Supposedly Bulldozer will be close to the Core i7:
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/i...ose-to-core-i7
Printable View
Supposedly Bulldozer will be close to the Core i7:
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/i...ose-to-core-i7
Good!
Come on AMD! Bring it back!
Grrrr. IE6 at work and it can't load the page.
There is a rumour that AMD will bring back the FX branding too:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...rocessors.html
Could be a real contender for my next build. It's going to be all about pricing.
Always a generation behind :(
I'll believe it when I see it... sadly AMD need to make some serious gains to catch up with the new Sandy Bridge CPUs they'll probably be priced against - platform to platform. I won't be surprised if this refers to a higher clocked 8 core Bulldozer matching a 6 core Intel chip, a chip which has been around a year or so already... which isn't that much for AMD to shout about, especially as Intel clearly have frequency headroom on their chips.
The 1366 refresh next year will probably be much faster though with 6/8 core parts and I can't see Intel losing the absolute fastest platform title - I doubt it'll even be close TBH.
Hey don't be so negative, AMD getting some market back will be better for everyone, except Intel's shareholders of course. People also forget (deliberately?) to factor in the cost of the motherboard - for the past few years at least and maybe even before that, AMD motherboards have been substantially cheaper and better value for money meaning the price/performance for the whole system isn't like what some Intel biased (cough Bittech) reviewers claim. And without Intel playing so dirty by forcing companies to use only their chips and such, the market should be more fair to AMD, especially since the very high-end only accounts for a tiny amount of the PC market.
With cheaper and better specified motherboards,the AMD option probably will end up a bit cheaper still in many cases even if the CPUs are price similarly.
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.
The current Sandy Bridge Core i7 quad cores are still slower than a Core i7 980X six core processor in any software which can make use of all six cores.
The fact that a most likely cheaper CPU will match a £700+ processor is quite impressive IMHO especially if it smaller and cheaper to make.
The Phenom II X6 has nearly a billion transistors and has a huge die. Yet it has around the same TDP as Core i7 six core processor and is hitting similar frequencies. AMD is doing this on a 45NM process whereas Intel is using a 32NM process.
It is IPC which is the problem for AMD with their current processors.
However,this time around BOTH companies will have their high end chips on 32NM.
Things are about to get very interesting... ;)
I still think AMD is coming up short, I mean to only be matching a 980x which is a generation old doesn't bode well.
Intel has more tricks, such as six-eight core processors(Sandy Bridge-EX), Quad channel RAM, Hyper threading and the 22nm process.
AMD really need to have something really special.
Which sandy bridge processors have 6 cores?
Just like the Phenom X6, they'll win or come close in benches that can utilise their core advantage, but don't forget, they only have a numerical 'core' advantage for some types of tasks.
They'll still be ace chips, we could have just done with them sooner to prevent Intel from all but skipping 32nm nehalem high end designs through lack of competition.
The article mentions "new". OTH,it could also mean the Core i7 990X which would be quite impressive still.
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.
Fingers X'd there rumors aren't like all of the original Phenom rumors.
I remember how the Barcelona CPU's were going to be released at 2.9 GHz and be faster than any Intel Core 2 CPU.
If they are as fast as a Core i7 Sandy Bridge CPU and appropriately priced, they may well make up my next rig.
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 :mrgreen:) 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.
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...
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?
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.