Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

If Bulldozer is a fail Is Ivy Bridge also a fail

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 20, 2012 9:27:58 AM

doesn't know but i'm sure that ivy bridge will run cooler sandy bridge due to its shrink and also gives 20% faster performance in cpu processing and more than 50% performance in graphics dept..i'm pretty sure that except 8 core model all the processor from bulldozer justify their performance from their price so its a cost to if u take a i5 2400 and a fx 6100 ,fx 6100 is cheaper and its performance are according to its price amd didn't do really a wrong they just need to do some adjustments..
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:33:32 AM

No. Ivybridge brings little performance gains over sandybridge, but it is not a flop like bulldozer. This is because Intel knows what they are doing this time, lower power usage and much better integrated graphics.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:40:25 AM

we will see. most rumors as of late are pointing to no to very little drop in power. Trying to cool a smaller chip that uses the same power, not good.

Even if it is a disaster, Intel will never be labeled a flop. People back then and even now still try to defend the P4.

AMD on the other hand is examined with an electron microscope to find any and every small detail and blow it out of porportion.
Score
0
a c 480 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:45:40 AM

vishalaestro said:
doesn't know but i'm sure that ivy bridge will run cooler sandy bridge due to its shrink and also gives 20% faster performance in cpu processing and more than 50% performance in graphics dept..


Ivy Bridge runs hotter than Sandy Bridge. Shrinking down the die size helps reduce power consumption which Ivy Bridge was able to achieve. However, shrinking the surface area of the CPU also reduces the efficiency of heat transfer from the CPU to the heatsink. It's a matter of physics. While Ivy Bridge uses less power than Sandy Bridge, it also transfers heat less effectively. That means the CPU retains more heat and runs a little hotter.

Not sure why people are hoping for a 20% improvement in performance. If it was going to be that high I'm positive Intel would have mentioned they expect Ivy Bridge will have better performance. They never mentioned any improvement in CPU perform.

The integrated graphics core was something that Intel did say would be an improvement. Anandtech estimated a 60% improvement sometime last year, and some recent preliminary benchmarks should the Intel HD 4000 is around a 45% improvement over the Intel HD 3000, if i am not mistaken.

See following link for some synthetic benchmarks. Actual benchmarks should appear once Intel's NDA has elapsed. Note the small increase in CPU performance. The review also reveals on a small 2w drop in power consumption compared to the i5-2500k Sandy Bridge in both load and idle. While the idle temp of both i5-3570k and i5-2500k are the same, at full load the i5-3570k runs 7C hotter.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4618/ivy_bridge_previ...
Score
0
April 20, 2012 9:46:29 AM

BD improved on K10 more than Ivy improved on Sandy but power consumption is really bad.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:47:29 AM

you going to flame up another full page then try to get the mods to ban me again? have fun with that.

Score
0
a c 480 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:54:09 AM

Allan_01 said:
If Bulldozer is a fail Is Ivy Bridge also a fail


Only if you had absurdly high expectations of Ivy Bridge like a 20% increase in CPU performance which are based on "hopeful wishes" of people rather than based on anything that Intel has published to the best of my knowledge. Intel did mention that Ivy Bridge includes an updated AVX instruction set which can boost performance of programs that uses AVX by a decent amount, however there are very few programs that uses AVX instruction sets. To the best of my knowledge, only financial and scientific modelling use AVX.

If you are an overclocker, then I suppose Ivy Bridge is more of a disappointment than a failure due to the higher operating temps as a result less efficient heat transfer. That is basically due to the laws of physics; specifically thermodynamics.


Bulldozer was a "fail" because it failed to live up to the hype AMD's marketing department's promises. I believe after the actual results of Bulldozer's performance (or lack there of) was revealed AMD downsized the majority of their marketing department.
Score
0
a c 203 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:56:12 AM

Hanging around here makes it easy to forget that ~95% of the market won't overclock.

Business, consumer, casual gaming and notebook customers will determine if Ivy Bridge (and Bulldozer) is a success.

If the enthusiast customers don't find favor with one series or another it's not going be an indicator of 'success' or 'fail'.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:56:49 AM

The bulldozer will be a disappointment on the basis that it underwhelmed the expectations that AMD naively created. A radical architecture without time or prior knowledge to work off was always going to be a gamble. So in that sense it is/was.

On the other hand is the Zambezi a abject failure in that there is still enough positives that came out of it. IPC's aside the multithreaded performance is promising considering its AMD's first run at SMT and CMT's results overall are impressive, considering the FX 8120/50 priced to compete at the 2500K level beat the 2500K in practically every bench requiring high thread counts, and competes with Intels 2700K and Extreme processors in the high thread count game, considering that its only priced at $240 max, it is a good showing.

real world vs synthetics tell completely different stories, overall I would rate Zambezi 7/10 while SB at around 9/10
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 9:57:44 AM

jaguarskx said:
Only if you had absurdly high expectations of Ivy Bridge like a 20% increase in CPU performance which are based on "hopeful wishes" of people rather than based on anything that Intel has published to the best of my knowledge. Intel did mention that Ivy Bridge includes an updated AVX instruction set which can boost performance of programs that uses AVX by a decent amount, however there are very few programs that uses AVX instruction sets. To the best of my knowledge, only financial and scientific modelling use AVX.

If you are an overclocker, then I suppose Ivy Bridge is more of a disappointment than a failure due to the higher operating temps as a result less efficient heat transfer. That is basically due to the laws of physics; specifically thermodynamics.


+1 to this
Score
0
April 20, 2012 10:24:37 AM

In that case Ivy will still be a failure compared to Trinity because Trinity is going to improve much more with some leaks saying 30% cpu and 50% graphics improvement.

The A10 5800K looks to be quite close to the i7 970 in single thread cpu performance with a very good graphics portion included. It looks like the gap is closing quite fast. http://citavia.blog.de/2012/04/08/trinity-piledriver-pe...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:28:03 AM

Intel intents is to bring more iGPU power than ever. (checked)
Also lower TDP. (checked)
But runs hotter at OC. (sadly checked)

AMD intents was to bring the house down with the new BD architecture. (not checked)
And yet failed to make ppl move from own Phenom 2 architecture....

This is why AMD failed with bulldozer, and this is why Intel not failed, but do disappointed me with higher temps... and everyone else.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:29:58 AM

Chip in a box said:
In that case Ivy will still be a failure compared to Trinity because Trinity is going to improve much more with some leaks saying 30% cpu and 50% graphics improvement.

The A10 5800K looks to be quite close to the i7 970 in single thread cpu performance with a very good graphics portion included. It looks like the gap is closing quite fast.


Well.. if trinity is going to be this powerful AMD should throw away FX-line and go only with this one.

BTW, I looked the chart in your post, and the chart looks weird.. there's two i5-2500k.
But this isn't my major concern.. if the chart you posted is correct, the chart means that this new A10-5800k can't touch i5-2500k, and have a worse IPC than A8-3870 in INT and FP calculations... will A10-5800k be a Llano downgrade?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:47:56 AM

If you are only looking at a 6% clock by clock gain over a comparitive SB chip, factoring in the need to go to Z77 to have all the features of the IB, that may not be sufficient to make a SB owner move. As for HD 4000, it will still be made to look hopelessly redundant compared to a APU. PCI-e 3.0 may only be a factor by the time Haswell arrives making Lucid and Faster memory speeds the only reasons to move to IB.

Trigate and its efficiency is still to be determined, while IB will be the most sophisticated x86 processor, it may not be enough to move from SB though.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 11:07:55 AM

vitornob said:
Well.. if trinity is going to be this powerful AMD should throw away FX-line and go only with this one.

BTW, I looked the chart in your post, and the chart looks weird.. there's two i5-2500k.
But this isn't my major concern.. if the chart you posted is correct, the chart means that this new A10-5800k can't touch i5-2500k, and have a worse IPC than A8-3870 in INT and FP calculations... will A10-5800k be a Llano downgrade?


Obviously it's not going to be as fast as the 2500K when it has a 6670-level gpu attached. Trinity/Piledriver has lower IPC and higher clocks which makes it faster overall. Why is this a downgrade?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 11:56:30 AM

Chip in a box said:
Obviously it's not going to be as fast as the 2500K when it has a 6670-level gpu attached. Trinity/Piledriver has lower IPC and higher clocks which makes it faster overall. Why is this a downgrade?


When I wrote Llano downgrade I was talking about "architecture" downgrade. Why lower the IPC? Since higher Ghz deliver more current leakage, less room for OC and considering heat dissipation law, more Ghz means more than linear TDP increase.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 12:10:02 PM

AMD says Trinity doubles performance per watt over Llano - http://blogs.amd.com/fusion/2012/04/19/amd-%E2%80%9Ctri...

This will be at low TDP, rumours say that the 17 Watt Trinity performs about the same as the 35 Watt Llano and thats an amazing increase. Things won't be so great at 100 Watts because of what you mentioned, but that's the same with intel too. Intels ivy bridge low TDP chips will be better in performance per Watt than the high TDP chips.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 2:15:26 PM

jaguarskx said:
Only if you had absurdly high expectations of Ivy Bridge like a 20% increase in CPU performance which are based on "hopeful wishes" of people rather than based on anything that Intel has published to the best of my knowledge. Intel did mention that Ivy Bridge includes an updated AVX instruction set which can boost performance of programs that uses AVX by a decent amount, however there are very few programs that uses AVX instruction sets. To the best of my knowledge, only financial and scientific modelling use AVX.

If you are an overclocker, then I suppose Ivy Bridge is more of a disappointment than a failure due to the higher operating temps as a result less efficient heat transfer. That is basically due to the laws of physics; specifically thermodynamics.


Bulldozer was a "fail" because it failed to live up to the hype AMD's marketing department's promises. I believe after the actual results of Bulldozer's performance (or lack there of) was revealed AMD downsized the majority of their marketing department.



Where did that "20% improvement" come from anyhow? Sandy Bridge wasn't 20% faster in raw CPU performance than Westmere was it? Patterns suggest that the more significant overhaul of the processor (the "Tock") is going to result in the greater gains over the last generation.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 5:42:30 PM

vitornob said:
Intel intents is to bring more iGPU power than ever. (checked)
Also lower TDP. (checked)
But runs hotter at OC. (sadly checked)

AMD intents was to bring the house down with the new BD architecture. (not checked)
And yet failed to make ppl move from own Phenom 2 architecture....

This is why AMD failed with bulldozer, and this is why Intel not failed, but do disappointed me with higher temps... and everyone else.

so your logic is that people upgraded from the I7 920 to the I7 2500k? Not everyone upgrades from one gen to the next, logically your cpu should last at least 2. The I7 920 is still very much viable cpu as is the phenom II. A current owner of either cpu wouldn't be worth upgrading yet.

Quote:
When I wrote Llano downgrade I was talking about "architecture" downgrade. Why lower the IPC? Since higher Ghz deliver more current leakage, less room for OC and considering heat dissipation law, more Ghz means more than linear TDP increase.


kinda like I7 920 2.66 ghz being 130 W and 2500k 3.3 ghz being 95w? maybe your logic can only be applied towards your hatred for AMD.

As for that chart, they posted all the speeds as their trubo speed, so the per ghz is off as they didn't lock the speed. Turbo doesn't automatically max out, especially in a benchmark.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 7:15:04 PM

Quote:
Same as BD people try to defend that too.

Difference being BD performs well for it's price which is LESS THAN i5 2500K P4 was horrendously expensive and performed worse than AMD of the time.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 8:18:41 PM

7970 FTW said:
Difference being BD performs well for it's price which is LESS THAN i5 2500K P4 was horrendously expensive and performed worse than AMD of the time.

Uh, no it doesn't.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 9:02:42 PM

7970 FTW said:
Difference being BD performs well for it's price which is LESS THAN i5 2500K P4 was horrendously expensive and performed worse than AMD of the time.



Are you comparing the 8120 to the 2500K? True, the former is ~$40 cheaper than the latter (if both are bought off of NewEgg for example), but the 2500K performance superiority is probably worth more than that $40 difference.

FX-6100 is more expensive right now than the i3-2120 and I think you could make a case that the i3 is better performing on average in games and other tasks.

I'm pretty sure I saw some gaming benches somewhere that put the G860 above the FX-4100, which is of course, $10 more than the Pentium.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 9:03:09 PM

Toms own review shows bulldozer wins about half of the non gaming benchmarks vs the 2500k. It just sucks in gaming because most games dont use all the available cores.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 9:22:29 PM

Chip in a box said:
Toms own review shows bulldozer wins about half of the non gaming benchmarks vs the 2500k. It just sucks in gaming because most games dont use all the available cores.



Yeah, isn't that the 8150 vs the 2500K though? The Bulldozer that is more expensive than the 2500K (and was initially priced much closer to the 2600K)?
Score
0
April 20, 2012 9:46:38 PM

Yeah it is. I think it's cheaper now but the 8120 was always the best part for performance per watt and price but like you say its just a little slower than the 2500K all around.

With clock speeds at 4.5 and 4.4 GHz though the 8120 proves itself to be a good cpu in a comparison -
http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/fx8120-vs-2500k-benc...
Score
0
April 20, 2012 10:32:14 PM

Chip in a box said:
Toms own review shows bulldozer wins about half of the non gaming benchmarks vs the 2500k. It just sucks in gaming because most games dont use all the available cores.

Only when tested against Starcraft II and the like does Intel really pull ahead reason being Intel sabotaged and disabled the performance on the AMD chips to make themselves look better.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:47:07 PM

The amount of fail is high in this one^ :non: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:47:58 PM

i don't see how Ivy Bridges is a flop when compared to Bullcrapper. Ivy Bridges might not see the 20% performance increase people are throwing out there ( I don't think there will be anywhere near 20% in performance BTW) but it's a slight adjustment in the Sandy Bridge architecture. No one at Intel said there was going to be insane performance increases with Ivy bridges unlike AMD with Bulldozer. Ivy Bridges will still be an improvement (though small) in a previous architecture. Bulldozer was a complete disaster. It runs hot and the IPC is a joke as is the whole modual bs.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 10:49:03 PM

e amount of fail is high in this one
amuffin said:
Th^ :non: 

Prove it that Intel sponsored games do not favor Intel CPUs The amount of fanboy fail is high in that one ^
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:51:47 PM

7970 FTW said:
e amount of fail is high in this one
Prove it that Intel sponsored games do not favor Intel CPUs The amount of fanboy fail is high in that one ^


Pff please go take your tinfoil hat and conspiracy theories and go sit in the corner. :pfff:  :pfff: 
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:52:42 PM

I think he knows that Bulldozer was a fail.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 10:53:35 PM

Anonymous_26 said:
Pff please go take your tinfoil hat and conspiracy theories and go sit in the corner. :pfff:  :pfff: 

Laugh at you if you think that Starcraft II and Civ V don't favor Intel chips
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 10:59:28 PM

It favors Intel because the Bulldozer is garbage for gaming. Civ 5 is CPU demanding especially towards the end of the game it should favor more cores/threads like the Bulldozer but it doesn't.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 11:00:50 PM

Those games run better on Phenom X6 than they do on bulldozer!
Score
0
April 20, 2012 11:07:09 PM

Anonymous_26 said:
It favors Intel because the Bulldozer is garbage for gaming. Civ 5 is CPU demanding especially towards the end of the game it should favor more cores/threads like the Bulldozer but it doesn't.

It doesn't run on AMD well because Intel helped program the game naturally they would try and make it so that it would play well and jive with there own architecture. BF3, Metro 2033, Crysis 1&2, STALKER series, Just Cause II, Mafia II and fairly well all others excepts they very few sticklers that were conveniently sponsored and developed in conjunction with Intel such as Starcraft II and Civ V both which are not very graphically demanding games by todays standards run like *** on AMD but not Intel LOL.
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 11:08:55 PM

How come Dirt 3 runs better on intel then?
Score
0
April 20, 2012 11:20:29 PM

Quote:
i5 2500k 4.4GHZ|8GB DDR3 Ripjawsx|EVGA Z68 FTW 3-way SLi| EVGA GTX 480 SSC 880/1760/1900 SLi|2x Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB RAID-0|Crucial M4 64GB|Silverstone 1kw strider

recognise that? says "4.4", not "five gigahertz"

SB chips average 4.4Ghz on OC. IB tests give it 4.5 on air. IB is also more performant per clock cycle. a 4.6Ghz IB cinebenches as a 5.0Ghz SB, though with less vcore. sure, trigate and 22nm make it a problem to get rid of the heat, but we're not talking 6Ghz on water.

That's for next week;

The 4000 series IGPU is just a bonus. IB will easily outperform SB in "raw CPU grunt" - unless ofc you have a stellar SB and a terrible IB chip, but that's luck, no?
Score
0
a c 186 à CPUs
April 20, 2012 11:22:17 PM

^still runs hotter though :(  So that screws stuff up, even with the less vcore..
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 11:23:53 PM

7970 FTW said:
It doesn't run on AMD well because Intel helped program the game naturally they would try and make it so that it would play well and jive with there own architecture. BF3, Metro 2033, Crysis 1&2, STALKER series, Just Cause II, Mafia II and fairly well all others excepts they very few sticklers that were conveniently sponsored and developed in conjunction with Intel such as Starcraft II and Civ V both which are not very graphically demanding games by todays standards run like *** on AMD but not Intel LOL.


Yea that has to be it.. can't be becuase the Bulldozer is a slow and hot with a horrible IPC. The excuses fanboys come up with never cease to amaze me.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 11:25:50 PM

amuffin said:
How come Dirt 3 runs better on intel then?

Never noticed a hit on that game using AMD/Radeon platform the game ran flawlessly.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 11:30:25 PM

Anonymous_26 said:
Yea that has to be it.. can't be becuase the Bulldozer is a slow hot POS with a hrrible IPC. The excuses fanboys come up with never cease to amaze me.

It's not a fanboy thing it's just the way it is and I am not a fanboy by any stretch. Also you might want to just cool down on the BD anti rhetoric you know there are other AMD chips and I here the new Intel's are even more hot running than BD
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 11:35:53 PM

7970 FTW said:
It's not a fanboy thing it's just the way it is and I am not a fanboy by any stretch. Also you might want to just cool down on the BD anti rhetoric you know there are other AMD chips and I here the new Intel's are even more hot running than BD


Thats all rumor right now. They have not offically been released yet and only a few have gotten a chance to benchmark test models. For all we know it could be a problem with overvolting or BIOS. Even if it does run hotter it's still a performance increase over Sandy Bridges, unlike Bulldozer that had worse performance over the old Phenom II CPU's.
Score
0
April 20, 2012 11:43:39 PM

Anonymous_26 said:
Thats all rumor right now. They have not offically been released yet and only a few have gotten a chance to benchmark test models. For all we know it could be a problem with overvolting or BIOS. Even if it does run hotter it's still a performance increase over Sandy Bridges, unlike Bulldozer that had worse performance over the old Phenom II CPU's.

Worse performance than Phenom II is highly unsubstantiated biased Intel boasting propaganda however I would like to see the documentation in where Phenom II consistently and just out right outperforms an equivalent BD part in the majority of none cherry picked and none biased benchmarks and real world testing.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2012 11:55:03 PM

7970 FTW said:
Worse performance than Phenom II is highly unsubstantiated biased Intel boasting propaganda however I would like to see the documentation in where Phenom II consistently and just out right outperforms an equivalent BD part in the majority of none cherry picked and none biased benchmarks and real world testing.


No it's not look at the benchmarks.You have no idea what you're talking about. It's a known fact that in gaming the Bulldozer gets beaten out by the older Phenom II's.







Score
0
April 21, 2012 12:05:01 AM

Anonymous_26 said:
No it's not look at the benchmarks.You have no idea what you're talking about. It's a known fact that in gaming the Bulldozer gets beaten out by the older Phenom II's.

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_01.png

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_02.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/metro.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-fx-8150/dirt.png

BD wins in the first chart you posted and the second chart 1fps is margin of error LOL and the rest can be completely mitigated by way of OCing = not bad for a server work horse CPU. I will point out that BULL DOZER FX 4170 beat the i7 2600K in Just cause 2
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2012 12:07:18 AM

Kinda funny how high resolution switches favor to AMD. Wonder why everyone wants to only show low res gaming?
Score
0
April 21, 2012 12:11:01 AM

noob2222 said:
Kinda funny how high resolution switches favor to AMD. Wonder why everyone wants to only show low res gaming?

No need to get defensive Intel and AMD both have great gaming CPU options some games perform a little better on Intel and some favor AMD in the end when it all comes out in the wash both camps delver perfectly playable framerates in todays modern games and yesterdays games alike.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2012 12:14:19 AM

The 8150 is the only one to come out on top. The PhenomII beat out all the other models of Bulldozer. If you call that a victory thats pretty pathetic. The fact is stock clock for clock the Phenom II beats out the Bulldozer. You just helped prove my point the Bulldozer is garbage and has to be overclocked just to compete with older Phenom II. :pfff: 
Score
0
April 21, 2012 12:18:07 AM

Anonymous_26 said:
The 8150 is the only one to come out on top. The PhenomII beat out all the other models of Bulldozer. If you call that a victory thats pretty pathetic. The fact is stock clock for clock the Phenom II beats out the Bulldozer. You just helped prove my point the Bulldozer is garbage and has to be overclocked just to compete with older Phenom II. :pfff: 

They were all to close to call a clear winner they all played the games perfectly and we could go as far as to pointing out the clear win for the BULL DOZER FX 4170 when it over took the i7 2600K and i5 2500 and all other Intel chips but thats splitting hairs and a bit ridiculous since they are much to close to crown a clear winner.
Score
0
!