More news on Bulldozer

Bulldozer scores P6265 in the 3D Mark 11 benchmark, 3045 in PCMark 7, 24434 in Cinebench R10 and manages 136 and 45 frames per second in x264 encoding tests for Pass 1 and Pass 2, respectively. In addition, it took 19.5 seconds to complete SuperPi 1M. Unfortunately there are no Core i7 2600K scores to compare with -- and the benchmark programs used differ from our usual range of tests -- butVR-Zone claims typical scores for Intel's top Sandy Bridge partare lower in all tests except SuperPi 1M, where it is significantly faster.

Compared to the Thuban-based Phenom II X6 1100T, Bulldozer should end up about 50% faster, while overall it slots right in between the Sandy Bridge Core i7 2600K and Gulftown-based Core i7 990X in terms of performance.

Of course scores will vary from platform to platform so we'll reserve judgment until we can put Bulldozer to the test ourselves. If these early comparisons hold up, though, AMD could finally have an answer to Intel on the high-end. The rumored $320 price tag suggests that will be the case considering Intel's Core i7 2600Kcosts roughly the same.

Link

Eight-core against a four core and it was only a bit better? Im beginning to lose hope for Bulldozer.JohnF111

Eight-core against a four core and it was only a bit better? Im beginning to lose hope for Bulldozer.JohnF111

The architecture AMD is using is deceiving...

for example they can't really build a single-core with the Bulldozer architecture since a single module is equivalent to two cores. Four modules = 8 cores. Think of the 8-core more as a 4-core with hyper-threading... just a vast improvement over hyper-threading.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Eight-core against a four core and it was only a bit better? Im beginning to lose hope for Bulldozer.Tezcatlipoca666

The architecture AMD is using is deceiving...

for example they can't really build a single-core with the Bulldozer architecture since a single module is equivalent to two cores. Four modules = 8 cores. Think of the 8-core more as a 4-core with hyper-threading... just a vast improvement over hyper-threading.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Eight-core against a four core and it was only a bit better? Im beginning to lose hope for Bulldozer.Hekynn

You cannot make an apples to apples comparison on cores. Think of it this way, the 2600k uses 4 fat cores capable of 2 threas each ( 8 ) while the Bulldozer uses 8 skinny cores capable of 1 thread each ( 8 ). (or maybe 4 dual cores is a better analogy)

Either way, it's been long assumed that the new FX chips would only match sandybridge.

That is a roughly estimate most have been looking forward too, if AMD finaly have managed to catch up to SB, AMD have made a GIANT jump up in performance. :)

I would love to make use of this CPU in large calculation where it probably kill the SB, an agressive turbocore would mean it still do most things nearly as good as the SB while being much better in demanding multithreading applications, gaming should be no trouble at all for a long time ahead if these numbers are near correct.

The closer to the release the more promizing this far.

Imagine having Intel to be forced to lower the mainstreem (SB is going to be mainstream when 2011 is released, because the 2011 will be very expencive and a server/enthusiast platform.) price to match Bulldozer and have them compete, so this is looking great for us consumers from the little we've seen this far.

I'm still happy with my X6 1100 I got for a mere $200. OC'd to 4ghz, nothing stands in its way still. I think Intel will lay a beat down again once their next lineup hits

Except that BD is a native 8core.... not a dual die or a native quadcore that does 2 threads per core.
Intel still has ~6 months before they get their native octo out.

I think Intel will lay a beat down again once their next lineup hits

wis3boi

So Bulldozer can only take on Sandy Bridge which is Intel's mainstream line-up. Meanwhile the upcoming Ivy Bridge, Intel's enthusiast line, is going to blow both of them away. It's a shame, I was hoping AMD would be able to pose a serious threat to Intel's monopoly over the enthusiast CPU market with Bulldozer.

So Bulldozer can only take on Sandy Bridge which is Intel's mainstream line-up. Meanwhile the upcoming Ivy Bridge, Intel's enthusiast line, is going to blow both of them away. It's a shame, I was hoping AMD would be able to pose a serious threat to Intel's monopoly over the enthusiast CPU market with Bulldozer.gameguy6700

Ivy is a tick to SB tock... no more than a 10-15% increase in performance is expected.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]So Bulldozer can only take on Sandy Bridge which is Intel's mainstream line-up. Meanwhile the upcoming Ivy Bridge, Intel's enthusiast line, is going to blow both of them away. It's a shame, I was hoping AMD would be able to pose a serious threat to Intel's monopoly over the enthusiast CPU market with Bulldozer.LordEC911

Ivy is a tick to SB tock... no more than a 10-15% increase in performance is expected.

Eight-core against a four core and it was only a bit better? Im beginning to lose hope for Bulldozer.JohnF111

Both Intel Core i7-2600 and AMD Bulldozer 8 core (4 BDZ modules)

1. executes 8 hardware threads.

2. issues 16 X86 instuctions per cycle.

AMD's BDZ module doesn't have light or heavy thread effects i.e. BDZ has two integer units + one 128bit SSE FMA unit per thread.

Except that BD is a native 8core.... not a dual die or a native quadcore that does 2 threads per core.
Intel still has ~6 months before they get their native octo out.

LordEC911

[QUOTE="Hekynn"][QUOTE="JohnF111"]Eight-core against a four core and it was only a bit better? Im beginning to lose hope for Bulldozer.Blue-Sky

You cannot make an apples to apples comparison on cores. Think of it this way, the 2600k uses 4 fat cores capable of 2 threas each ( 8 ) while the Bulldozer uses 8 skinny cores capable of 1 thread each ( 8 ). (or maybe 4 dual cores is a better analogy)

Either way, it's been long assumed that the new FX chips would only match sandybridge.

Unlike the normal 8 CPU cores model, one BDZ module can act like Core i7 i.e. allocate up to 4 instruction issues per cycle per thread.

AMD BDZ "8 core" is not 8 AMD bobcat cores glued together.

hopefully with this introduction, it will bring down prices so that average web browsing Joe's will have access to cheaper more powerful chips to replace their aging single cores (GF's mum has my old AMD 3500+ for web browsing and her dad has a intel celeron D 2.6ghz), and maybe those who bought AMD's bottom end quad cores can drop a backwards compatible faster chip in before they become unavaliable

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

I think Intel will lay a beat down again once their next lineup hits

BattleSpectre

the important point is AMD's new cpus will no longer bottleneck their kick ass graphics cards. You know what that means...a whole can of woopass is waiting for intel once amd finishes their bulldozer based apu early next year.

"In addition, it took 19.5 seconds to complete SuperPi 1M." Umm... I just ran Super Pi 1M and it only took 15 seconds. Am I doing something wrong? C_Rule

hopefully with this introduction, it will bring down prices so that average web browsing Joe's will have access to cheaper more powerful chips to replace their aging single cores (GF's mum has my old AMD 3500+ for web browsing and her dad has a intel celeron D 2.6ghz), and maybe those who bought AMD's bottom end quad cores can drop a backwards compatible faster chip in before they become unavaliable

kungfool69

btw: these benchmarks are pretty old and were using a B0 or B1 sample of the FX-8130P. AMD didn't like these benchmarks so they delayed their Bulldozer line-up to improve on them with B2 or B3.ShadowDeathX

Nope, the delay was for the restructuring of their launch prorities. They decided to switch the desktop launch with the server launch to try and capatilize on Intel delaying their offerings. And anyways they wouldn't be respinning this close to launch, ~3months when they first announced the switch in the launch plans.

I love how people are drawing conclusions on a product thats still months away and last I checked, placing between a 2600 and 990x is still pretty damn powerful. gmaster456

BD is a month away, it launches in Sept...

I just ran superPI and it took 19.7 for 1m, with 98 background processes. something seems off.muscleserge

"In addition, it took 19.5 seconds to complete SuperPi 1M." Umm... I just ran Super Pi 1M and it only took 15 seconds. Am I doing something wrong? C_Rule

Superpi runs super fast on intel processors. I don't know why anyone uses it as a metric.

any word on price?grf7291

We're looking forward to a fight we have not seen in many many years if these results are true. :D