The realization of AMD FUSION......Bulldozer

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
From all reports Bulldozer will have an integrated GPU of the HD5xxx variety.
The CPU and the GPU all on the same die.
What are the predictions while we think out loud? What do you think about the possibilities of Performance and Price?
I know this really isn't do until next year so it is vaporware at this point. But from the design standpoint this is a big, big change in the usual way of implementing a CPU and GPU.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,918
Any model with an integrated GPU will not have high end GPU performance otherwise the chip would require a 200 to 300W socket.
 

W.Feather

Hard DC'er for Aug 2012 / Feb 2019 / Mar 2020
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
11,478
who knows, maybe bulldozer will have a 300W socket !!!


jk, i think Bull dozer will match i7 clock for clock, and probably come close to Intels next Gen
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
Any model with an integrated GPU will not have high end GPU performance otherwise the chip would require a 200 to 300W socket.

I think a totally redesign socket (bigger) goes without saying. Also I would expect the integration of the 2 into one die would mean a less power hungry GPU in the first place.
IF they couldn't overcome the power hungry aspect of combining the two it would be a non starter.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,918
Nothing says bulldozer has to have high end GPU performance. Entry level GPU performance would certainly be doable. Intel already has that with the i3/i5 with 2 dies instead of 1.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,062
Most people don't need high end graphics performance. Mid range is good enough for most anyway.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,918
Most people don't need mid range gpu performance either. That is why intel is by far the #1 gpu manufacturer in terms of # of GPUs sold.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,062
Most people don't need mid range gpu performance either. That is why intel is by far the #1 gpu manufacturer in terms of # of GPUs sold.

The low end segment is getting progressively better also.
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
Most people don't need mid range gpu performance either. That is why intel is by far the #1 gpu manufacturer in terms of # of GPUs sold.

There is a big difference between "integrated graphics" and a stand alone GPU.
The first is a cheap chip for good 2D performance and very poor if any 3D support.
But consider the recent AMD chipsets with intergrated graphics. They have been pushing the 3D envelope.
My 790GX MB plays Fallout3 nicely with reasonable settings. Granted this is a DX9c game, but this wasn't possible with integrated graphics not long ago.
Both AMD and Intel are designing the next step in the evolution of design. The "fusion" of the 2 processors.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,062
A little overstatement, but I get the point ;). I just got a 890GX board myself, but I don't use the IGP. But with Bluray and Aero becoming a bigger deal, it seems like the low end has to evolve a little bit.

The Intel 4500 series wasn't too bad all things considered (compared to previous Intel offerings) and the AMD IGP's are great. Even the Nvidia 9400m isn't terrible (on one right now on my Macbook).
 

mrmylanman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
1,484
Nothing says bulldozer has to have high end GPU performance. Entry level GPU performance would certainly be doable. Intel already has that with the i3/i5 with 2 dies instead of 1.

Bingo.

Anyone doing (and only using) integrated graphics just isn't using graphics-intensive applications. The most intense thing they'll be doing is probably HD playback and maybe some light games.

The CPU would be more exciting to me, because I would like to see AMD start competing against i7.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,918
because I would like to see AMD start competing against i7.

The thuban x6 (should be out soon) will be competitive with the i7 to at least the i7 940.

Buldozer will have to compete with the successor of the i7 sandy bridge.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
The thuban x6 (should be out soon) will be competitive with the i7 to at least the i7 940.

Buldozer will have to compete with the successor of the i7 sandy bridge.


most likely closer to the i7 920 or 930.. but we will have to wait and see.. the difference with the bulldozer and the i7 is they are going 2 totally different routes to get the same performance.. so we will have to wait and see how it all works out..
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,918
I can see the 3.2 GHz thuban competitive with the i7 940 however it may be closer in performance to the i7 930. With the 2.8 GHz thuban around i7 920 performance.
 

mastrdrver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
412
Any model with an integrated GPU will not have high end GPU performance otherwise the chip would require a 200 to 300W socket.

Forgot who (reliable though) someone stated over on the S/A board that the GPU performance of Llano will be a little better than current Redwood (5670).

1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1440x900 covers just short of 42% of Steam users. That's a pretty big base.
 

Gimpy04

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
135
jk, i think Bull dozer will match i7 clock for clock, and probably come close to Intels next Gen

That seems to be AMD's MO. Match Intel's old crap instead of offering parts that compete with Intel's newest chips, in terms of performance.
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
I can see the 3.2 GHz thuban competitive with the i7 940 however it may be closer in performance to the i7 930. With the 2.8 GHz thuban around i7 920 performance.

Do you mean single core or 8 threaded aps ?

Because i belive that Thuban will be able to outperform 65nm intel quads clock for clock in the optimistic scenario (phenom II does not).

For Bulldozer optimistic scenario would be for overclocked cpu to outperform overclocked q9550@4.0.

I will be pleasantly suprised to see them touching the performance of i750@4.0.
 

Unknown-One

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
8,905
That seems to be AMD's MO. Match Intel's old crap instead of offering parts that compete with Intel's newest chips, in terms of performance.

Intel's old stuff is hardly crap; I mean, even the highend Core2 based CPU's are more than most users need.

AMD honestly doesn't need the highest performing parts, high-end parts are expensive and don't sell well. They're doing the smart thing and competing with Intel in the price/performance range that most consumers actually buy-in at.
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
Intel's old stuff is hardly crap; I mean, even the highend Core2 based CPU's are more than most users need.

AMD honestly doesn't need the highest performing parts, high-end parts are expensive and don't sell well. They're doing the smart thing and competing with Intel in the price/performance range that most consumers actually buy-in at.

Well yeah but so far their price/performance only works for stock speeds. Once you include oc into the equation then only stuff worth attention from AMD is low end cpus with hopes of unlocking them to full cache and/or additional cores.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,918
Do you mean single core or 8 threaded aps ?

Because i belive that Thuban will be able to outperform 65nm intel quads clock for clock in the optimistic scenario (phenom II does not).

Both. I think it will be competitive on both ends. TB will help the thuban be competitive at 1 to 4 threaded applications. And at the high end Intels i7 quads have 8 threads. And we all know that i7 has a better IPC. At 8 threads AMD will not have a TB to offset this IPC advantage.
 
Last edited:

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,918
That seems to be AMD's MO. Match Intel's old crap instead of offering parts that compete with Intel's newest chips, in terms of performance.

I think the biggest problem is AMD is 12 to 18 months behind in process technology. Intel is shipping 32nm parts now but AMD will only be shipping 45nm parts till at least mid 2011. Also Intel has a superior cache.
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
I think AMD has a valuable niche that shouldn't be ignored and that is price for performance.
The reality is Intel is the father of the microprocessor. That is a legacy that has propelled them through the decades.
AMD started with licensing the design to supply the overwhelming demand. Naturally by examining the design they decided they could do it better and started in the CPU business themselves. Have they done it better? In the niche market YES.
It kind of reminds me when TopGear reviews the Corvette or the Viper. The entire time, they are complaining how much the American sport cars lacks the refinement and comfort of the expensive European sports cars they normally review. BUT, they are won over because the level of performance for the PRICE is undeniable.
 

BigMacAttack

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,563
Well yeah but so far their price/performance only works for stock speeds. Once you include oc into the equation then only stuff worth attention from AMD is low end cpus with hopes of unlocking them to full cache and/or additional cores.

The overall consumer market that is supplied by Dell, HP and others is exactly where AMD is competing. The enthusiast market is quite small in comparison to the overall market. Joe consumer wants a competitive machine and has just so much cash to spend. Price is generally the driving force. So if the general consumer can get a 4 or 6 core computer that has specs equivalent to a more expensive dual core system he'll probably get the system with more cores figuring "more is better."
Overclocking is the realm of the enthusiast and the general consumer has no desire to try and figure out that kind of tech stuff. They just want a computer that gives them good performance and a sense of satisfaction with their buying decision. This is the segment AMD is after right now and if they can supply a 6 core system for the same or less money than a 2-4 core Intel system they will be viewed by the general consumer in a favorable manner, generally speaking. Consumer base is where it's at - enthusiasts are a minor drop in the bucket in comparison. So at stock speeds AMD can still compete very well in the overall consumer marketplace because of their price verses performance image.
 
Last edited:

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,062
The overall consumer market that is supplied by Dell, HP and others is exactly where AMD is competing. The enthusiast market is quite small in comparison to the overall market. Joe consumer wants a competitive machine and has just so much cash to spend. Price is generally the driving force. So if the general consumer can get a 4 or 6 core computer that has specs equivalent to a more expensive dual core system he'll probably get the system with more cores figuring "more is better."
Overclocking is the realm of the enthusiast and the general consumer has no desire to try and figure out that kind of tech stuff. They just want a computer that gives them good performance and a sense of satisfaction with their buying decision. This is the segment AMD is after right now and if they can supply a 6 core system for the same or less money than a 2-4 core Intel system they will be viewed by the general consumer in a favorable manner, generally speaking.

Then the issue comes as to whether or not they can supply enough chips to meet demand...historically not one of their strengths when there is demand for their CPU's.
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
The overall consumer market that is supplied by Dell, HP and others is exactly where AMD is competing. The enthusiast market is quite small in comparison to the overall market. Joe consumer wants a competitive machine and has just so much cash to spend. Price is generally the driving force. So if the general consumer can get a 4 or 6 core computer that has specs equivalent to a more expensive dual core system he'll probably get the system with more cores figuring "more is better."
Overclocking is the realm of the enthusiast and the general consumer has no desire to try and figure out that kind of tech stuff. They just want a computer that gives them good performance and a sense of satisfaction with their buying decision. This is the segment AMD is after right now and if they can supply a 6 core system for the same or less money than a 2-4 core Intel system they will be viewed by the general consumer in a favorable manner, generally speaking. Consumer base is where it's at - enthusiasts are a minor drop in the bucket in comparison. So at stock speeds AMD can still compete very well in the overall consumer marketplace because of their price verses performance image.

Well i agree completly with You. But we are on [H]ard not [C]onsumer OCP. So the Thurban is first exciting CPU they made in years (well at least for me perspective of 6x3,6+ Ghz cores for 200$ is at least interesting).
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
28,062
Well i agree completly with You. But we are on [H]ard not [C]onsumer OCP. So the Thurban is first exciting CPU they made in years (well at least for me perspective of 6x3,6+ Ghz cores for 200$ is at least interesting).

[H]ard still often vote with [W]allet
 

Knyte

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
146
There is no point in slapping the GPU into the CPU unless it is far better than IGP platforms.

You see this little guy:

viapicoitx-lg-apc.jpg


He's a complete motherboard with CPU and GPU and can ouput 1080p through HDMI.

The little pico-ITX mainboard measures only 10cm x 7.2cm and runs a fanless VIA Eden ULV CPU. The board supports up to 2GB of DDR2 RAM and features an integrated VIA VX855 media system processor. That media system processor means that PCs based on the new board will be able to accelerate 1080p HD video in several popular formats.

Supported video codecs include H.264, VC1, WMV9, and MPEG 2/4. The system also has output options including VGA and HDMI. The VX855 chipset itself can also accelerate graphics with support for DirectX 9 and it has a 128-bit 2D engine with hardware rotation capability.
 

The Pharaoh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
417
There is no point in slapping the GPU into the CPU unless it is far better than IGP platforms.

You see this little guy:

viapicoitx-lg-apc.jpg


He's a complete motherboard with CPU and GPU and can ouput 1080p through HDMI.

It's safe to say that any hybrid solution from AMD will pack more punch than that thing :p
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
There is no point in slapping the GPU into the CPU unless it is far better than IGP platforms.

You see this little guy:

viapicoitx-lg-apc.jpg


He's a complete motherboard with CPU and GPU and can ouput 1080p through HDMI.


now think how small that board would be if the IGP was part of the cpu..
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
737
What is most interesting is as long as you have "good enough" performance for games at 1080p this chip will sell like hot cakes.

And to get 1080p 3d performance you only really need something that performs at the level of a 8800gtx. or something that is 4 generations behind!
 

TeeJay

Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
564
It's probably gonna be like Intel's combined chips, right? Like you can't even use them for gaming right?
 

Dr. Righteous

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
3,163
There is no point in slapping the GPU into the CPU unless it is far better than IGP platforms.

You see this little guy:

viapicoitx-lg-apc.jpg


He's a complete motherboard with CPU and GPU and can ouput 1080p through HDMI.

Wow. Neat little board. Perfect for a mini-PC for you car of a media player set-top box for you TV. (wonder what it costs?)
But I'm afraid this thread degenerated into a lot of apples and oranges comparisons.
The FUSION vision of AMD is not shrinking the IGP northbridge chip onto the CPU die.
It is integrated high performance 2D/3D graphics on the same die.
 

mastrdrver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
412
What is most interesting is as long as you have "good enough" performance for games at 1080p this chip will sell like hot cakes.

And to get 1080p 3d performance you only really need something that performs at the level of a 8800gtx. or something that is 4 generations behind!

As of March, Steam hardware survey says 42% of its user's base maximum monitor resolution is around the 1280x1024 range (or equivalent pixel count). You don't need the performance of a 8800gtx to drive games maxed out at that resolution. Something close to a 5670 will take care of a large majority of games.

Of note, someone I play BC2 with had their 8400 GS die. I sent them a spare 4650 I had that I got a good deal on to them. They stated that they could max out the game at 1280x1024 without problems. They really enjoyed the game now.

If AMD can give the mass public similar kind of GPU power on the die, I think AMD will have a big win on their hands with Llano. Send that to BD and it might get a little ugly since Intel has yet to show anything GPU wise that can do more than watch Youtube or Hulu HD videos.
 

Rakky

n00b
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
42
I notice that many people think that the Bulldozer will not significantly outperform the Core i7's clock for clock. Why not? It's completely new tech, whats to say that it won't trounce the Core i7's?

Also, I was wondering if the integrated GPU will be able to cooperate with a PCIe GPU similar to SLI or Crossfire?

Insight please :)
 

SicKlown42012

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
3,319
I notice that many people think that the Bulldozer will not significantly outperform the Core i7's clock for clock. Why not? It's completely new tech, whats to say that it won't trounce the Core i7's?

Also, I was wondering if the integrated GPU will be able to cooperate with a PCIe GPU similar to SLI or Crossfire?

Insight please :)


AMD has been historically behind Intel. Other than the original Athlon(K7) and the Athlon 64(K8), Intel has been in the lead. Add that to the fact that AMD doesn't have the resources to match Intel in either development(Intel can afford to fund multiple architectures at once) or fabrication, you can see why people don't get their hopes up too high.
I'm really excited about Bulldozer and the approach AMD is taking, and while I believe it'll be faster than Core I7, that's not it's opposition. Intel will have it's new chips out by then, and if the recent past is anything to go by, they'll be monsters.
 

jamesrb

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
1,051
The problem with on-chip, on-die, or on-board graphics is memory bandwidth. While they can probably get things playable for the 1280x1024 crowd, they are going to have to put some decent amounts of GDDR3 or GDDR5 on the board to get real performance. System memory just does not have the necessary bandwidth for gaming in its current form. Either that, or come up with a GDDR3 or GDDR5 slot so the user could choose their graphics memory.
 

maxius

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
3,373
bulldozer will follow the server line it will not have integrated graphics. expect bulldozer with integrated gfx to come into play in the 2nd revision of llano.
 
Top