AMD presents "The Bulldozer Blog"

"Welcome to the Bulldozer Blog. Our next generation core architecture, a complete new design from the ground up, is called “Bulldozer.” This new core design is planned as the basis for our next generation AMD Opteron™ processors, as well as our high end client products.

The primary focus of the Bulldozer Blog will be commercial systems, and most specifically server, but there will be some client-focused blogs periodically as well. The server business tends to have much longer sales cycles and more architectural discussions, so you will see more focus from us in those areas."

http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02...ulldozer-blog/

http://blogs.amd.com/work/2010/08/02/what-is-bulldozer/

Found it via:

"CHIP DESIGN HOUSE AMD is gearing up for the launch of its 'Bulldozer' core architecture that will be the basis for its next generation of Opteron processors.

As part of the build up, AMD has launched a blog that it says will cover all the information on its Bulldozer technology."

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...ring-bulldozer

Waiting for Hot Chips long time.... :p:

Quote:

---

The primary focus of the Bulldozer Blog will be commercial systems, and most specifically server

---

so could i make the assumption that this chip will not be ideal for multimedia or hpc? it really concerns me that this is one of the first things the blog says.

This could use an edit:

We will be introducing this processor in 2011, and as we get closer we’ll get more granular on the actual availability.

Just so that we are all on the same page, some things you won’t see us discuss detailed benchmark results, pricing, launch date or any of our partners’ platforms.

Err, you just did discuss the launch date, and promised to narrow it down more in the future... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

so could i make the assumption that this chip will not be ideal for multimedia or hpc? it really concerns me that this is one of the first things the blog says.

---

Actually, I'd guess that HPC will be one of its relative strengths. And gaming a relative weakness, as those are highly correlated with single-core strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

so could i make the assumption that this chip will not be ideal for multimedia or hpc? it really concerns me that this is one of the first things the blog says.

---

No, that statement is that I am a server guy, so don't bombard me with client questions. There will be a client blog, but obviously, because of sales cycles and technology buying processes, we talk about server details a lot more than client out ahead of launch.

HPC is server and this will be a killer HPC product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

so could i make the assumption that this chip will not be ideal for multimedia or hpc? it really concerns me that this is one of the first things the blog says.

---

You are imagining stuff, terrace too. Anyone knows that the main focus in design is server oriented, always has been. The same was true for A64 and we all know how good that architecture was for the regular consumer, gamer whatever.

Well, I just hope it's not all hype. Would love to see AMD release another processor that hits as hard as the Athlon X2 did... Would make competition a lot more interesting.

Quote:

---

Performance: We release benchmarks at launch, so don’t expect too much detail there anytime soon. From a performance standpoint, if you compare our 16-core Interlagos to our current 12-core AMD Opteron™ 6100 Series processors (code named “Magny Cours”) we estimate that customers will see up to 50% more performance from 33% more cores. This means we expect the per core performance to go in the right direction — up. That is all I will say until launch.

---

So 12.5% better per core is the deal ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

No, that statement is that I am a server guy, so don't bombard me with client questions. There will be a client blog, but obviously, because of sales cycles and technology buying processes, we talk about server details a lot more than client out ahead of launch.

HPC is server and this will be a killer HPC product.

---

just trying to confirm that this is not just a server chip because all of the hype has been how much better it will be in the server area and frankly that's not something i care about. 99% of what i do on my comp is HPC type work. i'm not sure how you are classifying HPC as server though. in what respect? i.e business or technical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v0dka

You are imagining stuff, terrace too. Anyone knows that the main focus in design is server oriented, always has been. The same was true for A64 and we all know how good that architecture was for the regular consumer, gamer whatever.

---

i dont know if that's true. every extension added to x86 in the past 10 years has been multimedia focused, especially AVX. also desktop is a much larger market and the focus of the uarchs is subject to argument with what info people outside the company have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

So 12.5% better per core is the deal ?

---

Depends on frequency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

So 12.5% better per core is the deal ?

---

how about 50% at the socket level. How often do you get that much of an increase, especially on top of this year's 80-120% increase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

how about 50% at the socket level. How often do you get that much of an increase, especially on top of this year's 80-120% increase?

---

Is that a hint but we know what you mean, like what Athlon 64 did and what Core 2 did....

Any word about running on AM3 or not?

remember, a 16-core interlagos has 8 bulldozer modules. u cant compare CMT to a full 2nd core. yes, its more than SMT, but still less than a complete core.

@LesGrossman: its a server cpu...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

how about 50% at the socket level. How often do you get that much of an increase, especially on top of this year's 80-120% increase?

---

50% better AT WHAT?

For example, if the answer is "peak FLOPS", well, that would be a big disappointment, relative to what the competition is doing with SB, and relative to everyone's current BD expectations based on 256-wide FP.

50% better TPC and SAP-SD? Now that would be nice.

Not specifying what sort of "performance" you are talking about makes your claim of "50% improvement per socket" virtually impossible to interpret.

Imagine you are talking to a car salesman. He tells you, "Next year's model... boy, you're gonna love it! It's 50% better!" Of course, you say, "Umm. 50% better... how? mileage? top speed? what?"
If the salesman then said, "I can't tell you," you'd probably have a few choice words for him, before walking away...

youve asked that question a few times this week already, mind letting it go since hes said he cant comment more on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

50% better AT WHAT?

For example, if the answer is "peak FLOPS", well, that would be a big disappointment, relative to what the competition is doing with SB, and relative to everyone's current BD expectations based on 256-wide FP.

50% better TPC and SAP-SD? Now that would be nice.

Not specifying what sort of "performance" you are talking about makes your claim of "50% improvement per socket" virtually impossible to interpret.

Imagine you are talking to a car salesman. He tells you, "Next year's model... boy, you're gonna love it! It's 50% better!" Of course, you say, "Umm. 50% better... how? mileage? top speed? what?"
If the salesman then said, "I can't tell you," you'd probably have a few choice words for him, before walking away...

---

Anyone else getting tired of this guys continuous comments and beating of a dead horse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stukov

Anyone else getting tired of this guys continuous comments and beating of a dead horse?

---

JFAMD isnt dead yet, but with this kind of beating i imagine it wont take much longer. i appreciate having him here talking directly too us, and dont want to scare him off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

JFAMD isnt dead yet, but with this kind of beating i imagine it wont take much longer. i appreciate having him here talking directly too us, and dont want to scare him off.

---

not really, unless that questions scare him.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

not really, unless that questions scare him.. :)

---

JF can not comment on performance before the actual launch of the product. I guess thats clear to everyone besides the top screamers here (or is it just competition fishing for data?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

not really, unless that questions scare him.. :)

---

Which has nothing to do with the issue now does it? He answered the question as much as he is going to, the repeated asking from the same poster is trying to accomplish what exactly? I know you are pro-Intel, but this should annoy anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

He answered the question as much as he is going to

---

Then why is he bothering to repeatedly post "50% better", as without being more specific, the claim is not really meaningful? Why doesn't repeated vacuous marketing annoy you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

JF can not comment on performance before the actual launch of the product. I guess thats clear to everyone besides the top screamers here (or is it just competition fishing for data?).

Anyway, I wish there would be a checkbox ("no raging fanboys") when creating topics so they would remain invisible to the likes of terrace215. :shakes:

---

hes ignoring those questions just fine, I just wonder if there will be more perf. data until launch, hot chips maybe?

maybe he can only post limited information

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

Then why is he bothering to repeatedly post "50% better", as without being more specific, the claim is not really meaningful? Why doesn't repeated vacuous marketing annoy you?

---

someone asked a question and he responded with the number he is allowed to mention. i dont expect him to break NDA, do you?

Don't expect performance at hot chips - that is a discussion around architecture.

As for performance, the 50% gain is an aggregate estimation of major server workloads. Estimates tend to be conservative, there is little to be gained from being overly aggressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

Which has nothing to do with the issue now does it? He answered the question as much as he is going to, the repeated asking from the same poster is trying to accomplish what exactly? I know you are pro-Intel, but this should annoy anyone.

---

You know ,this sort of repeated asking of the same question kinda reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Marge and Homer are taking the kids to Disneyland(IIRC) and all the way Bart and LIsa keep on asking them :"Are we there yet" :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

Why doesn't repeated vacuous marketing annoy you?

---

Because only idiots get hyped up over pre-release marketing. I'll wait for hard data. Jeff has given us some good info at times, but when he can't give hard facts spamming him for them isn't going to help. Trying to guess the performance of up-coming products is fun but you should probably stop taking it so seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

someone asked a question and he responded with the number he is allowed to mention. i dont expect him to break NDA, do you?

---

My point is simply that the "number", as you say, is virtually meaningless without knowing to what it refers, so there is no point to it in isolation. I thought the example of "peak FLOPs" vs "enterprise benchmarks" was a nice illustration of the issue, as well as the "top speed" vs "mileage" car analogy.

Yet the AMD fans get so angry at a perfectly reasonable question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

Because only idiots get hyped up over pre-release marketing. I'll wait for hard data. Jeff has given us some good info at times, but when he can't give hard facts spamming him for them isn't going to help. Trying to guess the performance of up-coming products is fun but you should probably stop taking it so seriously.

---

Oh look! He actually answered my question.

Now, will any of the posters that were so annoyed with my question take back their complaints? :shakes:

p.s. his name is John, not Jeff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilzuHdlKHPw LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

You know ,this sort of repeated asking of the same question

---

... actually got results, finally.
:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

My point is simply that the "number", as you say, is virtually meaningless without knowing to what it refers, so there is no point to it in isolation. I thought the example of "peak FLOPs" vs "enterprise benchmarks" was a nice illustration of the issue, as well as the "top speed" vs "mileage" car analogy.

Yet the AMD fans get so angry at a perfectly reasonable question.

---

yes or no,
are you asking him to break NDA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

As for performance, the 50% gain is an aggregate estimation of major server workloads. Estimates tend to be conservative, there is little to be gained from being overly aggressive.

---

Thank you, that makes the claim have meaning. Although, do you consider HPC-related work to be a "major server workload" ? I ask because that will have the biggest potential increase (~100% core improvement from 128-->256 wide), and so it obviously impacts the mean to the extent it enters into the aggregate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

yes or no,
are you asking him to break NDA?

---

He's the Director of Product Marketing for AMD servers, he can disclose what he wants to, subject to his bosses' approval, as *he* *just* *did*.
:ROTF::rofl::yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilzuHdlKHPw LOL

---

That's the one ! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

... actually got results, finally.
:shakes:

---

You really think the number he gave was because you pestered him around at few different forums(yeah SA and Ars off the top of my head).
They are starting to officially promote the new gen. of Opteron cores and it's normal they give some hints to performance uplift ,even though it is vague at this point(not surprisingly since the product is launching in 2011,duh;you could expect it was an average figure and a conservative one,just like it was the case with MC).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

You really think the number he gave was because you pestered him around at few different forums(yeah SA and Ars off the top of my head).

---

I don't post at ars, and what I think is that the fans who jumped all over me for asking the question in this thread should reconsider their attitude considering the fact that my question was answered.

This ignore list feature is coming in more and more handy every day!

Any way, I'm still running a Q6600 because I have found no overwhelming need to move on. All I really need processing power for is X264. If I can currently encode a movie in 18 hours and a similarly clocked more modern chip can do it in 12, what does it matter? It's still going to take a whole day.
I hope that BD brings some real serious processing power to the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

Thank you, that makes the claim have meaning. Although, do you consider HPC-related work to be a "major server workload" ? I ask because that will have the biggest potential increase (~100% core improvement from 128-->256 wide), and so it obviously impacts the mean to the extent it enters into the aggregate.

---

HPC is a really broad category that covers hundreds of different workloads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

He's the Director of Product Marketing for AMD servers, he can disclose what he wants to, subject to his bosses' approval, as *he* *just* *did*.
:ROTF::rofl::yepp:

---

I didn't break any NDA. I don't have an NDA, I have a confidentiality agreement.

I answered you with information that you could have found by googling, it is public.

Someone on this thread is having a nervous breakdown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

My point is simply that the "number", as you say, is virtually meaningless without knowing to what it refers, so there is no point to it in isolation. I thought the example of "peak FLOPs" vs "enterprise benchmarks" was a nice illustration of the issue, as well as the "top speed" vs "mileage" car analogy.

Yet the AMD fans get so angry at a perfectly reasonable question.

---

Dude, stress out, or read more and look at the architecture more and educate yourself on what those new changes might mean. Many of us have a pretty good clue..

That is why we are discussing it.


AMD is tight liped, you seem angry & want the hard facts right now...

Like a spoiled kid... = Cartman :rolleyes:

This is a rant. Not aimed at anyone who works at AMD, but at AMD's policy of not releasing any performance data a few months from a launch.

Why can't AMD throw it's customers a bone? How many people are not going to wait for Bulldozer numbers knowing that Intel is getting ready to release a new micro architecture? You're losing customers over you're refusal to even release some meaningless numbers. Intel's next architecture is set in stone now, they can't change it. About all they could do at this time is release higher clock speed parts on their 22nm process. AMD is in the same situation, although they may be able to make minor tweaks to their silicon between now and the official launch. What could AMD possibly lose right now by releasing some Cinebench or some other benchmark numbers? I'm one of the few on this board who doesn't care about architecture or the design process. I just care about performance. If you have something that can compete with Intel or even better, beat them, then let everyone know. I'd be shouting it from the rooftops to let people know about it. :shakes:

If AMD truly has a spade up it's sleeve, it's shooting itself in the foot by not playing it right now.

in a fast moving industry like this, secrecy is very important. with a car you see prototypes cause it takes a decade for them to do anything and 9/10 things were just showing off a toy that looks just like....a toy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

in a fast moving industry like this, secrecy is very important. with a car you see prototypes cause it takes a decade for them to do anything and 9/10 things were just showing off a toy that looks just like....a toy.

---

Secrecy is very important in the initial design and testing process. When you're only a few months away from a product launch and you've got the next "big thing", let people know about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Secrecy is very important in the initial design and testing process. When you're only a few months away from a product launch and you've got the next "big thing", let people know about it.

---

cant you just wait a couple more months before having those numbers????

Yes it's only August '10, let's hope BD is released for regular desktop PCs by March/April '11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n

cant you just wait a couple more months before having those numbers????

---

NOOOO:rofl: What has it been 5-7 years in the making?
I know Im stoked:yepp: #########'s umm umm um:ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Secrecy is very important in the initial design and testing process. When you're only a few months away from a product launch and you've got the next "big thing", let people know about it.

---

nature of the beast man, you wouldn't want amd making an announcement of an announcement...of an announcement would you p?


better to stay quiet, they are still most likely at least 5 months away....thats plenty of time for intel to muck around.


i love ignore lists!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

This is a rant. Not aimed at anyone who works at AMD, but at AMD's policy of not releasing any performance data a few months from a launch.

Why can't AMD throw it's customers a bone? How many people are not going to wait for Bulldozer numbers knowing that Intel is getting ready to release a new micro architecture? You're losing customers over you're refusal to even release some meaningless numbers. Intel's next architecture is set in stone now, they can't change it. About all they could do at this time is release higher clock speed parts on their 22nm process. AMD is in the same situation, although they may be able to make minor tweaks to their silicon between now and the official launch. What could AMD possibly lose right now by releasing some Cinebench or some other benchmark numbers? I'm one of the few on this board who doesn't care about architecture or the design process. I just care about performance. If you have something that can compete with Intel or even better, beat them, then let everyone know. I'd be shouting it from the rooftops to let people know about it. :shakes:

If AMD truly has a spade up it's sleeve, it's shooting itself in the foot by not playing it right now.

---

One word: Osborne.

two words: ozzy osborne:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Secrecy is very important in the initial design and testing process. When you're only a few months away from a product launch and you've got the next "big thing", let people know about it.

---

Isn't intel doing the exact same thing? In fact, Movieman challenged Dr.Who? To 'flaunt' his product ... if he knows he's got the next big thing.

In fact, the last few pages of the 'intel plans to deliberate limit SB overclocking' are filled with Dr.Who's smoke clouds of vagueness.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=124

Where is Terrace to hound on Dr.Who?

Looks like something to watch carefully

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

One word: Osborne.

---

Has Osborne said anything of interest or what? Is she going to?
Is it a code?
What!? :confused:

Is the Osborne effect ( economics 101 ) : announcing a new product with vastly superior features will make your current product sales plummet, everyone waiting for the next generation.

If AMD releases too many details about BD now, with launch somewhere in H2 2011, people might delay their purchases to then, cratering their current sales and creating cash flow issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Is the Osborne effect ( economics 101 ) : announcing a new product with vastly superior features will make your current product sales plummet, everyone waiting for the next generation.

If AMD releases too many details about BD now, with launch somewhere in H2 2011, people might delay their purchases to then, cratering their current sales and creating cash flow issues.

---

Thanks. Since English isn't my primary language words and expressions like these aren't something that I know to much about.
Would be an overstatement to call me a linguist. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

50% better AT WHAT?

For example, if the answer is "peak FLOPS", well, that would be a big disappointment, relative to what the competition is doing with SB, and relative to everyone's current BD expectations based on 256-wide FP.

50% better TPC and SAP-SD? Now that would be nice.

Not specifying what sort of "performance" you are talking about makes your claim of "50% improvement per socket" virtually impossible to interpret.

---

:rofl: a joke as usual pls enlighten us what SB will bring of magic IPC performance increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Is the Osborne effect ( economics 101 ) : announcing a new product with vastly superior features will make your current product sales plummet, everyone waiting for the next generation.

---

You are a consumer guy that claims to know all about server, yet you have no clue at all how server companies buy there platforms and what it takes to introduce new platform or updated platforms within a company that is "volume wise" worth mentioning, not some smb who buys 1-2-3 servers each 6months or once a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Is the Osborne effect ( economics 101 ) : announcing a new product with vastly superior features will make your current product sales plummet, everyone waiting for the next generation.

If AMD releases too many details about BD now, with launch somewhere in H2 2011, people might delay their purchases to then, cratering their current sales and creating cash flow issues.

---

oh and know you know so much that you already know the launch date

anything interesting in the 3 pages other then spam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny87au

anything interesting in the 3 pages other then spam?

---

No.

Why are people so angry at someone asking a question? JF even answerd it, Bit of the old gang mentaility in this thread.

How many people are not going to wait for Bulldozer numbers knowing that Intel is getting ready to release a new micro architecture? :rofl:

Really? New chipset, some problems with OC (edition of chips), so AGAIN all new to buy. Zambezii will compactible with AM3 (AM3+). Time of time is necessary to upgrade socket, but every year and twice:down::p: ?? Yes, this is Intel. Think, more people now will trusted AMD company.

All I know is this time around if Intel's numbers look really good and AMD does nothing in response (ie no numbers) then I'll have an Intel setup for the first time in years and many of my customers will as well. :fact:
Any more delays and the above statement becomes true as well. You can only support an underdog for so long before you just give up on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

How many people are not going to wait for Bulldozer numbers knowing that Intel is getting ready to release a new micro architecture? :rofl:

Really? New chipset, some problems with OC (edition of chips), so AGAIN all new to buy. Zambezii will compactible with AM3 (AM3+). Time of time is necessary to upgrade socket, but every year and twice:down::p: ?? Yes, this is Intel. Think, more people now will trusted AMD company.

---

When you're on a one to one and half year upgrade cycle, you don't care about purchasing a new motherboard.

I dont seen for using more than 1 or 2 CPU better than x6 1090T BE (talking about video encoding performance and 3D rendering). Izts only i7 975 Xe and i7 980X.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

..

You are a consumer guy that claims to know all about server, yet you have no clue at all how server companies buy there platforms and what it takes to introduce new platform or updated platforms within a company that is "volume wise" worth mentioning, not some smb who buys 1-2-3 servers each 6months or once a year.

---

Man, if you have issues, there are pills which can help you. Take your frustration to John Fruehe, I've simply explained the term he used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

One word: Osborne.

---

and again this thread delivers the lulz :D

I'm just waiting for someone to give Dr.Who as much grief as JF-AMD.

i think it's about equal... i've seen mods give dr. who a hard time.

... though this thread has been reduced to blows, and i just wanted to learn something about bulldozer.

What surprises me is how much 12 year olds know about computers these days

quite impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

When you're on a one to one and half year upgrade cycle, you don't care about purchasing a new motherboard.

---

whos on that cycle?

i got a AM2+ board and its had duel cores, quads, and now hexies. if each one lasts just a year, im on a 3 year cycle for 1 motherboard. that reduces my cost by about 75$ a year compared to your 1.5 year cycle, which means i can spend 75$ more on a cpu, instead of replacing it with a motherboard that offers nothing new.

Question to John,

Any estimation of how much bigger or smaller the die size for an 8 module BD core will be as compared to Istanbul/Magny Cores?

Can we expect it under the same current high end chips' power envelope: =<125Watts?

Regards.

We don't disclose any die sizes, in whole or as components.

Power and thermals should be the same range; they will fit into the same sockets so we have to live within those constraints.

Old slide ...

http://tof.canardpc.com/view/5ea000f...a1d4c3621f.jpg

10% Int more
35% FP more
(Thanks Hardware.fr and Marc for datas)

Is it still relevant or not John ?

Very old slide.Plus the bars don't even fade out in this one(as they do in another old slide) :).

Quote:

---

7.
Power and thermals will be the same range as Magny Cours today, so if performance if 50% higher and the power is the same, you can do your own math on performance per watt.

You all have to keep in mind that customers don't buy cores, they buy processors. There will be a 50% increase in total processor performance. Doing the math and saying that per core vs. Magny Cours ignores the fact that there are 33% more cores.

If you do want to go down the path of comparing a 12-core Interlagos to a 12-core Magny Cours, the Interlagos will be faster AND will be less expensive because for Magny Cours 12-core is the top of the stack and for Interlagos, 12-core is at the bottom of the stack.

The fact that the Opteron 6100 beats the Xeon 5600 in integer and floating poing today AND will have a 50% increase in performance, means that intel will need well more than 50% increase with sandybridge just to catch up.
[Posted by: JF-AMD | Date: 08/04/10 04:26:34 AM]

---

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...ce_Boosts.html

This means that the new core will be an improvement on the older core as it is. So that means that single thread app's most likely will get a boost as compared to current applications. Now when we look on to sandy bridge i would think it will be better than nehalem and such have a better single thread performance be it because of the freq or some added goodies. The real question is how high can bulldozer be clocked because i tell you sandy bridge is designed to be very dynamic with freq's and is very flexible with thermals.

IMO,the conservative estimate AMD publicly gave comes from the current 32nm node condition @ GloFo(lower clock speeds than projected on the first batch of ES?).I think GloFo will certainly clear the issues by the time mass production starts next year,but for now AMD must use what they have.Remember ,this is all around new chip design with 8 monolithic cores (x 2 in server parts,via direct connect MCM) and they(AMD) must work within previously set power bands. As the node issues are cleared up AMD can better project the end clock speeds and thus the performance.

They presented it?
I thought it was already done by Dresdenboy: http://citavia.blog.de/
j/k

I really hope this bulldozes the competition, will be fun to watch if it does.

I don't think there is anybody here that wouldn't like to have concrete bulldozer performance numbers right now. But I doubt that whining about it will change AMD's policy on the matter. They may not even have hard numbers themselves because there is still a lot of work on the silicon left (how would you come up with a hard number without the final clock speed?).

With all of the "doom and gloom" or "epic monster" scenarios being passed around it would be hilarious to watch all the backpedaling if it turns out to simply be a decent competitive product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

JF can not comment on performance before the actual launch of the product. I guess thats clear to everyone besides the top screamers here (or is it just competition fishing for data?).

---

Real guy aren't afraid of competition only schemers are :p: But then gain every marketing guy must have some scheme to sell out to indians (not pc enough?) wanting these shiny new pearls he's offering :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

Because only idiots get hyped up over pre-release marketing.

---

OMG. What kind of bluntness :D While in fact i agree with your principles, i think you used wrong approach to PR scheming. First you find out what that PR guys are really bubbling about, and does it really works or it's just JHH-type smokescreen (tribute to Jen-Hsun Huang) when delivering carboardware to the market. And only after that throw rocks and cedar wood onto him (well rotten cabbage will do the job also) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrace215

My point is simply that the "number", as you say, is virtually meaningless without knowing to what it refers, so there is no point to it in isolation.

---

Exactly. And that's why better to take these PR bubble talks with a jar of salt, rather then take it for a fact and try to explain to yourself that 50% (of nothing) performance gain (it still nothing for math experts). When these performance numbers would be presented against real product with another real product then we can talk about some performance gains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

You're losing customers over you're refusal to even release some meaningless numbers. Intel's next architecture is set in stone now, they can't change it. About all they could do at this time is release higher clock speed parts on their 22nm process. AMD is in the same situation, although they may be able to make minor tweaks to their silicon between now and the official launch. What could AMD possibly lose right now by releasing some Cinebench or some other benchmark numbers? I'm one of the few on this board who doesn't care about architecture or the design process. I just care about performance.

---

Excellent punch, some performance numbers (if this BD architecture is really near finish) might help them alot because AM3 offers seamless upgrade (except HT3.1?) and many high-end enthusiastic oriented people might jump on intel bandwagon if Bulldozer is delayed as K10 was.

If they really mean to start volume shipping in 2011/H1, and not to delay it to Q2 (or Q3) in fact, they should have pretty much working batch of "final prototype" and if that have some bugs they should be solved during August (this month) and we could see real performance of highly and extremely long anticipated Bulldozer architecture based on "prototype chip". They need some 4 month or more for every new tweak so if early 2011/H1 is exact date we should see some performance benches now and in early November at latest final product engineering samples of final product that will go onto market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

whos on that cycle?

i got a AM2+ board and its had duel cores, quads, and now hexies. if each one lasts just a year, im on a 3 year cycle for 1 motherboard. that reduces my cost by about 75$ a year compared to your 1.5 year cycle, which means i can spend 75$ more on a cpu, instead of replacing it with a motherboard that offers nothing new.

---

If you put all in economic terms. Some of us are never seen actual mobo that costs 75$ and that's good enough to be a solution for longer upgrades (over 3yrs). Where i buy, only obsolete nf560/nf720(8200igp)/amd720/amd740 cost that much (and it's well known how much manufacturers reduce costs on that entry level boards) While some boards that offer real upgrade path start at 170USD (equivalent) for some 3rd grade manufacturers or more for better ones like Gigabyte/Asus/MSI. So i'd say you wrong talking about reduced cost. (For server upgrades there's sowhat different story but still they start at 300USD)

Yep you can upgrade and put 95W Phenom X6 when released on some nf560 board but this board is designed to sustain 70W constant load and some (near 95W) CPU will kill it in few month (if it's not brand new, an if endure that long). Some higher quality nf590/570 boards usually didnt have that kind of upgrade path (only nice exception there is Gigabyte and Asrock). NTM those erratas AMD built to kill nV competition on HT2.0 based boards if you upgrade onto "Stars" architecture

So for me that "you dont have to change mobo" mantra doesn't really work in real life, just as it didnt in time of K7s KT266A chipset. And it's usually every 3yrs upgrade with new mobo cause old couldnt be upgraded and it wasnt even sub 100USD part ;)

^^^^This guy working for Intel:shrug:
Nothing but negative contradictions to anything anyone says positive about AMD.:down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hlopek

If you put all in economic terms. Some of us are never seen actual mobo that costs 75$ and that's good enough to be a solution for longer upgrades (over 3yrs).

---

its 75$ per year, so over 3 years it totals 225$ which is a decent price for a very good long lasting mobo.

if the cycle is 1.5 years per mobo 225+225 = 450$
if its a 3 year cycle, just 225$

(450-225)/3 = 75$ per year saved by having a longer platform. and i checked my purchase date, turns out my motherboard is 3.5 years old already, and i plan on keeping it until AM3+

It's not too hard to understand why no numbers are up yet.

If you take marketing and customer reactions into account:

If BD is released on Servers first, then AMD should keep performance secret as server products often involve million dollar contracts for high volumes. Magny Cours is a competitive product and sells very well, and releasing BD performance numbers could affect millions in MC sales. Intel often releases desktop chips before migrating them to server, hence MC sales should continue to do well until Bulldozer.

If BD is released on the desktop first, then AMD should release some benchmark numbers, as they are only competing on price/performance segment in this market, expectations of near future high end products that could beat the competition could hold customers from buying them. Sandy bridge is just around the corner and AMD customers on the desktop would prefer to see whats coming now rather than later.

My understanding is that BD is coming on Server markets first, hence all the quietness from AMD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

It's not too hard to understand why no numbers are up yet.

---

AMD's marketing department is teh :banana::banana::banana::banana:, but even they realize is stupid to advertise a product that is at least 1 year away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

AMD's marketing department is teh :banana::banana::banana::banana:, but even they realize is stupid to advertise a product that is at least 1 year away.

---

If Bulldozer is truly 1 year away and that's a very big IF, then my next purchase would definitely be SB. I was hoping for a January to March release in 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

If Bulldozer is truly 1 year away and that's a very big IF, then my next purchase would definitely be SB. I was hoping for a January to March release in 2011.

---

You can believe what you want to believe, the rumours saying GF is having issues with 32nm or the usual marketing BS saying "still on track" for 2011. This sounds a lot like the typical bullcrap you get when a product is still far away (or it's crap) and you have to maintain interest. The fact is that SB is Q1 2011, BD is in no way Q1 2011. Plus no word on perfomance.

Star:SB only to 1155, this LGA is outperform LGA1366 (i7 960/965/975/970/980).
BD is in no way Q1 2011 How do u can know? It can be Q1, it can be Q2....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

You can believe what you want to believe, the rumours saying GF is having issues with 32nm or the usual marketing BS saying "still on track" for 2011. This sounds a lot like the typical bullcrap you get when a product is still far away (or it's crap) and you have to maintain interest. The fact is that SB is Q1 2011, BD is in no way Q1 2011. Plus no word on perfomance.

---

+50 % with 33 % more cores from existing product to new product. So the increased throughput is achieved by more cores.

Not in games though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

+50 % with 33 % more cores from existing product to new product. So the increased throughput is achieved by more cores.

Not in games though.

---

That claim comes from the marketing team. Never, ever believe marketing teams, or even presentations. You'll see how the real thing performs when it launches. And yes, single thread perfomance is not looking good at all.

1 year of Bulldozer nonsense until it launches, :sick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

That claim comes from the marketing team. Never, ever believe marketing teams, or even presentations. You'll see how the real thing performs when it launches. And yes, single thread perfomance is not looking good at all.

1 year of Bulldozer nonsense until it launches, :sick:

---

Yeah, marketing always overhypes things. I said Magny Cours was going to be 50-60% higher than istanbul. I was really wrong.

80-120% was more like it.

What people forget about any predicitions is that it does no good to overhype your products. If I said it was going to be 300% faster and it wasn't a.) I blow all credibility and b.) the product is viewed as a failure.

Fanbois will overhype (or downplay) any technology without any evidence of actual performance, but from a marketing side there is more on the line.

Overhyping a product could lead to charges that you are trying to pump up your stock price and nobody wants that. I have grown accustomed to sleeping in my own house and the luxury of eating normal food. I wouldn't look good in stripes.

I would argue that marketing people are probably the most reliable sources of information on these boards because they are the only ones actually bounded by the truth. And legal teams that get nervous about what they are saying.

If you take a look at everything that I posted about Magny Cours prior to the launch, you'll see that I was not misleading. Except about the total performance, but we had some upside with the final silicon and we kept that to ourselves for obvious reasons.

I can't speak to the other marketing people here, but if you identify yourself and clearly align yourself to the forum at to who you are and who you work for, there is a high probability that you are going to be honest, in most cases, conservative with your claims because you are seen as speaking for the company, even though you are posting on your own as an individual.

My 2 cents.

Also, don't forget that we have a boost technology. The 50% number is based on a fully utilized processor. If you were only running a single thread you would be looking at a very different uplift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

That claim comes from the marketing team. Never, ever believe marketing teams, or even presentations. You'll see how the real thing performs when it launches. And yes, single thread perfomance is not looking good at all.

1 year of Bulldozer nonsense until it launches, :sick:

---

You say the information is wrong/un-reliable then decide that single thread information is going to be bad based on that same information. :confused:

You can be a fan without being a fanboy, try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

I would argue that marketing people are probably the most reliable sources of information on these boards because they are the only ones actually bounded by the truth. And legal teams that get nervous about what they are saying.

---

i wasnt happy with the marketing behind ipad, calling it a revolution, but that is a company based on sales driven by marketing. the fact amd does not market much at all, leads to having to do it the old fashioned way, with benchmarks and facts.

1155 do not worth for any with 1156/1366 platform. The octocores from SB come in late 2011(or Q3 AFAIK, the 1155 are useless for this chips). So both SB and Bulldozer will probably be on market at the same time.

And really, wanting six/octocores and then talking about single thread performance? That's a thing of the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nintendork

And really, wanting six/octocores and then talking about single thread performance? That's a thing of the past.

---

People who like SuperPi, probably also like to have an orgy with 4 women, but only let one touch, and tells the other 3 to sit in the corner, watch, and dont even act like your enjoying it.

SB octocore with 16 threads vs. BD octomodule with 16 threads... :slobber:

As Calmatory said, all I'm looking for is a socket level performance. If it delivers there's no point in trying to downplay its accomplishments. You sell CPUs, not cores or architecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cegras

As Calmatory said, all I'm looking for is a socket level performance. If it delivers there's no point in trying to downplay its accomplishments. You sell CPUs, not cores or architecture.

---

Bingo, we have a winner. People don't buy architecture and cores aren't available a la carte.

You buy a processor and that is the most discrete level that you really want to get down to. Arguing below that is less productive.

What is the performance, price and power consumption of the processor, that is what matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Bingo, we have a winner. People don't buy architecture and cores aren't available a la carte.

You buy a processor and that is the most discrete level that you really want to get down to. Arguing below that is less productive.

What is the performance, price and power consumption of the processor, that is what matters.

---

JF thank you for interacting with us and although you are sometimes dealing with "pure fanboism" you seem to handle it very well!

I personally enjoy every bit of information that you share with us. That way keep up the good work and don't get discouraged... :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Bingo, we have a winner. People don't buy architecture and cores aren't available a la carte.

You buy a processor and that is the most discrete level that you really want to get down to. Arguing below that is less productive.

What is the performance, price and power consumption of the processor, that is what matters.

---

Exactly. John, you know your work better than me, so please. Your goal is to sell CPUs, fooling the customers if necessary. You load your CPU with all kinds of workloads. Your perfomance figures are only valid when you load the CPU to the max. Nobody is saying that the CPU will be bad is this situation, but things don't work like that most of the time and you know it.

I'll tell you what's productive. I use app X, what processor gives me the best perfomance, perfomance/price, etc? If my application doesn't load the CPU to 100% I don't care about what it does when it is at 100%. No 100% in this case means no app with 12/16/whatever number of threads the CPU has. If my app is restricted to 2 threads, or any other number below the max, your CPU will underperform compared to the competition. You know that there are more CPUs running below and way below 100% load than fully utilized. Your competitor is not the leader in everything except maybe price without reason, some people will never get it. You can attack them with perfomance where it matters or with words for the fool, and I don't see a lot of the former. Athlon64 was such a success because the core was a lot better than Netburst, not because its "socket level" (what a term...) perfomance was better. Unless BD's integer "clusters" are significantly faster than the ones present in the current generation of AMD CPUs you'll still lag behind Intel. We'll talk again when BD is released. If I remember about it, which is going to be difficult.

Stargazer. Don't worry. If one wants to be a pessimist, 8 cores + 12 % IPC increase should be enough for even you.

For the third time please, oh someone PLEASE provide SOMETHING which does not scale to multiple threads well, and which is other than SuperPI or games. Or software older than 3-5 years. I can't think of anything serious apart from games. And even in that case it is developers decision not to use multiple threads.

Before a real processor is made the company has to sell the architecture to the investors and say what you will the architecture of a processor says a lot. Its no surprise that stock buy/sell organization often employ several chip architects in an attempt to find out how good the processor will turn out and how well will it deal with the other side which will offcourse affect the price of the companies stock. Informed speculation on insider trade are tools of the trade be it legal or not.

When K10 was 2 months from release an stock investment firm bought quite a few shares in AMD because according to their resident chip architect the architecture was very well made and it was suppose to be a run away success. But you all know how that turned out. The point being Intel will keep building on and enhancing the nehalem architecture for years to come till AMD forces them to think differently or they exhaust the architecture out.