Bulldozer releasing at E3?

[reflex99]

Rumor has it that AMD is going to launch it at E3. A couple of sites have shown slides that say E3.

Like this one:

I hope so....I have been waiting a damn long time.

 

[iEye Captain]

I hope so.. then the Phenom X4's will decrease in price hopefully..

 

[reflex99]

I probably wont be buying bd on launch, and am probably going to wait to see subzero results.

Hopefully TSMC can make a 32nm transistor that doesn't scale backwards.

 

[fixitquick79]

It better be a major performance increase. Intel Sandy bridge is here and is awesome and Ivy bridge with 3d tri-gate transistors which is the future of computing for the next 10 years imo. So Bulldozer better blow people away. But the rumors I am hearing is that it is pretty underwhelming. AMD I think is gonna have to put all their energy into their ARM segment to stay relative. I used to be a major AMD fan-boy. My second desktop is a phenom x4 black but recently they have not been real innovative. The next year or two is gonna be real interesting in the PC world.

 

[reflex99]

AMD does not have an ARM division.....

They do make SoCs, but not ARM based.

 

[fixitquick79]

I am sure you know what I meant

 

[Mediarocker]

It better be a major performance increase. Intel Sandy bridge is here and is awesome and Ivy bridge with 3d tri-gate transistors which is the future of computing for the next 10 years imo. So Bulldozer better blow people away. But the rumors I am hearing is that it is pretty underwhelming. AMD -snip-. I used to be a major AMD fan-boy. My second desktop is a phenom x4 black but recently they have not been real innovative. The next year or two is gonna be real interesting in the PC world.

Thank you! Finally someone with some sense!

AMD has a lot of work to do. i7 is blowing their procs out of the water stock. More cores does not more performance make!!!

 

[Naku_vamp]

i support amd just based on i know how evil intel CAN be and how dishonest they CAN be if amd ever falls expect pc and processor prices to skyrocket in the absence of competetion

 

[reflex99]

Thank you! Finally someone with some sense!

AMD has a lot of work to do. i7 is blowing their procs out of the water stock. More cores does not more performance make!!!

having owned both 1055T, and i7 860/920, I really can't say i noticed a difference.

 

[Kevimaster]

I've personally only really purchased Intel processors, I had a couple computers with AMD and I had a bunch of weird compatibility and processor issues with some of my programs, haven't purchased an AMD processor since then.

Also, lots of programs (at least that I use) aren't even programmed to take advantage of 4 cores, much less 6 or 8, so having more cores doesn't effect performance at all on those programs for me.

 

[reflex99]

I've personally only really purchased Intel processors, I had a couple computers with AMD and I had a bunch of weird compatibility and processor issues with some of my programs, haven't purchased an AMD processor since then.

Also, lots of programs (at least that I use) aren't even programmed to take advantage of 4 cores, much less 6 or 8, so having more cores doesn't effect performance at all on those programs for me.

how long ago?

Like early 2000, AMD was a bit behind in the instruction sets, but now they are on par with intel on every major instruction set (SSE SSE2 SSE3/S VT MMX etc)

Other than that, both AMD and Intel are X86 based, so they will be compatible with all programs written for X86 systems.

 

[fixitquick79]

having owned both 1055T, and i7 860/920, I really can't say i noticed a difference.

Well there is not a huge difference with a 860/920 as there is a diff with a sandy bridge 2500k/2600k. I have used both and there is a noticeable increase with sandy bridge. And from what I am hearing there is going to be at least a 35% increase over sandy bridge with ivy bridge and tri-gate.

 

[reflex99]

I was more comparing the 1055 to the i7s

860 and 920, there is no difference obviously.

You cant really compare Thuban to sandbridge though, since they are a whole generation apart.

 

[labowsky]

intel costs too much, i don't have 300 bucks to blow on a processor alone, i can get an AMD phenom for $119.
intel are fast processors though, just overpriced.

 

[fixitquick79]

intel costs too much, i don't have 300 bucks to blow on a processor alone, i can get an AMD phenom for $119.
intel are fast processors though, just overpriced.

I agree on that point. If you are aiming for "fast enough" then AMD will be fine. But for me the value calculation of something takes into account performance more than it does for some. A lot of games are coming out that are very CPU intensive in addition to their graphics requirements. with the physics improvements I have a suspicion BF3 might go that way. I tend to balance my components. I will usually spend 300.00 on processor and 300.00 on vidcard rather than spending 120.00 on cpu and 500.00 on video card. That extra 200 on the cpu generally nets you better performance than the diff between a 300 and 500 vidcard. For example a 6970 is 340ish and a gtx 580 is 540ish there is not 200.00 difference there in performance at 1920x1080. However a i7-2600k which can easily overclock to 4.5Ghz or better with amazing results on an "affordable" board is 320.00 while a thuban 1090 is 190.00 and to get it to 4Ghz you would have to spend a lot on cooling and a high-end board if you were lucky enough to ever get it there (while still having non-competitive performance) is only 130.00 cheaper. So those are my "value" calculations. I would rather save my money for an extra month to get the i7 2600k system over an AMD one for sure.

 

[Mediarocker]

i support amd just based on i know how evil intel CAN be and how dishonest they CAN be if amd ever falls expect pc and processor prices to skyrocket in the absence of competetion

Don't think it's JUST Intel that would do this. Most businesses of Intel's size would do it too. Just look at Shell and Chevron.
To be fair, Intel was the industry leader for the longest time. They created a good foundation on what processing architectures are found today, then AMD came in and mixed it up a bit. (I know there are others, but I'm noting profound impacts.)

having owned both 1055T, and i7 860/920, I really can't say i noticed a difference.

Unless you're doing intense calculations, especially when folding, i7's perform better than AMD's stock. You won't notice the difference gaming or otherwise unless the programs are designed for optimization on that core. But just look at the benchmarks. AMD's OC'd can do better than a stock i7. I have seen it, but when it comes to stock performance... I have yet to see them match up. When the AMD 64 released I was all for AMD.. since then.. They've fallen out of favor.

AMD has gotta realize that 12 cores won't make their processor better. They need to focus on something else (different architecture?) to increase performance. I'd like to see better clock speeds stock, rather than a 18 core processor. While more cores may make it more "efficient" for a certain throughput of data, this is only in essence increasing total bandwidth. We need to increase speed. It doesn't matter how much data my proc can handle (at least in this day and age since the 4th core essentially increases performance a negligible amount.) As much as the actual total throughput capabilities. If the processor can take in data faster, with less cores, they can balance out the heat production that is caused by multi-cores. I mean come on, what's going to be hotter? 8 cores at 4GHz? or 4 hyper-efficient cores at 6GHz? Maybe my idea is flawed because we just don't have the technology to achive that yet. But I'm willing to think it possible because years ago a Pentium 4 hit 7GHz.

 

[reflex99]

Don't think it's JUST Intel that would do this. Most businesses of Intel's size would do it too. Just look at Shell and Chevron.
To be fair, Intel was the industry leader for the longest time. They created a good foundation on what processing architectures are found today, then AMD came in and mixed it up a bit. (I know there are others, but I'm noting profound impacts.)



Unless you're doing intense calculations, especially when folding, i7's perform better than AMD's stock. You won't notice the difference gaming or otherwise unless the programs are designed for optimization on that core. But just look at the benchmarks. AMD's OC'd can do better than a stock i7. I have seen it, but when it comes to stock performance... I have yet to see them match up. When the AMD 64 released I was all for AMD.. since then.. They've fallen out of favor.

AMD has gotta realize that 12 cores won't make their processor better. They need to focus on something else (different architecture?) to increase performance. I'd like to see better clock speeds stock, rather than a 18 core processor. While more cores may make it more "efficient" for a certain throughput of data, this is only in essence increasing total bandwidth. We need to increase speed. It doesn't matter how much data my proc can handle (at least in this day and age since the 4th core essentially increases performance a negligible amount.) As much as the actual total throughput capabilities. If the processor can take in data faster, with less cores, they can balance out the heat production that is caused by multi-cores. I mean come on, what's going to be hotter? 8 cores at 4GHz? or 4 hyper-efficient cores at 6GHz? Maybe my idea is flawed because we just don't have the technology to achive that yet. But I'm willing to think it possible because years ago a Pentium 4 hit 7GHz.

this is what buldozer is :thumbup1:

 

[Mediarocker]

From what I've read about Bulldozer it's supposed to be this multi-core monstrosity. The server market is supposed to see a 12-18 core version...... RIDICULOUS and Unnecessary waste of silicone (good for Virtualization though.). I want to see a 4-6 core perform better than Intel's 4-6core. Thankfully they should be releasing quad and hexacores, but there will be a 8 core version as well... *sigh*

I'm not enthused by the "core race".

Anyway, I recently took a look at some benchmarks and the numbers look promising. I only hope AMD makes their Quad and Hex cores higher clock speed than Intel's (maybe that's why the benchmarks look decent?). That'd really be a kick to the rear to Intel which can't seem to get over 3.2GHz stock without having some "Extreme Edition" Proc. But I saw somethings that have me holding back on my BD purchase.

 

[fixitquick79]

From what I've read about Bulldozer it's supposed to be this multi-core monstrosity. The server market is supposed to see a 12-18 core version...... RIDICULOUS and Unnecessary waste of silicone (good for Virtualization though.). I want to see a 4-6 core perform better than Intel's 4-6core. Thankfully they should be releasing quad and hexacores, but there will be a 8 core version as well... *sigh*

I'm not enthused by the "core race".

Anyway, I recently took a look at some benchmarks and the numbers look promising. I only hope AMD makes their Quad and Hex cores higher clock speed than Intel's (maybe that's why the benchmarks look decent?). That'd really be a kick to the rear to Intel which can't seem to get over 3.2GHz stock without having some "Extreme Edition" Proc. But I saw somethings that have me holding back on my BD purchase.

Fully agree that more cores does not equal better performance. Especially in -the desktop segment. As far as clock speed, sandy bridge-E already is going to release at almost 4Ghz stock this year. Ivy bridge with tri-gate is supposed to be a huge leap in efficiency of somewhere over 35% for first gen parts over SB in the area of clack speed vs. heat. So I would think we would get at least 4ghz stock speed for the higher end parts. From what I hear also, the days of 1000.00 extreme editions are over and the highest end processors are going to be around 700.00 which is still high but much better than the 1000.00 current extreme editions.

 

[FreakingHell]

From what I've read about Bulldozer it's supposed to be this multi-core monstrosity. The server market is supposed to see a 12-18 core version...... RIDICULOUS and Unnecessary waste of silicone (good for Virtualization though.). I want to see a 4-6 core perform better than Intel's 4-6core. Thankfully they should be releasing quad and hexacores, but there will be a 8 core version as well... *sigh*

I'm not enthused by the "core race".

Just because they are going to offer high core processors does not mean they haven't improved their architecture. There are several fundamental changes in Bulldozer that should be quite interesting. Read about them.