AMD Bulldozer vs Nehalem?

Has AMD finally caught up in performance with Intel's old Nehalem architecture?

Is the AMD FX 8350 as fast or faster than the Core i7?

The Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge totally blow AMD out of the water. Usually AMD processors are lagging one or two generations behind Intel in terms of performance.

The Phenom II's were about roughly as fast as the old Core 2 CPU's.
7 answers Last reply
More about bulldozer nehalem
  1. I've seen benchmarks that show the new FX-8350 beating the ivy bridge i5 in terms of fps on several games and video encoding.
  2. The 8350 still isn't quite as good as a higher end First gen i7 in single threaded tasks (or lightly threaded, such as gaming), but it's comparable or slightly better in highly threaded tasks. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=100
  3. not to mention the high clock they have to put on those chips just to squeeze out the performance... they take alot of power as well
  4. In heavily threaded and/or inter-heavy tasks, the Bulldozer matches SB occasionally. In single threaded and/or FP-heavy tasks, even Nehalem stands a chance against BD.
  5. Check out this recent article on Tom's Hardware. It answers that question very well.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html
  6. The 8350 isn't Bulldozer architecture, it's Piledriver
  7. Piledriver can game pretty well against Nehalem overall.



    Not much room between the Sandy Bridge models and the FX-8350, so I don't see Nehalem really winning, if at all. Gufttown would probably still have a decent advantage.

    http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance AMD Nehalem