amd says sandy bridge and bulldozer and equals

amd has made a bold claim.. they say that initial test results are pointing to core i7 sandy bridged to be EQUAL to their bulldozer x6 parts

that is a rather bold claim.. considering that last year the phenom II x6 was a flop its at least refreshing to know that they could tame the 980x dragon into submission this gen (and the 980x is a heck of a wall to climb). so this could prove to be an interesting developement if this holds true

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/21512-bulldozer-to-come-close-to-core-i7

As Bulldozer is AMD's first NEW archtiecture in many years their 6-core models should be beating Intel's quad cores :/

I will read the article soon. Providing those facts are straight its not looking good for AMD!

EDIT: TC, the article says its compared to the 6-core i7, are they refering to the 980x? |I say that because there is no 6core sandy bridge yet from my knowledge, if so then they are comparing their future cpu's to Intel's previous generation :/ Again, worrying!

What socket are we talking about for the bulldozer, AM3 right? robertoenrique

I think it's going to use a new socket.

the problem with that claim is that sandy bridge is already available now. why would anyone wait for bulldozer if it's the same speed as sandy bridge if bulldozer is not faster than sandy bridge by at least a 1.5folds, amd is in serious trouble. i dont know why u guys would be content with equalityfishing666

Because theres a market for it thats why. And for the same reason the Phenom came out, even though the C2D were faster. If theres demand, AMD will make it.

This is a interesting statment, we'll just have to wait and see now!! :)

bulldozer? Isn't there several divisions of the bulldozer. Are they saying the highest end bulldozer the orochi is equal to sandybridge? If thats true its good but also kind of dissapointing.

the problem with that claim is that sandy bridge is already available now. why would anyone wait for bulldozer if it's the same speed as sandy bridge if bulldozer is not faster than sandy bridge by at least a 1.5folds, amd is in serious trouble. i dont know why u guys would be content with equalityfishing666

Not true. The Phenom II's have been a big success, despite the fact that they're only clock for clock about equal to the Core 2 architecture. Both i5 and i7 are faster, but Phenom II's and the AM3 platform in general is cheaper. If Bulldozer is less expensive than Sandy Bridge (CPUs and Motherboards taken into account), then then AMD will still keep a decent market share. If you can sell something for less that performs the same or close to it, people will buy it.

If it's equal to Sandy Bridge, then chances are they're gonna play the price/performance card again. But frankly, I find it to be lack of effort on AMD's part to just match the market's offerings instead of leading the market themselves.

[QUOTE="fishing666"]the problem with that claim is that sandy bridge is already available now. why would anyone wait for bulldozer if it's the same speed as sandy bridge if bulldozer is not faster than sandy bridge by at least a 1.5folds, amd is in serious trouble. i dont know why u guys would be content with equalityhartsickdiscipl

Not true. The Phenom II's have been a big success, despite the fact that they're only clock for clock about equal to the Core 2 architecture. Both i5 and i7 are faster, but Phenom II's and the AM3 platform in general is cheaper. If Bulldozer is less expensive than Sandy Bridge (CPUs and Motherboards taken into account), then then AMD will still keep a decent market share. If you can sell something for less that performs the same or close to it, people will buy it.

[QUOTE="fishing666"]the problem with that claim is that sandy bridge is already available now. why would anyone wait for bulldozer if it's the same speed as sandy bridge if bulldozer is not faster than sandy bridge by at least a 1.5folds, amd is in serious trouble. i dont know why u guys would be content with equalityhartsickdiscipl

Not true. The Phenom II's have been a big success, despite the fact that they're only clock for clock about equal to the Core 2 architecture. Both i5 and i7 are faster, but Phenom II's and the AM3 platform in general is cheaper. If Bulldozer is less expensive than Sandy Bridge (CPUs and Motherboards taken into account), then then AMD will still keep a decent market share. If you can sell something for less that performs the same or close to it, people will buy it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="fishing666"]the problem with that claim is that sandy bridge is already available now. why would anyone wait for bulldozer if it's the same speed as sandy bridge if bulldozer is not faster than sandy bridge by at least a 1.5folds, amd is in serious trouble. i dont know why u guys would be content with equalityMarfoo

Not true. The Phenom II's have been a big success, despite the fact that they're only clock for clock about equal to the Core 2 architecture. Both i5 and i7 are faster, but Phenom II's and the AM3 platform in general is cheaper. If Bulldozer is less expensive than Sandy Bridge (CPUs and Motherboards taken into account), then then AMD will still keep a decent market share. If you can sell something for less that performs the same or close to it, people will buy it.

Yes, Phenom II's are roughly equal clock for clock to Core 2's. They're slightly slower clock for clock than the newer 45nm Core 2's. The reason the Phenom II 920 and 940's were pitted against the Q6600 when they came out 2 years ago was because of the price points. The 2.8ghz PII 920 beats the 2.4ghz Q6600 in almost every test, as it has a little bit of extra clock speed to do it. If you don't believe me, brush up on things-

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16

It doesn't take much effort to come to the conclusion that they're clock for clock almost a dead match.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="fishing666"]the problem with that claim is that sandy bridge is already available now. why would anyone wait for bulldozer if it's the same speed as sandy bridge if bulldozer is not faster than sandy bridge by at least a 1.5folds, amd is in serious trouble. i dont know why u guys would be content with equalityfishing666

Not true. The Phenom II's have been a big success, despite the fact that they're only clock for clock about equal to the Core 2 architecture. Both i5 and i7 are faster, but Phenom II's and the AM3 platform in general is cheaper. If Bulldozer is less expensive than Sandy Bridge (CPUs and Motherboards taken into account), then then AMD will still keep a decent market share. If you can sell something for less that performs the same or close to it, people will buy it.

It's not outdated if it runs current apps well.

amd has made a bold claim.. they say that initial test results are pointing to core i7 sandy bridged to be EQUAL to their bulldozer x6 parts

that is a rather bold claim.. considering that last year the phenom II x6 was a flop its at least refreshing to know that they could tame the 980x dragon into submission this gen (and the 980x is a heck of a wall to climb). so this could prove to be an interesting developement if this holds true

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/21512-bulldozer-to-come-close-to-core-i7

ionusX

The title of this thread, and your link to that article don't match up.

The article doesn't claim that AMD are getting close to Sandy Bridge i7, it only mentions i7 which is a subtle but important difference - to me it reads as if they are only comparing to the "first gen" i7's, and the "come close to i7" suggests that even these early benchmarks aren't indicating it will be better.

As there are already overclocked Sandy Bridge bundles available offering speeds of 4.6GHz - LINK it looks like AMD will still be focusing on selling for a lower price to get market share.

Reread the article, AMD doesn't at any point say that they'll be about the same as gulftowns, fudzilla does. And that is gulftown not sandy bridge as the only hexcore (which is what they compare BD to) is a gulftown.

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Not true. The Phenom II's have been a big success, despite the fact that they're only clock for clock about equal to the Core 2 architecture. Both i5 and i7 are faster, but Phenom II's and the AM3 platform in general is cheaper. If Bulldozer is less expensive than Sandy Bridge (CPUs and Motherboards taken into account), then then AMD will still keep a decent market share. If you can sell something for less that performs the same or close to it, people will buy it.

hartsickdiscipl

Yes, Phenom II's are roughly equal clock for clock to Core 2's. They're slightly slower clock for clock than the newer 45nm Core 2's. The reason the Phenom II 920 and 940's were pitted against the Q6600 when they came out 2 years ago was because of the price points. The 2.8ghz PII 920 beats the 2.4ghz Q6600 in almost every test, as it has a little bit of extra clock speed to do it. If you don't believe me, brush up on things-

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16

It doesn't take much effort to come to the conclusion that they're clock for clock almost a dead match.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Marfoo"] Clock for clock equal to Core 2? I remember AMD specifically putting their 3.0GHz+ Black Edition to compete with the Q6600, which was 600MHz lower clocked. Of course the game changed when you get either one overclocked, but they are not clock for clock equals (that doesn't mean they weren't competitive though.)Marfoo

Yes, Phenom II's are roughly equal clock for clock to Core 2's. They're slightly slower clock for clock than the newer 45nm Core 2's. The reason the Phenom II 920 and 940's were pitted against the Q6600 when they came out 2 years ago was because of the price points. The 2.8ghz PII 920 beats the 2.4ghz Q6600 in almost every test, as it has a little bit of extra clock speed to do it. If you don't believe me, brush up on things-

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16

It doesn't take much effort to come to the conclusion that they're clock for clock almost a dead match.

That article does nothing but contradict itself.

[QUOTE="Marfoo"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, Phenom II's are roughly equal clock for clock to Core 2's. They're slightly slower clock for clock than the newer 45nm Core 2's. The reason the Phenom II 920 and 940's were pitted against the Q6600 when they came out 2 years ago was because of the price points. The 2.8ghz PII 920 beats the 2.4ghz Q6600 in almost every test, as it has a little bit of extra clock speed to do it. If you don't believe me, brush up on things-

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16

It doesn't take much effort to come to the conclusion that they're clock for clock almost a dead match.

GummiRaccoon

That article does nothing but contradict itself.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Marfoo"] Clock for clock equal to Core 2? I remember AMD specifically putting their 3.0GHz+ Black Edition to compete with the Q6600, which was 600MHz lower clocked. Of course the game changed when you get either one overclocked, but they are not clock for clock equals (that doesn't mean they weren't competitive though.)Marfoo

Yes, Phenom II's are roughly equal clock for clock to Core 2's. They're slightly slower clock for clock than the newer 45nm Core 2's. The reason the Phenom II 920 and 940's were pitted against the Q6600 when they came out 2 years ago was because of the price points. The 2.8ghz PII 920 beats the 2.4ghz Q6600 in almost every test, as it has a little bit of extra clock speed to do it. If you don't believe me, brush up on things-

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16

It doesn't take much effort to come to the conclusion that they're clock for clock almost a dead match.

This is completely contrary to most of the other reviews that I've seen.

Notice the Q9450 and Q9550 keeping pace or surpassing the higher clocked Phenom II processors. Even the Q6600 and Q9300 in some cases. Link 1Link 2 But looking through reviews it's hard to tell. It seems some reviews will favor Intel and others AMD. I usually trust Anandtech, but it almost looks like they have a bit of a biased example.Marfoo

Anandtech stopped being unbiased in 2003

And as for the article contradicting itself, the conclusion is contradictory of the graphs. "Phenom IIs are as fast as i5s and i7s, but the get the C2 because it's the best."

[QUOTE="Marfoo"]Notice the Q9450 and Q9550 keeping pace or surpassing the higher clocked Phenom II processors. Even the Q6600 and Q9300 in some cases. Link 1Link 2 But looking through reviews it's hard to tell. It seems some reviews will favor Intel and others AMD. I usually trust Anandtech, but it almost looks like they have a bit of a biased example.GummiRaccoon

Anandtech stopped being unbiased in 2003

And as for the article contradicting itself, the conclusion is contradictory of the graphs. "Phenom IIs are as fast as i5s and i7s, but the get the C2 because it's the best."

i donot think we can make any guesses about bulldozer. it is a completely different architecture from the phenoms.

amd have officially stated that they are looking at 3.5ghz+. a shift from 45 to 32nm with lesser number of transistors compared to thuban. that should make it cooler and ideal for overclocking. 8 core has 852million transistors compared to 904mil for thuban(just for comparison the quad core sandy bridge has 995million). 256bit floating point( flex fp). real core multithreading vs virtual core multi threading. new extensions. 3 or 4 more than intel will have in sandybridge.

http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/20952-bulldozer-hints-35ghz-8mb-l3-and-turbo-20

As a person who went for a Phenom II X4/AM3 setup because of the excellent price/performance ratio, I have to say that Sandy Bridge is HIGHLY impressive in that department. I'm tempted to go for it.. But I think I'll wait and see what Bulldozer and Socket 2011 can do. I do transcode a fair amount of HD video on my PC, and I know a 2500k will kick my CPU's butt with it, but I'm not feeling like I'm lacking for performance there. Must see what the rest of the new generation brings before making the call!

They're saying their 6 core Bulldozer is on par with a 4 core Sandy Bridge? Ummm... So what? Socket 2011 should come around the same time as Bulldozer, so once again, AMD will be behind Intel and continue to be the budget build CPU.C_Rule

I have to wonder how long those of us with 3ghz+ Core 2 Quads and Phenom II X4's will be in good shape in terms of performance in apps/games. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe another 18-24 months at least.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]They're saying their 6 core Bulldozer is on par with a 4 core Sandy Bridge? Ummm... So what? Socket 2011 should come around the same time as Bulldozer, so once again, AMD will be behind Intel and continue to be the budget build CPU.hartsickdiscipl

I have to wonder how long those of us with 3ghz+ Core 2 Quads and Phenom II X4's will be in good shape in terms of performance in apps/games. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe another 18-24 months at least.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]They're saying their 6 core Bulldozer is on par with a 4 core Sandy Bridge? Ummm... So what? Socket 2011 should come around the same time as Bulldozer, so once again, AMD will be behind Intel and continue to be the budget build CPU.C_Rule

I have to wonder how long those of us with 3ghz+ Core 2 Quads and Phenom II X4's will be in good shape in terms of performance in apps/games. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe another 18-24 months at least.

sure hope so i just got a GTX 570 and a Phemon II x4 955 BE last week. console gaming ruined PC gaming forever :(

One thing is certain, even if Core i7 remains faster, Bulldozer X8 and X6 parts should end up way cheaper. It looks like AMD will finally give Intel a run for its money.

yeah but if you got your corei7 2 years ago it wasnt that expensive either

If it's equal to Sandy Bridge, then chances are they're gonna play the price/performance card again. But frankly, I find it to be lack of effort on AMD's part to just match the market's offerings instead of leading the market themselves.

ravenguard90

I very much doubt it's a lack of effort on AMD's part. I think it's more the fact that Intel can and AMD can't, especially when talking about challenging the high en offerings from Intel. THat probably requires a huge amount of R/D, something for which Intel has the money whereas AMD probably hasn't.

[QUOTE="ravenguard90"]

If it's equal to Sandy Bridge, then chances are they're gonna play the price/performance card again. But frankly, I find it to be lack of effort on AMD's part to just match the market's offerings instead of leading the market themselves.

Heyhuub

I very much doubt it's a lack of effort on AMD's part. I think it's more the fact that Intel can and AMD can't, especially when talking about challenging the high en offerings from Intel. THat probably requires a huge amount of R/D, something for which Intel has the money whereas AMD probably hasn't.

AMD did not claim anything. Also, the source using "but we don't know" pretty much destroyed its own credibility.

scan had the sandy bridge at £240 then said call for price, then £258 then call for price, then £275. I think i'll wait. Since the only decent mobo is the ud7 imo, i like the uefi bios with asus and the digi vrm. But its not enough, its almost double (or at least a fair bit more) for an intel board with the same features as the CH:IV, sure its better but srsly? I'm waiting for bulldozer.

Amd destroyed intel last time they had a new architecture, but intel brought out the prescott cpu's from what i remember.

scan had the sandy bridge at £240 then said call for price, then £258 then call for price, then £275. I think i'll wait. Since the only decent mobo is the ud7 imo, i like the uefi bios with asus and the digi vrm. But its not enough, its almost double (or at least a fair bit more) for an intel board with the same features as the CH:IV, sure its better but srsly? I'm waiting for bulldozer.

Amd destroyed intel last time they had a new architecture, but intel brought out the prescott cpu's from what i remember.

emperorzhang66

ya prescotts were crap

scan had the sandy bridge at £240 then said call for price, then £258 then call for price, then £275. I think i'll wait. Since the only decent mobo is the ud7 imo, i like the uefi bios with asus and the digi vrm. But its not enough, its almost double (or at least a fair bit more) for an intel board with the same features as the CH:IV, sure its better but srsly? I'm waiting for bulldozer.

Amd destroyed intel last time they had a new architecture, but intel brought out the prescott cpu's from what i remember.

emperorzhang66

[QUOTE="emperorzhang66"]

scan had the sandy bridge at £240 then said call for price, then £258 then call for price, then £275. I think i'll wait. Since the only decent mobo is the ud7 imo, i like the uefi bios with asus and the digi vrm. But its not enough, its almost double (or at least a fair bit more) for an intel board with the same features as the CH:IV, sure its better but srsly? I'm waiting for bulldozer.

Amd destroyed intel last time they had a new architecture, but intel brought out the prescott cpu's from what i remember.

Daytona_178