bit-tech.net

AMD ships first Bulldozer processors

AMD ships first Bulldozer processors

Bulldozer - apparently not coming to a desktop PC near you any time soon.

AMD has announced that it's now shipping its first Bulldozer processors. According to the company, it began production of a 16-thread processor that's ‘compatible with Opteron 6100 series platforms and infrastructures’ and codenamed Interlagos in August.

AMD says it's already shipping the processor to system builders, and that it expects Interlagos-based systems to be available in the fourth quarter of 2011.

AMD made no mention of the Opteron 4200 series in its announcement, however, and the Valencia codename was conspicuously absent. Valencia is another F1 Grand Prix track, in case you’re not a fan, and it follows on from AMD’s 12-core Opteron 6174, which was codenamed Magny-Cours after the now-retired French Grand Prix track.

Interestingly, however, AMD also claims that ‘many of the initial shipments have been earmarked for large custom supercomputer installations that are now underway.

Sadly, there’s no mention of the desktop flavour of Bulldozer, though, which is codenamed Zambezi. We originally expected to see Bulldozer CPUs appearing with the launch of the AMD 990FX chipset and Socket AM3+ releases back in April and May, but the continued delays indicate that yields of the new die might not have met AMD's expectations.

Are you encouraged by the news that AMD is finally shipping some Bulldozer CPUs, or are you worried that this might become another Phenom ‘true quad-core’ debacle? Let us know in the forum.

36 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Jack_Pepsi 8th September 2011, 12:24 Quote
Meh.
BoogieMan 8th September 2011, 12:27 Quote
Will be interesting to see their price range on release.
cjoyce1980 8th September 2011, 12:28 Quote
give me power!
CrapBag 8th September 2011, 12:29 Quote
OMG I am so bored of waiting and waiting and waiting.

I am so tempted just to get a 2500K and have done with it but I know I will kick myself hard if AMD do pull it out of the bag.

For the love of god AMD at least get some benchmarks out so we can all know if the wait will be worth it.
Journeyer 8th September 2011, 12:35 Quote
Argh!
I just want one 8150 for my new Sabretooth! Come on AMD, get them out there.
Glix 8th September 2011, 12:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrapBag
OMG I am so bored of waiting and waiting and waiting.

I am so tempted just to get a 2500K and have done with it but I know I will kick myself hard if AMD do pull it out of the bag.

For the love of god AMD at least get some benchmarks out so we can all know if the wait will be worth it.

You know what that means though... when Intel found their 'gem', they were more than happy to leak as much info on their c2d to persuade people to wait and buy their new product.
r3loaded 8th September 2011, 12:45 Quote
The fact that benchmarks have hardly leaked out means that something must be wrong with Bulldozer :/
GuilleAcoustic 8th September 2011, 12:48 Quote
This is a very painful wait for me .... AMD please tell us something :'(
CrapBag 8th September 2011, 12:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glix
You know what that means though... when Intel found their 'gem', they were more than happy to leak as much info on their c2d to persuade people to wait and buy their new product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
The fact that benchmarks have hardly leaked out means that something must be wrong with Bulldozer :/

That's exactly what worries me, I feel if it was going to be really good they would be shouting from the rooftops by now which in turn might actually stop people from buying Intel now.
warejon9 8th September 2011, 12:59 Quote
I might've seen somewhere that the CPC performance hasn't increased that much.

On the positive side of pesimism, hopefully they've not released bench's due to hoping to get the jump on intel. Did they ever release bench's for the athlon 64 (back in the netburst day's)?
Hustler 8th September 2011, 13:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
The fact that benchmarks have hardly leaked out means that something must be wrong with Bulldozer :/

Read them and weep.....30% slower clock for clock than SB.....

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QLn9rR2rn5oJ:www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_amd_bulldozer&l=en&a=+sisoftware+bulldozer&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a
Bede 8th September 2011, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
The fact that benchmarks have hardly leaked out means that something must be wrong with Bulldozer :/

Read them and weep.....30% slower clock for clock than SB.....

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QLn9rR2rn5oJ:www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_amd_bulldozer&l=en&a=+sisoftware+bulldozer&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a

How did you get hold of that article? It's pretty depressing if it's true - Intel will be able to charge what they like for Ivy Bridge and SB-E as it looks like Bulldozer can't even compete with this generation.
azazel1024 8th September 2011, 14:22 Quote
We'll have to wait and see for release hardware what the true performance is. However, in similar number of thread apps up to the number of cores in a SB and the number of modules in a bulldozer, I'd expect the bulldozer to range from 10-30% slower clock for clock. Against hyperthreaded SB CPUs I'd expect performance in threaded apps ranging up to twice the number of cores in an SB and twice the number of modules in a bulldozer, that highly integer threads are probably going to perform similar or MAYBE a hair better than SB. In FP highly threaded applications I'd expect SB to pull even further ahead as the bulldozer cores have only somewhat improved FP performance from all indications, and they don't have the ability to run more than one FP thread per module, where as the SB hyperthreaded chips can at least run 2 per core, even if it is a time share arrangement effectively.

So frankly, with the exception of things like some server workloads (database operations, some HTPC work, fileserving and a few others) I'd expect the bulldozer chips to perform worse clock for clock by a fair margin in most desktop workloads, as most are either single threaded, lightly threaded and/or FP operations.

So for some servers, the new bulldozer chips actually make sense. For a desktop they are going to better than the old K10 and K10.5 architecture by quite a bit. Compared to SB, I frankly expect them to be a big dissapointment, though some parts may be cheaper than equivelent SB chips (I wouldn't even hold my breath on that frankly).

Against SB-E, well AMD has pretty much already said they aren't competing against it. Against Ivy Bridge, we'll see, but if Intel's talk holds up, IB is going to be far and away faster than SB with the 3D transistors in its process shrink. That leaves Bulldozer holding the bag in just a few months (maybe by early spring, could be earlier). At best Bulldozer seems like it MAY be better in some highly threaded workload scenarios (seemingly in the minority for desktop workloads) than an SB chip, and SB-E and not too much later IB are going to pull past it like a track star against a fat kid running for a candy bar.

I know AMD can't just give up on the large market shares like low/mid desktop parts, but I almost wish they'd focus in areas they might be able to beat the pants of Intel in. The E350 trashes Atom like mad, and bulldozer does sound like it'll make a lot of sense for some server types. Against mid and upper end desktop parts, Llano and Bulldozer just don't seem like they hold water. I almost wish AMD would give up and do their darndest to create really chip, really low power, really great performance per watt chips for the low end desktop, SOHO server and regular server market and just try to give up on the mid and high end desktop market. An improved architecture llano really could conquer the sub $150 desktop CPU market. An improved E350 (and other low end CPU) could dominate netbook, HTPC and SOHO servers (and with the right tweaks and low power part might even make a killer tablet processor).

Just my 2 cents. In some ways I am an Intel fanboi. I used to use AMD parts exclusively way back in the single core days (Intel Celeron 433 for me, after that all AMD parts until my latest Core 2 E7500 a couple of years ago), but since Intel kicked AMD up between the legs on performance, I haven't been able to concious buying a lower performing part when it doesn't even cost much less. Well, actually I do have a Sempron 140 in my file server, but even that looks like it might get dumped for the new Intel Celeron low power dual core part as it has significantly lower power draw and is dirt cheap (hard to argue with sub $50 price).
Tokukachi 8th September 2011, 14:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
The fact that benchmarks have hardly leaked out means that something must be wrong with Bulldozer :/

Read them and weep.....30% slower clock for clock than SB.....

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QLn9rR2rn5oJ:www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_amd_bulldozer&l=en&a=+sisoftware+bulldozer&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a

Whoever wrote that "article" was an idiot, if your going to fake something at least do get the facts of the known comparison chip right.

There is no 4 core sandy bridge chip that's got hyper threading (i.e a i7), a base clock speed of 3.0ghz with a turbo of 3.6..
wuyanxu 8th September 2011, 15:03 Quote
16 thread processor, im sure AMD will market that as 16 cores. despite there is only 8 modules, each module have single fetch, single decode, single floating point ALU and single write back units. each module also known as a single core by usual definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia definition
A multi-core processor is a single computing component with two or more independent actual processors (called "cores"), which are the units that read and execute program instructions.
each module can only fetch-decode-execute a single instruction at a time, only thing duplicated is integer ALU. so i am having real difficulty trusting AMD at the moment when they market 4-module FX processors as 8 core.
MrJay 8th September 2011, 15:07 Quote
Enough speculation and fanboy standoffs...Just let them launch the bloody things, then we will know : )
DbD 8th September 2011, 15:08 Quote
We've been waiting for ever for proper reviews, now it's shipping and still none. Perhaps this will be the cpu you are never allowed to bench - you are only allowed to buy it if you promise to never check how fast it is.
Nikumba 8th September 2011, 15:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neat69

There is no 4 core sandy bridge chip that's got hyper threading (i.e a i7), a base clock speed of 3.0ghz with a turbo of 3.6..

Unless I have got the wrong end of the stick my Core i7 is a Quad core with hyper-threading or whatever its called presenting 8 cores to both OSX and Win7

This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Desktop_processors would also suggest you are slightly wrong as well.

Kimbie
Tokukachi 8th September 2011, 15:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikumba
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neat69

There is no 4 core sandy bridge chip that's got hyper threading (i.e a i7), a base clock speed of 3.0ghz with a turbo of 3.6..

Unless I have got the wrong end of the stick my Core i7 is a Quad core with hyper-threading or whatever its called presenting 8 cores to both OSX and Win7

This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Desktop_processors would also suggest you are slightly wrong as well.

Kimbie

I was quoting there stats on a specific processor they were supposedly testing, and you link just proves my point, there's no 3.0ghz i7...
jones2636 8th September 2011, 16:36 Quote
I have been waiting on reveiws of this for a few weeks now I am holding off planing my upgrade till more news on this chip is about. It is very frustraing sometimes.
V3ctor 8th September 2011, 17:48 Quote
But u can change the multiplier to lower your clocks... So, maybe it's still valid... anyway, I got tired of waiting, sold my X6 1090T and the mobo, and bought a shiny i7 2600k...
r3loaded 8th September 2011, 18:05 Quote
To clear up some confusion you may have over modules and threads, each Bulldozer module is analogous to a "core". Each is "hyper-threaded" like an Intel core, with duplicated integer ALUs. In integer workloads with multiple threads, a single module can give the performance of two cores, which is why AMD started off in the server market where the workloads are typically integer-based and multi-threaded. However, since the floating-point ALUs aren't duplicated, with floating-point workloads you get the same performance that isn't much better than a single core.

How this pans out in desktop workloads won't be known until it's benchmarked.
KayinBlack 8th September 2011, 18:06 Quote
That benchmark was proven to be fake.

The reason that there are no benches yet is because AMD's NDA is a LOT tighter than Intel's.
cheetopet 8th September 2011, 18:26 Quote
Gotta think AMD would throw us a bone to discourage current intel purchases. This complete radio silence is kinda odd.
sb1991 8th September 2011, 19:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayinBlack
That benchmark was proven to be fake.

The reason that there are no benches yet is because AMD's NDA is a LOT tighter than Intel's.

Indeed. We've seen the same thing with their GPUs, which have generally been excellent.
hrp8600 9th September 2011, 10:35 Quote
I think Bulldozer will have missed the boat by a good 12 months.
Too little, far too late.
SleepyMatt 9th September 2011, 14:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jones2636
I have been waiting on reveiws of this for a few weeks now I am holding off planing my upgrade till more news on this chip is about. It is very frustraing sometimes.

+1

I'm pretty much sold on setting up the fairly standard and affordable 2500K system, but it seems silly not to wait a little longer until the benchmarks are available, just in case I can save myself a bit for the same performance. It does seem like a very long wait mind you.
fdbh96 9th September 2011, 16:20 Quote
I'm just glad I bought an i5 6 months ago ;)
chrismarkham1982 9th September 2011, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I'm just glad I bought an i5 6 months ago ;)

yep, agree with that.
NYTerrence 10th September 2011, 08:06 Quote
Even if Bulldozer can hang with i7 2600k in that price range, it's all over when Sandy Bridge E drops, never mind Ivy Bridge . I want a Bulldozer so bad I can taste it but I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge for sure. 22nm, tri-gate technology overclocked to 4.5 - 5.2 .......yup, that's the what I'm sayin.
l3v1ck 11th September 2011, 21:08 Quote
I'll bet AMD are well chuffed that Intel are delaying Ivy Bridge.
Zinfandel 11th September 2011, 21:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
I'll bet AMD are well chuffed that Intel are delaying Ivy Bridge.

Not if they're delaying it because Bulldozer isn't as good as Sandy Bridge.
Sharpiemwt 11th September 2011, 22:24 Quote
I wonder if these Bulldozer CPU's will be able to match up to Ivy Bridge, else its game set match to Intel.
bulldogjeff 11th September 2011, 22:51 Quote
Well one things for sure, if the release dates are true, we've got exactly one week from tomorrow and Bulldozer will be upon us.

I personally hope it's an absolute monster of a chip, it's the final component to go in to Saturday Night special, although the 1100T in it now does a good job.
CrapBag 11th September 2011, 22:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinfandel
Not if they're delaying it because Bulldozer isn't as good as Sandy Bridge.

Why would Intel delay Ivy Bridge cos bulldozer isn't as good as sandy bridge? Please explain?
l3v1ck 12th September 2011, 06:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrapBag
Why would Intel delay Ivy Bridge cos bulldozer isn't as good as sandy bridge? Please explain?
It costs billions to design CPU's and the ever shrinking FAB processes that that build them.
Yes they've already spent that on Ivy Bridge, but by delaying it (if Sandybridge is better than Bulldozer), they can delay the investment into what comes after sandy bridge while still raking in revenue from it.
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