AMD benchmarks Bulldozer

I wouldn't go by what that says, I will wait for proper becnhies to be shown mate.
Also remember the way things are going now, more and more software will use multi core/threaded cpu's and seeing as sandy's are only quad's and 1 quad with HT, amd is leading the race, but again for now, don't read into this. AMD is still king of the hill when it comes to bang for buck. Also I don't know if you read, but they aren't even sure which cpu's were benched...
 
Yes, I did see that.....wondered why AMD might prefer not to say what Core i5 they put it up against.

Launch this thing alrready!
 
Hmmm I'd have to agree. Though I think the redesign from AMD's side could prove to be the one thing that gives them a new edge. We'll have to wait and see what happens on the bench circuit. Though I'd still give it at least a month or 2 to really settle before taking the results seriously. But them again the first impressions will be the determining factor for many people impatiently waiting to upgrade their PC's.

If Bulldozer manages to pull off what it intends to do it could dwarf the presence of the upcoming Ivy-bridge processors rumored to release next year as well as the Sandy-bridge E processors which are coming Jan next year.

And even then it still warrants a wait to see what Intel is going to push out with this two series. But at least I can wait another year before I need another upgrade
 
To be honest I think AMD is lagging behind Intel.
I think that Bulldozer will be faster (or very close) than Sandy but when Ivy releases next year Intel will be faster again, this is just my guess and hope I'm wrong because AMD does have better value and I've never had an AMD setup and would love to go AMD if it's better than Intel.
 
Lol, it is true that pure performance wise AMD has lagged in general, but for gamers with a tight budget they are pretty decent. But, like I said the redesign could prove a boost to overtake the Sandy-bridge set. But after a bit of reading up again, we might not be able to compare Bulldozer to Ivy since Ivy is going for 22nm fabrication and Bulldozer still remains on the 32nm architecture. But then again only time will tell ^_^
 
Unfortunate =/. They are really pushing this out till the very end >.< Well hopefully the wait will be worth it for those who are waiting to see what AMD delivers. For me it's mostly about seeing what punch they pack in the tit-for-tat CPU industry :p
 
That article was a little vague to say the least, as for the benchmarks as soon as this CPu is out in full swing we will see them. From what i gather from following the AMD Bulldozer range it should perform well against the i7, as for AMD lagging behind this has always been true but AMD also had a core advantage over Intel.. and I have only had AMD Machines and had no issue with them... I build up enough Intel ones to know some of them are faster than mine...

Its a choice you make i guess, whether you want AMD or Intel. Either way you wont be disappointed. Unless you going for bragging rights.
 
I'm waiting to see if they can bring out something that performs well without consuming so much power. They're really behind Intel on this.
 
They were only running 2 cores and with liquid hydrogen... So this is pretty pointless.

Ito this competing with i7 sandy bridge... It was meant to be released in June. That means it was designed and implemented for that time period.

It will be a first iteration( like sandy bridge) and you should see a second one soon after the initial launch.

Ivy bridge will be the tick as opposed to the sandy bridge tock. So don't expect too huge an advancement.

That Said, I will still wait and possibly buy a builder chip just to support the competition. Especially due to the future-proofness of amd.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyGaming Android App
 
ZAP_Tech said:
That article was a little vague to say the least, as for the benchmarks as soon as this CPu is out in full swing we will see them. From what i gather from following the AMD Bulldozer range it should perform well against the i7, as for AMD lagging behind this has always been true but AMD also had a core advantage over Intel.. and I have only had AMD Machines and had no issue with them... I build up enough Intel ones to know some of them are faster than mine...

Its a choice you make i guess, whether you want AMD or Intel. Either way you wont be disappointed. Unless you going for bragging rights.
Click to expand...

AMD were actually top of the cpu game during the pentium 4 and core duo days, then the core 2 came out and amd didn't really move with the times.


Sent from my U20i using MyGaming Android App
 
Bulldozer modules have dedicated hardware for each core. Intel HT has 2 logical cores sharing the same physical hardware. So on multithreaded applications it should perform better.

kaytel said:
I'm waiting to see if they can bring out something that performs well without consuming so much power. They're really behind Intel on this.
Click to expand...
Say what? Maybe when it comes to Atom but for the desktop it's a pretty close race. Depending on who you ask AMD actually trumps Intel in efficiency.
 
Lupus said:
AMD were actually top of the cpu game during the pentium 4 and core duo days, then the core 2 came out and amd didn't really move with the times.


Sent from my U20i using MyGaming Android App
Click to expand...

Kinda forgot about those times was a long ago, i believe thats the time of the socket 438 for Intel, they were plagued with over heating issues motherboards not working and under performing CPUs, AMD at the time knock out thier socket 939 CPUs with true 64-bit computing and dual core processors. I remember i had one of those it was good fun.

The tide had changed with the Core 2 but AMD didnt follow, they chose to add more cores and so they did, they released the phenom 8 series and triple core, and 9 series quad core, and later the phenom II series. Well i am not sure why AMD doesnt kick it into high gear and get something faster or better out, but i am sure the bulldozer with gain some ground if only briefly.
 
Not even close...

kaytel said:
All the AMD CPUs I've looked at use more power and run hotter.
Click to expand...

Intel and AMD TDP can't be compared. Intel's hardware routinely goes over AMD's metric of TDP, butting up against the thermal boundaries before throttling back.

AMD's hardware doesn't get close.

For instance, if you overclock a Phenom II to 4GHz, you expect MAX temps of 60C. An i5 Sandy Bridge will run closer to 70C.

That is THERMAL efficiency that is better on AMD's side. POWER efficiency favors Intel, right now, almost exclusively thanks to High-K power gating, which AMD's Bulldozer now has.

8 cores, 125W?? That is a TRUE max of 125W TDP, whereas Intel's 130W TDP would mean NO pushing beyond 130W TDP, which Intel chips do readily and often, 130W TDP only being true as an average.

You can't really compare the two :-(

--The loon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top