Bulldozer "delayed" until September 2011 (Rumor)

[Nemesis 1]

Exactly. If AMD is right, Fusion is the Future.

Ya except intel was first to fuse the IGP and CPU into one unit . AMD is using labels nothing more . Its the same as ATI VPU vs. NV GPU . Its just a label . Intel calls theres Soc cpu. Having 80% market share intels will simply stay with the cpu as a name. SO 80% of the people will call it CPU and 20% or less will banter APU as a flag to carry . Don'T tread on me.

 

[sandorski]

Ya except intel was first to fuse the IGP and CPU into one unit . AMD is using labels nothing more . Its the same as ATI VPU vs. NV GPU . Its just a label . Intel calls theres Soc cpu. Having 80% market share intels will simply stay with the cpu as a name. SO 80% of the people will call it CPU and 20% or less will banter APU as a flag to carry . Don'T tread on me.

We'll see.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Are you just referring to the name "APU" now or heterogeneous computing in general, because Intel clearly thinks heterogeneous computing is the most likely future path and nVidia seems to be staking their existence on it? Pretty petty to harp on their choice of branding if you are really just referring to the "APU" designation.

Yep thats it ,its nothing more than a label. Who today calls a gpu an VPU very few. Its a label intel has already named theirs its SoC CPU . That it Intel calls it a CPU . What term NV uses isn't known to me other than GPCPU.

 

[ElFenix]

so how much gpgpu can intel's processors run?

oh, none. they have a special hardware unit for recoding video and that's it.


amd's real problem is that any idea they have, intel can find out about and execute on before amd gets a product out the door.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well my argument would be this , AMD bought ATI because they found out Intels plans , Intel had projects going well befor AMD bought ATI . 3 to be exact . It took intel 10 years to do trigate 3D.

AMD simply bought ATI to catch up. As far as I know intel can do direct compute. Intels HD 300O is based off of Imagination Tech GPUs and they have the 543 /544 which do open cl. A 6 month lead on a new compute standard is nothing when few programs take advantage of it . SO for today AMD can strut but the music has yet to start . I haven't got Oak trails specs so I don't know if its does cpen CL if its based on the 543 it does. But I haven't seen that info or it slipped by me.

 

[jimbo75]

Well my argument would be this , AMD bought ATI because they found out Intels plans , Intel had projects going well befor AMD bought ATI . 3 to be exact . It took intel 10 years to do trigate 3D.

AMD simply bought ATI to catch up. As far as I know intel can do direct compute. Intels HD 300O is based off of Imagination Tech GPUs and they have the 543 /544 which do open cl. A 6 month lead on a new compute standard is nothing when few programs take advantage of it . SO for today AMD can strut but the music has yet to start . I haven't got Oak trails specs so I don't know if its does cpen CL if its based on the 543 it does. But I haven't seen that info or it slipped by me.

 

[Abwx]

Well my argument would be this , AMD bought ATI because they found out Intels plans , Intel had projects going well befor AMD bought ATI . 3 to be exact . It took intel 10 years to do trigate 3D.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Go back use search or go to charlie he well tell ya all about . All that info is here at AT forums search function works.

 

[Vesku]

amd's real problem is that any idea they have, intel can find out about and execute on before amd gets a product out the door.

Exactly, Intel has the resources to start way behind but release ahead or right with AMD. They recently took a token billion or two from their wallet and bought some nVidia patent licenses to better protect their integrated push. Just in case AMD lawyers got the wrong idea about that recent settlement and were busy rifling through the ATI patent chest.

As for whether Intel was actually first towards heterogeneous compute, I'd say AMD clearly had much more fire in the belly regarding it. It's only been pretty recently that Intel has softened on the idea of other non x86 based cores becoming a significant part of the overall CPU product. You can see it with Larrabee, they were still trying to bang their x86 square peg into a round hole. Granted they learned a lot but it does put the lie to them being the leader on this.

You have some good points though regarding execution, Nemesis1, a lot of the Itanium and Larrabee failure contains some gold nuggets of knowledge for their redefined push. AMD showed up with a shiny new game but didn't know the rules, Intel read the rulebook with the help of the speed reading class they paid big $$ for and is now in the lead. Seems like with Brazos and Llano AMD finished reading and is rolling up their sleeves. Going to be a slug fest, smaller nimbler AMD vs The Fab King.

 

[drizek]

It makes sense to me. BD probably runs just fine at 2.5GHz. And I am guessing they are targetting 8 cores at 2.5GHz as the "juicy meaty center" of the server market.

8 cores at 2.5GHz isnt going to get them much on the desktop. All that does is kill their thuban prices. Can you imagine a 6 core thuban at close to $99? That is what they're looking at if releasing BD now. And once they do that it kinda sets those prices in stone doesnt it? Do cpu prices ever rise more than a few %? They need to beat i7-2600 so they can command better margins. So they take what chips they have now and make them server chips. Later on they'll simply release more powerful server chips for more money.

Cannibalism is pii x6s least concern. It is being torn limb from limb by a velociraptor as we speak.

 

[JoJoman88]

Just a thought, I seam to remember that an improved BD was to quickly follow this first wave of BD's. With having to do a new stepping already, will this not give them much more up side(MHZ's) in the near future. I know they are always fine tune CPU's with stepping all the time, but will this not limit top GHZ of this CPU if they have to start so low.

 

[Joseph F]

Sounds like cheese to me , LLANO is on a new socket WHY? Same reason intel went from 1156 to 1155. People who buy dells just don't care. bottom line. l

No, it's because Llano has an integrated GPU that previous sockets were not designed to use.

 

[Joseph F]

Cannibalism is pii x6s least concern. It is being torn limb from limb by a velociraptor as we speak.

Actually, I thought it was being hung from a Sandy Bridge.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'm sure it's little more than an inconvenience to try and maintain compatibility between sockets and CPU's, if it created any serious obstacles or performance compromises, AMD wouldn't do it.

"Well, it's going to add a lot to R&D costs and make us have to do some things that will adversely effect performance, but I think it's worth it". /sarc

I suppose this was decided to help keep them strapped for resources and make it easier for Intel kick their rear ends?

 

[Arachnotronic]

There are some of us who don't want to (or can't) buy an entire damn computer when they want a performance upgrade.

I know, but a new motherboard doesn't add *that* much to the cost of things. $100 for a decent SNB/AM3 board?

If you can afford to buy the latest and greatest all the time then good for you.

I buy a new system every few years and I save pretty seriously in the interim. And if you look at my sig, I don't buy the latest and greatest...just something that has great price/performance and totally blows away whatever I'm upgrading from.

Have you ever upgraded your graphics card, or do you buy a whole new computer every time you get a new graphics card?

Funny story here. When I was running an AGP board (Pentium D 3.0GHz, Radeon 9800 pro), my Radeon fried and I had to buy a new graphics card. I ended up paying WAY TOO MUCH for a replacement AGP card ($300 for a 7800GS), when I could've just bought a PCI-E capable board + a PCI-E graphics card for about the same...and it would've been cheaper to move to the next system that I built within a year or so of this upgrade had I not wanted to stick with my dead platform.

So yes, lately, I have gotten a new mobo/CPU/memory setup every time I move to a new graphics card -- but I upgrade in big lump moves.

 

[AtenRa]

Latest i have heard is for late JUNE, i haven't confirmed it yet so don't shoot me.

When ill have more ill let you know.

 

[Vesku]

I don't care if it's a paper launch I just want some real reviews so I know how this first gen bulldozer fairs compared to Sandybridge.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Also, I think Intel's been toying with the IGP on the CPU idea for a looong time. Timna, anybody?

 

[exar333]

so how much gpgpu can intel's processors run?

oh, none. they have a special hardware unit for recoding video and that's it.


amd's real problem is that any idea they have, intel can find out about and execute on before amd gets a product out the door.

Your saying AMD is strong on the GPGPU front? Are you joking? Nvidia has been pushing their CUDA for a couple years now and AMD sat on their hands most of that time with their Brook+ and then OpenCL, which they don't support very well at all. AMD talks a big talk, but does little with GPGPU.

Intel just released their first 'fusion' CPU this year for Desktops and at launch they had developer support for accelerated video functions. Because of Intel's marketshare, and industry-wide support, expect a lot more functionality to be released in the coming 12-18 months as these CPUs get adopted. Add-in AMD's fusion CPUs as well, the industry will support these techs in places where it makes sense, like encoding (especially).

AMD's big issue is that they fall flat on their face when it comes to supporting anything other than their own IP. As much as NV is kind of a 'douche' company recently, they have been and continue to be VERY involved with helping define software capabilities for their HW. For them, this is their very livelihood at stake. Intel also works hard to support their software support, and AMD could learn a lot from them.

I love AMD stuff, and I will probably own both a SB-E and BD setup, but lately the people here post stuff about AMD like they are Jesus.

 

[Arachnotronic]

but lately the people here post stuff about AMD like they are Jesus.

It's because Intel is evil, trying to sell us ridiculously fast, cheap Sandy Bridge chips despite a lack of competition. Duh.

 

[jimbo75]

It's because Intel is evil, trying to sell us ridiculously fast, cheap Sandy Bridge chips despite a lack of competition. Duh.

If they are such awesome value how come you don't have one?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Why would I upgrade from an i7 860 @ 3.36 GHz to a marginally faster 2600K?

Also, before I get accused of Intel fanboyism, I built 10 systems for my friends at college between November 2010 and May 2011 -- all 10 of them were powered by AMD CPUs (Athlon II X3 and Athlon II X4 chips). I love AMD, and I'd like to see BD competitive, but to think that AMD can outmuscle Intel in the high end game at this point, now that Intel isn't shooting themselves in the foot with Netburst...well, we'll see.

 

[jimbo75]

Why would I upgrade from an i7 860 @ 3.36 GHz to a marginally faster 2600K?

Exactly. Maybe SB isn't quite as great as some would have us believe after all?

 

[Vesku]

I'd forgotten about Timna actually, still, AMD with Llano will have the first integrated cpu/gpu where the gpu can actually do OpenCL work. Nemesis1 seems confident the IB iteration of on-die IGP will also but that's next year.

OpenCL on Radeon 5xxx and 6xxx cards seems to be running well on the few programs that use it now, Exarkun. It's just getting the developers to start using it en masse. Both Intel and nVidia have spent much more cash on developers both external and in-house. I'm sure AMD would like to as well but usually they are struggling to turn a profit every quarter. I imagine it's hard to convince shareholders and board members to spend the 100s of millions it would take to replicate. Seems like any spare cash AMD finds itself with will go to trying to create a space in the mobile and tablet market (see recent AMD board of directors rumblings).

 

[Edrick]

Why would I upgrade from an i7 860 @ 3.36 GHz to a marginally faster 2600K?

I guess if you call 25-35% "marginal" then sure.

Exactly. Maybe SB isn't quite as great as some would have us believe after all?

You keep thinking that.