AMD's "official" Bullzdozer FX slides, benchmarks vs 2600K slides

[SSPrncVegeta]

The bets are off, it looks like Intel is in for a price-performance shock with AMD's Bulldozer, after all. In the press deck of AMD FX Processor series leaked by DonanimHaber ahead of its launch, AMD claims huge performance leads over Intel. To sum it up, AMD claims that its AMD FX 8150 processor is looking Intel's Core i7-980X in the eye in game tests, even edging past it in some DirectX 11 titles.

It is performing on par with the Core i7-2600K in several popular CPU benchmarks such as WinRAR 4, X.264 pass 2, Handbrake, 7Zip, POV Ray 3.7, ABBYY OCR, wPrime 32M, and Bibble 5.0. AMD FX 8150 is claimed to be genuinely benefiting from the FMA4 instruction set that Sandy Bridge lacks, in the OCL Performance Mandelbrot test, the FX 8150 outperforms the i7-2600K by as much as 70%. Lastly, the pricing of the FX 8150 is confirmed to be around the $250 mark. Given this, and the fact that the Core i7-2600K is priced about $70 higher, Intel is in for a price-performance shock.

They're PR slides, so take them as they are. Looks like AMD is going for the "we don't suck" angle.

Original Source: donanimhaber.com

Found Here: TechPowerUp

[ShrimpBrime]

When did AMD ever really suck? They've always had great innovations.

Hopefully it's all true.

[SSPrncVegeta]

Originally Posted by ShrimpBrime

When did AMD ever really suck? They've always had great innovations.

Let's be honest with ourselves. More cores isn't innovative. All that matters is performance and AMD has been behind Intel since Core 2.

[Urbanfox]

Dothan was the start of something great and Intel has not failed to deliver since then. AMD has always been a fantastic alternative for performance at a reasonable price, but I think this round it needs to step up and take some power punches to Intel, not screw around with more cores like Vegeta said.

[Blackops_2]

I wouldn't say they are screwing around with more cores. You can't really consider a AMD modular core equal to one intel core. In some sense it's a physical way of hyper threading, where as they're using integer cores with shares resources vs intel's "virtual core".

So in BD's case IMO 4 modules 8 "cores" as AMD calls them is an equal comparison

Originally Posted by Techradar

Instead of traditional execution cores, Bulldozer chips will be made up of one or more "modules". Each module packs a pair of integer units and a single shared floating-point resource. The latter is actually a pair of 128-bit FMACs, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.

Core of the matter

Things get confusing because AMD is referring to the integer units as "cores". Admittedly, each unit does get its own scheduling circuitry and L1 cache memory. But they share both instruction fetching and decoding hardware across the module. Not quite proper cores then.

In fact, it could make more sense to think of the dual integer units as AMD's answer to Intel's HyperThreading technology. But unlike HyperThreading, which is all about making better use of a single execution resource by sharing it across two threads, AMD has given Bulldozer some dedicated hardware for each thread and hence very likely much more multi-threaded performance.

[SSPrncVegeta]

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

I wouldn't say they are screwing around with more cores. You can't really consider a AMD modular core equal to one intel core. In some sense it's a physical way of hyper threading, where as they're using integer cores with shares resources vs intel's "virtual core".

So in BD's case IMO 4 modules 8 "cores" as AMD calls them is an equal comparison

That's exactly what AMD and Intel were doing. However, Intel realized a core war was useless. That's why the second generation i7 have only four cores, because they've been expanding into new territory with integrated GPUs, Wireless Display, etc.. These things aren't particularly useful to you and me, but it does give Intel a continued, stronger position.

[ShrimpBrime]

Originally Posted by SSPrncVegeta

Let's be honest with ourselves. More cores isn't innovative. All that matters is performance and AMD has been behind Intel since Core 2.

No no no. Not what I mean.

They had 4 actual cores on a single die. In it's time, it wasn't really fast, But was first released by AMD.

Innovation. Doesn't always mean speed.

Intel was behind in performance for a long time before Core2. What's your point here?

[SSPrncVegeta]

Originally Posted by ShrimpBrime

No no no. Not what I mean.

Intel was behind in performance for a long time before Core2. What's your point here?

You asked me when AMD sucked. I told you: since Core 2. My point is that it's the answer to your question.

[Blackops_2]

Originally Posted by SSPrncVegeta

That's exactly what AMD and Intel were doing. However, Intel realized a core war was useless. That's why the second generation i7 have only four cores, because they've been expanding into new territory with integrated GPUs, Wireless Display, etc.. These things aren't particularly useful to you and me, but it does give Intel a continued, stronger position.

Oh in that case i agree, i thought you were singling AMD out meaning they're messing with more cores with this intro of their acclaimed "8-core" processor.

I think Shrimp means innovative by design, not necessarily performance, or something of sort.

[SlaveOnDope]

Originally Posted by SSPrncVegeta

Let's be honest with ourselves. More cores isn't innovative. All that matters is performance and AMD has been behind Intel since Core 2.

Have you even looked at how BD "cores" are setup or just don't know what innovative is?

[SSPrncVegeta]

Originally Posted by SlaveOnDope

Have you even looked at how BD "cores" are setup or just don't know what innovative is?

AMD did this before. Back when Phenom was about to come out, AMD's PR was spouting their soon-to-be-released Phenom X4 was "the industry's first true Quad Core x86 processor". Then it made its underwhelming release.

Basically, whatever a company tells you isn't worth anything. That goes for Intel, too.

Innovation is relative. If you want that, look at Sandy Bridge. Single-handedly destroyed the on-board GPU market with a built-in GPU that rivals entry-level dedicated graphics cards. Integrated Wifi that streams 1080p to your HDTV.

edit- Don't get me wrong, Bulldozer looks great, but AMD haven't been doing well for a while.

[Blackops_2]

Theoretically BD looks great. Performance is nowhere to be seen yet, as AMD is being hush hush about everything. As i've said before with prices dropping i have a feeling it's not going to match the 2600k. I know everyone likes to tout "AMD has always been good in price/performance" but lets be honest when they had the lead they had 1000$ CPU just like intel, anyone remember the old FX lineup? Realistically if BD was a huge success and wiped the floor with AMD they would be priced above 300$ that much is fact IMO.

[SSPrncVegeta]

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

Theoretically BD looks great. Performance is nowhere to be seen yet, as AMD is being hush hush about everything.

[Blackops_2]

Your taking DH as a reputable source?

Originally Posted by Usario

> not AMD's colors
> not AMD's style
> logo placement is different
> no description of occasion
> plain arial font
> typos
> badly cropped and resized images
> bad grammar (they came from a foreign site, DH, so this should automatically raise a red flag)
> etc

And then again the fact it's DH... Even if it were real it's company based slides showing "true performance" Until reputable sites actual bench this processor i would take them with a grain of salt.

[SlaveOnDope]

Originally Posted by SSPrncVegeta

AMD did this before. Back when Phenom was about to come out, AMD's PR was spouting their soon-to-be-released Phenom X4 was "the industry's first true Quad Core x86 processor". Then it made its underwhelming release.

Basically, whatever a company tells you isn't worth anything. That goes for Intel, too.

Innovation is relative. If you want that, look at Sandy Bridge. Single-handedly destroyed the on-board GPU market with a built-in GPU that rivals entry-level dedicated graphics cards. Integrated Wifi that streams 1080p to your HDTV.

edit- Don't get me wrong, Bulldozer looks great, but AMD haven't been doing well for a while.

AMD doesn't need to tell me BD is innovative you can look at the design it's self and see that. Quad cores on one die with Phenom wasn't innovative to me personally but it was a first for x86 cpu's.

Intel's done great with tick/tock and having a decent iGPU on die of course would eliminate all their competition so from here on out you buy an Intel based system with out discrete GPU you have Intel GPU of course. However if you're buying an OEM box and game at all AMD is where you want to consider Llano.

Intel's addressing the future of their GPU power, while AMD is working on their CPU's. The biggest advantage Intel has over AMD is in it's Fab's followed by R&D funding and if one where to take that into consideration AMD is putting up a better fight as of late. Something we all can rejoice.

[SSPrncVegeta]

Originally Posted by SlaveOnDope

Intel's addressing the future of their GPU power, while AMD is working on their CPU's. The biggest advantage Intel has over AMD is in it's Fab's followed by R&D funding and if one where to take that into consideration AMD is putting up a better fight as of late. Something we all can rejoice.

Intel is addressing the future of computing. Notebooks won't go away, but the focus of mobile computing is smartphones and tablets. Intel is getting ready for that. There's a reason Intel is still around: they evolve intelligently. They shifted focus from RAM to CPU in the '90s, and look to be at it again for this latest shift in the market. AMD just seems to be doing what they do best: performance/$ desktop notebook processors.

[Urbanfox]

Originally Posted by SlaveOnDope

However if you're buying an OEM box and game at all AMD is where you want to consider Llano.

How much of the market games off an iGPU

[SSPrncVegeta]

Originally Posted by Urbanfox

How much of the market games off an iGPU

6.22% according to Steam's latest survey.

[SlaveOnDope]

Originally Posted by SSPrncVegeta

6.22% according to Steam's latest survey.

Even more than that if you look for Nvidia/Ati iGPU's.
ATI 3200 .76%

[Czarspuppet]

Fanboy all you want, if competition didn't exist <your favorite company> would sit on old tech indefinitely.