Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Bulldozer performance benchmarks?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 28, 2011 6:00:35 PM

AMD's new "bulldozer" chips are allegedly on par with the performance of an overclocked Sandy Bridge. If this is actually true, then huge Kudos to AMD for trying to take back the performance throne from Intel. Just like how the Athlon 64 smoked the Pentium 4 in almost every benchmark.

Are there any Bulldozer benchmarks to back this up?

Also, the enthusiast-level bulldozer chips have 8 physical cores and 16 physical threads. Each core has two CPU modules in them. Meaning that AMD's approach at hyper-threading should be faster than Intel's logical threads.
a c 145 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 28, 2011 6:53:39 PM

There are none yet. You can visit the Bulldozer rumors thread at the top of this section for lots of info and or speculation.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
June 28, 2011 7:46:03 PM

wait...
m
0
l
Related resources
June 28, 2011 9:55:26 PM

jaguarskx said:
wait...


The bulldozers will probably be closer in performance to the Core i7 Nehalems than the Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge.
m
0
l
a c 201 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 28, 2011 10:13:12 PM

Says who? A random anomous poster on a chinese forum? Thats where the "leaked" benchmarks usually come from

None have been leaked yet, so my guess that its going to be as fast as me using an abacus is just as valid as a guess that it will be 100x faster than the i7-2600K
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2011 10:14:36 PM

ambam said:
AMD's new "bulldozer" chips are allegedly on par with the performance of an overclocked Sandy Bridge. If this is actually true, then huge Kudos to AMD for trying to take back the performance throne from Intel. Just like how the Athlon 64 smoked the Pentium 4 in almost every benchmark.

Are there any Bulldozer benchmarks to back this up?

.


No....

Not a single reputable benchmark has been released/leaked....; I would love them to even be able to match SB clock for clock or even in performance for the dollar, but it is probably wishful thinking to think it will exceed SandyBridge...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 28, 2011 10:35:49 PM

2318640,1,649938 said:
AMD's new "bulldozer" chips are allegedly on par with the performance of an overclocked Sandy Bridge. If this is actually true, then huge Kudos to AMD for trying to take back the performance throne from Intel. Just like how the Athlon 64 smoked the Pentium 4 in almost every benchmark.

Are there any Bulldozer benchmarks to back this up?

There is plenty of dubious benchmarks out there, but we really don't know. AMD claims "greater than 2X Ph II X6 1100T" performance, but we don't know in what workload they're talking about.

However it does seem likely that the 8 core CPU's will match Nehalem performance, which is pretty damn good.

As far as hyperthreading goes, I don't think its similar at all. Hyperthreading takes a physical core and allows it to work on two threads as two logical cores. The result is not quite as good as a physical core can produce, but its pretty damn fast.

The Zambezi CPU's will have 8 integer processors but only 4 floating point units. How this will work in real world performance is what is unknown, but I wouldn't count on it to be better than current core i5/i7. AMD is looking forward with this architecture, it may be some time for it to mature but they are gambling that it will pay off in the long run.

So the simple answer is no, AMD's architecture is not known to be faster than hyperthreading.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 28, 2011 10:47:44 PM

Meh, you'll see what bulldozer can do when it launches and it's already pretty darn late in my opinion.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 1:29:35 AM

On a per core bases and at the same clock speed on multi-threaded benchmarks then Bulldozer may well be faster than Sandy bridge. However on single threaded programs I expect Bulldozer to be behind Sandy bridge.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 1:47:05 AM

I was hoping someone actually had new information. So far all we have are the same facts from three months ago:

-Bulldozer is late and has been delayed too many times. Who knows when it will actually arrive?
-AMD is having trouble with the manufacturing process.
-There are no performance benchmarks, but speculations is that it will lose clock-for-clock to SB so it uses more cores.
-At least AMD believes in keeping sockets so you can upgrade them.
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 3:27:27 AM

AMD's strategy is to make decent-performing chips for a relatively low price.

AMD has never charged >$1,000 for a CPU. Like Intel's unnecessarily expensive $1,000+ "extreme edition" processor lineup.

The bulldozers will probably be priced +/- $300 and offer performance slightly faster than the Nehalems. Also, they will work with AM3+ sockets.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 29, 2011 3:29:15 AM

dalauder said:
I was hoping someone actually had new information. So far all we have are the same facts from three months ago:

-Bulldozer is late and has been delayed too many times. Who knows when it will actually arrive?
-AMD is having trouble with the manufacturing process.
-There are no performance benchmarks, but speculations is that it will lose clock-for-clock to SB so it uses more cores.
-At least AMD believes in keeping sockets so you can upgrade them.


thats a reasonable summary. Who knows where this will lead though? A couple of years ago everyone was saying what a phenomenally stupid idea it was for AMD to aquire Ati. They said AMD was sure to fail in a year, that they couldn't compete with both nVidia and Intel, and that they would simply go out of business.
At first, AMD's new graphics division was not putting out stellar products. It looked as though the naysayers were right, that AMD had failed in the video card business.
Now, they seem to be firing on all cylinders. They have some compelling products out now and more coming in the future.

AMD still needs market share in graphics cards, but they have provided top notch integrated solutions. I think they have a solid strategy, and yeah its David vs goliath in the CPU arena but already nVidia was forced to give up on chipsets. This is an area where AMD can excel. I think you can make the argument that AMD is more diversified than Intel, and that maybe a better strategy long term.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 4:02:59 AM

Well, I left AMD's grand strategy out of my bulldozer summary because it's not relevant. Bulldozer = Enthusiast. Currently if you are an enthusiast, you go with Intel.

Conveniently for AMD, Enthusiasts are not your standard computer user. For most users (like my parents, wife, and brother), an AMD Llano platform would be perfect. The integrated GPU is enough for everything but gaming and adding a discrete card on the 5670 level will allow hybrid crossfire (assuming drivers improve) to provide good gaming performance in all current games.

Intel has no perfect solution for the low budget mainstream user who dabbles in gaming or wants accelerated video playback. An i3-2100 is good, but it's gonna be $50 more than Llano if you want any gaming capability. When we're talking sub $400 prices for entire systems, $50 a big deal.

But we're supposed to be talking about Bulldozer. Bulldozer's a bag of unknowns with a promise to not strand users who want an upgrade path. If everything pans out and Bulldozer's 8 can match Sandy Bridge's 4 in normal applications, then Trinity should be able to displace i3's and i5's with high-end CPU performance and everything the non-hardcore gamer needs in graphics.

Of course, AMD also has a much larger "unlocked" product line than Intel--overclocking might be the difference between a low end Bulldozer and an i3.

Note: I mean good as in medium settings in Just Cause 2 at 1680x1050, possibly no AA.
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
June 29, 2011 5:17:32 AM

ambam said:
AMD's strategy is to make decent-performing chips for a relatively low price.

AMD has never charged >$1,000 for a CPU. Like Intel's unnecessarily expensive $1,000+ "extreme edition" processor lineup.

The bulldozers will probably be priced +/- $300 and offer performance slightly faster than the Nehalems. Also, they will work with AM3+ sockets.


AMD's FX processors were priced $1000 before Core2Duo launched in 2006. :lol: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 6:39:17 AM

^ +1
Exactly.
I remember those exorbitantly expensive AMD CPU's.
Couldn't afford one myself.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 4:33:43 PM

This thread makes about as much sense as asking " are we all gonna die on 12-20-12"?
m
0
l
June 29, 2011 5:26:49 PM

dalauder said:
I was hoping someone actually had new information. So far all we have are the same facts from three months ago:

-Bulldozer is late and has been delayed too many times. Even though AMD has said it will be on retail shelves 60-90 days from June 1; Intel fans keep feigning ignorance and asking the same question: Who knows when it will actually arrive?
-Even though AMD mentioned that the last delay was because they wanted the fabs available for Llano, which is a logical and rational explanation: Intel fans keep saying that AMD is having trouble with the manufacturing process.
-There are no performance benchmarks, but speculation by Intel fans with absolutely no data to back up their opinionsis that it will lose clock-for-clock to SB so it uses more cores.


I added some missing details (in bold) to your statements to give you the information you requested in your first sentence.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 8:16:00 PM

dalauder said:

Of course, AMD also has a much larger "unlocked" product line than Intel--overclocking might be the difference between a low end Bulldozer and an i3.

.


This 'ease of overclocking' almost allows the X4s clocked near 4 GHz to compete with a stock clocked i5-2300, even when giving the X4 a 33% clock speed advantage...

(I sincerely hope BD is able to close this obvious IPC disparity; better for all of us!)
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
June 29, 2011 8:41:18 PM

geekapproved said:
This thread makes about as much sense as asking " are we all gonna die on 12-20-12"?



Well, are we all gonna die?!?!?!

Please, please, please tell me!!!!

This may be my last chance to loose my virginity!!!

:)  :)  :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 29, 2011 11:18:28 PM

keithlm said:
I added some missing details (in bold) to your statements to give you the information you requested in your first sentence.
Apparently anyone who's growing skeptical of Bulldozer is an Intel fan? I love AMD and wanted to go K10 with my build until I found out about Microcenter i7 prices.

keithlm said:
-Even though AMD has said it will be on retail shelves 60-90 days from June 1; Intel fans keep feigning ignorance and asking the same question: Who knows when it will actually arrive?


After 3 delays, I'm surprised you're certain it will launch on AMD's vague date. I believed it would launch in June when AMD told me that before. They changed the date at the end of May. Who's to say it won't change yet again? That's all I'm saying. I don't want my heart broken again.

keithlm said:
-Even though AMD mentioned that the last delay was because they wanted the fabs available for Llano, which is a logical and rational explanation: Intel fans keep saying that AMD is having trouble with the manufacturing process.
If they weren't having trouble with manufacturing, it would've been launched on 22nm last November. If it's conflicting with Lano on the 32nm process, doesn't that mean they're having trouble with the fact that Bulldozer's even being manufactured at 32nm? Is the current stepping error a manufacturing problem or architecture error?

keithlm said:
-There are no performance benchmarks, but speculation by Intel fans with absolutely no data to back up their opinionsis that it will lose clock-for-clock to SB so it uses more cores.
True, I do lack data, which is why I qualify that by calling it speculation. Intel promised a 25% per-clock performance boost with SB. They brought it. What performance promises has AMD given us with Bulldozer? None--except for a promise of more cores than what Intel has at the same price points. If Thuban was any indication, AMD needs those cores to keep up. It's speculation based on the knowledge available. That, and that AMD has stated the most recent delay was due to performance not being what was intended.

Do you have a reason that you speculate BD will match SB clock-for-clock? Don't be blinded by being an AMD fan. I'm just saying AMD might only match/beat Intel on the enthusiast end during highly parallel work loads. I'm sad about that too, but I'm trying to look at it realistically.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 12:19:18 AM

dalauder said:
Apparently anyone who's growing skeptical of Bulldozer is an Intel fan? I love AMD and wanted to go K10 with my build until I found out about Microcenter i7 prices.


Only the people that post opinions and present them as facts without any concrete sources. It's very common on this forum.


dalauder said:

After 3 delays, I'm surprised you're certain it will launch on AMD's vague date. I believed it would launch in June when AMD told me that before. They changed the date at the end of May. Who's to say it won't change yet again? That's all I'm saying. I don't want my heart broken again.


There was never any official announcement before it was announced recently that it would be on-the-shelves 60-90 days from the first of June. There was some leaked "internal only" documents that mentioned 2Q2011; but that is not a truly reliable source or quotable source.

dalauder said:

If they weren't having trouble with manufacturing, it would've been launched on 22nm last November. If it's conflicting with Lano on the 32nm process, doesn't that mean they're having trouble with the fact that Bulldozer's even being manufactured at 32nm? Is the current stepping error a manufacturing problem or architecture error?


Do you have any sources for the comments I just quoted above? Until we have an indisputable source for these comments then they are only opinions of posters on forum(s) or writers of blogs which have no real credibility.

dalauder said:

True, I do lack data, which is why I qualify that by calling it speculation. Intel promised a 25% per-clock performance boost with SB. They brought it. What performance promises has AMD given us with Bulldozer? None--except for a promise of more cores than what Intel has at the same price points. If Thuban was any indication, AMD needs those cores to keep up. It's speculation based on the knowledge available. That, and that AMD has stated the most recent delay was due to performance not being what was intended.


AMD officially stated that they have delayed due to the Llano release/rollout. Any speculation that it was because of performance was made from unconfirmed and questionable sources that have never been confirmed by anybody.

dalauder said:

Do you have a reason that you speculate BD will match SB clock-for-clock? Don't be blinded by being an AMD fan. I'm just saying AMD might only match/beat Intel on the enthusiast end during highly parallel work loads. I'm sad about that too, but I'm trying to look at it realistically.


If I had a reason I might do some speculation on this forum. But it would be pointless to speculate for or against BD at this point in time. Although that apparently doesn't stop many people who continually post that BD will never be able to compete.

Personally what I can state with complete confidence is that if AMD created a chip that completely tied Intel in 100% of all available benchmarks, there would be many people that would use that data to declare that AMD just can't compete with Intel in any way.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2011 2:46:19 AM

keithlm said:
Only the people that post opinions and present them as facts without any concrete sources. It's very common on this forum.
Look, if you can tell me Bulldozer's launch date and personally guarantee it, I'll start telling people that launch date. But maybe you're right, I should have said, "I have no idea when it will finally arrive" instead of presenting it as a consensus that most people don't know the actual launch date. (Although I think most people don't know the actual launch date).

keithlm said:
There was never any official announcement before it was announced recently that it would be on-the-shelves 60-90 days from the first of June. There was some leaked "internal only" documents that mentioned 2Q2011; but that is not a truly reliable source or quotable source.

Do you have any sources for the comments I just quoted above? Until we have an indisputable source for these comments then they are only opinions of posters on forum(s) or writers of blogs which have no real credibility.
Credible sources? Nope, just leaked "internals" that plenty of articles were written about. Don't tell me you never heard that Bulldozer was supposed to skip 32nm altogether and do twenty-something nanometer fabrication. That was back in the start of 2010 when they were talking about quad channel memory and FMA. Not all those rumors turned out to be true.

keithlm said:
AMD officially stated that they have delayed due to the Llano release/rollout. Any speculation that it was because of performance was made from unconfirmed and questionable sources that have never been confirmed by anybody.
I was basing it off of articles I could find about Bulldozer like this one: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110601180002...
Google News is the best I've got to find out about Bulldozer. It's probably more than unbased speculation though--I'm as well informed as it's possible to be without working within AMD (or having a good friend who does?).

keithlm said:
If I had a reason I might do some speculation on this forum. But it would be pointless to speculate for or against BD at this point in time. Although that apparently doesn't stop many people who continually post that BD will never be able to compete.

Personally what I can state with complete confidence is that if AMD created a chip that completely tied Intel in 100% of all available benchmarks, there would be many people that would use that data to declare that AMD just can't compete with Intel in any way.
You're taking this the wrong way. I'm not saying AMD sucks or anything to that effect. What I am saying is that Bulldozer is starting to feel a lot like Duke Nukem Forever and that has to sip away at confidence in the product.

I will be the first one on this forum to recommend a Bulldozer build AFTER it launches IF it does well in gaming benchmarks. But until then...all I can do is let my confidence in Bulldozer slowly wane as AMD tests everyone's patience. All I can do is make guesses with the information at hand and summarize what articles about Bulldozer say.

Go ahead and disagree with me and say I've summarized articles incorrectly--but don't label me as an Intel fanboy.

EDIT: To be clear, I expect Bulldozer to release in less than 14 years of development and be a MUCH better product than Duke Nukem Forever.
m
0
l
June 30, 2011 3:21:09 AM

dalauder said:
Don't tell me you never heard that Bulldozer was supposed to skip 32nm altogether and do twenty-something nanometer fabrication. That was back in the start of 2010 when they were talking about quad channel memory and FMA. Not all those rumors turned out to be true.


I never read any rumors about 22nm. I have read articles about the fact that the rush to smaller and smaller die sizes won't always create benefits; that there the processes will "hit a wall".

dalauder said:
I was basing it off of articles I could find about Bulldozer like this one: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110601180002...
Google News is the best I've got to find out about Bulldozer. It's probably more than unbased speculation though--I'm as well informed as it's possible to be without working within AMD (or having a good friend who does?).


The xbitlabs article quotes no sources for their speculation. The only known source for that particular speculation was the supposed engineer at a motherboard company. But nobody can really confirm the information so it is heresay. There was also supposedly a disgruntled AMD employee that "spilled the beans". But I don't take the word of disgruntled employees as being credible.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 30, 2011 3:58:28 AM

keithlm said:
I never read any rumors about 22nm. I have read articles about the fact that the rush to smaller and smaller die sizes won't always create benefits; that there the processes will "hit a wall".

The xbitlabs article quotes no sources for their speculation. The only known source for that particular speculation was the supposed engineer at a motherboard company. But nobody can really confirm the information so it is heresay. There was also supposedly a disgruntled AMD employee that "spilled the beans". But I don't take the word of disgruntled employees as being credible.
Well, I tried to look up the 22nm stuff. Apparently it was 28nm and was actually just people confused when Global Foundries was shutting down some 32nm stuff in favor or 28nm stuff for graphics cards--which will apparently be Radeon's "Souther Islands"--not Bulldozer. I think it made its way into the Wikipedia article long ago, but that misinformation is long gone.

Disgruntled people aren't credible, no--but press releases have their bias as well. Maybe a more fair summary of Bulldozer would be:
-I don't know when it's launching, but all the delays have worn out my patience.
-There's a lot of speculation that AMD needs more cores to match Sandy Bridge's performance with fewer cores because Bulldozer loses clock-for-clock, but there are no benchmarks so nobody outside of AMD really knows.
-It will be socket AM3+, continuing AMD's history of allowing CPU upgrade paths in their socket development.
m
0
l
September 8, 2011 4:55:23 PM

dalauder said:
I was hoping someone actually had new information. So far all we have are the same facts from three months ago:

-Bulldozer is late and has been delayed too many times. Who knows when it will actually arrive? Delayed 2 official times, will get released in Sept to Oct 2011...
-AMD is having trouble with the manufacturing process. NO, notihng was ever wrong with the 32nm Process. The problem is Bulldozer's design is dam complex and therefore requires massive Fine Tunning. Once they fine tune the CPU, it should blow past anything Intel has to offer IMO.
-There are no performance benchmarks, but speculations is that it will lose clock-for-clock to SB so it uses more cores.
-At least AMD believes in keeping sockets so you can upgrade them. Once again, NO. Bulldozer was delayed and designed to compete with SB and beyond. They should either be equal or faster "Clock for clock".

AMD Bulldozer 2011/2012
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 5:19:00 PM

Quote:
-There are no performance benchmarks, but speculation by Intel fans with absolutely no data to back up their opinionsis that it will lose clock-for-clock to SB so it uses more cores.


AMD currently looses clock for clock against Intel. As such, if they do not significantly upgrade this, they will not beat Intel clock for clock. I see shared FP resources [not good for many tasks; folding and gaming come to mind], a very deep pipeline [remember Pentium 4?] and optimizations only for SSE/AVX, but not the rest of hte CPU.

My point being, I don't see enough architectual changes to make up the current difference in IPC, and thus, have to conclude BD, clock for clock, will be slower then SB.

We'll know in a month or two...
m
0
l
September 11, 2011 4:48:44 PM

AMD's problem is that they dont have a good schedule. Intel has tick-tock, while AMD postpones release dates, and apparently they are gonna have newer Bulldozers a few months after release. Its all too chaotic.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 11, 2011 5:31:33 PM

gamerk316 said:
Quote:
-There are no performance benchmarks, but speculation by Intel fans with absolutely no data to back up their opinionsis that it will lose clock-for-clock to SB so it uses more cores.


AMD currently looses clock for clock against Intel. As such, if they do not significantly upgrade this, they will not beat Intel clock for clock. I see shared FP resources [not good for many tasks; folding and gaming come to mind], a very deep pipeline [remember Pentium 4?] and optimizations only for SSE/AVX, but not the rest of hte CPU.

My point being, I don't see enough architectual changes to make up the current difference in IPC, and thus, have to conclude BD, clock for clock, will be slower then SB.

We'll know in a month or two...


Careful gamer, pallidin might see this and give you a what for like he did me. IPC doesn't exist and a deeper/longer pipeline does not in any way whatsoever affect performance.

Thats what I learned from him.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2011 5:43:13 PM

Max1s said:
AMD's problem is that they dont have a good schedule. Intel has tick-tock, while AMD postpones release dates, and apparently they are gonna have newer Bulldozers a few months after release. Its all too chaotic.


Yes, that the problem. They just need to make a better schedule. All they need is someone to write them a decent schedule. That will fix everything!!!!!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 11, 2011 6:03:15 PM

keithlm said:
I added some missing details (in bold) to your statements to give you the information you requested in your first sentence.

-Bulldozer is late and has been delayed too many times. Even though AMD has said it will be on retail shelves 60-90 days from June 1; Intel fans keep feigning ignorance and asking the same question: Who knows when it will actually arrive?


Hmm, "90 days" from June 1st would be Sept. 1st..

*checks calendar*

So, who knows when Bulldozer will actually arrive?? :D 

m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 11, 2011 8:06:05 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Hmm, "90 days" from June 1st would be Sept. 1st..

*checks calendar*

So, who knows when Bulldozer will actually arrive?? :D 


My actal guess is November, like Phenom I.
m
0
l
a c 111 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 11, 2011 10:25:44 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Careful gamer, pallidin might see this and give you a what for like he did me. IPC doesn't exist and a deeper/longer pipeline does not in any way whatsoever affect performance.

Thats what I learned from him.


Stop being a jerk ... you were caught trolling out of both sides of your mouth.


m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 11, 2011 10:42:34 PM

Wisecracker said:
Stop being a jerk ... you were caught trolling out of both sides of your mouth.


How am I being a troll when I have stated my opinion on it? A troll does not respond and tends to try to start flame wars. I did no such thing rather than state what I believe.

Am I a troll because I think that BD will be on par with or a bit better than Nehalem but still under SB? Nope. Just stating what I feel will be the results.

Just like in that discussion I stated there IS a downside to that approach as well as an upside. It was refuted. That is all. Move on.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2011 12:48:57 AM

Everybody knows that the Bulldozer archictecture is based almost entirely on Integer performance and the FP performance will be average. It's going to smash Intel on the server market, but on the Desktop market there isnt enough to take advantage of Bulldozers design.

Nonetheless, I will still be going with Bulldozer, seeing as no single game in the near future is going to push the chip to 100% on my system running at 1680x1050,

Plus I like shiny things.
m
0
l
a c 111 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 14, 2011 2:44:52 AM

ambam said:
... enthusiast-level bulldozer chips have 8 physical cores and 16 physical threads. Each core has two CPU modules in them. Meaning that AMD's approach at hyper-threading should be faster than Intel's logical threads.



Bulldozer processors have 'modules'. The upcoming desktop CPUs will have 4 modules. Each module has 2 integer cores. Four modules = 8 integer cores. Each integer core on the chip can operate in parallel. With the shared resources in each module, new power-gating, Turbo2 and updated instruction sets, AMD has projected that an 8-core Bulldozer processor will perform around 30% higher than Deneb/Thuban.



The primary gains will of course be in multi-threaded applications across all 8 integer cores. In single-threaded applications, modules are 'gated-off' and active modules will be 'Turbo2'ed' to higher clocks by raising the cpu multiplier and increasing the clock speed.

I cannot recall the specific Turbos but I believe they range between 600-1000MHz depending upon processor model.


jimmysmitty said:
How am I being a troll when I have stated my opinion on it? A troll does not respond and tends to try to start flame wars. I did no such thing rather than state what I believe.

Am I a troll because I think that BD will be on par with or a bit better than Nehalem but still under SB? Nope. Just stating what I feel will be the results.

Just like in that discussion I stated there IS a downside to that approach as well as an upside. It was refuted. That is all. Move on.



You've got quite a convenient memory, Jimmy.

This is what you bloviated with regard to the Bulldozer design:

Quote:
...longer pipelines absolutlesy mean lower performance.


When the mistakes in your bluster were pointed out to you, you immediately went into defensive/spin mode while backing away and trying to explain yourself.

And as opposed to actually moving on from that discussion, you dragged it into this thread ...

Quote:
Careful gamer, pallidin might see this and give you a what for like he did me. IPC doesn't exist and a deeper/longer pipeline does not in any way whatsoever affect performance.


You can't have it every which way you want it, Jimmy, just because things become uncomfortable for you.

Now. If you wish to move on, so be it.


m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 14, 2011 3:04:08 AM

^Twas a joke. If you can't take it oh well. And I have moved on.
m
0
l
September 15, 2011 12:22:26 AM

Vaporware Hype! In the grand scheme of things it won't be significantly faster and 6 months later no one will care.
m
0
l
September 26, 2011 2:02:54 AM

Just found this. Posted today. Not sure if you guys seen this already. Granted I've heard Lensfire isn't credible. That being said, they seem to go thru some detailed efforts to pull it off.

AMD Bulldozer FX Processors Benchmark Results vs Core i7 2600K

by Arun Lenzfire on September 25, 2011


http://lenzfire.com/2011/09/amd-bulldozer-fx-processors...


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2011 7:43:53 PM

stevedwnng said:
Just found this. Posted today. Not sure if you guys seen this already. Granted I've heard Lensfire isn't credible. That being said, they seem to go thru some detailed efforts to pull it off.

AMD Bulldozer FX Processors Benchmark Results vs Core i7 2600K

by Arun Lenzfire on September 25, 2011


http://lenzfire.com/2011/09/amd-bulldozer-fx-processors...


I find that article a lot more believable than most I have seen. I just don't buy the "bulldozer is slower than Thuban" alleged benches we have seen before. The performance claims here are consistent with the architecture.

Doesn't mean they are true, but the most believable so far.
m
0
l
September 26, 2011 9:36:43 PM

Agreed. I figured Dozer would be at or around i7-2600K. It wasn't long ago the 980X was top dog (pre SB) and at the time I figured Dozer wouldn't compete with the $1,000 chip when released. If actual performance at launch is similar to these posted benches, I would be satisfied. I don't think it HAS to "beat" i7, but as long as it can "compete" with it, I think Dozer will be successful. Similar performance, cheaper price, cheaper platform, ect. I'm getting a processor that is better then Phenom II and about 2600K In performance. I think alot of AMD fans like myself will be happy to finally have an AMD chip that is on par with i7. And If Dozer ends up being where these benches are at launch, I'm guessing later revisions and second gen Dozer will be even faster. That is when I really want to build a new rig. Bulldozer, X-Fire 7000HDs, PCIe3.0, and DDR4. May not wait for DDR4 honestly, but I think Xfire 7000HD Radeons in PCIe3.0 sounds sweet. Seen ads for PCI Gen.3 with Intel boards, is that already available on some Intel boards? If so, wondering if or when that would be available with AMD boards.
m
0
l
September 26, 2011 10:23:43 PM

Was thinking about what you said, about these benches being more believable. It's obviously from another country and obviously not official. Them being from a foreign country I'm guessing they fall under NDA like everyone else? I'm kinda wondering If they actually did benchmark a real Bulldozer, but it was an engineering sample. That would make sense as to why they are conceivable. If that's the case (wishful thinking, I know) actual performance at launch would be even faster then these figures.
m
0
l
September 26, 2011 11:03:08 PM

ambam said:
Also, the enthusiast-level bulldozer chips have 8 physical cores and 16 physical threads. Each core has two CPU modules in them. Meaning that AMD's approach at hyper-threading should be faster than Intel's logical threads.


AMD has no "approach to HyperThreading".... HyperThreading is Intel's approach to SMT or Simultaneous Multi-Threading. AMD's approach to SMT is completely different from HyperThreading. HyperThreading allows a single core to process 2 threads, with both threads sharing all resources. AMD's SMT implementation uses 2 ALU's contained within a single processor "module", where each thread only shares cache, but have their own independent ALU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2011 3:53:55 AM

stevedwnng said:
Was thinking about what you said, about these benches being more believable. It's obviously from another country and obviously not official. Them being from a foreign country I'm guessing they fall under NDA like everyone else? I'm kinda wondering If they actually did benchmark a real Bulldozer, but it was an engineering sample. That would make sense as to why they are conceivable. If that's the case (wishful thinking, I know) actual performance at launch would be even faster then these figures.


No clue.

I find them more believable because I think its extremely unlikely Bulldozer is slower than Thuban. And that is what some of the leaks purport to show.

They are also consistent with the products price point.
m
0
l
!