out the same heat as a BD at 3.2Ghz.. Yikes


Thats process maturity for ya. THG did a nice one and remember a 4 core SB unit was as efficient as a dual core Clarksdale unit. Both 32nm.

I just imagine what 22nm will do. 5GHz on air with the same TDP as a 4GHz SB unit.....
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 4:33:15 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Yes AMD does have lower priced mobos. If you purposly choose to look at them. But if you look at a P67 Asus mobo and a 890FX Asus mobo, the pricing is about the same and give the same features.

I have seen one too many people comparing some $60 dollar ASrock POS mobo to a nice Asus $150 P8P67 mobo. I could do the same by looking at low end Intel mobos but its pointless. Never sacrifice quality. Always try to put the best you can in a machine. Thats the purpose of a self built PC. To build something that will last longer than crap OEM (Dell, HP etc) machines.

I just retired my Pentium 4 machine (fiance was using it, got her a Athlon II X2 with a decent Asus mobo) that was 8 years old. Ran on a Asus P4P800 Deluxe. Probably could have gone 2 more years before the mobo gave up but it deserves the rest.

My current machine is 4 years old (built in 2007) and running on a Asus P5K-E.

Overall, BD will be a good CPU and Sandy bridge is a good CPU. Either way there its quality. But do not go with Bulldozer because you can get a $50 dollar mobo. You will regret it. I have seen one too many low end mobos in OEM machines just stop working.



Thats process maturity for ya. THG did a nice one and remember a 4 core SB unit was as efficient as a dual core Clarksdale unit. Both 32nm.

I just imagine what 22nm will do. 5GHz on air with the same TDP as a 4GHz SB unit.....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... <--- AMD

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... <--- Intel

The AMD has a lot of PCI-E slots, (enough to run quadfire) more RAM options, DrMos, and CPU unlock for he same price. I would get the AMD motherboard. I know going cheap on a motherboard sucks, but getting a $80+ ASRock, ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, or Biostar will serve you well. The ASRock AM3 870 Extreme3 is a great example.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 19, 2011 4:53:21 AM

HostileDonut said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... <--- AMD

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... <--- Intel

The AMD has a lot of PCI-E slots, (enough to run quadfire) more RAM options, DrMos, and CPU unlock for he same price. I would get the AMD motherboard. I know going cheap on a motherboard sucks, but getting a $80+ ASRock, ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, or Biostar will serve you well. The ASRock AM3 870 Extreme3 is a great example.


Honestly, 4 PCIe solts is overkill to me. I think 2 is great and just do dual 5970 or 6990s. I couldn't imagine the heat output of a quad crossfie system let alone the PSU requirements.

Most of the memory configs you are talking about are available on all P67 and SB CPUs. The problem is that in most cases, running DDR3 2133 wont make enough of a difference because its already flippin fast.

But you can get a nice 890FX mobo for $150 and a nice P67 mobo with almost identicle features for $150.

I just hate it when people compare a $50 dollar mobo to a nicer one. Its stupid to me really.

Here is one catch though: We don't know the pricing behind AM3+ chipsets yet. When they first hit, they will be a bit expensive compared to normal. To get that nice 900 series FX chipset it will probably start at $150-$250 depending on features and the vendor. Then it will lower in price.

Of course I wonder how much a LGA2011 will cost. Its going to have some insane specs.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 5:14:44 AM

Yeah, I know, you can't compare a $50 MoBo to a nice p67. Although, I do not need a 890fx series chipset, or 990fx for that matter.
Score
0
March 19, 2011 5:31:58 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Of course I wonder how much a LGA2011 will cost. Its going to have some insane specs.


I do wonder how well LGA2011 will sell at first.

Intel will no doubt be charging a price premium for Hex & Octal core CPU's and until Ivy Bridge 22nm models are available, I would have to question what value a Hex or Octal on 32nm would be over a Quad Sandy Bridge.
Score
0
March 19, 2011 6:18:41 AM

HostileDonut said:
Don't forget, you are using a h70 cooler though, so your temps won't be so high.



You must not know *** about the H70. Next.
Score
0
March 19, 2011 6:21:41 AM

First and foremost this entire conversation is a moot point until the blasted thing releases.

I doubt that the flagship 8 core bulldozer will be priced similarly to the 2600k.
Regardless, 8 cores isn't the greatest thing, AMD's feeble attempt at a new architecture is a joke if the programs don't utilize the CPU completely.

Just get a 2600k and be happy, its more computing power than most average users will ever use, unless you love staring at Prime95 all day or something equally dull.
Score
0
March 19, 2011 3:08:49 PM

I can probably be called an AMD fanboy(never have built an Intel rig before). I don't care(but do hope) if BD can't match or exceed SB or IB, I'm hoping that Bulldozer can have 90% of the performance at less than 60% of the price.
Score
0
March 19, 2011 3:52:08 PM

It's gonna flop and AMD will be stuck in the server and mobile market.

This is gonna really suck for both sides of the market, Intel/AMD fanboys alike.
Score
0
March 19, 2011 5:17:36 PM

hcstnfrd said:
First and foremost this entire conversation is a moot point until the blasted thing releases.

I doubt that the flagship 8 core bulldozer will be priced similarly to the 2600k.
Regardless, 8 cores isn't the greatest thing, AMD's feeble attempt at a new architecture is a joke if the programs don't utilize the CPU completely.

Just get a 2600k and be happy, its more computing power than most average users will ever use, unless you love staring at Prime95 all day or something equally dull.


I do video encoding. It takes 8 hours to encode 2 hours of video on my Phenom II 955. It's equally dull. I have been thinking of getting a i7-2600K to make it a bit less dull, but have been holding it off in the hopes of getting a Bulldozer that, like phatbuddha79 said, can give me 90% of the performance at a lower price.

Then again, if AMD could get 90% performance why would they not price it at 90% :/ 
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 19, 2011 5:56:25 PM

aegisofrime said:
I do video encoding. It takes 8 hours to encode 2 hours of video on my Phenom II 955. It's equally dull. I have been thinking of getting a i7-2600K to make it a bit less dull, but have been holding it off in the hopes of getting a Bulldozer that, like phatbuddha79 said, can give me 90% of the performance at a lower price.

Then again, if AMD could get 90% performance why would they not price it at 90% :/ 


Problem is that Bulldozer wont have a dedicated hardware encode/decode like Sandy Bridges QuickSync so I doubt it will be able to give 90% unless AMD pulls some rando crap out of its hooo ha.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 6:00:49 PM

Quote:
Why does everyone think BD is going to be cheaper then Sandy Bridge? The prices will be similar

Yeah, but probably a little cheaper.
Score
0
a c 190 à CPUs
March 19, 2011 7:43:01 PM

So says you from an uncited source that i cant find else where on the internet. Statements without sources are worse than uninformed opinions, at least opinions dont try to pass themselves off as fact.

Im going to start calling BS everytime you post something that pretends to be a "fact" or a chart without posting a link to its source. If i dont start sources i can find charts to prove anything i want, hell i could make a chart and you wouldnt be able to know if it was real or not.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 8:05:55 PM

I think that AMD will keep the prices a little under Intel. AMD is really getting into the game now. If BD is all it's cracked up to be, I will really want one of those quad core CPUs. Anyone could make up anything they want to about BD and people will believe it. You guy can't prove anything until it comes out. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am NOT saying you are right. Psycho, be careful what you say, because you really don't know anything for sure.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 9:54:02 PM

Quote:
I don't pull my threads out of thin air. I have sources and i'm not bound by any NDA. You may take what i'm saying with a grain of salt but i've predicted the price of Sandy bridge, GTX 5xx series and 69xx series correctly on newegg.

Cool, but those prices where obvious. AMD's new bulldozer is not very predictable. It may, or may not cost that.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 10:10:57 PM

I have received info from a trusted AMD source via email. BD will cost between $1 and $10,000. Performance will be somewhere between a Pentium 4 and 4 Sandy Bridge CPU's put together. I also have specific confirmations that the motherboard WILL use pins. Expect the release date between now and February 30th 2012.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 10:13:00 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Full Load you're looking at a power draw of 135W for a 2600K Oc'ed to 4.6GHz with a VCore of 1.33v. You're likely around 133-134W with a VCore of 1.326.

http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

In other words... your Sandy Bridge 2600K at 4.6GHz can be compared, performance/power efficiency wise, to a BullDozer 4 Module variant (8 Integer Cores) which is set around 130W according to slides I've seen.


You cant honestly believe something like that... :pfff: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2011 10:24:34 PM

ares1214 said:
I have received info from a trusted AMD source via email. BD will cost between $1 and $10,000. Performance will be somewhere between a Pentium 4 and 4 Sandy Bridge CPU's put together. I also have specific confirmations that the motherboard WILL use pins. Expect the release date between now and February 30th 2012.

Now that, I can believe! :lol: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2011 12:11:04 AM

Quote:
Screw this cpu war I'm buying a WII

What is a WII?????
Score
0
March 20, 2011 12:35:39 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Problem is that Bulldozer wont have a dedicated hardware encode/decode like Sandy Bridges QuickSync so I doubt it will be able to give 90% unless AMD pulls some rando crap out of its hooo ha.


I won't use QuickSync, I will be using x264. QuickSync is nice for throwaway encodes that you watch once on your mobile device, but I doubt it will be able to beat the quality that x264 will offer.

Quote:
Why does everyone think BD is going to be cheaper then Sandy Bridge? The prices will be similar


I don't, as well. I was merely quoting the guy who said 90% of the performance for 60% of the cost. Like I said myself, I don't see why AMD would sell it at lesser than it could fetch. They aren't exactly in a position to undercut themselves to generate goodwill.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 20, 2011 1:26:21 AM

aegisofrime said:
I won't use QuickSync, I will be using x264. QuickSync is nice for throwaway encodes that you watch once on your mobile device, but I doubt it will be able to beat the quality that x264 will offer.



I don't, as well. I was merely quoting the guy who said 90% of the performance for 60% of the cost. Like I said myself, I don't see why AMD would sell it at lesser than it could fetch. They aren't exactly in a position to undercut themselves to generate goodwill.


Yea look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

Quick Sync vs CUDA and of course everything else converting to H.264. It kills everything else.

My point is that unless BD has a dedicated hardware encode/decode like SB and doesn't rely on a GPU, it wont give 90% of the performance.
Score
0
March 20, 2011 3:01:04 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Yea look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

Quick Sync vs CUDA and of course everything else converting to H.264. It kills everything else.

My point is that unless BD has a dedicated hardware encode/decode like SB and doesn't rely on a GPU, it wont give 90% of the performance.


Eh, you might be confusing H.264 with x264 here. x264 is an open source encoder that runs on any x86 CPU regardless of hardware:

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

Performance is one thing, but I would prefer quality over performance. If you have not heard of x264, it is the H.264 encoder with the best quality per bitrate encoder by far. And it's pretty damn quick as well:

http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/


Just found out something from the x264 developers newsletter:

Quote:

Work is planned to integrate x264 with the Sandy Bridge's encoding
ASIC for improved encoding performance. Current status is: waiting on
Intel (these guys move at the speed of an obese one-legged paraplegic
three-toed sloth swimming down a river of frozen helium while chained
to an osmium anchor stuck inside a black hole).


Well well, that makes Sandy Bridge more juicy now :D 

P.S. Osmium is the densest natural element.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 20, 2011 3:13:31 AM

Quote:
ok now with what program can we make use of quick sync?
Cuda and hardware mpe is only noticeable with a weak cpu. It will help the cpu out more. But with a strong cpu you won't notice it.


Cyberlink and a few others are already optimized for it. More will probably come as the demand will be there until something else can perform near Quick Sync.

aegisofrime said:
Eh, you might be confusing H.264 with x264 here. x264 is an open source encoder that runs on any x86 CPU regardless of hardware:

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html

Performance is one thing, but I would prefer quality over performance.


I wish I had the money to build a SB system to test it all. Well when the Z68 chipset came out anyways. The test shown are converting to the iPads format though that it supports. I am sure it can be used on other formats and higher resolutions.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...

Although I think its more of a limitation of the applications it can transcode to 1080p but with only 2 channel audio. As for quality, Quick Sync still saved the image quality, especially on fast moving scenes, but did it much faster than even CUDA could.

Of course this is just the first gen of Quick Sync. I still find it amazing how fast it could go.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 20, 2011 3:20:16 AM

Quote:
Why?
Did you see what the 950s are going for? Fast cpu don't make a system faster. Balance and bandwidth does


Because if Quick Sync can add the same performance jump to x264 people who transcode would jump at it. I mean 500MB is 22 seconds vs 1:23? Thats a major difference right there.

And time is money.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 20, 2011 3:38:36 AM

Quote:
yes now lets put it in a scenario where a application loads 12gb of data into the ram. Ok caches filled. Off we go. Oops where do I write it. I/0 there goes the cpu performance a bit. Windows is thinking he's writing the info to disk let me add more in the ram
traffic over pch
Cpu and quick sync are waiting too much traffick not enough bandwidth.
Comes back to the dual channel and limitations of SB. Quick sync is great but quick can't handle huge encodings


Really? You have done the tests to prove it?

Dual channel is quite fast and I doubt triple channle would help. Of course I wonder if LGA2011 SB units will have Quick Sync but doubt it since its probably part related to the GPU that LGA2011 will not have.

Still I would love to see the test showing that SB couldn't handle large encodes. Especially considering how far behind software typically is to hardware.
Score
0
March 20, 2011 3:45:04 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Cyberlink and a few others are already optimized for it. More will probably come as the demand will be there until something else can perform near Quick Sync.



I wish I had the money to build a SB system to test it all. Well when the Z68 chipset came out anyways. The test shown are converting to the iPads format though that it supports. I am sure it can be used on other formats and higher resolutions.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...

Although I think its more of a limitation of the applications it can transcode to 1080p but with only 2 channel audio. As for quality, Quick Sync still saved the image quality, especially on fast moving scenes, but did it much faster than even CUDA could.

Of course this is just the first gen of Quick Sync. I still find it amazing how fast it could go.


After seeing the news that x264 might use a bit of Sandy Bridge's Quick Sync ASIC, I have been leaning more and more towards getting a SB rig. However, the thing right now is whether to just get a 2600K + H67, or wait for Z68. The wait is really killing me. I really doubt Bulldozer will be a lot faster than Sandy Bridge, I guess the negativity of you guys has affected me somewhat. :p 

Quote:
Dual channel is quite fast and I doubt triple channle would help. Of course I wonder if LGA2011 SB units will have Quick Sync but doubt it since its probably part related to the GPU that LGA2011 will not have.


Yes, Quick Sync does use the execution units of the integrated GPU. LGA2011 will probably not have Quick Sync.
Score
0
a c 126 à CPUs
March 20, 2011 5:21:21 AM

aegisofrime said:
After seeing the news that x264 might use a bit of Sandy Bridge's Quick Sync ASIC, I have been leaning more and more towards getting a SB rig. However, the thing right now is whether to just get a 2600K + H67, or wait for Z68. The wait is really killing me. I really doubt Bulldozer will be a lot faster than Sandy Bridge, I guess the negativity of you guys has affected me somewhat. :p 

Quote:
Dual channel is quite fast and I doubt triple channle would help. Of course I wonder if LGA2011 SB units will have Quick Sync but doubt it since its probably part related to the GPU that LGA2011 will not have.


Yes, Quick Sync does use the execution units of the integrated GPU. LGA2011 will probably not have Quick Sync.


I would wait for Z68.

As for Quick Sync on LGA2011, I was pretty sure that it was part of the GPU but it doesn't mean Intel couldn't take it from there and put it in on its own.

I know it probably wont happen but you can hope.

Quote:
not with big encodings its not. Remember the Pci-e devices got a extra channel to use. Now if you hook up a Pci-e raid controller with a disksetup on it. Now when the data must be written to disk the cpu offloads it to the raid controller and goes on with its work. Now the Pci-e devices got 3 channels to move data from and to send data to.

The 2600k are a better cpu than the I7 920 and 950 and the others except the high end but what makes it get outperformed in the Adobe CS5 benches was due to its lower bandwidth. The traffic becomes to much. Adobe moves 12gb of ram like nothing. If you use Xeons overclocked to 4ghz anything less than 24gb and they will starve of ram.
The cpu can be super fast but it can't be superfast in peak traffic on a two lane road. But it can be faster on a bigger road


Adobe is not the same as transcoding. Adobe mainly works in Flash and pictures. I will not disagree that a Nehalem based CPU wont beat SB in some cases where a program CAN utilize the extra memory bandwidth. But it will not beat SB on transcoding because it does not have a dedicated hardware encode/decode. If anything, then CUDA should roll all over SB because it has more in-line processing power than SB would.
Score
0
!