Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

BULLDOZER LAUNCH DATE..finally!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 8, 2011 1:58:57 AM

Based on a document seen by X-bit labs, AMD plans to release four eight-core AMD FX8000-series chips, two six-core AMD FX6000-series microprocessors and two quad-core AMD FX4000-series central processing units (CPUs) this year. Shipments of AMD FX-series high-end desktop microprocessors will commence on the week of June 20th, 2011, the same document indicated. While not official this is looking very very promising.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110407063001_Mainboard_Maker_Predicts_Launch_of_AMD_FX_Bulldozer_Chips_at_Computex.html
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 2:14:30 AM

the problem is that amd havent confirmed this.I do clearly remember 2 months ago intel officially confirmed there launch date before introducing the SB.But amd havent confirmed anything.Even JF of Amd hasnt mentioned anything.
And why would they go all the way to Taiwan to launch it?
Sorry for being critical.I think Amd still have the final say and so far they only launched officially the Llano APU.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 2:17:21 AM

Quote:
While officially only AMD 900-series chipsets and AM3+ mainboards will support the new FX-series CPUs, big mainboard makers like Asustek and MSI already plan to support those chips on current platforms, whereas Gigabyte plans to launch a line of AM3+ motherboards powered by current-gen chipsets.


Wow that almost confirms that AM3+ BD chips will be compatible with some current AM3 motherboards. That would be a huge rabbit in the hat, so to speak for AMD.
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 2:21:13 AM

Quote:
According to the site's sources, AMD will start shipping its brand new high-end desktop Bulldozer APUs on the week commencing 20 June 2011. These are likely to be top-end parts with the familiar FX brand name, and they'll be looking to compete with Intel’s LGA1366 processors

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/proc...

this was dated 8th March 2011
this rumor has already time and again been just a rumor.
wait for AMD official announcement
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 2:23:44 AM

geekapproved said:
Quote:
While officially only AMD 900-series chipsets and AM3+ mainboards will support the new FX-series CPUs, big mainboard makers like Asustek and MSI already plan to support those chips on current platforms, whereas Gigabyte plans to launch a line of AM3+ motherboards powered by current-gen chipsets.


Wow that almost confirms that AM3+ BD chips will be compatible with some current AM3 motherboards. That would be a huge rabbit in the hat, so to speak for AMD.


Not really... such platforms will lack many of the new features found on BD (like its Turbo Mode, Power Savings, High Speed Memory Support etc).

Anybody doing that is castrating a new CPU. It would be nearly idiotic imho.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 2:26:03 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Bulldozer-AMD-Llam...
What Tom says:
Quote:
Based on information gathered by "industrial sources," various reports are indicating that AMD plans to launch its upcoming high-end desktop Bulldozer CPUs sometime during the week of June 20, 2011.

According to the reports, Bulldozer will arrive in quad-core, six-core and eight-core variants using the FX brand name. Two will be AMD FX4000-series chips, two will be AMD FX6000-series chips and four will be AMD FX8000-series chips. Four processors are slated to arrive in Q2 2011 while the other four are planned for a Q4 2011 release.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 2:27:45 AM

Meh, could be fake. Anyway, we're all expecting Bulldozer in January, but it wouldn't be the first time AMD delayed -_-. We'll just have to wait and see.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 2:30:28 AM

megamanx00 said:
Meh, could be fake. Anyway, we're all expecting Bulldozer in January, but it wouldn't be the first time AMD delayed -_-. We'll just have to wait and see.

Everyone was expecting bulldozer to come out in 2009 then 2010 after that we are still waiting.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 3:00:44 AM

^+1 Yup keeps getting pushed back. Then again just about all of AMDs CPUs have been at least a little late since the K5
Score
0
a c 89 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2011 3:10:42 AM

everyone but die hard amd fans will already have SB by then. Too late AMD
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 3:12:42 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
everyone but die hard amd fans will already have SB by then. Too late AMD

+1000!
Score
0
April 8, 2011 8:23:32 AM

Some of the comments here are really ******* stupid.

1) Do you think people only buy PC's from January to June? No! Believe it or not most people buy PC's from July to December. Why is BD "too late" in that case?

2) BD is launching June 7th, period.


Edit language by 4ryan6; I've warned you about this, you can take this edit as a 2nd warning.
Score
0
April 8, 2011 8:51:39 AM

bobdozer said:
Some of the comments here are really goddam stupid.

Coz wii r majority... :bounce:  :D 
Score
0
April 8, 2011 9:03:02 AM

i hate waiting >.<
Score
0
a c 172 à CPUs
April 8, 2011 9:38:33 AM

bobdozer said:
Some of the comments here are really goddam stupid.

So is castigating people over what is presently vaporware.
Score
0
April 8, 2011 10:54:17 AM

I used to be a AMD Fanboy, I got REALLY sick and tired of BD being pushed back then a year later see AMD release a 6-core CPU based on it's old tech which performs adequate at best.

I switched to a i7 2600 and yes, sometimes it puts games on the hyperthreaded cores which drags the framerate down a LOT but it's just better because it does everything so much faster like rendering, physics games etc..
Score
0
April 8, 2011 12:02:41 PM

Until its officially release with parts / mb on the retail shelves then its real.

For now its marketing hotair from AMD
Score
0
a c 143 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2011 12:14:39 PM

Once 900-series chipset boards are out, I'll get one for my unlockable 740BE which is so far hanging in there (although I don't [yet] play Starcraft II). That will give me the CPU upgrade option when I need it, and overall should be a lot cheaper than just building a new Sandy Bridge rig.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 12:22:03 PM

Quote:
That will give me the CPU upgrade option when I need it, and overall should be a lot cheaper than just building a new Sandy Bridge rig.


I keep hearing that, but given how the i5 2400 goes for about $150, and cheap p67 mobos for under $100, I fail to see how thats teh case...
Score
0

Best solution

a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2011 12:39:53 PM

I think JF (errrr .... AMD) has been pretty consistent in saying 1H-2011 going back as far as 2009.

The AM3 limited-capability is just icing-on-the-cake, and can't be looked as anything other than good news, but as Elmo noted there will be a loss of certain features.

And from what I understand, as of this week or so, BD Zambezi is 'officially ramped' to volume production (there was an article from earlier this year that I'm too lazy to go look for this morning).

You may now begin supposition on prospective GloFo wafer-starts per month, and I suspect 'sometime in June' might be a really good assumption as to availability in retail.

Over and out.


Opps. Not really :lol: 

There is not a great deal for AMD to add to sb850, and I'm not sure what can really be added to a '900' series northbridge. The dedication of a PCIe lane to a separate USB3 chip just works and I don't see any real reason to invest time and energy improving the 'EOL' southbridge which is already pretty dang good.
Share
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 1:23:46 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Not really... such platforms will lack many of the new features found on BD (like its Turbo Mode, Power Savings, High Speed Memory Support etc).

Anybody doing that is castrating a new CPU. It would be nearly idiotic imho.


If it was that much of a performance hit, the biggest mobo makers (Asustek and MSI) wouldn't be supporting it. Besides, the new boards will be based on the existing 8-series chipsets anyways.

http://event.asus.com/2011/mb/AM3_PLUS_Ready/

Besides, did AM3 having a built in ddr3 memory controller and other features keep people from putting them on AM2+ boards with ddr2? NO. And they really didn't take any performance hit either.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 1:24:56 PM

Quote:
8 core unlock will finally be available with BD :lol: 


But isn't the octocore just really a quad core with 2 nodes per "core"?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 3:15:00 PM

So 4 modules with 2 nodes = 8 cores?
Score
0
a c 117 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2011 3:17:57 PM

Quote:
^ it's 2 cores with shared resources per module

8 core BD= 4 module, still 8 cores


I suspect (time, and the Gurus at THG will ultimately decide :lol:  ) that the module was so organized for the FPU, with an eye toward the performance gains from the future addition of the 'SIMD Engine Array' GPU in 2012.



2011 Bulldozer Zambezi will be a nice leap forward with all the new instructions --- 2012 Pile Driver with the SIMD Engine Array GPU should be a really bad mofo - LOL.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 4:40:21 PM

I still don't like how AMD markets a module as two cores -_-. Still, I like the design of sharing the FPU so that it works like two FPUs for 128-bit instructions or one FPU for the new 256-bit instructions. I do think that if it offers 90% of the performance of two separate cores while using less than 90% of the space it was the right decision. I still don't like each module being marketed as two cores since it's one core that handles two threads really well.
Score
0
April 8, 2011 4:56:02 PM

We'll get an EXACT DATE on Apr. 21st at the Q1 Conference Call.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 5:07:49 PM

megamanx00 said:
I still don't like how AMD markets a module as two cores -_-. Still, I like the design of sharing the FPU so that it works like two FPUs for 128-bit instructions or one FPU for the new 256-bit instructions. I do think that if it offers 90% of the performance of two separate cores while using less than 90% of the space it was the right decision. I still don't like each module being marketed as two cores since it's one core that handles two threads really well.


I agree, why don't they market it as a quad core. I can hear the fanboys now, "An 8 core bulldozer can barely keep up with a quad core SB". That would be like Intel marketing the 2600K as a octocore because it has hyperthreading.


Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 6:58:16 PM

geekapproved said:
I agree, why don't they market it as a quad core. I can hear the fanboys now, "An 8 core bulldozer can barely keep up with a quad core SB". That would be like Intel marketing the 2600K as a octocore because it has hyperthreading.

The actual processing resources are there in Bulldozer while the 2600k uses the same processing resources for two threads. That's why AMD states these modules have two cores. The FPU just works differently when processing 256-bit AVX instructions compared to intel. Intel has to sacrifice SSE instructions when doing their 256-bit AVX instructions.
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 8, 2011 7:06:05 PM

A module has 2 integer cores that share some of the same resources, there is no reason to call it 1 core when it has 2. Its that simple it has 2 cores so its called 2 cores, what the performance is like is irrelevant it just has 2 cores.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2011 7:53:50 PM

simon12 said:
A module has 2 integer cores that share some of the same resources, there is no reason to call it 1 core when it has 2. Its that simple it has 2 cores so its called 2 cores, what the performance is like is irrelevant it just has 2 cores.

They do share a more powerful FPU that can do 2 basic x87 instructions, 2 128-bit instructions or 1 256-bit AVX instruction per clock. This really is an FPU that can basically do everything for two cores except for AVX.

The front end being shared cuts some of the performance when both cores are being used, since there will be a bottleneck with all that extra info going through the front end, but it is feeding two real FPU/Integer cores.

Btw, to everyone in this thread. This Bulldozer architecture is different compared to the one in 2009; I believe they haven't actually pushed the architecture back, but they decided to extend their old one and make this one different. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I've heard.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2011 5:48:02 AM

simon12 said:
A module has 2 integer cores that share some of the same resources, there is no reason to call it 1 core when it has 2. Its that simple it has 2 cores so its called 2 cores, what the performance is like is irrelevant it just has 2 cores.


No, an integer unit by itself is not an x86 core and can't do squat. They share an L2 Cache, and more importantly they share the fetch and decode logic. Since that area of the module is dealing with two threads it's alot like Hyper Threading on Intel CPUs, but with more resources to work with.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2011 5:50:37 AM

^I'm not complaining about the architecture, since I think it's brilliant, but I hate the marketing. It's like Intel Saying it's dual core i3 with hyperthreading is a quad core. As it is Intel stopped just short of calling a single core Pentium 4 with hyperthreading a dual core CPU.
Score
0
April 9, 2011 6:08:29 AM

PS megaman X on SNES was the best Megaman game by far!
Score
0
April 9, 2011 7:10:51 AM

megamanx00 said:
No, an integer unit by itself is not an x86 core and can't do squat. They share an L2 Cache, and more importantly they share the fetch and decode logic. Since that area of the module is dealing with two threads it's alot like Hyper Threading on Intel CPUs, but with more resources to work with.


When will this nonsense end.

A BD module also has 4x the L2 cache of a chip like Sandy Bridge. It probably has between two and 4x the fetch and decode logic as well. Does that mean SB is only half a cpu?
Score
0
April 9, 2011 11:26:50 AM

My concern would be that the "8" core BD chip doesn't perform as well as the 2500K, if that's the case AMD is in trouble. Not only would your best chips still not match what Intel had on the market 6 months prior, but their new chips are right around the corner.... could be bad.

- The only way they could get away with that would be through lowering prices, but with new tech + 8 cores etc. I don't see how they could offer a chip for less than the I5 which is what like $225?
Score
0
April 9, 2011 11:34:14 AM

Can't beat the 2500K? How can anybody believe that is gonna happen. For that to happen BD would have to be worse than Thuban with more cores. Not even Nvidia could screw up that badly.
Score
0
April 9, 2011 1:32:23 PM

^As soon as BD becomes an epic fail you will delete your account.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2011 1:49:27 PM

I'm wondering what's the point of a longer pipeline besides having the chip clock higher?

If the TDP can only be 100W, or 130W if they are going higher than what they stated before, at stock and you have 8 cores, that would mean that the clocks won't be that high anyway, but the IPC would go down.
Quote:
No, an integer unit by itself is not an x86 core and can't do squat. They share an L2 Cache, and more importantly they share the fetch and decode logic. Since that area of the module is dealing with two threads it's alot like Hyper Threading on Intel CPUs, but with more resources to work with.

They share 2x the L2 cache of a Sandy Bridge core.
They share a bigger decode and slightly better fetch compared to their previous architectures, since they have to accommodate the two shared cores.

Hyperthreading shares the execution resources(to make better use of the resources) and only duplicates the parts that can store the CPU state. This is different than Bulldozer which has seperate execution resources that share the front end and cache.

AMD could easily make a module where the execution resources are the bottleneck, so they perform exactly like two cores. The only problem is they are balancing cost, power consumption, and performance with their arch.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2011 1:52:28 PM

bobdozer said:
Can't beat the 2500K? How can anybody believe that is gonna happen. For that to happen BD would have to be worse than Thuban with more cores. Not even Nvidia could screw up that badly.

How much money do you have in AMD's stock anyway? :p 

I mean, we all know that your biased towards AMD, but why do you defend the company like this and hate on the competition: "Not even Nvidia could screw up that badly."
Score
0
April 9, 2011 3:24:10 PM

No honestly it's just bloody stupid how some people think that BD is going to be a step backwards with more cores, cache, a new design and nm process.

The 2500K is on a par with the 1055t in threaded apps. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=29885&page=4 That's AMD's slowest six core - how anybody can think BD is going to be slower than that is beyond me. Don't you think if it was THAT slow they'd just shrink thuban to 32nm and increase the clocks?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2011 3:46:32 PM

bobdozer said:
No honestly it's just bloody stupid how some people think that BD is going to be a step backwards with more cores, cache, a new design and nm process.

The 2500K is on a par with the 1055t in threaded apps. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=29885&page=4 That's AMD's slowest six core - how anybody can think BD is going to be slower than that is beyond me. Don't you think if it was THAT slow they'd just shrink thuban to 32nm and increase the clocks?

I know what you mean by that, but sometimes you get a little too heated and start throwing around insults. That's going a little too far.

@everyone, Bulldozer will be a big step forward no matter what unless AMD is that retarded. Oops... ;) 

I just hope it outperforms the 6 core i7's by a good 10-20%. That would make them a decent competition for the 8 cores Intel will be releasing later; this would also allow AMD to get some decent revenue after so long.
Score
0
a c 103 à CPUs
April 9, 2011 3:58:50 PM

bobdozer said:
No honestly it's just bloody stupid how some people think that BD is going to be a step backwards with more cores, cache, a new design and nm process.

The 2500K is on a par with the 1055t in threaded apps. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=29885&page=4 That's AMD's slowest six core - how anybody can think BD is going to be slower than that is beyond me. Don't you think if it was THAT slow they'd just shrink thuban to 32nm and increase the clocks?


Try flipping to the gaming page of that review you linked and re-compare being on par.

Better yet try overclocking all 4 cores of the 2500K to 4800mhz and rerun all the tests, and good luck getting a 1055t to 4800mhz!

The best way to look at this situation is what is attainable between the 2 CPUs, and answer your own questions without any brand bios coming into play, here we have actual facts to compare.

But once again, another bulldozer thread has gone completely off topic!

This thread is closed by 4ryan6.


Score
0
April 17, 2011 3:05:38 PM

Best answer selected by Metallifux.
Score
0
!