This number is nothing extraordinary as you have 8 real cores vs. 4 core+4 HT threads, plus the supposed higher clocks of BD.
has begun, these core wars
I am looking forward to the launch and fans on both sides should hope for a good showing from Bulldozer. The better BD performs the better the price wars will be. The consumer always wins out in the end when two companies get into a price war.
Aren't BD cores less than full cores from other architectures due to the sharing of FP within a module? So wouldn't it be better to say 4 modules/8 threads vs 4 cores/8 threads.
Aren't BD cores less than full cores from other architectures due to the sharing of FP within a module? So wouldn't it be better to say 4 modules/8 threads vs 4 cores/8 threads.
Yea I bet grandma is really going after an 8 core processor.
What about the 95% of people who never use a program that utilizes more than 4 cores?
Clever marketing by AMD, but not a real-world situation.
Yea I bet grandma is really going after an 8 core processor.
What about the 95% of people who never use a program that utilizes more than 4 cores?
Clever marketing by AMD, but not a real-world situation.
If Grandma uses IE8+ or Chrome then she is using a program that does utilize more than 4 cores. Especially if you mix in running apps/video with Flash, Silverlight, or Java inside the browser.
Yea I bet grandma is really going after an 8 core processor.
What about the 95% of people who never use a program that utilizes more than 4 cores?
Clever marketing by AMD, but not a real-world situation.
Did you just use web browsing as justification for buying a processor with more than 4 cores?
I just went from a E8600 to a i7 950, and I see no difference in anything except extremely CPU intensive games. Im guessing going from 4 cores to 6 or 8 cores would be even less of a jump for those who dont encode, etc.
Besides that, if 8 cores competes with 4 cores in performance, thermals, and cost who would rightly give a crap? Pardon the yogism, but different designs are different, and we cant simply judge based on blind numbers. Cores are the new MHz and are going to be as equally meaningless.
People said the same thing about Quad cores two years ago
Yes you are right. And I personally prefer it to be compared this way, especially Bulldozer vs. Sandybridge. But then we have to also look at other variables such as power draw and price. BD should bring in some impressive power efficiency, probably catching up to Intel in this regard.
The real point is that both are gonna be uber performers so you can't go wrong with either. This'll make AMD more expensive and Intel less so.
If you check my speculation numbers from the other thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2134559
You'll see that I had a 4-Module BD @ 3.4GHz being 52% faster than an i7-950 @ 3GHz when running 8 threads. This number is nothing extraordinary as you have 8 real cores vs. 4 core+4 HT threads, plus the supposed higher clocks of BD.
I would be more impressed if BD is clocked similarly to the i7-950 and gets a 50% (or higher) performance advantage. Cause that would also mean it would beat Gulftown and SB by a noticeable margin too when running 8 threads.
Did you just use web browsing as justification for buying a processor with more than 4 cores?
I just went from a E8600 to a i7 950, and I see no difference in anything except extremely CPU intensive games. Im guessing going from 4 cores to 6 or 8 cores would be even less of a jump for those who dont encode, etc.
You know.. I'm no so sure about that.
If BD is clearly inferior to sandy price will be the only thing to sell it, and it will likely attempt to undercut it hard. However, if it is close AMD might simply slot it in at the same price/performance as sandy in the hopes of actually making money.
I surely hope to see price wars, a great BD product, and long awaited competition, but I'm just not sure AMD would want to have that sort of war if they have the ability to sell at the same levels as Intel.
Aren't BD cores less than full cores from other architectures due to the sharing of FP within a module? So wouldn't it be better to say 4 modules/8 threads vs 4 cores/8 threads.
You know, based off architecture analyses that have happened these past few months. The whole point of the new architecture is not necessarily to have a higher IPC count at the same clockspeed as the competition. But rather, to introduce an arch that uses way less die space, while maintaining somewhat increased IPC and being able to clock way beyond what archs we have nowadays.
So, the goal of bulldozer is not to beat intel at IPC at the same clocks, rather to clock really high, having a more effecient architectural layout and maintaining a very nice TDP.
If AMD sells a 4 module BD for the desktop, clocked at 4ghz+ and it offers performance beyond 980X / SB....then I would gladly pay for it!....