Black96ws6
Member
- Mar 16, 2011
- 140
- 0
- 0
This is a pretty good re-cap of where we are at.
AMD Delays Bulldozer Citing Performance Issues
That article does not paint a good picture of Bulldozer performance AT ALL
This is a pretty good re-cap of where we are at.
AMD Delays Bulldozer Citing Performance Issues
I think it would take some very reliable evidence for me to start thinking AMD is going to release a bulldozer that performs worse than their K10+ Llano chips. Now if you were to say the IPC was actually going to be 10-15% lower than Nehalem rather than close to parity, that I could get pessimistic about. Would add to the narrative of AMD trying to get better clocks out of their 32nm, they may need that 4.2GHz turbo single threaded just to match 3.6GHz Sandybridge single threaded.
Easy if a benchmark is not an example of some kind of real life work load, then it can no longer be used as frame of reference.You can easily see that superPi scores improve with newer, better cpus. It just looks like a really straightforward single threaded benchmark. I dont get why so many are trashing it. To change benchmarks now we lose our frame of reference. There is no compelling reason to do so at this time.
Sure, but it has 8 cores...you'd think that'd make up for the lower IPC...
lol what??
Why would that make a difference when most apps can't even use 4 cores?
+1If this chip was an intel killer they would be screaming it from the tops of the mountains by now. This is reminding me a lot of the phenom launch where benchmarks were top secret until the last second. All the rumores then turned out to be a bunch of BS and then everyone was just disappointed in the end. Especially because of the whole errata in the l3 cache for the 9500 and 9600 phenoms. Plus AMD launched it at clocks way lower then they claimed they would.
If this chip was an intel killer they would be screaming it from the tops of the mountains by now. This is reminding me a lot of the phenom launch where benchmarks were top secret until the last second. All the rumores then turned out to be a bunch of BS and then everyone was just disappointed in the end. Especially because of the whole errata in the l3 cache for the 9500 and 9600 phenoms. Plus AMD launched it at clocks way lower then they claimed they would.
Generate hype. Can you think of a product that has more hype than this one? What's the point in showing their hand? If the products are good, they'll sell just as many in 2 months, as they would if they let the cat out of the bag now. For those that say intel already knows how it performs, didn't they recently release a leak to the press stating that depending on how Bulldozer performs, they could adjust price. That seems to indicate they don't have concrete numbers either. So again, what's the point? Once all the individuals saying they've had enough and are just going to run right out right now and buy an intel product because they aren't going to wait any longer, get weeded out from the individuals that are actually going to run right out and buy an intel product because they aren't going to wait any longer, I doubt they'll lose a lot of sales.
It is what it is. When Bulldozer comes out a full 9 months after Sandy Bridge, I have little doubt that it will still be slower on a core by core basis. Maybe it will have a bit of an advantage in very heavily multithreaded apps, but for most games and apps Sandy Bridge will still have the preformance lead.
Not much of a reward for loyal AMD fans waiting 9 months after SB, eh?
I beg to differ. They chip could be preforming really well already, but unless AMD is also ready to deliver on volume production now it would be downright foolish to get everyone excited about a vaporware chip and give Intel the time to put the afterburner on IB.If this chip was an intel killer they would be screaming it from the tops of the mountains by now. This is reminding me a lot of the phenom launch where benchmarks were top secret until the last second. All the rumores then turned out to be a bunch of BS and then everyone was just disappointed in the end. Especially because of the whole errata in the l3 cache for the 9500 and 9600 phenoms. Plus AMD launched it at clocks way lower then they claimed they would.
If BD is as bad as some are thinking I would have to believe that AMD would have redesigned, or scrapped it, long ago.
Is that what Intel did with Prescott? Or did they bring it to market despite all its lackings?
Was Prescott slower than what they already had?
I can't tell if you are being facetious or if you genuinely are unawares of the history of Prescott...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1230
90nm Prescott was slower (less IPC and did not clock higher), hotter, and higher power-consuming than its older 130nm Northwood sibling.
And yet Intel brought it to market anyways, knowing all this to be true well in advance of launch day and they continued to sell them as their leading product until the launch of Core 2 Duo >2yrs later.
We are looking at a processor that is about 2 years late to the party, so its performance would have probably been industry leading.