i'm asking myself if LGA improve something or not.
Just pins SAV ?
or better contacts, so better bus frequency ? And the one pin more in AM3+ is a bit strange, there is no technical data about it, i'm not the only one to want to know the technical reason, with the full details.
And what about the next chipset improvement, if the actual can do AM3+, why get a new one ?
Why not buy a C32 motherboard instead ?
Zambezi will not be LGA but PGA compliant,just like Phenom II. Socket is AM3+(Black),not C32. Box art is just that: box art. AMD was testing the market's response to new box designs and the FX LGA chip image is not the real Zambezi . But boxes do look very nice.
I don't care about boxes, give numberz more ... :D
I don't think we'll see any numbers (other than shady leaked ones that are more than likely made up) until closer to the launch. I think by mid-May the people who have NDAs will be dropping hints about performance, so we'll be able to tell if it's going to be a god or a dog.
yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by beepbeep2
Considering AMD has made PGA CPU's with the exact same type of heatspreader for over 7 years I don't see any reason at all why they would put an LGA CPU on the box :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The opterons series are LGA now, so ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
C32 and G34 are, so it's an opteron with a FX sticker, we all know the only difference is the packaging, not the ship.
Four AMD Bulldozer Chips Incoming: Details Revealed.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._Revealed.html
Put me down for a FX-8110 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
Been holding off buying a SB rig, patiently waiting for Bulldozer to come out, I cant wait much longer!!!
As quoted in the article...."Four chips are not a large number and they will hardly be able to properly compete against rather huge Intel Core i7-series microprocessors, which includes quad-core and six-core offerings."Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
I guess XbitLabs has a crystal ball! :shocked:
Oh dear I hope we are not going to see lots of upset AMD fanboys in June :(
I fear the amount of hype this processor has had since the release of Conroe (and even before) may get your anticipation levels up to the point you expect to see Bulldozer completely bulldoze every CPU off the planet.
There is so much hype and fud bantered about the internet about the new AMD CPU's such as this.
I will repeat what I have always said about Bulldozer. Bulldozer will be the CPU which will either bring in a new era for AMD or make them be subject to a buyout. With so much hype behind the Bulldozer bandwagon AMD better deliver or face losing even more market share...and face.Quote:
My 1.6Ghz dual core zacarte laptop with a 5400rpm drive boots up windows 7 only 2 seconds slower than my 4.2Ghz i5 ssd setup
John
I doubt it because if a buyout was going to happen then it would of been done when they were doing much worse market wise with much worse products.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
You don't have to be number one in the tech game to be viable business, you just have to have a worth while product at a worth while price.
And being good at what you do can also be a subject to a buyout
True, but my point is that Bulldozer might be an underwhelming flop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
I just fear with so much hype going on for so long that AMD might be setting themselves up for a big fall.
Also some of the stuff people are saying on other forums now is ridiculous. E-350 faster than Sandybridge:confused:
John
If its a big flop then they will have allot to answer for.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
The mainstream are nothing like people on this forum, they have much lower needs & expectations
Very true, so let us hope that for competition's sake and a competitive market place the Bulldozer at least meets half the hype :)
John
AMD Aims to Fight Core i7 “Sandy Bridge” with Bulldozer.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...Bulldozer.html
Probably not a very direct and accurate chart... but it seems AMD is aimng low - either in price or performance. 6 core BD against a 200$+ i7 2500K? :eek:
They obviously aren't fast enough to compete CPC or even single threaded in general if true. 8 core Bulldozer vs 4 core 2600K? I like the idea of 8 thread vs 8 thread but four cores or less utilization and Bulldozer will fail miserably? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
...:shakes:
regardless they better deliver on price or their fujucked
Notice, that category is 700$+. That "+" might be crucial here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
We already speculated that BD will probably not succeed in catching SB in pure single thread IPC.But when you speak of single threaded applications there is also clock speed question(turbo) and question about whether workload is integer of fp intensive.
BD is gonna to be way faster, or i don't buy a cpu and a mobo this year ... no doubt about this...
8 core Bulldozer 1,8Ghz and 2.0Ghz lol .
hm, I think, this is not about permormance against SB 2600k, kts only overall price position for desktop pc.
Considering they position the 4core BD slighlty below 2500 (4c/4T) it would seem very strange that an 8core BD would only gain <30% in heavy threaded applications where the 2600 would be faster then the 2500. This to me indicates that they will give similar performance at a lower price. so the 4core should compete with the 2500 with a lower price. the 6core with the 2600 with a lower price and the 8core with whatever with the price around the 2600. (the graphic is about price and not performance).Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
llano will be cheap for what it is delivering!
Interestring graphic right here...
( My guess is that the big-toys-for-big-boys cpu's will be only released for Q4 )
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...ozer-price.jpg
Price is based on performance... amd always priced its cpus accordingly to intels, they where a bit cheaper but offered same performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
I call bollocks on that chart, even if its overall system price, the only differene in price will be the cpu and the mainboard. And that mainboads with same features are usually only 30-40€ more expensive on the intel side, I doubt AMD will sell the top of the line unlocked 8core BD for sub 300€.
It makes no sense to artificially cut your margines, when you have a superior product.
here is not dount about performance Zambezi in rendering. In rendering will be more close to Gulftown than SB...Some theoretical calculations exists at XS from Informal and others.
Well... it's the market they need to win ... Let's see ...
( it's hard to believe yes ... )
Those boxes look really nice in the way that it incorporates ATi's lineage into the product. Personally, I'm holding off on SB to see what the big bad bulldozer will do. Which ever is better I will buy, but having used intel ever since I upgraded from my AMD K6 II, I kind of miss AMD these days. Here's to hoping they release a real alternative to SB! :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
I don't know if the chart is legit or not, but I don't think your reasoning here is sound. More expensive systems from OEMs tend to include things like bigger hard drives, larger monitors, and faster video cards by default. I'd be surprised if we see a great deal of configurations with 8-core BD processors using a GX chipset for graphics, for instance. It's not to say there won't be any, but hardware of that class is very likely to be bundled with mainstream discrete graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
If anything, I think the pricing (should it be true) is a great indicator that the CPUs will be affordable instead of carrying FX pricing of yesteryear.
i notice that the numbers are very low for the FX series, its core count followed by 110 with the exception for 81x0, so it seems that AMD is showing its lowest end of each BD cpu vs SB. (65/95w versions maybe?)
also being that its system price, if its 800$ total for a 2500k or a 6110 system, chances are that could mean its a 200$ intel cpu vs a 250$ amd cpu since intel boards are generally more expensive.
This chart was made by X-bit labs if I'm not mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
No its just bad business if you sell your product under value. If 8 core BD can deliver nearly the same performance or better as a hexacore form intel and selling it for less then a mainstream quadcore that would make your investors more then mad... you just waste 200€ of margine...
I can see the 8core BD somewhere around the 500€ mark, cause thats where intels hexacores start. So if we see the lower clocked octocores starting with 400€ and then gradualy increasing its price with performance, you get a nice margine, and offer better performance for the money you spent.
looks like it's most of the system price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
well that's true for amd, but intel has a huge manufacturing advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
really everyone is hoping $300 from what I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Here is an interview with Macci And John Taylor at cebit11. Judging by their tone in the interview,to me it looks like AMD may price FX parts aggressively against intel SB and Gulftown parts even if FX performs somewhat better. Folks need to remember that in client space more cores don't have a proportional impact in performance numbers as in server space-much less impact in average sum of workloads as can be seen here. SB 2600K has ~8% higher IPC,3/5% higher clock(def/Turbo) and 50% less cores and is only around 4.7% slower than 980x. It is also more than 3x cheaper than 980x. Which is a better value? SB of course,unless you do some insanely parallel workloads on your PC when 980x is much faster. Which is a faster chip? 980x of course,but due to nature of workloads SB hold very well and even outperforms 980x in many applications!
Same will go for FX BD parts(relative to 980x).Notice what Mr Taylor said in the interview @ 2:18 and onwards : " BD is designed to offer 30-50% better performance in the same TDP and roughly the same die area as AMD's previous designs". This probably goes for single and MT workloads,respectably. So for AMD it's important that they hit 40+% range of better performance Vs Thuban.Why? Well,if you look carefully at the chart I linked above,you will see that AMD precisely needs around 34% better performance overall in order to match 980x in desktop workloads. They need 28% overall better performance to match SB 2600K. If they hit north of 40% range,they will be combating and maybe even beating 990x Gulftown part and be very close to SB 6 core products. All this within 125W TDP range. They can push for 140W "XE" part and go for 5% more performance (from 3.5Ghz to 3.7-3.8Ghz?) and have a "halo" product,but this depends on their ability to hit these speeds and their marketing department.
cmon!Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
hype created from internet..
loads of people 90% customers PC dont know about hype.. they buy when it is available
you judge amd future by hype created by some computer typing people behind screen, lol :rofl:
so i think what your saying is that clock speeds are becoming the main price factor for client systems instead of core count. which does make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
sure back in the day 1 -> 2 cores was very well noticed
2 -> 4 cores is quite noticeable
4 -> x cores is not so noticeable unless you have specific tasks for it.
however i hope that the perf potential of BD is able to keep up with SB in perf/mm2 since larger sized SB chips are coming, and could drive down the price of BD, or just inflate the prices of higher core count SBs
Just one thing. 40% better performance is not the same thing as 40% better bench results. A 5GHz processor don't get twice as good results as a 2.5GHz processor. So if 980X has 40% better results than Phenom X6, it's probably has much higher performance advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
BD needs much more than 50% better performance to compete with 990X.
People will once again accuse a company of lying about performance just because thay don't realize these things. I don't say you don't understand this, but there are many others out there.
There are a variety of benchmarks for desktop out there.Many of them are biased one way or the other,many of them have little to do with real world workloads. But at the end of the day,when an Average Joe user reads TR,AT or any other HW website and reads BD review ,he will probably look for the one page that says summary of results.There he will see an overall average score relative to other competing parts. Even if BD trounces other chips in say several heavy fp workloads(rumored CB11.5 score of ~11 ?) it may still be a bit slower in some non-thread integer heavy workload(still to be seen though). This may bring down the average score and put it just a bit over ,or maybe even under, 980x.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Users will have to look at particular tests and what they mean for them. If the test is relevant for you in some way and chip performs as you expected and the pricing fits,there is no reason not to pick it up. I really do expect Zambezi to be a very good desktop chip. Even if it is not overall the fastest thing on desktop,it just needs to be competitive in performance/high end segment. People will buy it.
BD will still need more than 50% higher performance than Phenom II to compete with 980X. Of course there are differences between loads. But if 980X score 50% higher in benches than Phenom II, then BD needs maybe 70%+ higher performance to get these 50% higher results.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
A 4GHz chip has twice the performance of a 2GHz chip, but might only have 40% higher FPS. You can't just look at benches and think that they accurately show the differences in performance for a single part of the system.
By "FPS" I believe you think of gaming? If so games are and will be mostly GPU bound.Those that still depend on CPU will probably see a big boost from improved uarchitecture BD brings. I think BD will have no problems being among top dogs in gaming.
Also,BD probably will be 70+% faster in some tests than Phenom II. The rumored score of 11 in CB11.5 ,versus 6 core Thuban(not 4 core Deneb based Phenom II), hints at this. People these days mostly look at benchmarks. When AMD states that Zambezi was designed to offer 30-50% higher performance than Thuban then it will offer that much performance in real world applications.How much better it can be in theory,if properly optimized for,is anyone's guess. With proper FMA optimization or if ie. targeted for AES,it may be even 2x faster Vs non-optimized results.
When AMD says 50% higher performance they are talking about total throughput, that's what they have said all the time. And I doubt that they mean some average benches. If I know AMD right they are talking about numbers pretty close to best case scenario. And a rumored benches is not something we should base performance estimates on.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I bet that AMD will have a very nice processor and I will by it, but I dont think it will compete with the best six core i7s. Especially not the SB ones.
Since we have no real Zambezi benchmark number it's unknown how it will perform.It may be a total flop for all we know :p:. But AMD knew a 1+ year how i7 Gulftown performs and they still call Zambezi their high performance part aimed at enthusiasts .They also revived FX branding.This at least suggests the performance should be close to what Gulftown offers.It may not be able to beat it completely but as I said before AMD just needs to be competitive. Intel will have 3.46Ghz Gulftown when Zambezi launches so it will be a hard task to equal this monster,let alone beat it.
BORIS: in rendering cant SB better than Zambezi...Sometimes is 1100T better than 2600k in render, example 3DsMax scenarios, POV Ray.
Sure it does. Welcome to Capitalism 101: May I introduce you to ... The Demand Shift ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/d...emandShift.png
By setting a price point (in the case of the graph - Price at $3 instead of $4) at a 25% reduction, Demand is increased 60% from 15m units to 24m units.
In semiconductors, the more of something you make, the more efficient your production. Yields increase, and your margins will actually grow at higher production levels (even with the higher cost of base materials) with increased demand.
This is how AMD gathered market share on the graphics side (by fighting at price points) with nVidia.
From what I have seen, AMD also feels that 'gate-first' is much more efficient, simple and cost-effective than 'gate-last' in their process. One would hope that greater production would only extend process efficiency and build higher yields with better margins.
I hope that the product is as exciting as the box it comes in, cuz that box art kinda rekindled my enthusiasm for AMD a little bit...
Price is only one factor... again you just dont read what i have posted.... if you have a product that has better performance then your competitors product, you already generate increased demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbortRetryFail?
So tell how this will make economical sense to price a bigger chip that will perform better @ the same price point as a smaller chip that performs worse... oonly to get more marketshare...?
oh yeah right lets us play the "marketshare at all cost" game that hector played back in 2006 again.... turned out pretty go.. oh wait...:rolleyes:
AMD at that time was manufacturing at full capacity and still made a loose... now we have a total different situation, amd doesn't has to be concerned anymore with making the production more efficent, since they are only customers at a external fab. Its there problem to make the process as efficent as possible.
ATI gathering marketshare was mostly due to the fact that NV was late to the game and had no card that could compare to ATIs offerings in the midrange for 5 months. Plus there chip was smaller and offered nearly the same performance for nearly the same price (a bit cheaper)... see where that goes again...
Economics 101 is nice in theory, but fails at real markets where much more then price matters to sell a product.
wow so much nonsense in your latest posts. u should read your own posts again and u might see what i point at ;) You should also read more on bulldozer design if you like the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
You know, I've always wondered why I've been so angry with AMD since buying their stock many years ago. Turns out that all this time, they could have charged more for their processors - but they didn't! What a bunch of idiots. Instead of keeping their margins artificially low, AMD could've been paying out a big fat dividend to keep me happy...right? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
So...your position is that AMD should price its chips the same as intel's chips of equivalent performance? That's your idea of a smart business move for AMD?!? Really?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
:down:
I would think the same thing....... BUT I do remember the much hyped (lots of hype from AMD as well) Phenom line of CPU's which turned out to be absolute trash..... also from what i have seen so far in the naming Scheme the FX line of CPU's will pretty much just replace the Phenom 2 name in an attempt to build off the past beastly name.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I think AMD will make some HUGE mutlithreading per improvements and the integrated GPU will be a huge plus over Intel but I can't possibly see how they will come close to equalling or beating Intel in low threaded perf. like say 1-4 cores of workload which represents the majority of even enthusiast load. I have yet to see a single game use more then 3 cores PROPERLY. most conversion prog or photo/music editing progs won't use more than 4 cores... other average use again under 4 cores. In which case AMD might have a tough time beating SB....
they will be very competitive in rendering and DC type computing (which is very important to me BTW) so that will be interesting.
What it might come down to for us will be Overclockablity of the 8 core parts. SB OC's so freaking well it's crazy..... if you don't get 4.8ghz out of a 2600k your doing something terribly wrong and 5GHZ seems really common.... can AMD make up for that much of a clock speed disadvantage????? also considering they have poor so much effort into the on DIE GPU you really need to wonder how many other improvements can be made on the same Die size and TDP....
only time will tell. I really hope the June launch is true.... rumours of it being pushed back are just.... bad again reminds me of the Phemon launch.... but im hopeful:)
Well, point out what's incorrect. And I know quite much about BD's design. I would say most of what's know publically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin
I don't accept avoiding answers like "I'll let you figure that out yourself." Point something out.
One of the best things with BD is that not only is the frequency increased with fewer threads, but IPC per thread is increased as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
If you have one hexacore i7 and one hypothetical hexacore BD with equal performance at 6 threads, I believe that BD will have quite a performance advantage if both are running only one thread. All the i7 gets is more cache and bandwidth to that thread and higher frequency, while BD also gets higher IPC.
Hipno, I hope you realize that BD doesn't come with integrated graphics, not untul 2012 at least.
Lol wth your talking, I think you forget the P4 vs Athlon time (2004-early 2006). The slowest dualcore was 360$ (x2-3800) and they charged what it was worth, and suprisingly they made there best profits ever. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by SMTB1963
No read again what I wrote, if the product has the same performance it should price it a bit lower, but if it has better performance it should be price at least equal or higher depending on how much better performance it offers.
I like how many still think amd is a charity and offers cpu so cheap because they are nice.... :ROTF:
"40% better performance is not the same thing as 40% better bench results"... WTH do u mean by that?Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
"So if 980X has 40% better results than Phenom X6, it's probably has much higher performance advantage." Huh? Maybe my english is bad, but i dont understand what u mean by that.
The difference between Phenom II X6 1100T and 990X is what i belive about 35-45% in general benching. So if they can get 30-50% better performance with Zambezi, they can compete at some level. Remember Zambezi have 2 more cores than 990X.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Irrelevant.
No, they said at some interview that Zambezi will have about 30-50% better performance over Phenom II X6, not throughput. What they also said is that a Zambezi module will give 180% throughput of a real dual core, wich has about 195% throughput if it scales accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
The most interresting part is how well the new Fetch and Decode part performes as they will work with 2 cores at the same time.
I understand that they will ahve turbo core which IMO is total garbage for OCer's cuz it gets turned off anyways (just like turbo on i7's) and of course they will be increasing the IPC per thread but I have a hard time seeing believing that they will increase it enough to match SB especially if they only OC to 4-4.2ghz (a rough guess it really could be anything). it's allot of ground to make up.... only time will tell if they can do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
well now I know:D thats a major bonus IMO for the high end desktop marketQuote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Bulldozer will have a major upside in single-threaded workload, the shared L2-cache. 1MB per core and hopefully 2MB in lowthread workloads wich is 4 threads and lower for the FX8.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Core i7 2600K has 256KB L2 per core and 8MB shared L3 vs Zambezi's 8MB (module) shared L2 and 8MB (module/all cores) shared L3.
core 2 quads had up to 12MB of L2 Cache.... are they faster then a SB CPU single threaded? not even close.... more cache is always nice but won't make or break a CPU in any performance. also the 1100T has 512kb of L2 cache that double the i7's... and is it faster single threaded..... nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin
also we have no idea as to the cache speeds of bulldozer as well. the caches on Core i7 especially SB are SMOKING fast compared to anything else.
cache size can tell us next to nothing about any type of performance without seeing any other numbers. if we knew what bulldozer was capable of with a certain amount of cache we could make some guesses as to the increase in performance adding more cache would have but until then....
I do really like the whole "module" thinking as opposed to cores though as it seems that the sharing of resources more efficient. but how much more efficient?
we just can be sure of that ;
-cache size is larger than Phenom II, so it mean more perf
-L2 cache system is new, so more performance, AMD is not stupid to do R&D to a new system decreasing performance.
-L1D and L1I are far very different from old Phenom II. And i think it's an amazing good idea. We have just to wait to see it.
BD can't fail, or AMD will definetly fail. They don't have fabs anymore.
wow u must be a genius, looks like no1 thought of that before... :rofl: of course the 12MB of l2 cache for the core2quad Q9550 is slower than todays memory, and then u have the architecture. That lecturing was so not necessary :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
What we do know is the memory in Zambezi will be something special, not just that its very high density stuff but also very fast. As of what i read earlier the L2 cache will be working in the same speed as each module (3.5GHz?) and also induvidualy together with its designated module. Each module will have its own L3 cache but also be shared between modules, wich inceases the speed and lower latency. The 1.1V L3 cache will be working at 2.4+GHZ with induvidual frequency depending on load. I dont think Zambezi will have no trouble competing in pure memory speed with SB. But as u wrote,
The power gating will very much interesting to hear about with all these states.
L2 cache always worked @ core frequency on pretty much every cpu since the Pentium 3, zacate is a unicum in that regarde, but i bet next iteration sees again L2 @core clock.
The L2 cache in C2 was actualy very fast for its size, the lantency was only 12 cycles with a size of 6mb... compare that to 10 cycles for nehalem and 12 cycles for sandy bridge with 256kb. K10 wasn't that much slower it had 12 cycles l2 latency. Amds architecture only had a weakness when it had to go outside the L2 cache, there L3 was always slower (cycle wise and also frequency wise) and a TLB misses hit them far harder then intel.
Comparing frequencies or size means practically nothing when you compare the cache sub system.
Cause you can compensate with one for the other, but as hipno said the cache sub system in SB is very fast, since the L3 runs @ core speed its already faster then that in nehalem + they reduced the latency even further (from 47-57 cycles form nehalem to 36-47 cycles in sandybridge).
I rely on the 7-zip benchmekr for the latency numbers.
Then againthe whole discussion about the cache system is useless without factoring in the prediction mechanisms. Cause if you have a higher hitrate you don't need to go outside the cpu and fetch the data, since this is all unknown for the moment you can basically say nothing at all. But only belive in the marketing slides.
IIRC, the Athlon 64 X2 3800 was introduced in late 2005, at the peak of AMD's profits during that timeframe. Almost immediately after that, AMD's profits began to decline year over year. But my memory isn't what it used to be, so maybe I'm mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
OK, I re-read your posts. Here's some of what you wrote: "Price is based on performance" and "I can see the 8core BD somewhere around the 500€ mark, cause thats where intels hexacores start." You seem to be arguing that since Bulldozer is speculated to perform similarly to an intel hex, Bulldozer's launch price should be close to today's intel hex prices. You further claim that if Bulldozer doesn't launch at those prices, AMD will be "artificially" cutting margins (whatever that means), missing a huge profit opportunity, and screwing it's shareholders. Did I get that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Well, I guess one person's speculation about Bulldozer's initial pricing is as good as another's these days. But there's a helluva lot more to pricing than just performance, especially at a product's introduction. You can try to dismiss "Economics 101" all you like, but pricing a new CPU - or any new product for that matter - depends on many different factors and this case is no exception. :fact:
By your logic (AMD intros @ 500€), intel may as well say "...oh look...AMD priced their new chip about the same as our comparably performing hexas...that means we can keep our prices the same, because production volumes/market share don't really mean anything for our profitability!" :nuts:
As far as opinions go, mine is that if this CPU is introduced at 500€ (~$700!), it won't be good for AMD's business - especially in the face of their declining market share. Another consideration is that intel very likely has room to drop prices on their hexes and still sell them at a profit when Bulldozer launches, something I'm sure is not lost on the folks at AMD. If intel sees Bulldozer as a threat, they will almost certainly lower the prices of their competing chips, and it won't be because they're feeling charitable towards their CPU buyers.
Hey, I would love to see a return to the glory days of AMD64 when AMD could command higher prices. Benefits of increased competition and whatnot. But info on Bulldozer's capabilities will require some time to percolate through the marketplace before buyer's perceptions change. If it turns out that Bulldozer's performance is in fact roughly equivalent to intel's hexes, then yes, AMD could eventually raise prices to match intel...but that ain't gonna happen at launch.
I'm starting to think that Particle's rules are coming into play here
If you have 2 processors, one scores 30% higher than the other in over all benches. Now turn up the frequency on the other one 30%. Will the 30% higher performance from 30% higher clocks make these two processors equal? I'd say most likely not. It might still be so much as 10-20% difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin
That's why a 4GHz chip wont get twice the scores of a 2GHz one.
I can certainly agree on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin
you post was structured in a way that used the thinking that More Cache=more performance.... which is totally true when comparing the same architecture and CPU line up. but means almost nothing when comparing different architectures.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin
like hornet point out the L3 cache system in SB operates at the SB core speed meaning it is significantly fast then any other L3 cache system... which helps to negate the lack of L2 cache size. also the idea of shared cache is nothing new. Core 2 Duo forward have had it... (im pretty sure there was some CPU's that it before that as well)
make no mistake I know AMD will be making improvements all the way around in terms of performance. but I'm not convinced that they will be able to match or beat SB in everything on the first try.... we have not seen that significant performance jump since Intel released Conroe and demolished every P4 and Athlon around.
I would love to see that happen but I'm not getting my hopes up....
Um, 4ghz chip is always almost better than 2x2ghz ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
And yes, it can be more than 2x as fast even.Depends on the work hes doing.FSB speeds, IMC speed,memory management, threading etc etc.
All this talk however is too mystical.40% more raw horsepower may or may not get us 40% higher bench score.That depends.
However people should understand that statement is most probably some huge simplification, as on say "on average".Im pretty sure BD will get often MORE than 40% ,and often much less.
You could say that 2500k has 40% more performance than a core2quad.But again, that depends on the work cpu is doing.
Simply taking into account that it has 2 more cores, gives you around 30% more computational power.Most probably higher speed, better turbo etc.And better IPC.And new instructions.
AMD would have to actually TRY to NOT get a sizably faster processor with all these changes.
Lets remember that Phenom II is OLD.They had lotsa time architecture wise.
Again your just pulling out fragments... I never said AMD should introduce all BD @ 500€ (an jfyi, 500€ here means basically 500$, because retailers go 1:1 for $:€ and including vat).Quote:
Originally Posted by SMTB1963
You even quoted it that I mentioned 8c bulldozer... there are still 6c core bd and 4c bd...
This is a nice portfolio that leaves enough SKUs open to be filled. If the 6c BD are a good match for the 4core SB the can saturate the 400-250€ price segemtn with it and the 4 cores thake the lower 250-1xx€ segment.
But yeah I guess it makes much more sense to sell your top of the line chip that offers better performance then the product of your competitor for the same price and just squeeze all the other SKUs into a tiny price range... :ROTF:
This is even more difficult to answer since some components, which affect performance, scale even less than the ones you list. How about memory latency/bandwidth?Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8Um, 4ghz chip is always almost better than 2x2ghz ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
And yes, it can be more than 2x as fast even.Depends on the work hes doing.FSB speeds, IMC speed,memory management, threading etc etc.
thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
First you say it's OK for AMD to sell BD at the same price if it has better performance....then you say it doesn't make sense for AMD to sell BD at the same price if it has better performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
:clap::clap::clap:
Nice. So much for the possibility of engaging in a rational debate with you on Bulldozer launch pricing.
He was being sarcastic.
On this one, im in between, with this line of thinking, 2600K should be priced higher, but intel changed its tactics on these ones.
Maybe in anticipation of AMD`s move.
But im pretty sure, we wont get highest bin model at or below 2600K price.
wow more selective quoting.. plus do even know what at least means?
If you try to troll at least make your selective quots a bit better... you forgot to remove the "or higher" (depending on how much better performance it offers)... :rofl:
Anyway to only thing i can agree is that its not possible to have a rational debate about launch prices, since someone is so fixated on a idea (for whatever reason) that AMD can't charge more then 300€ for its topend cpu line...
wait Zambezi has integrated gpu? google points to this thread.
Nope. Next generation will.
Here's another selective quote for ya:
If you can show where I said anything like that, I'll send you one of these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
http://www.spanishvida.com/wp-conten...o-note-500.jpg
I promise! :)
Everyone with internet access can send him a scan of a 500 Euro note. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by SMTB1963
nope the successor of LIano in the Sabine platform will be based on buldozer cores (Piledriver) in the Comal platform, and probably also on the desktop part, Zambezi successor will still only be CPUQuote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
Post system still exists :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by ubuntu83
Of course we are talking with all other components the same. If you only change the CPU speed 100%, you won't get 100% higher scores in benches.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Youre oversimplyfying everything ;-).Youre talking about theoretical thoroughput not "performance".
And while yes its very rare, you can have higher than clockspeed increase boost in performance.
Computer system is very complicated software/hardware "organism" ,with the amount of complexity it becomes harder and harder to predict.
Example:
http://www.legionhardware.com/images...70/L4D2_02.png
http://www.legionhardware.com/images...70/L4D2_02.png
Look at the 2.2 to 2.4ghz increase, actual "bench" score goes higher than the increase in clocks.Most probably at 2.2 cpu was running to slow and was choking rest of the system.
In some crossfire situations you got more than 100% scaling also.It happens.
That is OT though, "performance" is a real life metric, its not thoroughput.So if AMD States 40% higher performance, you can be sure it will get in atleast one scenario 40% higher real life SCORE than phenom II did get.
Is it oversimplyfying when I say that overall benches won't reflect the pure performance increase linearly? You provided a benchmark that proves my point exactly! One Core i7 @4GHz is twice as fast as one i7 @2GHz. But your bench don't show that at all. It would be bad logic to say that the i7 2GHz only needs to be 15% faster to compete with the i7 4GHz based on your bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
In the exact same way it's bad logic to say that BD only needs to be 35% faster than Phenom II X6 to compete with 980x. I say it needs to be alot faster than that.
Of course we won't have total linear scaling with frequency, but the closest we can get to linear scaling to make this example, there will be small flucturations as your bench shows. I'd say that your analysis that the 2.2GHz Phenom was to slow is wrong since we would see that affecting the 2GHz part as well. I say it probably has more to do with asynchronous frequencies with the NB and L3.
And of course there is a few scenarios where the bench is able to show the real difference, in one of these scenarios an BD might be 50% faster than Phenom II X6, but don't you think that 980x is alot faster than that in those scenarios as well? Benches showing 980x more than 50% faster than X6 is all around.
Closing this thread for now as we haven't had any "news" in it for 2 weeks. For general discussion, please visit the AMD section and start a thread on speculative pricing.