Mainboard Maker "Predicts" Launch of AMD FX "Bulldozer" Chips at Computex.

very very interesting.....especially since its quite a large company that possibly let the cat out of the bag....ill hold my breath until I see it though
 
I just want to see Gigabyte's upcoming 990FX boards so badly. Hope Bulldozer really delivers, because I want one.
 
The new chips in maximum eight-core configurations are projected - by AMD's internal documents - to offer roughly 50% performance improvement over Phenom II-series microprocessors in multimedia applications
Click to expand...

This quote from the article begs the question, how far behind in performance was the Phenom II aritechture behind the Core2 // Core i7 technology? Does a Phenom II processor + 50% equal a core i7 processor roughly in performance?
 
Computex would be a pretty convenient show to launch FX BD.

WBurchnall said:
This quote from the article begs the question
Click to expand...
The real question it begs is what 3rd rate rumor site was used as the source of it. ;)
 
I just checked, and Anand benches between the 2500 and the 975 run neck and neck. Impressive performance from the 2500k, but I don't think that it would be asking too much for AMD to be able to run with the 2500 for a lower price. Why shouldn't AMD be able to offer good value in the current highish end, which will become the mid-end once socket 2011 arrives?
 
Corvette said:
ATI-Forum.de

If BD runs with an i7 975 for the cost of a 2500K I'd be pretty happy.
Click to expand...
lol I overestimated with "3rd rate rumor site." I gotta respect 3rd rate rumor sites more than that.

You do realize AMD's problems if BD competes against the i5 2500, right? That's a $200 price ceiling, and the mid-range/low-end Intel socket is once again competing with AMD's top end processors. Doesn't seem like a recipe to attract bucketloads of new customers.

BD is a server processor and I'm still having a hard time seeing how it's going to do well on the desktop, where 8 cores do little or nothing for most users. Considering the state of things, server is where it really needs to excel. IDC data: http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2011-04/xeon_vs_itanium_vs_risc.jpg (and yes, that shows what you think it shows. there certainly is a processor in the chart which is more deserving of getting axed and unless fortunes change, that may be unplanned. ;))
 
WBurchnall said:
This quote from the article begs the question, how far behind in performance was the Phenom II aritechture behind the Core2 // Core i7 technology? Does a Phenom II processor + 50% equal a core i7 processor roughly in performance?
Click to expand...

The Phenom II is fairly competitive with the Core 2 Quads. The 6 core Phenom II's in multithreaded applications can compete with the earlier Core i7 processors (like the 920), but not in single threaded performance. I cant really comment on the Bulldozer chips because I dont know the clock speed. 8 core vs 6 core is a 33% increase in core count, and if you assume the same clock speed that would be 17% left over to account for an increase in IPC. That is assuming the same clock speed though, if Bulldozer runs at a lower clock speed then we can expect that they had a larger increase in IPC, which I hope is more the case because IPC scales with clock speed.
 
pxc said:
lol I overestimated with "3rd rate rumor site." I gotta respect 3rd rate rumor sites more than that.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about ATi-Forum.de, but I'm guessing, by their name, that they sit pretty firmly on the AMD fan bench. That's could be fine.

pxc said:
You do realize AMD's problems if BD competes against the i5 2500, right? That's a $200 price ceiling, and the mid-range/low-end Intel socket is once again competing with AMD's top end processors. Doesn't seem like a recipe to attract bucketloads of new customers.
Click to expand...

At $200 dollars it' might be hard for them to make a proffit, but the i5 2500 trades blows pretty well with the old, high-end, i7's. Of course the i7 2600 is a bit faster, but costs about $90 more (newegg 4/10/11). To be honest that's the market I'm interested in, so whatever higher performance options AMD offers are just extra.

I have no opinions on servers, but I wish AMD all the best for the sake of the market.
 
pxc said:
Computex would be a pretty convenient show to launch FX BD.
Click to expand...
Quite honestly, unless there's another major show in June, I wouldn't be that surprised if they didn't at least do a final announcement at Computex. In other words, this still basically doesn't tell us anything.
 
Corvette said:
To be honest that's the market I'm interested in, so whatever higher performance options AMD offers are just extra.

I have no opinions on servers, but I wish AMD all the best for the sake of the market.
Click to expand...
If you choose only to buy AMD, no matter what they release is going to be fine with you.

If you buy BD, you will certainly have an opinion on server CPUs, at least because that's what it is. It will also answer the question why people don't buy deeply discounted $800 12 core (or higher clocked 8 core) Magny Cours CPUs for a super desktop gaming computer. I mean there's clearly a market for $800/$1000 desktop CPUs and those Intel suckas are settling for only 6 cores max when they could have 8 or 12. ;)
 
I think is gonna be like this:

INTEL vs AMD
i3 (2 cores)---BD Quad (4 cores)
i5 (4 cores)---BD hexa (6 cores)
i7 (6 cores)---BD Octa (8cores)

and if priced accordingly i dont really mind
 
ADRENALIN_2099 said:
I think is gonna be like this:

INTEL vs AMD
i3 (2 cores)---BD Quad (4 cores)
i5 (4 cores)---BD hexa (6 cores)
i7 (6 cores)---BD Octa (8cores)

and if priced accordingly i dont really mind
Click to expand...

That logic doesn't make too much sense.. if a Bulldozer quad is roughly equivalent to a i3 with 2 cores, then by extension an i5 with 4 cores would be rougly equivalent to a Bulldozer with 8 cores, if there is no difference in architecture between the i3 and i5 (which is reasonable to assume).
 
ADRENALIN_2099 said:
I think is gonna be like this:

INTEL vs AMD
i3 (2 cores)---BD Quad (4 cores)
i5 (4 cores)---BD hexa (6 cores)
i7 (6 cores)---BD Octa (8cores)

and if priced accordingly i dont really mind
Click to expand...

If that list was pricing I'd say that'd be correct. As far as performance, I'd expect each core to be a little slower than the intel core. The equivalent priced 4 core should lag a little in a single-threaded app. when compared to an i3, but in multi-anything it should show some real strength.

If that is the case, then I can replace my e6300 (2.8ghz) with a mid-range BD and have a nice upgrade path for pretty cheap. Or Intel prices come down and I get that ;)
 
Tsumi said:
That logic doesn't make too much sense.. if a Bulldozer quad is roughly equivalent to a i3 with 2 cores, then by extension an i5 with 4 cores would be rougly equivalent to a Bulldozer with 8 cores, if there is no difference in architecture between the i3 and i5 (which is reasonable to assume).
Click to expand...

i meant by price categories


Corvette said:
If that list was pricing I'd say that'd be correct. As far as performance, I'd expect each core to be a little slower than the intel core. The equivalent priced 4 core should lag a little in a single-threaded app. when compared to an i3, but in multi-anything it should show some real strength.

If that is the case, then I can replace my e6300 (2.8ghz) with a mid-range BD and have a nice upgrade path for pretty cheap. Or Intel prices come down and I get that ;)
Click to expand...


yup that's how i imagined it
 
pxc said:
If you choose only to buy AMD, no matter what they release is going to be fine with you.

If you buy BD, you will certainly have an opinion on server CPUs, at least because that's what it is. It will also answer the question why people don't buy deeply discounted $800 12 core (or higher clocked 8 core) Magny Cours CPUs for a super desktop gaming computer. I mean there's clearly a market for $800/$1000 desktop CPUs and those Intel suckas are settling for only 6 cores max when they could have 8 or 12. ;)
Click to expand...

I actually have a friend with an old dual socket motherboard with two AMD server-type chips in it. He seems to like it. I don't personally feel the need for all that CPU power. I do get what you mean about BD being a server chip, but I hope that AMD can offer a competetive package so that balance can return to the force. Do you ever wonder why the Jedi sought to "balance" the force when they didn't believe that any Sith were alive?
 
WBurchnall said:
This quote from the article begs the question, how far behind in performance was the Phenom II aritechture behind the Core2 // Core i7 technology? Does a Phenom II processor + 50% equal a core i7 processor roughly in performance?
Click to expand...


the x6's when overclocked were pretty close to i7 920 performance. so even with +50% it should be neck and neck with the i7 970/980x. now if they had done quad channel DDR3 it would be a totally different story but at the same time it wouldn't be cost effective at all on the consumer side so i'll take a hit in performance for something thats actually affordable. now will they be cheap, probably not. but heres to hoping AMD possibly sticks to the pricing they used with the phenom II with the high end being in the 350 range and the 4 and 6 core versions in the 200 dollar range. should keep them quite competitive even with the lga-2011 coming out at the end of the year. i just can't see that "platform" costing less than 600-700 dollars even on the low end side.
 
pxc said:
If you choose only to buy AMD, no matter what they release is going to be fine with you.

If you buy BD, you will certainly have an opinion on server CPUs, at least because that's what it is. It will also answer the question why people don't buy deeply discounted $800 12 core (or higher clocked 8 core) Magny Cours CPUs for a super desktop gaming computer. I mean there's clearly a market for $800/$1000 desktop CPUs and those Intel suckas are settling for only 6 cores max when they could have 8 or 12. ;)
Click to expand...


all processors, AMD and intel are based on server processors. on the consumer side they disable a couple features(intel tends to over do it by limiting virtualization on processors where as AMD doesn't) and clock the processors up higher since they don't have to survive 4-5 years under high usage and temps nor require 100% uptime like the server based processors do. but this is actually the first time since opteron processors came out that the opteron version of the same consumer processor is releasing after the consumer version. typically the opteron version is released 4-6 months before the consumer version.

as far as magny cour goes, the clocks are to low to even be mentioned as a gaming cpu so that arguments just dumb. the reason for magny cours is the amount of raw data they can compute, along with the high memory bandwidth thanks to the quad channel DDR3 on the G34 socket. yes there will be BD's for C32 which is the cousin to AM3+ but thats dual channel DDR3 and does not support the high end interlago's bulldozers like the 16 core(8 module) versions. the other thing is that server motherboards do not allow overclocking.
 
Last edited:
Just really hoping the single threaded performance is even equal or better than the first gen i5/i7 -.-
 
pxc said:
lol I overestimated with "3rd rate rumor site." I gotta respect 3rd rate rumor sites more than that.
Click to expand...
Heh, they have actually been a pretty good source of leaks and solid info in the past. I bet your "first grade" sites are the kind that regurgitate press releases from the day before and that post the same "news" with a different paraphrased headline like every other mainstream tech site out there.

I wonder how long will it take for a site in your "first grade" list to repost these:
70263089.jpg
bd2x.jpg
 
Based on what happened with the DEC Alpha CPU, I've no doubt that both AMD and Intel can produce much faster CPUs than currently available, the trick is to manufacture them profitably.
 
I recognized the paint roller thing over the numbers and thought, "I've seen that before on the FM1 thread." I got excited because I was going to point out the huge mistake you made, then I checked the serial number and pins and stuff. My new conclusion is that it's a photoshop ;)

Seriously though, that thing appears to have some use on it.
 
The article's source correctly points out that the June 7 "launch date" is outside Computex 2011 (May 31 - June 4). So something must be wrong there.
 
I think you are going to be able to get a unlocked 8 core BD cpu for under $300 and the performance will be very good but probably won't beat Intel. And, I think that's okay.

I think AMD will be smart and give potential customers reasons to buy their BD cpu.
 
chithanh said:
The article's source correctly points out that the June 7 "launch date" is outside Computex 2011 (May 31 - June 4). So something must be wrong there.
Click to expand...
June 7 is the Tuesday following. Depending on the timing of where AMD's presentation is that could be very logical. Say for example, that they don't get in until the 4th. They're probably not going to release the product on a weekend.

In any case, I would find it believable that they would use the attention at a show like Computex to kick off a new product, but I guess we'll find out in two months :p
 
SixFootDuo said:
I think you are going to be able to get a unlocked 8 core BD cpu for under $300 and the performance will be very good but probably won't beat Intel. And, I think that's okay.

I think AMD will be smart and give potential customers reasons to buy their BD cpu.
Click to expand...
IIRC the x6 BE was $265 so I doubt that it's going to be less than $300. But you never know with AMD. They might push the x6 down to $200 at launch and get the 8 core at $265.
 
Iamthelaw said:
IIRC the x6 BE was $265 so I doubt that it's going to be less than $300. But you never know with AMD. They might push the x6 down to $200 at launch and get the 8 core at $265.
Click to expand...

They'll probably stop production of the old models and let them be available for people stuck with a socket for some reason. You can usually find some wierd old tech. on Newegg for some unreasonable cost, but there must be a small demand for that type of thing.
 
Tsumi said:
That logic doesn't make too much sense.. if a Bulldozer quad is roughly equivalent to a i3 with 2 cores, then by extension an i5 with 4 cores would be rougly equivalent to a Bulldozer with 8 cores, if there is no difference in architecture between the i3 and i5 (which is reasonable to assume).
Click to expand...

Llano is going up against the i3s. From top to bottom.

Bulldozer will go up against high end i3s and continue on to be marketed against the older i5 and older i7

From what I know Bulldozer 8 core will be head to head with first gen i5 and i7, but the 2500k and 2600k chips are expected to be faster in single threaded applications. So AMD will need to match their price to performance ratios.

Keep in mind that bulldozer is built for higher clocks than Phenom II

I'm willing to bet that the 8 core 4 module BD will beat an i5 750
I am not willing to bet that the 8 core 4 module BD will beat a 2600k, but may trade the performance crown back in forth in highly threaded vers single threaded applications.
 
Mackintire said:
Llano is going up against the i3s. From top to bottom.

Bulldozer will go up against high end i3s and continue on to be marketed against the older i5 and older i7

From what I know Bulldozer 8 core will be head to head with first gen i5 and i7, but the 2500k and 2600k chips are expected to be faster in single threaded applications. So AMD will need to match their price to performance ratios.

Keep in mind that bulldozer is built for higher clocks than Phenom II

I'm willing to bet that the 8 core 4 module BD will beat an i5 750
I am not willing to bet that the 8 core 4 module BD will beat a 2600k, but may trade the performance crown back in forth in highly threaded vers single threaded applications.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this is whats going to happen.
 
Iamthelaw said:
IIRC the x6 BE was $265 so I doubt that it's going to be less than $300. But you never know with AMD. They might push the x6 down to $200 at launch and get the 8 core at $265.
Click to expand...

The X6 is already at $200.. well, the 1090T anyways. The 1100T is around $230, with sales having it go down to $200, so... to think that Bulldozer 8-core would come out around $300 is not unreasonable. And the 1090T is a BE unlocked chip.
 
Tsumi said:
The X6 is already at $200.. well, the 1090T anyways. The 1100T is around $230, with sales having it go down to $200, so... to think that Bulldozer 8-core would come out around $300 is not unreasonable. And the 1090T is a BE unlocked chip.
Click to expand...

I bet AMD hoped the the unlocked sandy bridge were going to command a higher premium so that they could advertise their unlocked against Intel's unlocked :p
 
As long as they can compete I will be happy. Even when Bulldozer comes out I probably will still get a phenom II 955. If it drops prices I will be even more happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top