Bulldozer prices leaked

[RussianSensation]

Yep, you cherry picked that very low resolution?

How about 10% difference between the $225 i-5 2500K and the $100 Athlon II X4 640 at 1920x1200?

Crysis? One of the most GPU limited games.

1) Not multi-threaded beyond 2 cores.
2) A game from 2007. How is this relevant to modern games or buying a CPU for future games?
3) Crysis has been known to be almost entirely GPU limited with modern processors. So if anything, you are cherry picking a bench where CPU speed practically doesn't matter.

How about we look at the Witcher 2 that was just released:

At 640x480 with the lowest possible graphical settings, even when paired with a GTX580, the X4 620 can only manage 42 fps. In fact, none of the Phenom II processors can break 60 fps. This means that even when GTX680 and HD7000 series are released, you aren't going to see 60fps+ in this game on current Phenom systems (once the graphics card is fast enough for it). More importantly, look at the minimum fps...

Click on more benchmarks I linked below (in response to Ben) to see just how much of a beating the Phenom X6 1100T takes from a $225 2500k (and in benches outside of gaming too).

So with all the Phenom hype, I was so excited for AMD to Conroe the market back to what they used to be. I was so let down when I read the Anandtech article. It felt the same as finding your father by accident in a Santa suit on Christmas day when you are 6 years old. Sure the next Christmas is fun and exciting, but never again will it be mindblowingly awesome as it was right before you found out there was no Santa.

I am glad you remember Ben! That's the thing. For some of us who have been following hardware for a while, we saw the massive hype AMD can create for their newest processor and just fall flat on its face. Now, more than ever, we have so much information at hand to make a reasonable prediction.

I think people are getting caught up in the hype and don't realize just how inefficient the Phenom architecture is, both in terms of power consumption and performance per clock:

The 2600k @ 4.7ghz is still consuming 115W less at load than a Phenom II X6 is at only 4.0ghz.

And the performance advantage SB enjoys is just staggering.

So how is Bulldozer going to surpass Sandy Bridge when AMD is 2 full generations behind in performance? That sounds too optimistic to me.

 

[nanaki333]

So how is Bulldozer going to surpass Sandy Bridge when AMD is 2 full generations behind in performance? That sounds too optimistic to me.

hasn't amd built bd from the ground up? if so, then obviously they knew they can't compete with the current phenom architecture.

 

[GaiaHunter]

That Witcher 2 doesn't seem that multi threaded either from that benchmark, so I fail to see the point of picking it over Crysis.

And then you can just google witcher 2 performance and see threads from DRM killing performance to problems with NVIDIA cards.

And then you have benchmarks on AMD Phenom II X6 1100T showing stuff like this

 

[RussianSensation]

hasn't amd built bd from the ground up? if so, then obviously they knew they can't compete with the current phenom architecture.

It took them what 4 years to release Phenom after Athlon 64? That was also supposed to be from "ground-up." I will gladly purchase an AMD system if they handily outperform Intel, but this time I am going in pessimistic since I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.

That Witcher 2 doesn't seem that multi threaded either from that benchmark, so I fail to see the point of picking it over Crysis.

I didn't link Witcher 2 to showcase multi-threaded performance. I did it to show performance per clock advantage that SB enjoys. My point was that I fully expect BD to beat SB in heavily multi-threaded apps. However, since most programs still don't take advantage of more than 4 cores, performance per clock will be more important for the average user. So I still expect SB to maintain leadership in those programs (such as Games, photoshop, etc.)

 

[Chiropteran]

At 640x480 with the lowest possible graphical settings, even when paired with a GTX580, the X4 620 can only manage 42 fps. In fact, none of the Phenom II processors can break 60 fps. This means that even when GTX680 and HD7000 series are released, you aren't going to see 60fps+ in this game on current Phenom systems (once the graphics card is fast enough for it).

I agree with your general point, however that particular statement doesn't follow. FPS may scale up with a faster CPU, but that doesn't mean it won't also scale up with a faster video card. To show evidence that the FPS was completely disassociated with the video card you would need to show another benchmark of the same systems except with a lesser video card giving virtually identical FPS. Since this benchmark isn't shown, there is insufficient proof to assume that the FPS is entirely limited by the CPU on this benchmark.

Put simply, FPS scaling with CPU speed does NOT prove that FPS would not ALSO scale with a faster video card. There have certainly been plenty of games in the past which will scale with both CPU and GPU upgrades, simultaneously or independently.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I didn't link Witcher 2 to showcase multi-threaded performance. I did it to show performance per clock advantage that SB enjoys. My point was that I fully expect BD to beat SB in heavily multi-threaded apps. However, since most programs still don't take advantage of more than 4 cores, performance per clock will be more important for the average user. So I still expect SB to maintain leadership in those programs (such as Games, photoshop, etc.)

Then why isn't crysis a valid test again?

And how the hell does a 1100T at 4 GHz with a 580 @1920x1200 Ultra quality gets same performance as a 1100T @3.33 GHz at 640x480 LQ?

 

[pantsaregood]

K10 wasn't built from the ground up at all. It was K8 with a modified memory controller and L3 cache, more or less.

 

[Abwx]

Then why isn't crysis a valid test again?

Because the Witcher 2 is a game officialy supported by Intel
and wich is highly optimised for its processors...


https://www.facebook.com/IntelFrance?sk=wall

(at the page bottom)

 

[podspi]

So how is Bulldozer going to surpass Sandy Bridge when AMD is 2 full generations behind in performance? That sounds too optimistic to me.

I'd just like to point out that this line of thinking, which I've heard often, doesn't make much sense. Sure, it is difficult to push the envelope of technology and technique, but once it is out, it's out there. AMD's engineers already knew (at the very least) what Nehalem's performance was, and how it achieved that performance, when they were designing BD. Since that was years ago at this point, one must assume Bulldozer was designed with the future in mind. AMD doesn't have to go through the same number of generations as Intel, nor do they have to "catch-up" in the same sense as if it were a foot race.

They just have to have designed a product that, when released onto the market at a price that is profitable for them, is competitive to Intel's products.

I can't claim to know that they've done this, but I hate this whole "AMD is 2 generations behind Intel so there is no way they can catch-up".


Keep in mind this has nothing to do with process tech, btw. That definitely is more like a footrace and I have no idea wtf the world is going to do against Intel's relentless march forward

 

[tweakboy]

It has no HT


Intel would show 16 logical cores,, in taskman. plus a HT app and u got 32 logical

 

[OCGuy]

Because the Witcher 2 is a game officialy supported by Intel
and wich is highly optimised for its processors...


https://www.facebook.com/IntelFrance?sk=wall

(at the page bottom)

Ah yes, the Tin Hat....

 

[Bearach]

It took them what 4 years to release Phenom after Athlon 64? That was also supposed to be from "ground-up."

Phenom was not a ground-up design. It is heavily based on K8, which is based on K7 in part. Not to say Bulldozer doesn't borrow from previous architectures though.

 

[Phynaz]

He said was "supposed" to be ground up.

Obviously some designs got canceled along the way, and what was released was an upgraded K8.

 

[Bearach]

He said was "supposed" to be ground up.

Obviously some designs got canceled along the way, and what was released was an upgraded K8.

True, I guess I missed the supposed, long day. Sorry RussianSensation

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Then why isn't crysis a valid test again?

Because Crysis is not heavily multi threaded, GPU limited, old, and only one example

 

[wahdangun]

AMD is not in any position to start a price war.

But, why would AMD price cheaper that Intel? What benefit does that get them? When have they done so in the past? Is ATI doing it now?

There's a saying in business - He who lives by price dies by price.

yes they do that when they launched hd 4870, it was faster than gtx 260 but $100 cheaper. And before that amd was 2 generation behind nvdia

 

[GaiaHunter]

Because Crysis is not heavily multi threaded, GPU limited, old, and only one example

But a game that doesn't scale at all from 2 cores to 4 cores, or from 2 cores to 6 cores at the amazing 2011 resolution of 640x480 at lowest settings is an amazing valid example?

And that is forgetting the little detail that another review using a phenom II X6 1100T (albeit at 4GHz instead of 3.33GHz) gets higher fps at 1920x1200, which is only 7.5x times more pixels at Ultra Quality to boot or it delivers 1.38x more performance at the same low quality settings even though displaying 7.5x more pixels?

 

[Khato]

yes they do that when they launched hd 4870, it was faster than gtx 260 but $100 cheaper. And before that amd was 2 generation behind nvdia

And in that case it made sense. Why? Because NVIDIA then had two choices - sell a product for almost no profit or sell no product in that bracket. (Which, if I recall, is basically what happened once their stock of parts was used up in favor of waiting for the 55nm refresh.) But that's what's different about the processor market - Intel's not going anywhere anytime soon, and because of the fact that any awesome AMD processor would be capacity constrained (I'd be surprised if Global Foundries 32nm process could fulfill 5% of global microprocessor demand with bulldozer initially) it's in Intel's best interest to maintain prices and fulfill every order that AMD can't.

 

[lol123]

But a game that doesn't scale at all from 2 cores to 4 cores, or from 2 cores to 6 cores at the amazing 2011 resolution of 640x480 at lowest settings is an amazing valid example?

And that is forgetting the little detail that another review using a phenom II X6 1100T (albeit at 4GHz instead of 3.33GHz) gets higher fps at 1920x1200, which is only 7.5x times more pixels at Ultra Quality to boot or it delivers 1.38x more performance at the same low quality settings even though displaying 7.5x more pixels?

The CPU isn't displaying the pixels.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Playing Witcher 2 640x480 with a GTX 580.

You mad?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

But a game that doesn't scale at all from 2 cores to 4 cores, or from 2 cores to 6 cores at the amazing 2011 resolution of 640x480 at lowest settings is an amazing valid example?

I never said it was.

And regardless of how much guys like you nitpick it doesn't detract from the fact that AMD is way behind Intel in desktop computing performance, even when it comes to AMD's traditional stronghold of gaming performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4310/amd-phenom-ii-x4-980-black-edition-review/7

AMD's fastest quad simply gets embarrassed, and there are scores of reviews just like this one dating back for a few years now.

Sure, a $100 AMD CPU can be "good enough", but to pretend AMD is "only 10% behind" (especially based off of any one benchmark) is just plain ridiculous

 

[RussianSensation]

True, I guess I missed the supposed, long day. Sorry RussianSensation

No worries Bearach.

Hey, if BD whips SB, I'll be pleasantly surprised. I am just "cautiously optimistic" since SB is just such an efficient architecture from a performance per clock / watt perspective.

Playing Witcher 2 640x480 with a GTX 580.

You mad?

Perhaps it was a poor example on my part but it still shows that Phenom II was unable to get to 60 fps despite the most relaxed graphical settings. But what about Starcraft 2, Metro 2033 with PhysX that I linked earlier in Post #51 ("just staggering")?

What about Arma 2?

If you guys think that Phenom II is "nearly as fast" as Core i7 (1st or 2nd generation) processors, then why does it make any difference how much faster BD will be since Phenom II is already good enough?

 

[jimbo75]

I never said it was.

And regardless of how much guys like you nitpick it doesn't detract from the fact that AMD is way behind Intel in desktop computing performance, even when it comes to AMD's traditional stronghold of gaming performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4310/amd-phenom-ii-x4-980-black-edition-review/7

AMD's fastest quad simply gets embarrassed, and there are scores of reviews just like this one dating back for a few years now.

Sure, a $100 AMD CPU can be "good enough", but to pretend AMD is "only 10% behind" (especially based off of any one benchmark) is just plain ridiculous

You realise those benchmarks havent changed in over a year right. Gtx 280 with no AA, what believable gaming settings that is too.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I never said it was.

And regardless of how much guys like you nitpick it doesn't detract from the fact that AMD is way behind Intel in desktop computing performance, even when it comes to AMD's traditional stronghold of gaming performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4310/amd-phenom-ii-x4-980-black-edition-review/7

AMD's fastest quad simply gets embarrassed, and there are scores of reviews just like this one dating back for a few years now.

Sure, a $100 AMD CPU can be "good enough", but to pretend AMD is "only 10% behind" (especially based off of any one benchmark) is just plain ridiculous

What I saw was a benchmark at 640x480 LQ and that is ridiculous.

AMD is indeed behind, but gaming is CPU+GPU and there is no way around it - for every game out there that is held back by a processor there is a dozen of games that are held back by GPUs, especially at resolutions and IQ settings that people use.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The 2600k @ 4.7ghz is still consuming 115W less at load than a Phenom II X6 is at only 4.0ghz.

The 2600K has two fewer cores and is on a smaller node, so that really isn't surprising. Plus... overclocked power figures are pretty variable.

So how is Bulldozer going to surpass Sandy Bridge when AMD is 2 full generations behind in performance? That sounds too optimistic to me.

I expect Bulldozer to match or exceed SB multithreaded performance. In single-threaded performance they need to surpass Nehalem through a combination of IPC + clockspeed improvements, and that should be doable. They can catch SB's single threaded performance by simply having higher clockspeeds, as Phenom does with Lynnfield. In those benchmarks from Xbits you can see the Phenom II @ 4 GHz does compete with Lynnfield @ 3 GHz in the not-so-multithreaded games (like Starcraft).