Bulldozer Performance Figures ( chases Sandy Bridge)

Do you have anything to add to our daily newswire? Then comment on our news and post your news story here!

Moderators: CPUagnostic, MTX, Celt, Hammer_Time, Sauron_Daz, Tacitus, Anna

Bulldozer Performance Figures ( chases Sandy Bridge)

Postby seriousjack85 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:10 am

seriousjack85
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Stupify » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:04 am

This does look very good for AMD for now until Ivy comes out which when will cause another headache for AMD.
Nonetheless i rather wait for the actual product to be out and benched by various reviewers before I draw my conclusions.
What goes around comes around with interest!
User avatar
Stupify
Moderator
 
Posts: 9199
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby seriousjack85 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:24 am

True. It has been long since AMD was on Top!
seriousjack85
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:22 pm

Interesting to see the cachestructure.
Small L1 data for each core, and much larger shared ones for L1 instructions.
And 2M shared L2, that´s nice.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15189
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Tiggerz » Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:04 pm

Would be good if they could actually test non-engineering samples. After all, joe bloggs on the street is not going to have access to them are they.
My posts in X-Bit forums don't mean I condone racist or discriminatory comments made by forum members regarding any other individuals. I support the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights & recognize that all people are born free & equal in dignity & rights & should be treated accordingly in the spirit of brotherhood, freedom, justice and peace in the world
User avatar
Tiggerz
X-bit Guru
 
Posts: 2700
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 11:23 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby <R.t..>^>Fusionc » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:59 pm

Eh, in my view, any performance numbers coming in from ESs (engineering samples) are pretty useless since they don't represent the final retail product. Many of these early numbers (not specifically these) are also found to be faked as well. ESs are merely fore stability, compatibly, and validation testing; not for benchmarking.
Image
I play games, not benchmarks. So all you fanboys/fangirls, just STFU!!
"I close my eyes, to escape the seas of reality... I dive deep into the ocean depths of my mind..."
User avatar
<R.t..>^>Fusionc
X-bit Guru
 
Posts: 5003
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: B.C. Canada

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby TAViX » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:37 am

We need numbers from other independent sources....BTW, where are the tests??
Image
User avatar
TAViX
X-Bit Gundarm
 
Posts: 4111
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Stupify » Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:24 am

read the actual posts and they have the numbers in there.
What goes around comes around with interest!
User avatar
Stupify
Moderator
 
Posts: 9199
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby clone » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:37 am

Eh, in my view, any performance numbers coming in from ESs (engineering samples) are pretty useless since they don't represent the final retail product.
so long as they are not faked they will only get better.

it's not like a car run on the dyno where the company later say's "oh well we changed the intake & exhaust for the sake of emissions hence the difference".

it's silicon, ES's are early versions that get improved upon later...... as mentioned at the beginning so long are they aren't faked they are indicative.
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.
clone
X-bit Film Critic
 
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Stupify » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:24 am

After re-looking at those numbers, it seems that BD may not be the savior that AMD needed. It is a little here and there faster than 2600K and will only be 4-6Months earlier than Ivy Bridge, meaning AMD will just have a chip that can match but not thrash Intel even with dedicated hardware 8 threads unlike Intel's 8 HT threads. The bigger reason I am not impressed is because I am guessing the die size will be much bigger than Intel's SB and so Intel can easily squeeze AMD into selling at a lower ASPs and so further dimming AMD's future.

I hope AMD can truly merge the heterogeneous architecture of the CPU and GPU soon to be ahead - leave the FPU on the GPU and IPU (Integer) on the CPU and load up on cache and increase the bandwidth to CPU from RAM - more channels - rather dedicated channels to CPU and GPU.
What goes around comes around with interest!
User avatar
Stupify
Moderator
 
Posts: 9199
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby seriousjack85 » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:12 am

Stupify wrote:After re-looking at those numbers, it seems that BD may not be the savior that AMD needed. It is a little here and there faster than 2600K and will only be 4-6Months earlier than Ivy Bridge.


You must be Joking....That is big Achievement from AMD's point of View. At one point they were lagging behind INTEL now if they take the Crown for even 6 months is Big for AMD.
seriousjack85
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby TAViX » Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:40 am

Stupify wrote:read the actual posts and they have the numbers in there.


I see just some numbers, but I don't see any comparison tests or anything.....
Image
User avatar
TAViX
X-Bit Gundarm
 
Posts: 4111
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby clone » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:31 am

You must be Joking....That is big Achievement from AMD's point of View. At one point they were lagging behind INTEL now if they take the Crown for even 6 months is Big for AMD.
I agree with this, when AMD grows 100X larger and almost gets to be as big as Intel then I'll expect them to compete with Intel directly but the fact that their new cpu can beat todays parts is quite an achievement for them, given Intel's superiority on all things manufacturing it'll be no surprise that Intel will squeeze AMD again but at least things are getting better for consumers because of AMD's work.

Bulldozer to be honest is better than I expected....... if the numbers are true and real.
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.
clone
X-bit Film Critic
 
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Stupify » Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:13 pm

I never said that BD was crap or it wasn't a good achievement for AMD. What I said was in terms of reality. If you look at the history - AMD had massive performance lead over P4 back in the early days of A64s yet they couldn't capitalize as much because Intel just squeezed them on the price perspective and their "rebates" (for exclusivity). Intel's behavior has left joe blow still thinking AMD is an inferior product regardless of the reality. Even with the help of OEMs and Microsoft, AMD did not deal such a massive blow to Intel back then with the x64-86. So even if AMD manages to match the performance would still give Intel the advantage over AMD, if not by a large margin. That's business and reality.

For what AMD has done and the direction they have taken with this whole Fusion approach, I applaud them and hope it does indeed give them the necessary advantage to at least capture the market share it has lost in past half decade or so.
What goes around comes around with interest!
User avatar
Stupify
Moderator
 
Posts: 9199
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Cid » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:12 pm

Question is... Would you buy one?
User avatar
Cid
Senior Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Mexico

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Stupify » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:42 pm

Happy with what i have already and don't think i will be buying one for another couple of years...
What goes around comes around with interest!
User avatar
Stupify
Moderator
 
Posts: 9199
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Cid » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:48 pm

IF I was looking for a desktop I'd certainly consider it, I have better things to spend my money on for the moment as I already have a core i7 laptop which serves me well, I might buy a desktop later on when I have some money to spare and some time to have fun with it, not that I have a lot of either at the moment hehe
Forgot to mention, that price would have to be competitive but that is almost a given, maybe even from the launch date, we will see
User avatar
Cid
Senior Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Mexico

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby clone » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:35 pm

If you look at the history - AMD had massive performance lead over P4 back in the early days of A64s yet they couldn't capitalize as much because Intel just squeezed them on the price perspective and their "rebates" (for exclusivity). Intel's behavior has left joe blow still thinking AMD is an inferior product regardless of the reality
don't get me wrong I'm not dogging you but that period happened to be an exciting time in PC evolution that I happened to have been present for and I'm just enjoying the memory ....... by mentioning the period where AMD had an extended lead you have to consider all aspects that affected it.

1st off AMD did not have a "massive lead" over intel during the early P4 days, AMD suffered from poor mhz scaling and struggled to keep it's advantage, they were weak in motherboards and depended on 3rd party support which kept them out of the professional space, they also never gained a blatant lead until they went Dual Core, but during all of this time Intel was threatening OEM's and intimidated while leveraging their market position to limit AMD's attempt at making significant inroads worse still was the reality that AMD never had the capacity to get more market and were stuck making gradual inroads as they ramped as best they could.

the last is likely the primary reason why AMD only stole 9% of the market when they did dominate and on a side note also likely why AMD settled the legal dispute with Intel for a paltry 1 1/4 billion when it was clear Intel was guilty, AMD couldn't prove enough in damages because they were at maximum capacity the whole time.

that market share gain of 9% represented a 35% boost in AMD's production at the time and it was all they had.
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.
clone
X-bit Film Critic
 
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:13 am

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby psycho_mccrazy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:37 am

I have just taken a look at these numbers... and the actual article is also linked in the xbitlabs frontpage story.

While the numbers do seem good compared to the Phenoms, it is now pretty evident that comparing core count to core count is also becoming a thing of the past, like clock speeds did before. Intel hyperthreading, AMDs modules, clock boost techs on both are all making the scenario more confusing. Was it the core count that made it happen? Was it the IPC? Was it the clock boost on lower threads?

While this may be OK for those comparing performance at stock speeds with the boosts enabled, it might be slightly misleading and confusing for those of us who overclock the entire thing and disable the boosts techs.

Also, one very big question remains unanswered about the Bulldozer. The Power Consumption! If this 4 module processor does outrank the i7 in stock performance in an overall manner, but is not able to do so with decent TDP, then all is not so rosy for AMD. And linked to the TDP also is the overclocking headroom!
Like the good philosopher Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want.

i5-2500K + 8GB DDR3-1600 + HD7970 on Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3 running W7U
Core2Duo + 4GB DDR2-800 + 7900GTX on Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3R struggling with Debian 6.0.6
User avatar
psycho_mccrazy
X-bit Guru
 
Posts: 2504
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Gurgaon, Haryana, India

Re: Bulldozer Performance Figures (Outpace Sandy Bridge)

Postby Hammer_Time » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:15 pm

Still waiting for retail Desktop Dozers and some real benchmarks...

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

They do have good marketing at least. :whistle:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33823
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Next

Return to Breaking Technology News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests