Well, there is already support for SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES acceleration and PCLMULQDQ in all of the current stuff.
Software will need to be updated to support AVX but that will be the same for intel and AMD.
XOP and FMA4 are the 2 that intel is not, at this point, implementing. We are obviously working with the tools vendors, but I cannot comment on their products because I do not work for them and I am pretty sure they would not want me making statements on behalf of their products.
But if you think about it, FMA4 is going to be pretty powerful and there will be tools vendors that will really want to take advantage of that instruction set because it will give them an advantage in the market (compiled code will run a lot faster).
The average consumer doesn't known the difference between AMD and Intel.
Thanks for the info. Since AMD doesn't produce their own compiler like Intel does, I've often wondered what kind of relationship they had with compiler vendors - sound like AMD has good relationships. Clearly, AMD has had a good relationship with M$, often introducing new subsystems (x64 & DX 10.1 because AMD/ATI had the required support first).
Right now it seems that there will be support for triple and quad channel memory; probably 30+ PCIe lanes and support for at least a 6 core CPU (maybe 8 cores, if Bulldozer is looking really good). AFAICT, it's really for the high end enthusiast market (benchmarkers, geeks with too much cash to burn, etc.) and Workstations.
If Ivy bridge only goes to 8 cores intels in a world of hurt. Ivy I thought 6 cores but 2 memory channels seems not good. But if Ivy has ondie memory who can say.
AMD is very competitive and will be so even if Intel releases 3 more generations like that before the Bulldozer. There are 1 billion computers in the world most of them in underdeveloped/developing countries. The number increases fast. No way those people (I live in E Europe and I know what I'm saying) would EVER cough up $400 for a CPU/mobo. They're selling Raidmax and Delux PSUs in here like hot cakes. And all the bunch wants to play Crysis and whatnot - in India, China, Africa, etc etc. That's all.
IF the AMD guys are smart they would leave the performance crown to Intel who knows best in higher end CPUs and do their thing. That's cheap CPUs. Cheap quads. Triple cores. Socket stability (very good for budget builders). The works.
Do you think that someone who is running an Athlon II X3 is crying now because of the Sandy Bridge? The dude got his CPU/mobo/RAM for less $$ than a quad from Intel. What $75 Intel is better? What $100 Intel CPU is better than the Athlon II X4?
Let Intel make the cake, AMD should make bread.
That's fine, but we have literally just seen Intel struggle to get more than 15% IPC improvement from Nehalem in 2008 to SB in 2011 (that's more than 2 years).
Since Intel also has a manufacturing process advantage, this basically guarantees that AMD is going to compete by selling more cores at similar or even lower prices as they are already doing with X6s.
At the same time, they become less and less competitive on the mobile side (which is more important than desktops imo).
yeah im very curious how the ondie memory would effect performance, in theory they should be able to make the memory much faster than on the motherboard, as it will have direct connection to the CPU..
While losing the "speed race" might be an issue for AMD's marketing department, from a practical standpoint it really only hurts AMD in the area of gaming performance. For your typical desktop, anything AMD sells you in your price range is fast enough. For your typical server environment, cores scale, and more AMD cores per dollar roughly equates to less, more expense Intel cores. It's not quite that simple, but it's true enough.
I mean when you have 90 fps you don't care if Intel has 150.
This is not true, i would much prefer to always have over 120. Alot of gamers are switching to 120hz displays so we need the extra speed to try and keep min framerate as close to 120 or above. I would say budget gamers might not care, but enthusiast/hardcore gamers definatly care.
Don't you realize, your numbers are tiny?
Porsche drivers to Ford drivers.
A large world exists outside of the US and plenty avid gamers use stuff you would retire.
For now yes, but in 2 years ill bet 120hz LCD's will only be slightly more expensive than 60hz displays, and they will become mainstream and then we will need more CPU/GPU power.
Look at the 120hz TV's, a year or two ago they were hugely overpriced now its hard to find a LCD TV that isnt 120hz or 240hz(and yes i realize LCD TV's dont accept a 120hz input signal its all internal processing but the point is the same)
60hz displays have been holding back gaming, thats why i still know people that keep CRT's for gaming.
OK, but 2 yrs is a while away, but if you're buying a system now and don't have the money, then what?
By the way, I use 21" trinitrons for that same reason. Very cheap now, superb color and framerates and huge selection of available resolutions and refresh rates.
Out of curiosity, not to derail the thread, but how is 60Hz displays holding back gaming? I'm pretty curious partially because I would think other things would make a bigger different like having a much wider dynamic range --> imagine if we didn't have to tone map HDR images...
I agree but AMD loses in the gaming performance only for the medium-high/high budget gaming PCs. And that was already lost. But note that in many parts of the world $500 is a medium gaming PC and $1000 is high end.
The cheapest quads from AMD come at $25/core, that's half the Intel pricing. Now let's see what this means in terms of performance. Tried to find a site where they used many CPUs in the Sandy Bridge review and found it:
Crysis Warhead
1920x1200
Intel Core 2500K - 57
Athlon II X4 640 - 52
1680x1050
Intel Core 2500K - 66
Athlon II X4 640 - 55
FarCry 2
1920x1200
Intel Core 2500K - 117
Athlon II X4 640 - 80
1680x1050
Intel Core 2500K - 129
Athlon II X4 640 - 81
DiRT 2
1920x1200
Intel Core 2500K - 82
Athlon II X4 640 - 75
1680x1050
Intel Core 2500K - 92
Athlon II X4 640 - 81
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Intel_i7_2600K_i5_2500K/9.html
In some games in there the difference is much bigger but in those they used very low resolutions, 1024x768 and even 800x600. Of course at those resolutions you don't lose anything by having the cheaper CPU, your FPS are already very high. I mean when you have 90 fps you don't care if Intel has 150.
Now, if you're a gamer on a budget (and most of us are) what's faster in gaming, the Athlon II X4 + mobo ($200) + a GTX 570 ($350) or the 2500K + mobo ($400) and a GTX460/768 ($150)? Both setups are $550. And I don't even mention a lower budget (say, $450), that would allow a HD 6870 for the AMD and only a $50 video card for the Intel setup.
Tom's addressed this issue in here
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/athlon-ii-x3-440-gaming-performance,review-31906.html
So, I don't see much destruction of the AMD here, the Intel i-5/7 were already better than the AM3 Phenom II quads and who had the money for the Phenom II X4 had a few extra $$ for the i5. Who has no such budget will still buy Athlons X3/X4 and Phenoms X3.
So Intel had already won the fast quads battle some time ago, how do they fare in their $100 new CPUs? IMO the only big hit AMD took was in their X6 CPUs for professional/semi-professional applications.
Don't you realize, your numbers are tiny?
Porsche drivers to Ford drivers.
A large world exists outside of the US and plenty avid gamers use stuff you would retire.
While I love to play PC games, gaming performance only matters to <1% of PC buyers. While it may be accurate, your arguement really doesn't matter to most people. Business users love power savings and good performance. That is exactly what SB provides.