Is Ivy Bridge the answer to AMD Bulldozer ?

[AtenRa]

You've never overclocked an 125w processor before have you. Ask any 930 or 950 guy how hard it is to keep down temps on air after 4.2ghz on bloomfield.

Intel Core i7 920 C0 at 4.4GHz stable with a Noctua NH-U12P SE2

http://hwbot.org/community/submissi...tage___performance_radeon_hd_5970_27285_marks

 

[toyota]

Intel Core i7 920 C0 at 4.4GHz stable with a Noctua NH-U12P SE2

http://hwbot.org/community/submissi...tage___performance_radeon_hd_5970_27285_marks

too bad its slower and uses 160 watts more than a 2500k at a whopping 4.9.

 

[tincart]

There are two different kinds of comparisons going on here.

Technology comparisons: Looking at the elegance (or insert your term of choice here) of the design used to achieve a certain level of performance.

Consumer comparisons: Looking at the price you have to pay for a certain level of performance.

 

[AtenRa]

too bad its slower and uses 160 watts more than a 2500k at a whopping 4.9.

one more reason not to compare TDPs, at the time (Dec 4 2009) this CPU was the 2600K equivalent

 

[toyota]

one more reason not to compare TDPs, at the time (Dec 4 2009) this CPU was the 2600K equivalent

well the i7 920 has a higher TDP. I guess earlier I should have said actual power consumption matters not just tdp.

 

[Edrick]

There are two different kinds of comparisons going on here.

Technology comparisons: Looking at the elegance (or insert your term of choice here) of the design used to achieve a certain level of performance.

Consumer comparisons: Looking at the price you have to pay for a certain level of performance.

Bingo!

And we know more about the technology today than we do about pricing. The "best" CPU means different things to different people. My entire arguement is based on the technology side.

 

[Castiel]

Intel Core i7 920 C0 at 4.4GHz stable with a Noctua NH-U12P SE2

http://hwbot.org/community/submissi...tage___performance_radeon_hd_5970_27285_marks

1.5v to hit 4.4Ghz.. Wow

 

[bandgit]

Here is what I am interested in: The highest performing CPU bar none that I can buy without heading into four figure territory. If BD is that CPU, then "sold!" If not, I'll buy it from AMD's competitor. I don't care one bit who makes it, what it is, or what color the box is. Gimme "affordable maximum power" for my desktop and the mobile market, the midrange market, etc. can all vanish into fat air as far as I'm concerned.

 

[AtenRa]

Well at the same price same performance but lower TDP i will agree that CPU is better

 

[Castiel]

Well at the same price same performance but lower TDP i will agree that CPU is better

I made the "TDP" argument because of the "More Cores Overclocked" comment on the Xbit graph. The 8 cores are going to need water to go high

 

[bandgit]

I'm also massively unconcerned about TDP. So it costs me an extra $10 a month on my electric bill. Big deal. I'll use my electric clothes dryer less and balance it out.

 

[Castiel]

I'm also massively unconcerned about TDP. So it costs me an extra $10 a month on my electric bill. Big deal. I'll use my electric clothes dryer less and balance it out.

High TDP = HEAT.. The hell with power consumption

 

[AtenRa]

Power usage/consumption is related to voltage among other things, 32nm SBs can OC to higher frequencies than 45nm Nehalem with lower voltage and so they consume less power and produce less heat.

 

[tweakboy]

8 core sounds sexy. But those with already a Sandy or a mammoth quad can wait until Ivy. No point in getting different higher versions of Sandy,, just stick with it until Z68 Ivy becomes affordable instead of 800 bucks for a cpu. thx gg and gl,

 

[SlowSpyder]

If that graph is accurate then I was correct with my assumption that bulldozer doesn't even come.close to the IPC of sandy bridge. Talk about FAIL amd. 8 cores to beat 4? Pathetic

You post as if you feel AMD and Intel are in a dick sizing contest. Both are in business to make money. If AMD feels they can make a profit selling more cores to win customers over, they'll do it if they have to. You can scream about what makes a 'fair' comparrison, but at the end of the day if they are priced the same I'm buying the part that works better for my needs within my budget... I don't care about how many cores it has or it's clock speed.

 

[smakme7757]

You post as if you feel AMD and Intel are in a dick sizing contest. Both are in business to make money. If AMD feels they can make a profit selling more cores to win customers over, they'll do it if they have to. You can scream about what makes a 'fair' comparrison, but at the end of the day if they are priced the same I'm buying the part that works better for my needs within my budget... I don't care about how many cores it has or it's clock speed.

Yep pretty much my feelings as well. I mean the reality is that it doesn't matter how they get the job done, but rather who get's the job done faster.

If AMD uses 8 cores and win, then why not go with them if they cost the same as the Intel alternative.

but it's all speculation, let's see some benchmarks.

 

[RussianSensation]

You can scream about what makes a 'fair' comparrison, but at the end of the day if they are priced the same I'm buying the part that works better for my needs within my budget... I don't care about how many cores it has or it's clock speed.

:thumbsup:

We don't compare a 1536 SP 6970 to the 480 SP GTX570 and claim that to be unfair right? At the end of the day, performance, price, power consumption, etc. are what count. Specs themselves are meaningless when comparing architectures from different brands. It fun for discussion purposes, but most of the time not very relevant for purchasing decisions.

 

[Martimus]

Bulldozer isn't even released yet, so we don't even know how it will perform against current Intel processors, let alone future processors.

 

[Edrick]

:thumbsup:

We don't compare a 1536 SP 6970 to the 480 SP GTX570 and claim that to be unfair right?

True, but what about the people comparing a 6990 to a gtx580 and claim it is fair? You really have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise comparing a $70 atom to a $90 i3 would be fair.

 

[tincart]

You really have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise comparing a $70 atom to a $90 i3 would be fair.

This is a consumer comparison and the line should be drawn by the goals of the consumer. Normally I don't just look for a processor that gives me the best price/performance ratio but also consider a number of other features. Does the CPU offer the best price/performance relative to my needs? Does it fit in my existing mobo? Do I need new RAM? Does it have the right power characteristics?

A $70 atom and a $90 i3 have very different feature sets and are targeted at people with different interests in what their CPU can do.

Context. Context. Context.

 

[Castiel]

You post as if you feel AMD and Intel are in a dick sizing contest.

Isn't that what life is about? :biggrin:

 

[Martimus]

:thumbsup:

We don't compare a 1536 SP 6970 to the 480 SP GTX570 and claim that to be unfair right? [\QUOTE]

True, but what about the people comparing a 6990 to a gtx580 and claim it is fair? You really have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise comparing a $70 atom to a $90 i3 would be fair.

Comparing a $70 Atom to a $90 i3 is fair. I can't see why you wouldn't. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Same as any other comparison. The whole "fair" thing doesn't make much sense anyway, since they aren't competing in some sort of "fair" sport. They are products that are competing in the market place, and people will buy them based on their merits.

 

[Edrick]

This is a consumer comparison and the line should be drawn by the goals of the consumer. Normally I don't just look for a processor that gives me the best price/performance ratio but also consider a number of other features. Does the CPU offer the best price/performance relative to my needs? Does it fit in my existing mobo? Do I need new RAM? Does it have the right power characteristics?

A $70 atom and a $90 i3 have very different feature sets and are targeted at people with different interests in what their CPU can do.

Context. Context. Context.

Agreed. So a 2600k with an IGP (95W) and a BD 8 core without IGP (125W) are targeted at different people as well. Like many have said already, SB-E will be the true competitor to BD.

 

[busydude]

You really have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise comparing a $70 atom to a $90 i3 would be fair.

There are no fixed goal posts when you are comparing.. each person has his own way of determining which is better. A college student like me looks for performance/price.. a hardcore enthusiast looks for absolute performance.. he does not care if a product costs 30% more and yet is only 15% faster. he just wants what is best out there.

 

[Edrick]

The whole "fair" thing doesn't make much sense anyway, since they aren't competing in some sort of "fair" sport.

Then what is the whole point of comparing apples to oranges? Comparisons are only valuable if comparing similiar products. Otherwise they are just useless tidbits of information. Granted there are many ways to compare a CPU (price-speed-cores-TDP-etc), but it really only matters if comparing CPUs within the same range/market.