Printable View
TBH I don't think Intel is worried at all about BD.
With the new stuff Intel has up its sleave I am sure it will blow BD away.
SB is at a real sweet spot right now and prolly will be for some time.
But all that doesn't matter. If BD comes out as a pretty dicent CPU and a good price point then they will sell plenty of them.
Not at all that simple, even if you take the quote as fact. You could also see it as "50% more performance with 33 more threads" or "50% more performance with only 3/4 the cores" if you are to count a module as a core, and if you want to count that way you could just say "66.6% more performance per core". Bulldozer blurs the line significantly since each core is in between a full core and a hyper-threaded one. Four bulldozer modules vs. four hyper threaded sandy bridge cores may very well end up in bulldozers favor. My thought is that both companies will be close architecturally and it will come down to number of cores and clockspeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
so whats gonna happen to the propus and thuban cpus?
i can see these in bargain bins lol... snatch up a 1055t for $99 would be hella cool
This ES is rev. A1 - What will be the shipping rev?
I think BD will likely put them at a standstill for not falling behind too much. Much like phenom II vs core i7.
One thing i have noticed is AMD has really been touting the graphic ability of fusion/bulldozer. This I think is as as loud as AMD can get because of the performance of the CPU. What we have been seeing so far is AMD is clocking these processor rather high compared to the last generation. I think if bulldozer was really that fast, it wouldn't need to be clocked so high and it would be clocked alot lower to sell chips in the future. If I was AMD I would let as much information about bulldozer leak because at this point it is too late for Intel to respond and any sandy bridge sale at the moment is a bulldozer sale lost. I can imagine phenom chip sales are not the greatest right now with sandy bridge. It would have been best to show bulldozers performance being good when Intel had a bad press with the chipset recall. AMD has been known to take cheap shots in marketing lately when their competition stumbles so I am surprised they didn't take advantage of it.
We all know intels chips are all capable of reaching 4ghz but they don't sell it at that speed so that they can release future products with higher clocks as cheap R and D wise, product updates. I think since so much of AMD money is going into paying back the interest on outstanding loans, they might come out with something good, but nothing to make Intel really worry.
Fusion although a decent chip vs atom, isn't that crazy impressive considering it performs much closer to a netbook than a notebook. Atoms suckiness is what makes fusion look good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
.....bulldozer does not have graphics? i assume you meant to say llano right?
Yes because Intel continued to outsell A64 with the Pentium D at 3.xghz even though an A64 beat it because a consumer sees more mhz and thinks it is faster even if it really isnt. I have a feeling that cpu frequencies are going to creep up some because the architecture allows for it. This is why we see higher frequencies at later revisions that run cooler than lower frequencies of the earlier revisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Amd is changing the way a processor works (in their minds). As with the original A64 the platform (talking about the cpu layout) will need to mature some. The other side of the equation is that the software run on said platform needs to be optimized (read coded for more than 1 cpu).
We enthusiasts have to realize that AMDs strategy is the business side of things. What they look for is producing a product that 1 company will spend more money in 1 purchase order than all of us on here will buy in a year combined. AMD needs to stay profitable to continue making CPUs. I am ok with them concentrating on the business sector and letting us home users enjoy the rewards.
naive to think that some enthousiast solutions is the thing they are worried about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Fusion Bobcat = OEM = volume on low end (look at the amount of shipments already of fusion against there previous mobile market volume)
Fusion LIano = OEM = volume on mobile and desktop and even workstations(again total high volumes) and next gen of this APU with BD cores will be very important and already aggressive in schedule.
BD = server market increase
BD AM3 = enthousiast platform has been a modified server part for a long time now, few platforms have been ok, few have less.
You're just talking Fusion and Llano. That description doesn't fit Bulldozer since it doesn't have any graphics capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye
Intel is worried, they are selling unlocked cpu's at $220. They have never done that.
But they have, since the launch of Core 2, sold high performing and easily overclocked products in that $220-$300 price range and which has more or less forced AMD's desktop products below it. Such as the:Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
-Core 2 Duo E6400
-Core 2 Quad Q6600
-Core i7 920
-Core i5 750 and i7 860
While you are correct at the above chips being awesome chips, his point still stands about the unlocked chips. But then again due to the design of the current sandy bridge chips, I don't think they had any choice but to release the K chips at cheap prices, otherwise the enthusiasts would be pissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Oh no, not the enthusiasts. What would Intel do without this large, important, lucrative market :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by JkS
A large part of why Pentium D sold so well was because of 'brand loyalty'. Computers were really expensive in the pre-1ghz days... (i recall spending $600 on 1mb of RAM for my apple IIgs back in the 80's ) and those consumers who had heard about AMD upsetting Intel and beating them to the 1ghz mark, a good portion of those people held off from buying their chips because AMD taking the crown from chipzilla could have been just a fluke. I did the opposite though, and bought a 1ghz Athlon and did my best to convert my friends. Regardless of how good AMD's chips were, I wasn't that successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye4077
Yeah like Anandtech's 920 which doesn't clock an inch past 3.3ghz. Who'd have thought that intel's most cherished fansite reviewer would have the only intel cpu in existence that can't clock past 3.3ghz, never mind to 4ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
What are the odds on that. Almost unbelievable huh.
The profit margins on high end desktop chips are much higher than mainstream or budget. (yes... they pale in comparison to server chips).Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
Yea. It's hard to believe considering someone at Intel more than likely checked out the chip they were going to send to a prominent reviewer before it went out the door.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
I wonder if they over volted it or did something to hurt the chip. Or perhaps it could have been damaged by static discharge before installing?
Btw... has anyone here EVER damaged a component due to ESD? i've been building computers for 20 years and have never once had it happen. (famous last words.... like when i posted up that my Dell XPS M1530 was perfect and had no GPU problems. ZAP.... the following week it died :down:)
I had two core i7 920. One clocked at 4.4ghz and another at 4.66 ghz. Under water mind you. But I was talking about the sandy bridge processors those things are hitting 4.0ghz even under stock sometimes. Core i7(nehalem) are too much of a heat monster to clock to 4.0ghz under stock cooling. With non stock, core i7 clocks pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
Intel needed every mhz it could get when pentium 4 was against a64. It wasn't just for mhz marketing. Even with a huge clock advantage, p4 was slower than athlon 64. Intel sold better than a64 not so much for the megahertz difference as much as the Intel namesake. AMD has had the 3800+, 1800+ naming to hide the lower megahertz. People buy intel more and even if AMD bulldozer is a blockbuster and beats sandy bridge, it will probably never sell better than intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye4077
Bulldozer I thought had integrated graphic my mistake. It seems llano or the the one they have been previewing a bit, so why don't they show bulldozer now still.
So you've never had hardware 'just die 'after even a few or more yrs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
if you have then you don't know if was ESD damage or not
Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
agree here:yepp:
besides when released the Core 2 Quad Q6600 was much more expensive than the 2600k on release.
even the Yorkfield 9650 was 30bucks more expensive than the 2600k and it doesnt have open multiplier,the Extreme edition had open multipliers but the price was insane.
right now it seems that AMD will be in the same situation as with Zacate - basically about the same with the Intel offerings for that class
I second what you said and additionally its is no longer about CPU itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
What for do you need more CPU power in a mainstream to high end PC if youre not into rendering? Does windows and applications you use run that faster on a high end CPU to warrant the price increase?
In my opinion the current bottleneck is still graphics (especially visible in mainstream) and GPU offloading, that way I have a feeling AMD can address it better then Intel longterm.
:shrug:
Change thread title to "Intel fanboys comment on first Bulldozer screenshots" please.
Now, how long should we wait until we got something official that is the real Question! I need to see some result soon, i need a new Video editing rig.
Six weeks, probably less.
wrong:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
im being bottlenecked by my Yorkfield running at 4ghz while using a radeon 6950 2gig ram in some games like :BadCompany and TF2...gpu usage falls to between 40%-60%:( on some maps and FPS falls accordingly.
and this is only talking about online shooters...