Bulldozer to come close to the Core i7

[kalniel]

Both companies are on a 32NM production process now and as you know Bulldozer has smaller cores than the Phenom II it replaces. This means the CPUs will probably be more cost effective,have better power consumption and most likely will be able to be clocked higher too.

Than existing Phenom IIs, of course. AMD have rarely failed to beat their own products..

[Biscuit]

I think the most important thing is they have significantly stepped away from the K8-10 architecture which only benefited from small improvements throughout its life to keep it up to an acceptable level in the face of stronger competition. There was no-where left to go with it and they have done something radically different (or so i have read).

Maybe Bulldozer wont clean up (or rather plough up ) but it should be a significant stepping stone for them to improve on and get get back into the game.

Either way, its not worth having too much discussion over at this point as this could just be a totally false rumor.

[kingpotnoodle]

You do realise each the Bulldozer modules is smaller than a normal core?? A 8 core Bulldozer chip will probably end up being smaller than a current Phenom II X6.

I do, and the language here is getting ambiguous... and it's not 100% clear in that article if it refers to an "8 core" or "8 module" chip, which would kind of have 16 cores, although not ones that can exist on their own.

But even if a Bulldozer can almost match the latest 980 or 990X chips, that's still not quite matching something which will shortly replaced (in Q2 when Bulldozer shows up). And we don't know the Bulldozer pricing either, no certainty they will top out <£200 like Phenom does.

We'll see it, but I'm sceptical...

[Homeking]

Am I right in thinking the Bulldozer will require a different socket to the current one like the Sandy Bridge has?

I'm just in the process of finalising a new system based on an AM3 motherboard which could be obselete when this is released!

Any idea about the release date for the Bulldozer?

[Biscuit]

Am I right in thinking the Bulldozer will require a different socket to the current one like the Sandy Bridge has?

I'm just in the process of finalising a new system based on an AM3 motherboard which could be obselete when this is released!

AFAIK AM3 chips will work in bulldozer boards but bulldozer chips will not work in anything of previous generation. Things may have changed though!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Am I right in thinking the Bulldozer will require a different socket to the current one like the Sandy Bridge has?

I'm just in the process of finalising a new system based on an AM3 motherboard which could be obselete when this is released!

Any idea about the release date for the Bulldozer?

They will need an AM3+ motherboard although AM3 CPUs will work in them.

April 2011 is the latest date I have heard.

Anyway,the first AM3+ motherboards were seen an CES.

[Kumagoro]

My concern about going for AM3+ now is future cpu upgrades. The using old tech (as in an AM3 chip)
in a new socket board doesnt interest me and if they had to make some design compromises (which will affect
future gen CPUs) then I think its a bad thing. Obviously thats all unknown, well as far as i know.

AM2+s forward planning is how it should be done and I hope AM3+ will be like that.

[watercooled]

AM3+ is quite different to AM3, they would have been compromising if they stayed with AM3. Just because they don't pointlessly release massively different sockets every few months like Intel doesn't mean they're using 'old tech'.

[Champman99]

I am actually a bit of an AMD fanboy. But I've just bought a SandyBridge platform and my last platform was Core2. It would be great to see AMD make a high end comeback. I think they have been value kings through agressive pricing and through overall cost of platform being cheaper (inc MB) but for performance you really had to go intel.

I actually wanted to wait for Bulldozer but I was impressed with some very glowing Sandy Bridge reviews and now have a Sandy Bridge platform sitting on my desk waiting to be put together.

Here's hoping Bulldozer will be a success though. More competition is always a good thing for consumers.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The only reason Intel changed sockets is to make more money. If Asrock can make a socket 1156 P67 based motherboard then Intel could have kept using the same socket for their new processors.

[Homeking]

They will need an AM3+ motherboard although AM3 CPUs will work in them.

Thanks Cat.

That helps alot as I am now leaning towards getting a cheaper AM3 motherboard and spending the difference on a higher spec CPU. This means I'll be able to move the CPU into a better board at a later date to continue the upgrade process.

No point in going over the top on an AM3 motherboard if it won't support the next generation of CPUs in my opinion.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thanks Cat.

That helps alot as I am now leaning towards getting a cheaper AM3 motherboard and spending the difference on a higher spec CPU. This means I'll be able to move the CPU into a better board at a later date to continue the upgrade process.

No point in going over the top on an AM3 motherboard if it won't support the next generation of CPUs in my opinion.

What sort of budget do you have and what is the computer being used for BTW??

[watercooled]

IMO, if you're not OCing, just get a board that has the features you want. The more expensive boards normally offer little more except for being more OC capable.

[Homeking]

What sort of budget do you have and what is the computer being used for BTW??

My budget is around £350 (no monitor or perpherals etc) at the moment and it's for my home PC that I use for just about everything except serious gaming.

Built several over the years and been through the buy the best currently available and spend the most money stage several times. Now just want something that does everything I want it do, last a while and can do minor overclocking on just for the fun of it!

Been a few years since I built the dinosaur I currently use so I'm a bit rusty - taking me a while to get up to speed again!

[badass]

I do, and the language here is getting ambiguous... and it's not 100% clear in that article if it refers to an "8 core" or "8 module" chip, which would kind of have 16 cores, although not ones that can exist on their own.

The 8 core processors will be 4 module ones. The article will be referring to a 4 module chip when it says 8 core. That is how AMD's nomenclature works. IIRC that was stated by an AMD representative.
The 4 module chips will show up as a 8 cores in windows, much like a hyperthreaded core shows up as 2 on Intel chips.