Will AMD's Bulldozer plow through Intel's Sandy Bridge?

R

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
AMD seems to think so, what with the revival of the FX name for the upcoming Phenom III X8's and it seem the Phenom III X6's.

http://www.techpowerup.com/137447/A...-Challenge-Intel-Core-i7-Extreme-Edition.html


"ultra high-end 8-core AMD Vision Black FX" - The Phenom III FX-8

"performance segment AMD Vision Ultimate FX." - The Phenom III FX-6

I think AMD is going to limit the 8-Cores to Ultra High End ($700+) and the 6-Core for everyone else ($150-$500)
 
I doubt AMD will release anything for 700$+ outside of the server market anytime soon.
 
Would you pay $700 now if a Phenom II X6 annihilated the Core i7 980X($1,000) in every single benchmark?
 
Haha, [your preferred company] will absolutely destroy [the other company]. [Your preferred company] has a history of [high performance\bang for buck] and will continue to deliver. [The other company] doesn't really have a hope, and IMO you're blind if you can't see that, [the other company]-fanboys.
 
When AMD has something worth showing, they show it. 'Nuff said.
 
KatalDT said:
Haha, [your preferred company] will absolutely destroy [the other company]. [Your preferred company] has a history of [high performance\bang for buck] and will continue to deliver. [The other company] doesn't really have a hope, and IMO you're blind if you can't see that, [the other company]-fanboys.
Click to expand...

/thread
 
Rauelius said:
Would you pay $700 now if a Phenom II X6 annihilated the Core i7 980X($1,000) in every single benchmark?
Click to expand...

Sure, But AMD is incapable of making high end consumer chips ATM that can compete with Intel. Thats why Im saying this chip will fail real hard and then AMD will cut the price in half so they can stay competive.

Thats what we say with Thuban. AMD trys to play with the 980x, fails, makes chip cheaper than they planned so it can stay semi competive.

And dont tell me AMD was hoping form the start to barley tie (in some cases) the i7-930, they wanted to give the 980x a run for its money and came up short.
 
No fanboyism...I OWN literally everything....AMD cpu...yup...AMD STOCK...yes...intel cpu's yes...intel stock, YES! I just like competition, I really really like my 5850's and when the GTX460 came out and was competitive, was I a fanboy? No, I started recommending them to people because of the awesome Price/Performance, hell I got one and a GTS450 and a GT420 in my lappy, I just think AMD really thinks they have somthing special with the bulldozer and it will be nice to see AMD fire another giant salvo into Intel like they did in the P4 vs A64 days. Besides, that'll hopefully make Intel rethink the Anti-Overclocking on the lower end chips (again, the i3's are reportedly really fun to OC, Imagine OCing an i3 530 to 4Ghz and having it compete with the i5 750 and Phenom II 955...just awesome!
 
I think they should drop the Phenom name and name the new high end something else, they've been using the Phenom name for some time now, but whatever, anything works.

I just hope that AMD does make a comeback this time and give Intel an ass spanking. Even if this new "FX" CPU does outperform Intel's high end, I guess it would cost $1000 just like when AMD charged the Athlon64 FX-62 for $1000.
 
I don't know, I wouldn't say Intel is anti-OC at this point at all. After all, once upon a time there were no OC options on Intel boards, and we've since seen BadAxe2 and Skulltrail, and there are still Intel enthusiast boards.

Also, Intel seems to have taken a page from AMD with the Sandy Bridge chips; the unlocked chips only cost ~$20-30 more than their locked versions, as opposed to something like a Core2Quad Extreme Edition or even an EE i7 of the current generation.

Intel anti-OC? Not really.
 
^ They did introduce multiplier only ocing.

They arnt Anti-OC, Theyre ANTI-Costumer and want to milk us for the 20$ so we can oc.
 
I don't think Intel is anti-OC exactly. They are however against people buying only their cheapest CPUs and overclocking them to the same performance levels of higher end CPUs. Thus hurting their profits on CPUs which have a much higher profit margin.
 
:):) said:
Sure, But AMD is incapable of making high end consumer chips ATM that can compete with Intel. Thats why Im saying this chip will fail real hard and then AMD will cut the price in half so they can stay competive.
Click to expand...

Oh come on now. Because AMD's top chip is less then Intel's now, that is why their next gen "will fail real hard"?
You do know how you sound to anyone who has been around for more then a few years. :(
You go on to say they will cut their price in half to stay competitive. Hmmm, why would they release it a twice its market price then? Sounds kinda stupid and ridiculous to me. :rolleyes:
 
funkydmunky said:
Oh come on now. Because AMD's top chip is less then Intel's now, that is why their next gen "will fail real hard"?
You do know how you sound to anyone who has been around for more then a few years. :(
You go on to say they will cut their price in half to stay competitive. Hmmm, why would they release it a twice its market price then? Sounds kinda stupid and ridiculous to me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

1. I say this becuase AMD hasnt had a competive product at the high end since the p4 days, and that lasted barely a second in the technological race.

2. AMD has a long history of making inferior products and setting thier sights to high, ever since k5 failed to beat the Pentium Pro, and many AMD fans sight k5 as an AMD triumph :rolleyes:

3. I think it makes perfect sense. AMD makes an inferior product, and then sells it for half of what they wish they could of, half of what they needed to to make a profit and keep thier shares stable, not crashing from 40 dolars to 2 dolars to 7 dollars. AMD is a short sellers wet dream.

This is not a healthy company, we all remeber even a few years back when AMD share was 5 times its current value. Not exactly track record for sucess.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AMD+Interactive#symbol=AMD;range=5y
 
:):) said:
Thats what we say with Thuban. AMD trys to play with the 980x, fails, makes chip cheaper than they planned so it can stay semi competive.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. No Thuban wasn't trying to compete with the 980, that was you logic. AMD was trying to maintain market share with the i7 Quad-core, by offering a higher core count at a similar price. Competitive products have the same price range. Did AMD release anything near the 980's $$ range? Nope. Only your fail logic would assume they were to be direct competitors because you see 6-core. Anyone with half a brain knows a Phenom II with two extra cores isn't going to become the equivalent of a 9+ core (P2) chip. Well except you apparently.
 
funkydmunky said:
Oh brother. No Thuban wasn't trying to compete with the 980, that was you logic. AMD was trying to maintain market share with the i7 Quad-core, by offering a higher core count at a similar price. Competitive products have the same price range. Did AMD release anything near the 980's $$ range? Nope. Only your fail logic would assume they were to be direct competitors because you see 6-core. Anyone with half a brain knows a Phenom II with two extra cores isn't going to become the equivalent of a 9+ core (P2) chip. Well except you apparently.
Click to expand...

Once again:

Amd trys to play with Intels high end chips, then fails to so they set thier prices to compete with Intels mid range. They wanted/needed for THuban to match the 980x. but it diddnt and thats why AMD share is 7$ a share and poised to go lower as I type this.

1. Devolp chip to compete with Intel high end.

2. Match Intel mid end.

3. LOwer prices to Intels Mid end. So you cant make a profit.

4. Compete with Intels mid end, lose money, SHort sellers jizz themselces and buy yachts and share holders lose money/
 
AMD knew Thuban wouldn't compete with 980X. They already had a good idea of the performance well beofre it was released because it uses the same K10.5 cores as Deneb(just a slightly different manufacturing technique). If 4 K10.5 cores couldn't match a quad-core I7, 6 K10.5 cores wouldn't match a 980X.
 
I don't remember anything saying that thuban was supposed to compete with the 980x. All I remember is the marketing saying that additional physical cores was a better solution than virtual cores/SMT/Hyperthreading. Also, how do you know that they "wanted" it to do so?

In any case I'd be fine if BD at least beats what's currently out (and obviously the 1155 stuff) and helps to put AMD on track for at least trading hits due to release date offsets.
 
that'd be some crazy good news if this turns out to be true. Then I could get a Phenom II X6 for super cheap. But maybe then I wouldn't want to.
 
kirtar said:
I don't remember anything saying that thuban was supposed to compete with the 980x. All I remember is the marketing saying that additional physical cores was a better solution than virtual cores/SMT/Hyperthreading. Also, how do you know that they "wanted" it to do so?

In any case I'd be fine if BD at least beats what's currently out (and obviously the 1155 stuff) and helps to put AMD on track for at least trading hits due to release date offsets.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. AMD can't compete with Intel's manufacturing yields. As a result they need to compete with Intel's IPC. In that regard they are right around Yorkfield at best. They can't match Nehalem, Gulftown and I seriously doubt they can match Sandy Bridge. AMD is just too far behind to suddenly catch Intel much less surpass them. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's unlikely.
 
Dan_D said:
I doubt it. AMD can't compete with Intel's manufacturing yields. As a result they need to compete with Intel's IPC. In that regard they are right around Yorkfield at best. They can't match Nehalem, Gulftown and I seriously doubt they can match Sandy Bridge. AMD is just too far behind to suddenly catch Intel much less surpass them. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's unlikely.
Click to expand...

Your confusing current gen, with next gen.
BD isn't a Phenom II x8, it is a new arc.
Extrapolating the current arc as a indication of a brand new arc is short-sighted to say the least. You don't have a clue. No one knows how it will fair in comparison. And when it is released, I can guarantee it will have very similar performance to what ever Intel product it is priced comparatively with.
 
:):) said:
Once again:

Amd trys to play with Intels high end chips, then fails to so they set thier prices to compete with Intels mid range. They wanted/needed for THuban to match the 980x. but it diddnt and thats why AMD share is 7$ a share and poised to go lower as I type this.

1. Devolp chip to compete with Intel high end.

2. Match Intel mid end.

3. LOwer prices to Intels Mid end. So you cant make a profit.

4. Compete with Intels mid end, lose money, SHort sellers jizz themselces and buy yachts and share holders lose money/
Click to expand...

Man, you really dislike AMD, 2011 is gonna be an interesting year, happy new year friends!
 
funkydmunky said:
Your confusing current gen, with next gen.
BD isn't a Phenom II x8, it is a new arc.
Extrapolating the current arc as a indication of a brand new arc is short-sighted to say the least. You don't have a clue. No one knows how it will fair in comparison. And when it is released, I can guarantee it will have very similar performance to what ever Intel product it is priced comparatively with.
Click to expand...

No, there is no confusion. I realize that Bulldozer is a new architecture. However I've got 15+ years of experience working with computer hardware and I'm well aware of how history has played out between Intel and AMD for the last 20 years or more. For the bulk of that time AMD has always taken a back seat to Intel as far as performance goes. There are some periods where that wasn't the case but generally speaking, those periods are few and far between. They more or less happened with the Athlon.

This is pretty funny: "You don't have a clue. No one knows how it will fair in comparison. And when it is released, I can guarantee it will have very similar performance to what ever Intel product it is priced comparatively with."

This is hilarious given that "no one knows how Bulldozer will fair" in comparison to Intel's offerings. Yet you know? I need to ask you for next week's lottery numbers then. You know for sure that AMD will be able to continue to compete on a price / performance basis? Wow that's a pretty bold statement. The truth is that you don't know the future either. Bulldozer could be a bigger flop than SyQuest EZ-135 drives, the Cyrix MII or the Sony Mini-Disc. You've got no more idea than I do. Your statement is based on your perception of AMD's product history, the same as mine. It's very likely that AMD will have Bulldozer parts that will compete with at least some of Intel's offerings at certain price points but that's a pretty vague prediction. This thread is not about vague predictions of Sandy Bridge collapsing under the weight of the mighty Bulldozer, but rather it's about "Bulldozer plowing through Sandy Bridge." Something I doubt will happen.
 
It reminds me of Macgruber

"Lets go plow some ++++h!"
 
Dan_D said:
No, there is no confusion. I realize that Bulldozer is a new architecture. However I've got 15+ years of experience working with computer hardware and I'm well aware of how history has played out between Intel and AMD for the last 20 years or more. For the bulk of that time AMD has always taken a back seat to Intel as far as performance goes. There are some periods where that wasn't the case but generally speaking, those periods are few and far between. They more or less happened with the Athlon.

This is pretty funny: "You don't have a clue. No one knows how it will fair in comparison. And when it is released, I can guarantee it will have very similar performance to what ever Intel product it is priced comparatively with."

This is hilarious given that "no one knows how Bulldozer will fair" in comparison to Intel's offerings. Yet you know? I need to ask you for next week's lottery numbers then. You know for sure that AMD will be able to continue to compete on a price / performance basis? Wow that's a pretty bold statement. The truth is that you don't know the future either. Bulldozer could be a bigger flop than SyQuest EZ-135 drives, the Cyrix MII or the Sony Mini-Disc. You've got no more idea than I do. Your statement is based on your perception of AMD's product history, the same as mine. It's very likely that AMD will have Bulldozer parts that will compete with at least some of Intel's offerings at certain price points but that's a pretty vague prediction. This thread is not about vague predictions of Sandy Bridge collapsing under the weight of the mighty Bulldozer, but rather it's about "Bulldozer plowing through Sandy Bridge." Something I doubt will happen.
Click to expand...
As much as I like AMD, I think I'm going to agree with you. I mean look at the current desktop enthusiast offering from AMD. The Phenom II X6 1100T. Sure its a great processor, but it can't compete anywhere near Intel's high end and performs on par with CPUs in its price range, sometimes worse. Now I know bulldozer will be an entirely new architecture, but based on AMD's current standing, I don't think they can release a CPU that will outperform Intel. Granted, I am hoping for it, but I don't think it will happen. Considering AMD will be branding some bulldozers as "FX" makes me excited. Lets hope it surprises me.
 
John Vuong said:
I think they should drop the Phenom name and name the new high end something else, they've been using the Phenom name for some time now, but whatever, anything works.

I just hope that AMD does make a comeback this time and give Intel an ass spanking. Even if this new "FX" CPU does outperform Intel's high end, I guess it would cost $1000 just like when AMD charged the Athlon64 FX-62 for $1000.
Click to expand...


they have been using the phenom name for some time? 2 generations? wait how long did intel use the pentium name? how long did AMD use the athlon name?

odd's are the FX name will get dropped just like it did with the phenom II/athlon II line. the phenom II's were suppose to be called phenom FX. a good example is the 45nm x2 5000+ which unlocked becomes an athlon FX processor.

in my opinion i'd rather not see AMD come out of the game and kick intel's ass because i'd like to have an affordable option for an upgrade without having to drop a couple grand just for an LGA-2011 sandy bridge. as long as they are within the performance/price ratio vs sandy bridge ill be quite happy. thankfully am3+ boards will be backwards compatible with am3 processors so if AMD does over price the bulldozers ill just snag a dirt cheap x6 and wait out the price war.
 
Dan_D said:
No, there is no confusion. I realize that Bulldozer is a new architecture. However I've got 15+ years of experience working with computer hardware and I'm well aware of how history has played out between Intel and AMD for the last 20 years or more. For the bulk of that time AMD has always taken a back seat to Intel as far as performance goes. There are some periods where that wasn't the case but generally speaking, those periods are few and far between. They more or less happened with the Athlon.
Click to expand...
And even when they made a better chip they couldn't supply the market with it due to Intel stranglehold on several companies. When Intel couldn't produce any chips AMD still failed to profit from it (during the time the Athlon was faster).

And that kinda sickens me, there is no way where AMD can succeed in creating more marketshare in desktop cpu just single digit percentage improvements.
And Bulldozer will not make a difference either even if they performed better.

With fusion i think they have a change because of the obvious cost reduction.
 
in my opinion i'd rather not see AMD come out of the game and kick intel's ass because i'd like to have an affordable option for an upgrade without having to drop a couple grand just for an LGA-2011 sandy bridge. as long as they are within the performance/price ratio vs sandy bridge ill be quite happy. thankfully am3+ boards will be backwards compatible with am3 processors so if AMD does over price the bulldozers ill just snag a dirt cheap x6 and wait out the price war.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this one. I'm so hoping that it's on par so the prices can be affordable. Makes it easier for me to upgrade my current setup by transferring everything over to an AM3+ mobo and just wait on chip selection.
 
TooEasy! said:
I agree with you on this one. I'm so hoping that it's on par so the prices can be affordable. Makes it easier for me to upgrade my current setup by transferring everything over to an AM3+ mobo and just wait on chip selection.
Click to expand...

And I'm hoping I go to work tommrow and theres a big happy purple unicorn waiting for me.

Sure, that would be nice, But its not going to happen. AMD will release Bulldozer 6 months after Sandy bridge, and it will barely compete with the mid range Sandy Bridge. Then Intel will release IVy bridge a month or so later and CRUSH bulldozer.

It always happens. Ever since k5, AMD hasnt been able to touch Intel at the high end since the Athlon chips, like 5 years ago, and they made a total of what, 7 of those chips?
 
JF-AMD said:
Please explain this. Especially since yields are not public information.
Click to expand...
I have on good information that Intel engineers have been dancing in the aisles, for the second time in recent history. :p
 
JF-AMD said:
Please explain this. Especially since yields are not public information.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, I would say he's referring to the fact that Intel owns fabs, meaning that unlike AMD they don't have to "wait in line" and can get more chips out in a short time.
 
Afti said:
If I had to guess, I would say he's referring to the fact that Intel owns fabs, meaning that unlike AMD they don't have to "wait in line" and can get more chips out in a short time.
Click to expand...
I don't have to guess. It's just a "fact" pulled from a non-sunshining place. While Intel does show yield over time charts for a process lifetime, absolute yields are not revealed, and so can't be directly compared to other secret yields. :p

Both manufacturers at different times have done chest thumping about better yields, but whatever. Take a buck fifty and that fact and barely afford a $1.50 Sunday paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top