bit-tech.net

AMD squares up to Core i7 Sandy Bridge

AMD squares up to Core i7 Sandy Bridge

The roadmap clearly highlights AMD's intention to go head- to-head with Intel's Sandy Bridge chips.

A leaked document, purportedly created by AMD, has revealed that the company is planning to pitch its forthcoming Bulldozer CPUs directly against Intel's Sandy Bridge chips.

According to the roadmap, posted at X-bit labs, AMD's eight-core FX-81x0 CPUs will be spoiling for a fight with Intel's Core i7-26xx-series chips, for example - a tall order given the Core i7-2600K's power-efficiency and ludicrous overclocking headroom.

AMD has apparently listed 'more cores' and 'overclocked' as the key advantages that its high-end Bulldozer CPUs will have over their Intel rivals.

Similarly, lower down the price range, AMD's 3xxx-series dual and quad-core CPUs tout more cores than their Intel equivalents, as well as dual graphics and support for OpenCL and GPU computing. Again, AMD looks as though it's hoping that these features will give the chips the edge over Intel's Core i3-21xx-series CPUs.

Meanwhile, to compete with Intel's budget-end Pentium and Celeron line-ups, AMD is once again focusing on price, efficiency and performance - areas where it has been gaining ground recently.

Are you looking forward to AMD's Bulldozer CPUs? Do you think this will be AMD's return to form, or will AMD find it hard to compete against Intel's latest and greatest chips? Let us know in the forums.

64 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Snips 14th March 2011, 16:41 Quote
Didn't we read the same on the release of their 6 core CPU's, what happened to them again?

Does this mean AMD will have no answer to Intel's LGA2011 due out after the summer?
GuilleAcoustic 14th March 2011, 17:02 Quote
They are good at rendering (Maya, 3DSmax, etc.). I'm looking to change my "old" Q6600 and was planing to go to i7-2600K, but maybe I should wait a lil' more to see what this 8-cores will be.

I'm mostly interested with 3D rendering / physics simulation.
Amsalpedalb 14th March 2011, 17:15 Quote
I'm not holding my breath, but I really hope this is true. For years the only sensible CPU purchases have been Intels and some actual competition would be fantastic.
Floyd 14th March 2011, 17:21 Quote
Not worried. I have a 2500k and its MORE than enough for me. I havent looked at AMD chips in years.
GeorgeStorm 14th March 2011, 17:30 Quote
I really hope AMD pull one out of the bag here, would love to go Bulldozer rather than SB, no fun benching on air :(
true_gamer 14th March 2011, 17:44 Quote
Don't think me and my 5ghz 990x is bothered...
thetrashcanman 14th March 2011, 17:47 Quote
thumbs up for amd, I'm going to go for a bulldozer build if this 8 core chip is good :D
greigaitken 14th March 2011, 18:14 Quote
I'm sure most hope AMD can manage something to properly compete with intel. Thats asking a lot though and i'm sure most - like me think i'tll be good, but wont quite equal what intels got.
even if it did, all intel has to do is instantly bump up the multiplier a few notches and stay on top.
djzic 14th March 2011, 18:20 Quote
Hopefully, AMD will not lock OC on any of the CPU part of the APUs, which will give them another extra boost in the low and mid range.
schmidtbag 14th March 2011, 18:31 Quote
wait... so amd's 8 core bulldozer is supposed to be the competition with intel's current quad cores? i thought bulldozer was multi-threaded.

i like amd but really, if it takes one of their multithreaded 8 cores to compete with an intel multithreaded quad core, this is probably the most embarrassing hype-up i've seen in computers. however, if this is NOT multithreaded and really is faster, then i'd say amd has done a great job. i hope for amd that this 8 core cpu is not multithreaded.
Goty 14th March 2011, 18:40 Quote
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "multithreaded", schmidtbag.
mucgoo 14th March 2011, 18:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by true_gamer
Don't think me and my 5ghz 990x is bothered...

You could have got your 990 for half the price if there was decent AMD competition at the top end market.
.//TuNdRa 14th March 2011, 19:09 Quote
It concerns me that nowhere did it say "Better performance for price" explicitly. I don't think I'd be capable of preventing laughter if I saw an AMD part going for £900~

Sure, AMD are very, very good value for money, but the best way of squaring up to the i7 would be to undercut it whilst still providing the same performance. Everyone's on a tight wallet at the moment, so producing something better for cheaper would surely earn them more sales at this point in time, anyone else agree?
wuyanxu 14th March 2011, 19:22 Quote
more cores, but AMD is counting a module as 2 cores, in another words, Intel's 970-990x can be count as 12 cores.

fanboy "leaked" slide or AMD's desperate failed attempt at making people drool.
djzic 14th March 2011, 19:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa
It concerns me that nowhere did it say "Better performance for price" explicitly. I don't think I'd be capable of preventing laughter if I saw an AMD part going for £900~

Sure, AMD are very, very good value for money, but the best way of squaring up to the i7 would be to undercut it whilst still providing the same performance. Everyone's on a tight wallet at the moment, so producing something better for cheaper would surely earn them more sales at this point in time, anyone else agree?

I think you should work in their sales department :D
PingCrosby 14th March 2011, 19:35 Quote
ooooooh me nerves.
jimmyjj 14th March 2011, 19:40 Quote
Doubt more cores will bring better games performance, which is all I am interested in.
blink 14th March 2011, 20:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goty
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "multithreaded", schmidtbag.

I think he is referring to Intel's "hyper-threading" (simultaneous multithreading). I am not completely sure but I don't think that the AMD 8 cores have anything like hyper-threading. They are 8 "real" cores to my knowledge.
V3ctor 14th March 2011, 20:29 Quote
Do these cpu's work with AM3 motherboards? Like the Phenom II did with the AM2+ socket?
blink 14th March 2011, 20:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by V3ctor
Do these cpu's work with AM3 motherboards? Like the Phenom II did with the AM2+ socket?

Apparently not. Word is they will require a new mobo. AM3+ it has been referred to as so far.
JohnSheridan 14th March 2011, 20:37 Quote
It is all very well AMD saying Bulldozer will give SB a run for its money but WHERE is it?

SB is here now and with LGA2011 not too far away I can't help but feel this is nothing more than spin from AMD.
derpooch 14th March 2011, 20:39 Quote
Been a while since I read about Bulldoer/ Llano/ Zambezi/ whichever name AMD calls this, but here it goes-

I am not sure that the modules are 'real cores', but very close. Each module has two part cores, which share resources in order to reduce die space. (or something like that)

On the other hand Hyperthreading only involves a logical core, which I seem to think allows space between cores to be utilsed, but doesn't actually have all of the components that the cores do, hence the threads having less of an impact on performance.

*goes to learn about how all this so he can make a better informed post*
derpooch 14th March 2011, 20:46 Quote
Also, with regards to motherboards, I think that BD requires AM3+, but AM3 CPUs will work with AM3+ :)
schmidtbag 14th March 2011, 20:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blink
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goty
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "multithreaded", schmidtbag.

I think he is referring to Intel's "hyper-threading" (simultaneous multithreading). I am not completely sure but I don't think that the AMD 8 cores have anything like hyper-threading. They are 8 "real" cores to my knowledge.

that was what i was referring to. amd said they were creating their own hyper-threading for bulldozer and it was supposed to be more efficient than intel's. there was an article on bit-tech about it a few months ago.
Denis_iii 14th March 2011, 21:07 Quote
They did it before with the first Athlon and wooped Intel until the Core 2 architeture came out in my opinion so i'm hopefuly :) compitition is good so bring it on AMD!!!!!

Is Bulldozer a new Architecture by AMD? My understand that even the Phenom 2 was a evolution from first Athlon?
frontline 14th March 2011, 21:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by .//TuNdRa
It concerns me that nowhere did it say "Better performance for price" explicitly. I don't think I'd be capable of preventing laughter if I saw an AMD part going for £900~

Sure, AMD are very, very good value for money, but the best way of squaring up to the i7 would be to undercut it whilst still providing the same performance. Everyone's on a tight wallet at the moment, so producing something better for cheaper would surely earn them more sales at this point in time, anyone else agree?

Not sure where the £900 comes from - the price points on the left hand side of the slide indicate the total 'system' price, not the price of the CPU/APU.

If the slide is genuine, then it looks a bit worrying if they are relying on 'more cores overclocked' to compete with the 2500/2600k, however that may be more of an indication of the way that the bulldozer micro-architecture functions than anything else.


Hopefully we'll see some more useful information over the next couple of months that will provide a better indication of performance.
blink 14th March 2011, 21:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by derpooch

*goes to learn about how all this so he can make a better informed post*

It's a pain in the ass keeping up these days IMO. When I plan to start a new build (in the next few months after I see what Llano is really all about), I am just going to post a noobish "Which should I buy?" opinion soliciting post on the [H] or somewhere. It's just easier:(
bulldogjeff 14th March 2011, 21:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blink
Apparently not. Word is they will require a new mobo. AM3+ it has been referred to as so far.

From what I've found out so far they will run in AM3 boards, but I thik it might be like the hex cores on the M£ mobos where you don't get all the features. AM3+ will be the way to go. I would love to see really high overclocks, 5Ghz+ would be good. I've not have a good experience with X58/i7 and I'll quite happily go back to AMD even if it can only match the 990X, I don't realistically need much more than that.
Jipa 14th March 2011, 22:54 Quote
I'll be happy if the price is right. Just give us the chips already!
HourBeforeDawn 14th March 2011, 22:54 Quote
lets home AMD reclaims top spot for a while as it will only help us the consumers even the playing field and bring back the price wars :)
Porkins' Wingman 14th March 2011, 23:02 Quote
In other news... Israel and Palestine don't see eye to eye on everything.
Pookie 14th March 2011, 23:04 Quote
I think AMD will be hard pressed to compete with high end nehalem based cpu's let alone sandy bridge chips,however it would be great to see AMD back on form giving intel a run for its money once again.When it comes to choosing a platform to invest in i find completly boring that Intel is the only realistic choice in price to performance ratio.And no i am not an Amd fan boy (i use i7 920) but would happily go down the AMD route if the product was right.
schmidtbag 15th March 2011, 01:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porkins' Wingman
In other news... Israel and Palestine don't see eye to eye on everything.

in more news, captain obvious was seen today browsing the bit-tech forums and pointed out how porkins made an obvious statement that was obviously not news and was obviously not relevant to this topic.

idk about you but this observation was also obvious.
DbD 15th March 2011, 01:17 Quote
It looks good, although an amd core != intel core. Each AMD module shares resources a bit like intel does with each core and hyperthreading, only less sharing so as I understand it a module has about 1.75 times the power of a single core, where as hyperthreading is more like 1.2 times. IPC (performance/core) isn't meant to be as good as intel either so chances are it'll be competitive but not blow sandy bridge away. SB probably still better for games as you tend to only need 2-4 cores for a game, in which case it's higher IPC will give it the edge. If you've got something that can use all the cores/modules then it'll be fast.

Biggest problem for AMD is they'll only have a few months after release till Intel moves to Ivy Bridge at 22nm and up's performance again.
slothy89 15th March 2011, 01:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis_iii
They did it before with the first Athlon and wooped Intel until the Core 2 architeture came out in my opinion so i'm hopefuly :) compitition is good so bring it on AMD!!!!!

Is Bulldozer a new Architecture by AMD? My understand that even the Phenom 2 was a evolution from first Athlon?
I had an Athlon 64 3000+ back in the day, it was claimed to perform as good as the Intel 3.0GHz Pentium.. 1.8GHz (AMD) vs 3.0GHz (Intel) ? you really think you can get 1.8x the performance clock for clock? AMD has some interesting marketing strategies to push their Price/Performance punt.

When I found out my 3.0GHZ beater was only 1.8, I lost all respect for AMD. Intel may be more expensive, but at least you get what they say you're getting. (if you ignore the billion sockets for intel of course! *roills eyes* )
slothy89 15th March 2011, 01:32 Quote
Oh and by the way, my AMD system did NOT perform as advertised. I built this PC with a group of about 12 people, each making their own machine (school elective) half had Intels, half had AMD. Boy those Intels ran well! and they were only 2.6-2.8 GHz systems! So I'm not just Intel Fanboy-ing it up, there was evidence.
Virtually all other specs were equivalent.

Happy with my in-progress sandy build :)
Lenderz 15th March 2011, 07:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by slothy89
I had an Athlon 64 3000+ back in the day, it was claimed to perform as good as the Intel 3.0GHz Pentium.. 1.8GHz (AMD) vs 3.0GHz (Intel) ? you really think you can get 1.8x the performance clock for clock? AMD has some interesting marketing strategies to push their Price/Performance punt.

When I found out my 3.0GHZ beater was only 1.8, I lost all respect for AMD. Intel may be more expensive, but at least you get what they say you're getting. (if you ignore the billion sockets for intel of course! *roills eyes* )

You do realise that clock speed isn't an indication of speed? That was purely Intel marketing for you. Otherwise a 3Ghz P4, would be the same as a 3Ghz Sandy Bridge right?

Clock speed is meaningless its what you do in that time that matters. And at the time the Athlon architecture was way ahead of Netburst P4. (oh and Netburst didn't "run well" it was possibly the worst chip Intel ever put out, hot and slow.)

If your 3Ghz beater was running at 1.8, you shouldn't have felt mis-sold rather impressed with the efficiency.

What AMD did was break the cycle of misleading marketing by using their own ratings.

Personally I'm not a fanboy either way, I go where I feel the best bang/buck is for each build at the time that I build.

Just sayin':(
perplekks45 15th March 2011, 08:50 Quote
To be perfectly honest I don't think AMD can pull anything out of the hat that can compete with Intel at the top level. They are amazingly strong in the low-power department, blowing Atom away with Zacate/Ontario. This will get even worse for Intel with Llano, judging from what I've seen so far.

My prediction (though I'm in no way the right person to make one, but what the hell? this is the internet after all!):

Enthusiast: Intel
High end: Intel
Mid-market: split between AMD/Intel, with Intel taking the higher mid-market segment, AMD the lower one
Low end: AMD
ULV: AMD/ARM

So, nothing here to get excited about. For me, that is.
Lenderz 15th March 2011, 09:03 Quote
Theres nothing to say AMD can't do it again, they've done it before and do have some very good engineers.

Remember their glory days of the AMD Athlon-FX chips, the original Athlon and Athlon 64. They've come up with some great chips and innovations (memory controller on die, hypertransport) which has benefits the industry as a whole.

Perhaps I like an underdog, but I do hope they pull something out the hat, they're in need of a win.

And its the competition AMD provides and innovations which spurred Intel into their current position.
perplekks45 15th March 2011, 09:18 Quote
Of course it is & of course they can.
But given AMD's track record of the last couple of years they don't look like aiming for the performance crown, do they? Their main objective seems to be to get the very competitive & lucrative low to mid segment under control.
Lenderz 15th March 2011, 09:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
Of course it is & of course they can.
But given AMD's track record of the last couple of years they don't look like aiming for the performance crown, do they? Their main objective seems to be to get the very competitive & lucrative low to mid segment under control.

I might be wrong but was under the impression that Bulldozer was meant to change that, being their first entirely new architecture, containing new technologies, such as their first implementation of hyper-threading which is meant to be a lot stronger than Intels and the rebirth of the FX prefix.

I'm interested to see what will be on offer. :)

I for one will be glad to see the back of the old Athlon architecture, it was great in its day, but is really showing its age.

I'm hoping that the absolute top end Intel chips will remain on top, but in almost every other area we're going to see a good competition.
Snips 15th March 2011, 09:52 Quote
Since everyone is reminising about the alledged good old days of when AMD had a decent product and then speculating that Bulldozer will take back the crown from the evil empire.

I may as well add my 2 pence.

Nothing in this topic or comments can be listed as FACT.

I SPECULATE that this release is from AMD themselves to wet the appetite of their blinkered fan base.

So with the release of this "leaked" document, it looks like AMD will now shut themselves out of the high end market with no product to go up against Intel's LGA2011.

As enthusiasts, doesn't that worry you all? No competition for the products we all aspire to own.
[USRF]Obiwan 15th March 2011, 10:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd
Not worried. I have a 2500k and its MORE than enough for me. I havent looked at AMD chips in years.

I can say the same sentence with a different outcome:

Not worried. I have a AMD Phenom II x4 and its MORE then enough for me. I havent lookt at Intel since a decade...
rollo 15th March 2011, 10:17 Quote
I'd like to see AMD compete but it's unlikely to happen if There new high end CPU comes close to a i7950 I'll be surprised. They certainly won't compete in high end or enthusiast so no compete for top end chips again

AMD need to consider there ideas, make some top end CPUs that cost like old fx range whilst still doing this bargain basement stuff or drop out of even atempting it and focusing on the mid range

As for price / performance part of me says who cares I've never looked at the mid range parts since I started building myself, don't really see that changing
Xir 15th March 2011, 11:04 Quote
I'll believe it when I see a real-world-test.
(Preferrably here on Bit)
It would be great if it turns out this way though. And I'd buy it (unless I've just bought an i5)
ShakeyJake 15th March 2011, 11:42 Quote
I hope AMD sees sense. I don't care if Intel will give me me 100fps and AMD 101fps. I'm sure both manufacturers will have chips that are 'more than enough' for everyday use.

I'm fed up with having to buy a new mobo/cpu/ram combo when I just want one of the above and particularly with Intel's 'one socket a year' method at the moment. On the flip side, I do hope AMD at least get close to Intel in terms of performance purely to drive prices down. The prices that Intel are setting these days are ridiculous, but that's exactly what I'd be doing if I had no competition.

Will Bulldozer be dual or triple channel memory?
Denis_iii 15th March 2011, 12:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenderz
Quote:
Originally Posted by slothy89
I had an Athlon 64 3000+ back in the day, it was claimed to perform as good as the Intel 3.0GHz Pentium.. 1.8GHz (AMD) vs 3.0GHz (Intel) ? you really think you can get 1.8x the performance clock for clock? AMD has some interesting marketing strategies to push their Price/Performance punt.

When I found out my 3.0GHZ beater was only 1.8, I lost all respect for AMD. Intel may be more expensive, but at least you get what they say you're getting. (if you ignore the billion sockets for intel of course! *roills eyes* )

You do realise that clock speed isn't an indication of speed? That was purely Intel marketing for you. Otherwise a 3Ghz P4, would be the same as a 3Ghz Sandy Bridge right?

Clock speed is meaningless its what you do in that time that matters. And at the time the Athlon architecture was way ahead of Netburst P4. (oh and Netburst didn't "run well" it was possibly the worst chip Intel ever put out, hot and slow.)

If your 3Ghz beater was running at 1.8, you shouldn't have felt mis-sold rather impressed with the efficiency.

What AMD did was break the cycle of misleading marketing by using their own ratings.

Personally I'm not a fanboy either way, I go where I feel the best bang/buck is for each build at the time that I build.

Just sayin':(

+1 thanks for saving me the response, yours is better.
Snips 15th March 2011, 12:35 Quote
Actually ever since then, AMD have created their own cycle of misleading marketing by using their own ratings.
iworld 15th March 2011, 12:56 Quote
FINALLY! AMD WILL TAKE THE FIGHT TO INTEL Like the good old days of 2000-2003 when AMD Ruled

Lets hope AMD's next genration 8 Core CPU bench marks blows away Intel Sandy Bridge Quad & Hex core CPU's. It has been a long time and AMD fans are excited to see the under dog becomming Top Dog once again!
Lenderz 15th March 2011, 13:13 Quote
Nevermind, iPhone post fail
Lenderz 15th March 2011, 14:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Actually ever since then, AMD have created their own cycle of misleading marketing by using their own ratings.



For example? I'd honestly like to hear some examples, as I've followed the technology on both sides pretty closely and I've not ever felt that AMD was being “misleading” with their rating system. If I did I'd be one of the first to bleat about it.

You seem to be suggesting that it was misleading that AMD innovated? Or that they had years of having higher performing chips than Intel around the time they introduced their own rating system.

That said a company isn't your friend, you don't need to emotively defend them, a brand is just a brand, a company doesn't care about you, only sucking money out of your wallet, they'll do this through means foul or fair. This is something that I have no qualms admitting to myself, I try to be a well informed purchaser that is all, brand loyalty is to me, ridiculous.

All I was saying was give credit where its due, AMD have in the past, several times, given Intel a damn good hiding, they beat them to break the X86 1Ghz barrier, they then started innovating pretty heavily. The Athlon and Athlon XP were excellent chips which beat Intel's rival chips substantially clock for clock. Hence the need for a rating system in the first place, if in 9/10 benchmarks you're beating a 3Ghz P4 with a 1.8Ghz Athlon XP you need to make people aware of this this is why the rating system was introduced, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at reviews of the chip from multiple sources and see their rating was more or less accurate.

They then had the first 64 bit processors, when Intel was stating that home users don't need 64 bit (you could still be limited to 4gig of ram) and developed AMD64, which Intel had to copy essentially in order to compete.

Then AMD had the first true duel and quad cores, whilst Intel was still gluing cores together in a terribly inefficient manner.

Having the memory controller on the die and hypertransport rather than the FSB were good innovations we all as enthusiasts benefit from.

That said perhaps my memory just stretches further back than most, I remember the Athlon FX line resiliently holding on to the top performance crown for a number of years. In benchmarks not ratings, I remember CustomPC rewarding the Athlon FX line several times.

That said Intel came back strong, and has been consistently pushing the boundaries. Their latest chips are awesome, and they have been consistently releasing excellent chips for years now. They got woken from their slumber when AMD started taking not only a substantial amount of desktop market share but also server marketshare and have come out punching with each revision since they dropped Netburst and went back to square one.

That doesn't mean that AMD CPUs haven't been good, they have been, just not as strong at all in the upper end of the market. But everything they've released for many a year has been built upon and variations of the original Athlon architecture, and Bulldozer is their first completely new architecture. It'll be exciting to see what it brings to the table, from what I've seen thus far they're innovating again and I for one hope they give Intel a run for its money again, simply because competition means better products and lower prices.

I'm sorry if I read your reply in a manner you didn't intend, it seemed to me that you were defending your favoured brand rather than countering my statement.
perplekks45 15th March 2011, 14:08 Quote
Interestingly though, LGA 2011 will be out & competing with the 2600K won't be competing for the performance crown but for leadership in the *tadaaa* mid-market segment... again.
azazel1024 15th March 2011, 14:24 Quote
If you are looking at power efficiency, than Atoms still beat Zacate/Ontario, by a small amount, but Atom is also almost 2 years older for its basic design than Zacate/Ontario. Now if you are going for a chip to put in something like a netbook or HTPC, I'd go Zacate/Ontario, but if I wanted a low power server...Atom is the way I'd go (better processing efficiency). Zacate/Ontario because of the >>> GPU on die, Atom because it has better processing efficiency (even if not quite as fast as the E350).

Llano might hold the low end, but it doesn't look like it is going to compete against anything other than dual core SB at best (and that is quad core Llano vs dual core SB). Llano is nothing other than current K10.5 architecture + a GPU on die. That is nice for integrated system builders, and great for lower end systems where you want power and cost savings from not needing a discrete GPU...but it isn't going to catch much of the mid market unless it has a much, much better GPU on die than it looks like it is going to have (it is at best going to catch casual gamers, people's grand parents, and people who surf the web and do their taxes on their home computer).

Bulldozer...well I can hope, but if AMD is stacking up an 8 core chip to be the winner over a 4 core...well, it just doesn't sound like the architecture is that advanced. Better than K10.5 maybe, but SB isn't Intel's high end, SB EX is going to be. Now I'll grant you AMD hasn't really been trying to compete against Intels higher end chips in a long time (or at least I hope they haven't been)...but it deffinitely gives Intel a certain amount of prestiage, and captures a lot of the server market as well.

Unless bulldozer manages a miracle and can at least out perform Intel on power consumption vs processing power (I highly doubt that), or radically under cut them on price, I just don't see Bulldozer being a winner. I want them to be able to, I like healthy competition (consumer wins)...but I just have to repeat my stance that I don't see AMD taking the lead in this cycle, and probably not the next one as Ivy bridge isn't all that far away (didn't SB just show up???)

Course I'd love to see AMD come out with some cheap low power chips, A la the Sempron and e series. Give me some 20-35w TDP dual to quad core chips for under $100 and I'll be a happy, happy man building a new low power server (course I just built a Sempron 140 server a few weeks ago, but hey, I can dream/plan ahead).
Snips 15th March 2011, 14:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenderz

No need to apologise at all. My response was pretty sceptical of your original statement so it me that needs to say sorry. As we have many cases of all the brand's marketing aimed to favour themselves rather than the competition. However, in the real world, we make the comparisons and then the informed decision to buy the most appropriate product or component for our needs.

The problem for AMD is that they have promised quite a bit in recent years and then not really delivered. As a company, any short term gains they have made against their competition have not really been built upon to progress further and be that overall leader in the ever important performance in any budget.

Case in point are the Bit-Tech recommendations have not seen an AMD CPU in any of the builds for some time. Additionally, the GPU market where they really did have a head start with the current generations have not gone on dominate by any margin at all, if any.

The fact that have no answer to Intel's LGA2011 based launch later in the year tells me that they are either taking a wait and see approach or are pulling out of the high end market completely.

With shares falling and investors bailing, Bulldozer has to work for AMD or we may have to fear the worst. Losses cannot continue to pile up and they may be picked up, rather cheap in the end by a major competitor. The rumours of interest have been heard within the last month and they don't sound like a saving excercise either, more of a save the profitable parts and mothball the rest.
adidan 15th March 2011, 15:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
The fact that have no answer to Intel's LGA2011 based launch later in the year
We don't have any idea what they will have to answer too.

I'm not sure whether to read the whole of this thread or just gossip over the fence with my neighbour about it.
NethLyn 15th March 2011, 16:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by derpooch
Also, with regards to motherboards, I think that BD requires AM3+, but AM3 CPUs will work with AM3+ :)

OK so no change from AM2/+ then, at least people can bring forward their old chips if they want. I knew it would be a new motherboard whenever these chips arrived, the question is whether they have the two different boards depending on the RAM slot again, if they believe DDR4 has any demand whatsoever by the summer.

My Mum's PC died at the weekend, I need a cheap and quick replacement, that's AMD all the way, it's not the fastest by a long shot but I know the mobo always worked, and stability's what you want for a rellie's machine. I'm more annoyed that AMD just seemed to want GPU money and didn't have anything in the channel to really benefit from the Sandy Bridge screwup.
Snips 15th March 2011, 17:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
The fact that have no answer to Intel's LGA2011 based launch later in the year
We don't have any idea what they will have to answer too.

I'm not sure whether to read the whole of this thread or just gossip over the fence with my neighbour about it.

Go for it dude, I'm sure your neighbour will know more.
adidan 15th March 2011, 18:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Go for it dude, I'm sure your neighbour will know more.


Aye, at 80-odd he knows quite a lot. :D
GAVI 15th March 2011, 21:01 Quote
I think if AMD had something that was actually better than what Intel's offering they'd make that clear. The fact that they're just saying that it will compete with Intel's offering, to me, seems to suggest that at best it could offer similar performance, being better at certain things and worse at others.
sausages 15th March 2011, 22:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mucgoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by true_gamer
Don't think me and my 5ghz 990x is bothered...

You could have got your 990 for half the price if there was decent AMD competition at the top end market.

But then he would have less epeen
l3v1ck 15th March 2011, 23:22 Quote
Quote:
AMD has apparently listed 'more cores'
So does that mean they need more cores to compete as their cores aren't as powerful?
I hope not. That's what they're having to do now with their K8 derived cores.
perplekks45 16th March 2011, 08:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidan


Aye, at 80-odd he knows quite a lot. :D
You're living next to John?
red4our 16th March 2011, 15:39 Quote
Just seems that with Intel's LGA2011 just around the corner, that its a case of too little too late for AMD. As much as I'd like to see AMD offer Intel competition in both performance and pricing, they seem to be perennially one step behind. Its such a shame as we could all benefit from a good head-to-head fight, but I get the impression that its not going to happen, no matter how much this "leak" tries to sex it up. :(
Action_Parsnip 17th March 2011, 00:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSheridan
It is all very well AMD saying Bulldozer will give SB a run for its money but WHERE is it?

SB is here now and with LGA2011 not too far away I can't help but feel this is nothing more than spin from AMD.

Well, you have to throw your hat into the ring one day. Noone gets every bet they make right, plop some money down now if your keen. Time will tell if you did good or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
that was what i was referring to. amd said they were creating their own hyper-threading for bulldozer and it was supposed to be more efficient than intel's. there was an article on bit-tech about it a few months ago.

Cluster Multi Threading. Share more parts, duplicate less, higher average utilisation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
I think AMD will be hard pressed to compete with high end nehalem based cpu's let alone sandy bridge chips...

The more you read about Bulldozer the more you invariably find out about the current k10 design and how old and clunky it is on many levels. The world really has moved on a great deal from the K8 days. From what we've been told Bulldozer sweeps away all the antiquated grot of 'family 10h' and replaces it with something truly modern.
Given how very different Bulldozer is compared to Thuban, Deneb, Barcelona and Clawhammer then there really is only one way to look at things and that is: ALL. BETS. ARE. OFF. Literally it could be great or it could be terrible, noone is any the wiser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slothy89
I had an Athlon 64 3000+ back in the day, it was claimed to perform as good as the Intel 3.0GHz Pentium.. 1.8GHz (AMD) vs 3.0GHz (Intel) ? you really think you can get 1.8x the performance clock for clock? AMD has some interesting marketing strategies to push their Price/Performance punt.

When I found out my 3.0GHZ beater was only 1.8, I lost all respect for AMD. Intel may be more expensive, but at least you get what they say you're getting. (if you ignore the billion sockets for intel of course! *roills eyes* )

whatareyousmokingandcanihavesome?

kthxbye
Quote:
Originally Posted by slothy89
Oh and by the way, my AMD system did NOT perform as advertised. I built this PC with a group of about 12 people, each making their own machine (school elective) half had Intels, half had AMD. Boy those Intels ran well! and they were only 2.6-2.8 GHz systems! So I'm not just Intel Fanboy-ing it up, there was evidence.
Virtually all other specs were equivalent.

Happy with my in-progress sandy build :)

Probably awful VIA chipset. No word on how you set them up on a software level. Did you even look in the bios at all? Did they have same ram type, speed and size? same hard disk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
To be perfectly honest I don't think AMD can pull anything out of the hat that can compete with Intel at the top level. They are amazingly strong in the low-power department, blowing Atom away with Zacate/Ontario. This will get even worse for Intel with Llano, judging from what I've seen so far.

My prediction (though I'm in no way the right person to make one, but what the hell? this is the internet after all!):

Enthusiast: Intel
High end: Intel
Mid-market: split between AMD/Intel, with Intel taking the higher mid-market segment, AMD the lower one
Low end: AMD
ULV: AMD/ARM

So, nothing here to get excited about. For me, that is.

I would take how Bobcat performs (very well) as a good omen of their prowess at coming up with new core designs (90% IPC of K8 at a fraction of the die size).
Quote:
Originally Posted by azazel1024
If you are looking at power efficiency, than Atoms still beat Zacate/Ontario, by a small amount...

I'd very much like to see what has given you that impression. Bobcat in all it's forms looks veeeeery power efficient for a given level of performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAVI
I think if AMD had something that was actually better than what Intel's offering they'd make that clear. The fact that they're just saying that it will compete with Intel's offering, to me, seems to suggest that at best it could offer similar performance, being better at certain things and worse at others.

They've been tight-lipped about all their graphics products from the 4870 onwards, and their cpu products from the original Phenom onwards. I think it's just their policy not to say anything more than the bare minimum
Quote:
Originally Posted by red4our
Just seems that with Intel's LGA2011 just around the corner, that its a case of too little too late for AMD. As much as I'd like to see AMD offer Intel competition in both performance and pricing, they seem to be perennially one step behind. Its such a shame as we could all benefit from a good head-to-head fight, but I get the impression that its not going to happen, no matter how much this "leak" tries to sex it up. :(

Read the article on realworldtech.com concerning Bulldozer. I googled every other term as I barely understood a thing but I got there in the end. Long story shortened: the only conclusion you can draw is that pretty much anything could happen with this thing, loopy fast or just 'meh'.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums