Bulldozer "delayed" until September 2011 (Rumor)

[Vesku]

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

If you are on a Core 2 or Phenom II platform SB is that great, many people wait 2 iterations before doing a full upgrade.

 

[Phynaz]

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

What's better?

 

[GammaLaser]

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

What? Most people don't upgrade their CPUs at the same cadence that these CPU manufacturers release them, and that often has nothing to do with how good the latest and greatest generation is.

 

[jimbo75]

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



You keep thinking that.

Yeah right, try 11% clock for clock.

http://translate.googleusercontent....e.html&usg=ALkJrhg_lceXAXa0FpGKcaqqKayKIxb0sA

Glad I'm not so easily impressed.

 

[podspi]

It isn't clock for clock, though. IPC is not the only metric of performance.

Stock or overclocked, SB is faster than Nehalem. Not that Nehalem is slow, mind you

ANYWAY: Given these rumors, we should have Bulldozer out for BTS. This should easily be the best BTS season for AMD in a very long time.

 

[Joseph F]

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



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.




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.

You do have a good point with motherboards not being very expensive in the grand scheme of things. I just like to have the option to drop in an upgrade in case my current motherboard is still more than adequate. The main reason I'm pissed at Intel is that it's new socket with every new generation now. Is there really that big of a difference between LGA 1156 and LGA 1155/P57 and P67? Also, I don't get why AGP cards are still so damned expensive. 7800GSes are still selling for >$75. *facepalm

 

[Phynaz]

Yeah right, try 11% clock for clock.

http://translate.googleusercontent....e.html&usg=ALkJrhg_lceXAXa0FpGKcaqqKayKIxb0sA

Glad I'm not so easily impressed.

You didn't answer the question:
What's better?

 

[tijag]

Yeah right, try 11% clock for clock.

http://translate.googleusercontent....e.html&usg=ALkJrhg_lceXAXa0FpGKcaqqKayKIxb0sA

Glad I'm not so easily impressed.

11% clock for clock is nice, but you also miss that the 32nm process allows it to OC considerablly higher. 4.6ghz OC is not uncommon.

My my i5-750 is @ 3.6ghz, so a 4.6ghz SNB would be SUBSTANTIALLY faster. However, like many, I see no need to upgrade my i5-750. My other computer is an E8400 @ 3ghz, and I'm not ready to upgrade that even. Perhaps the beginning of next year. The E8400 was really a champ.

 

[jimbo75]

You didn't answer the question:
What's better?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-871-_-Product

I like that one. Costs 3x less and is nowhere near 3x slower.

Or this one at $115

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-808-_-Product

Both are much "better". Maybe you meant something else though?

 

[jimbo75]

11% clock for clock is nice, but you also miss that the 32nm process allows it to OC considerablly higher. 4.6ghz OC is not uncommon.

No I didn't miss that, I was just responding to the claim of 25-35% faster clock-for-clock.

My my i5-750 is @ 3.6ghz, so a 4.6ghz SNB would be SUBSTANTIALLY faster. However, like many, I see no need to upgrade my i5-750. My other computer is an E8400 @ 3ghz, and I'm not ready to upgrade that even. Perhaps the beginning of next year. The E8400 was really a champ.

Which was my point. If it was as great as it is being claimed people would be upgrading from the last architectures. Plenty of people upgraded from Core 2 to Nehalem, a lot more than did from Nehalem to SB I'd suggest.

 

[tijag]

No I didn't miss that, I was just responding to the claim of 25-35% faster clock-for-clock.




Which was my point. If it was as great as it is being claimed people would be upgrading from the last architectures. Plenty of people upgraded from Core 2 to Nehalem, a lot more than did from Nehalem to SB I'd suggest.

Seems to me like there was a longer gap between E8400 -> i7-920 than there was from i7-920 -> 2500k/2600k. People who just bought a i7-920 or an i5-750 [basically equivalent performance] spending a bunch of money on a new M/B and CPU doesn't make a lot of sense.

Time being what it is, enthusiasts like to upgrade after a certain amount of time, or they get bored. only people with a specific need, or more money than sense felt the need to upgrade to SNB.

In any case, you are partially right, nehalem felt like a bigger jump over core2duo than SNB is over nehalem.

Mostly I think that the threshold for just how powerful your CPU needs to be was met with nehalem, and anything past that, no matter how far past that, feels underwhelming.

 

[exar333]

Yeah right, try 11% clock for clock.

http://translate.googleusercontent....e.html&usg=ALkJrhg_lceXAXa0FpGKcaqqKayKIxb0sA

Glad I'm not so easily impressed.

You are totally right.

All those reviews that show the 4C 2500/2600 at the same speed as the 6C 980x or 990x in many performance applications are just dead wrong...

Just as some people with high-end C2Qs (extreme versions) did not really need to jump on Nehalem when it launched. That was a little different as well because Nehalem was a monolithic quad with integrated MC and other improvements.

If you check hot deals, I could grab a SB combo at MicroCenter for $320 and replace my quad 920 @ 3.8 with a quad SB @ ~4.6ghz and use likely 100w less power.

Many people here seem to upgrade every 2 cycles. Initial C2D users upgraded when 45nm quads came out and now are probably looking at SB as a good next upgrade. Existing 45nm nehalem users will probably be looking at SB-E or IB as anext upgrade (this is where I am at).

 

[Phynaz]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-871-_-Product

I like that one. Costs 3x less and is nowhere near 3x slower.

Or this one at $115

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-808-_-Product

Both are much "better". Maybe you meant something else though?

Cheaper <> better.

But thanks for trying.

 

[JoJoman88]

Yeah, I have built 2 i7 9xx systems in the last yaer and a half. I feel no need to do SB right now, we'll see what SB-E bring to the table or just wait for IB next year. I will not rule out a BD system either. So I'm sure most skip a cycle or 2 unless you have very deep pockets.

 

[J So]

Seems to me like there was a longer gap between E8400 -> i7-920 than there was from i7-920 -> 2500k/2600k. People who just bought a i7-920 or an i5-750 [basically equivalent performance] spending a bunch of money on a new M/B and CPU doesn't make a lot of sense.

Time being what it is, enthusiasts like to upgrade after a certain amount of time, or they get bored. only people with a specific need, or more money than sense felt the need to upgrade to SNB.

In any case, you are partially right, nehalem felt like a bigger jump over core2duo than SNB is over nehalem.

Mostly I think that the threshold for just how powerful your CPU needs to be was met with nehalem, and anything past that, no matter how far past that, feels underwhelming.

I agree with this. I7 920 was pretty awesome and pretty expensive when it came out, especially when you priced the MBs and the crazy price of DDR3.

I just upgraded my Pentium Dual Core, that's right not even a Core 2 Duo, Wolfdale E5200 that I had OCed to 3.8 Ghz to a 2500k that I've not had a chance to OC yet. I finaly got into Sandy because it was so reasonably priced.

Here's something sad. The E5200, even at 3.8 Ghz wasn't fast enough to let my wife to watch Youtube and play Frontierville on FB at the same time.

 

[Tempered81]

Binaries
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU-Z version 1.56.4

Processors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of processors 1
Number of threads 8

APICs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processor 0
-- Core 0
-- Thread 0 0
-- Core 1
-- Thread 0 1
-- Core 2
-- Thread 0 2
-- Core 3
-- Thread 0 3
-- Core 4
-- Thread 0 4
-- Core 5
-- Thread 0 5
-- Core 6
-- Thread 0 6
-- Core 7
-- Thread 0 7

Processors Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Processor 1 ID = 0
Number of cores 8 (max 8)
Number of threads 8 (max 8)
Name AMD Processor
Codename Bulldozer
Specification AMD Eng Sample, 1D26246W8K44_36/26/22_2/8 (Engineering Sample)
Package Socket AM3+ (942)
CPUID F.1.0
Extended CPUID 15.1
Core Stepping
Technology 32 nm
TDP Limit 149 Watts
Core Speed 1400.0 MHz
Multiplier x FSB 7.0 x 200.0 MHz
Instructions sets MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, x86-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, XOP
L1 Data cache 8 x 16 KBytes, 4-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L1 Instruction cache 4 x 64 KBytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L2 cache 4 x 2048 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L3 cache 8 MBytes, 64-way set associative, 64-byte line size
FID/VID Control yes
Min FID 7.0x
P-State FID 0x14 - VID 0x0B - IDD 12 (18.00x - 1.412 V)
P-State FID 0xE - VID 0x0E - IDD 10 (15.00x - 1.375 V)
P-State FID 0xA - VID 0x16 - IDD 10 (13.00x - 1.275 V)
P-State FID 0x7 - VID 0x1B - IDD 9 (11.50x - 1.212 V)
P-State FID 0x4 - VID 0x21 - IDD 8 (10.00x - 1.137 V)
P-State FID 0x1 - VID 0x26 - IDD 6 (8.50x - 1.075 V)
P-State FID 0x10C - VID 0x30 - IDD 6 (7.00x - 0.950 V)

Package Type 0x1
Model 00
String 1 0x0
String 2 0x0
Page 0x0
TDC Limit 96 Amps
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 0
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 1
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 2
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 3
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 4
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 5

 

[OCGuy]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-871-_-Product

I like that one. Costs 3x less and is nowhere near 3x slower.

Or this one at $115

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-808-_-Product

Both are much "better". Maybe you meant something else though?

Unfortunately for AMD, your opinion is in the minority. By far.

 

[OCGuy]

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

Well it is two generations ahead of anyone else, so that isnt good news for the rest of the players then.

 

[carnage10]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-871-_-Product

I like that one. Costs 3x less and is nowhere near 3x slower.

Or this one at $115

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-808-_-Product

Both are much "better". Maybe you meant something else though?

Better in the same way a Dodge Viper is "better" than a Bugatti Veyron, better in the same way Smirnoff is "better" than Belvedere.

 

[jimbo75]

Unfortunately for AMD, your opinion is in the minority. By far.

Except it isn't. The market for $100 chips clearly outweighs the market for $300 chips. In fact intel's ASP in the performance desktop sector is only $132.49 and in mobile it is $108.66

It would seem that the majority of people agree that cheaper chips are "better". By far.

 

[996GT2]

Except it isn't. The market for $100 chips clearly outweighs the market for $300 chips. In fact intel's ASP in the performance desktop sector is only $132.49 and in mobile it is $108.66

It would seem that the majority of people agree that cheaper chips are "better". By far.

You're on an enthusiast forum, where the idea of "I'm too poor to afford a $200-300 CPU" doesn't really apply.

There's nothing special about Phenom II, and I don't think it's pricing is anything special. To me, Phenom II pricing is exactly in line with its performance.

Look at it this way. 4 years ago, I bought a Core 2 Quad Q6600 and motherboard combo at Fry's for $200. The CPU came out to $150 after I sold the motherboard. That Q6600 performs the same clock for clock as Phenom II, except it only cost me $150 4 years ago. The Phenom II X4 you linked costs $115 FOUR YEARS LATER and performs about the same as that Q6600 overclocked to the same speed. So what's so special about that?

 

[jimbo75]

You're on an enthusiast forum, where the idea of "I'm too poor to afford a $200-300 CPU" doesn't really apply.

Where does it say it's an enthusiast forum?

 

[996GT2]

Where does it say it's an enthusiast forum?

Not sure if serious...you're on a forum discussing CPUs and overclocking and you're asking whether it's an enthusiast forum?

Anyway, with Phenom II you're buying performance that could have been had 4-5 years ago with Intel. That's the reason the chips are so cheap. If 4-5 year old performance is good enough for you, you should have probably just bought a Core 2 Quad for ~$200 ish in 2007. Fry's was practically giving away Q6600s on Black Friday then.

Despite the 100 MHz clock speed advantage here, the Phenom II is still generally slower than the Q6600. Yeah, Phenom II doesn't look so hot even compared to a 4-5 year old Intel architecture, does it?

Believe me, I want AMD to succeed too, but they're just not very competitive in today's market (at least until they can roll out Bulldozer and Llano in decent numbers). Let's also not forget that when AMD was competitive, they priced their CPUs accordingly! Back when I built my first system (around 2005), the Athlon 64 X2s cost started at around $300, and that was for a 1.8 GHz 3800+.

 

[Joseph F]

processors information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

processor 1 id = 0
number of cores 8 (max 8)
number of threads 8 (max 8)
name amd processor
codename bulldozer
specification amd eng sample, 1d26246w8k44_36/26/22_2/8 (engineering sample)
package socket am3+ (942)
cpuid f.1.0
extended cpuid 15.1
core stepping
technology 32 nm
tdp limit 149 watts
core speed 1400.0 mhz
multiplier x fsb 7.0 x 200.0 mhz
instructions sets mmx (+), sse, sse2, sse3, ssse3, sse4.1, sse4.2, sse4a, x86-64, amd-v, aes, avx, xop
l1 data cache 8 x 16 kbytes, 4-way set associative, 64-byte line size
l1 instruction cache 4 x 64 kbytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
l2 cache 4 x 2048 kbytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
l3 cache 8 mbytes, 64-way set associative, 64-byte line size
fid/vid control yes
min fid 7.0x
p-state fid 0x14 - vid 0x0b - idd 12 (18.00x - 1.412 v)
p-state fid 0xe - vid 0x0e - idd 10 (15.00x - 1.375 v)
p-state fid 0xa - vid 0x16 - idd 10 (13.00x - 1.275 v)
p-state fid 0x7 - vid 0x1b - idd 9 (11.50x - 1.212 v)
p-state fid 0x4 - vid 0x21 - idd 8 (10.00x - 1.137 v)
p-state fid 0x1 - vid 0x26 - idd 6 (8.50x - 1.075 v)
p-state fid 0x10c - vid 0x30 - idd 6 (7.00x - 0.950 v)

package type 0x1
model 00
string 1 0x0
string 2 0x0
page 0x0
tdc limit 96 amps
attached device pci device at bus 0, device 24, function 0
attached device pci device at bus 0, device 24, function 1
attached device pci device at bus 0, device 24, function 2
attached device pci device at bus 0, device 24, function 3
attached device pci device at bus 0, device 24, function 4
attached device pci device at bus 0, device 24, function 5

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

 

[Joseph F]

Not sure if serious...you're on a forum discussing CPUs and overclocking and you're asking whether it's an enthusiast forum?

Anyway, with Phenom II you're buying performance that could have been had 4-5 years ago with Intel. That's the reason the chips are so cheap. If 4-5 year old performance is good enough for you, you should have probably just bought a Core 2 Quad for ~$200 ish in 2007. Fry's was practically giving away Q6600s on Black Friday then.

Despite the 100 MHz clock speed advantage here, the Phenom II is still generally slower than the Q6600. Yeah, Phenom II doesn't look so hot even compared to a 4-5 year old Intel architecture, does it?

True, but you're using the 800 series in your comparison which has less L3 cache than the Phenoms being sold now.