Quote Originally Posted by Apokalipse View Post
It's not hard to see that Bulldozer is no K10. It'd be nuts to think there aren't some decent measurable IPC gains.
So no, I don't believe OBR.
Or at the very least, if OBR does somehow have ES chips, they're not performing like retail chips are supposed to.
The fact that he has ES chips is not debatable ;-) .As for the Core per Core IPC ,well i dont know, remember thats before Turbo, were talking Mhz per Mhz here.And Cores in Bd arent Full cores on their own.

Quote Originally Posted by repman View Post
Ok this sounds really weird...why would AMD design a brand new cpu which doesn't perform much better than they have now. I really don't see that happening...
Even if IPC core per core would be the same,you still have 33% more of them for multithreaded work.You have new instructions for specialised code (AES SSE4.1 4.2 etc) which will give biig boost for some parts of the code.And on top of that you have big turbo for single threaded works.All that at lower manufacturing costs than thubans.

Quote Originally Posted by sergiojr View Post
I think there is no point to jump to conclusions before we see test results. If he meant that 8 cores (4 modules) of Bulldozer perform in FPU-intense tasks 33% better than 6 Phenom cores (or one Bulldozer module is as fast as 2 Phenom cores), than it is big success for AMD.
Well ,i had hoped for more than that.But yea, all in all it wouldnt be bad chip still.

Quote Originally Posted by FlanK3r View Post
repman: relax....this "bad" sample beating sb 2600k in rendering easily. Obr showed it a few weeks ago at blog. So, Sandy Bridge performance now sounds weird too? ,-)
Taking best case scenario for BD tells us nothing about its general performance ;-)