AMD Gives Early Hint at Bulldozer Performance

it will be backwards compatible so you won’t need to change anything to start using the processor

OMFG, AMD I LOVE YOU!!!!

Yeh not like intel. ooh new processor. This means you MUST have a new motherboard. Why? Were the biggest processor company in the world shut up and deal with it.

lol more like AMD dont have the resources to develop an entirely new product.

Surely the old AMD sockets must restrict performance and future planning ?

Im loving the way in which he goes around the socket AM3 support question XD "Im the server guy.. someone else will address that problem".

Erm... A socket doesn't need to be changed to keep it up to date. Intel is even reducing the amount of pins for Sandy Bridge, so it doesn't really matter all that much.

It's the chipset design that's more important in real life, and AMD is regularly updating these - they've got a bigger lineup than Intel.

The only reason AMD does this, is because they aren't the big boy. Intel can just do what it wants to, most customers don't know alternatives exist or are mislead by Intel's propaganda machine into believing they're better - and that's not taking into account their truly aggresive deals with OEM's...

AMD on the other hand has to win and keep customers. And what's a better way to do that than provide these small extra's that make enthousiasts happy? Excellent chipsets, unlocked multipliers for small premiums, aggresive pricing and backwards compability. These are the things that Intel currently can't offer, and AMD is exploiting that fully.

The trouble is though that AMD only just have produced CPU's that can beat the old C2D range from Intel. In the meantime Intel come out with the i3 / i5 / i7

Backwards compatability is all well and good but at what cost ?

What cost?

I can buy an Intel CPU that will give me 100fps for $200.

Or I can get a AMD that will give me 85fps for $100.

I'll take the AMD thanks.

Not all of us are benchmark junkies and actually use our PCs for getting stuff done.

Benchmarks are largely irrelevant nowadays. Used to be a time you'd spend ages putting together a PC to make sure you maximised your budget and performance.

Now its a case of pick stuff off the shelf and chances are it will do fine.

The rest of the world has moved on but PC enthusiasts still think its 1999.

So if you do the maths that works out at a 12.5% increase in performance for a single bulldozer core over a single magny core one. Doesn't seem like the world beating leap in performance we have been waiting and waiting and waiting for to me?

Who said anything about benchmarks ? the fact is the Intel CPU's currently available are quicker out of the box in most cases, and also most overclock much better too.

AMD used to have the performance / price market sewn up when the Athlon 64 was launched - Intel were not even comparable back then. Times have moved on... so has Intel, its a shame that AMD do not seem able to keep pace with developmet.

I love AMD and putting an 8-core desktop CPU into my AM3 mb is fantastic. I wish they'd advance to 32nm soon though as Intel is getting too much of a lead!!

you're talking about who's faster, that'll means we look at the benchmarks isn't it?
yes intel's i7 is faster, but i don't think i have the madness to spent extra $800 for 20% better performance ;D

This spells the end, as I have previously stated, on these forums rumour has the Bulldozer will be a massive let down. As an 785g, 1055t owner myself I long to see AMD get back into performance chips.

However I feel the fact that this chip is backward compatible, shows that AMD have decided it is futile to compete with Intel for the performance crown and instead keep the budget audience happy, I mean come on how many cores can they possibly string together, "introducing" the 48 core cantcompetearlagos. Wake me up when they move 32nm.

Let's attempt to clarify something here. AMD is still confusing people with its idea of "cores". Each Bulldozer module contains two cores, but the module itself is deemed a core, therefore it's a 4 cores/8 threads design. Valencia is the same, as far as I can see, and if we go off that logic, Interlagos is an 8/16 design. John Fruehe says in the comments that it's "integer cores" therefore each module will possess two, hence a 16-thread processor.

Therefore, what AMD would be saying is clock-for-clock, 8 Bulldozer modules are about 50% faster (combined - FP will be far higher, so something has to give) than 12 STARS cores. More appropriately, a Bulldozer integer core is 12.8% better than a STARS core, but comparing modules would be unfair due to the differing architecture.

John Fruehe's being evasive though.

Exactly, for many of us having the fastest is now totally irrelevant.

Back in the days of the 133Mhz Pentiums etc. we needed to go to the pick of the crop to get the performance we needed.

However, since the dawn of dual core etc. the need for screaming high end power has largely flattened out for 90% of PC users.

Do I care that Intel have the fastest CPU for $500+? No. Why should I? I dont need it. I want to know whats available for $100. I'll spend some of the saving on other parts if I want.

I dont know anyone that needs the top end Intel chip. But I know plenty that will get by just perfect with the cheapest AMD CPU.

AMD isnt so daft going for the budget low-end. The CPU market has changed rapidly over the past few years. Budget low-end is now anyones CPU.

Unfortunately most PC enthusiasts (the small minority of PC users) havent woken up to that fact yet.

It still amazes me how many people buy an i7 for gaming. It won't give you better frame rates than a sub-£100 AMD (or indeed Intel) CPU. In most games, you won't see a difference between the old 2.6Ghz 5000+ and an i7 930 unless you've spend a ton of cash on graphics horsepower. Go look at the benchmarks; even with the resolution turned right down in an attempt to place the bottleneck on the CPU, there are usually only a few frames per second in it between massively different CPUs.

While we're on the subject, photo and audio production stopped needing top-end CPU's years ago. Unless you're queuing up tons of filters then sitting there impatiently while they run (who does that? you either go grab something to eat or, in most cases, the filters have plenty of time to run while you're deciding what to do next) you're not going to see the benefit of an expensive CPU.

Even video encoding, one of the classic reasons for wanting more CPU power not longer benefits from it. If you want to encode video quickly use the GPU; no CPU can keep up.

Rant over. Synopsis: buy cheap CPUs if you have any sense. If you've got a lot of sense, buy a quality AMD motherboard and it'll last you 5 years at least. Mine is half way there already and there are still CPUs planned for release in a year or more that are fully compatible. The knowledge that I could keep this motherboard for such a long time allowed me to get one with proper x16/x16 crossfire support, quality onboard audio, great overclocking potential etc etc.

Agreed budget chips are great to have, but would you turn down a Ferrari for a Ford ? of turn down Megan Fox for some minger from down the road.

At the end of the day... Performance sells period.

if people have the money then they will always buy the biggest / fastest etc - simply because it is either the biggest or fastest.

Ahhh big flaw in your point there.

Big difference in choice when you are GIVEN rather than having to BUY.

Sure you could always choose the best if you have the cash. However, I'm old enough and wise enough not be fooled in wasting my money when I dont have to.

Buying top end CPUs is a mugs game and for benchmark junky bragging rights only.

thats why most peopel opted for the i7 920.... much cheaper than the high end models and just as quick and easy to overclock.

"would you turn down a Ferrari for a Ford" = didnt explicity say "GIVEN" - I can see why you think it was intended that way.

The point most people seem to miss is that an old 6502 CPU does everything a top end Intel or AMD chip does - just a lot slower.