Quote Originally Posted by MrMojoZ View Post
Six year old quotes? I'm going to start filling Sandy Bridge threads with info on Netburst, thats cool with you guys right?
)

No need to; the point was simply to take the appropriate spoon of salt wrts to marketing and performance claims for a future product.

Quote Originally Posted by JF-AMD
OK, so let me get the gist of all of this whole thread down to two statements:

1. People are claiming Bulldozer will be slower than existing products because they are sharing resources in the processor and sharing is inherently worse.

2. People are claiming that even though Bulldozer has dedicated resources relative to the old architecture that shares them, this is worse.

OK, I got it now.
Not in the slightest.
First of all, nobody claimed BD will be slower than existing products either in performance overall or single threaded performance. Nobody brought in discussion the dedicated vs. shared resources but you, so false dilemma you have there.
The only point raised ( by me at least ) was that given the design trade-offs BD did ( which I addressed in a previous post in details - my POV nothing more and which David Kanter also mentioned in his article), it is expected that BD will lose slightly in performance per clock compared to K10 in integer code . Overall performance of BD, including single threaded will be higher no doubt than K10. But not per clock.