AMD Bulldozer Can Reach Up to 4.1GHz with Turbo Core Enabled

[Rhammstein]

I agree with your comment in its entirety.

I should probably have elaborated a bit on my previous post, so I'll do that here.

My issues with Intel go back quite some time, before AMD was really even a player. But I was most influenced by a professor, who would take the time to explain many of the things that had happened. Years later I did a lot of research, and I mean, a LOT, concerning Intel's antitrust.

I guess because of the way it was presented to me, and how I was influenced specifically, at time in my life when I was anti-establishment... this affects me in a way perhaps it doesn't others.

But this doesn't digress from the facts, which are that, Intel does produce a better x86 chip, period. There is no denying that. However we know it isnt this simple. An overly simple example would be, would you recommend a 2500K to someone running Chrome OS, who intends to actually use the machine that way, well of course not.

Anyway, what's important; I'm not sure there's anything Intel could have done, directly, to effect Bulldozer/Bobcat, so, if this launch is a failure, it's on AMD. At least, I would think so.

The Phenom II, should have been the original Phenom, but I won't get into that here. It's a long and drawn out process and too hard to prove what Intel may or may not have done, and because they settled out of court, we may never know. It would be nothing but speculation, and while I do take interest in the subject, it's not exactly that, important to me, to defend to such an extent in this forum. Sometimes I wish people could think a little more clear, and not make certain comments or assertions without the awareness necessary for it to be fully clear, understood and informed. It should be able to stand up to critisism. I hope you guys know what I mean by that, it's not to say an opinion isn't worth anything, I've done plenty of this myself in this thread. Speculating.

For what it's worth, if Bulldozer weren't any good, there's no damn way AMD would have settled, not how I see it.

 

[cmd187]

New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.

 

[Rhammstein]

Interesting, if the Phenom II is that amazingly close, I wonder where Bulldozer will wind up... wink wink

But really, I'm actually amazed at how well the AMD Cpu's did there, impressive stuff.

It's funny though, the author of the article makes it sound like Zambezi is months away... I don't get it...? Why in the world would anyone buy a 990FX for a Phenom II, now, and then complain?

Oh toms, I shouldn't be surprised, idiots.

 

[cmd187]

Interesting, if the Phenom II is that amazingly close, I wonder where Bulldozer will wind up... wink wink

But really, I'm actually amazed at how well the AMD Cpu's did there, impressive stuff.

I agree. Still no built in USB 3.0 for the flagship though.

 

[essenbe]

New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.

The only issue I will take with that test is the CPU they used. Perhaps performance would have been different had they used a Bulldozer chip against Intel's 2nd gen chip instead of a PhenomII X4.

 

[cmd187]

New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.

The only issue I will take with that test is the CPU they used. Perhaps performance would have been different had they used a Bulldozer chip against Intel's 2nd gen chip instead of a PhenomII X4.

When its out they will, but given the prices its a fair test.

 

[Rhammstein]

New chipset info: Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11 : The 990FX Chipset Arrives: AMD And SLI Rise Again Z68 vs FX990 GPU's are the bottleneck, not the CPU and Intel is still slightly faster than AMD.

The only issue I will take with that test is the CPU they used. Perhaps performance would have been different had they used a Bulldozer chip against Intel's 2nd gen chip instead of a PhenomII X4.

Yeah, I think they published either because a lot of people wanted 990FX news, or just for ad click revenue. They should have waited, because they're gonna be do this again, lol, in just a few weeks. The only thing I've taken away from it is that a X4 AMD did pretty good against a damn fine Intel chip. Cool I guess.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Depends on where you live

But for somebody who is coming into a new box without anything else, I don't see the "massive savings of going the AMD route" as we did years ago. I mean, when I was younger, you used to save $400+ on an AMD rig and it performed 85% as well. Nowadays, there just isn't this big price difference.

Depends on where you live.
My local parts supplier (Adelaide):
Intel i7-980X - $1215
AMD x6 1100T - $268

I seriously doubt that the Intel chip will do 4.5x the work that the AMD does.
For the price of that chip, I could build 2 complete 1100T systems.

The Intel i7-870X ($326) might be a better/closer comparison though.

 

[pparks1]

But for somebody who is coming into a new box without anything else, I don't see the "massive savings of going the AMD route" as we did years ago. I mean, when I was younger, you used to save $400+ on an AMD rig and it performed 85% as well. Nowadays, there just isn't this big price difference.

Depends on where you live.
My local parts supplier (Adelaide):
Intel i7-980X - $1215
AMD x6 1100T - $268

I seriously doubt that the Intel chip will do 4.5x the work that the AMD does.
For the price of that chip, I could build 2 complete 1100T systems.

The Intel i7-870X ($326) might be a better/closer comparison though.

The reason that you are seeing the massive price difference is that you are targeting one of the highest end 6 core Intel processor, the Core i7-980X. The highest end Intel chips have always been stupidly expensive.

The point here is that you don't have to have a 6 core Intel to battle a 6 core AMD. A Core i5-2500K which can be had for $224 here (NewEgg), outperforms the 6 core AMD 1100T ($200) in most tests. So, these 2 chips are relatively close in performance, with Intel winning out in this particular benchmark and the price difference is only $24.
PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

As you can see from that chart, here are the relevant PassMark scores

• Intel 980X = 10,600
• Core i7-2500K = 7,039
• AMD 1100T = 6,281

Everything is relative however. If you have an app that you work with heavily and it benefits massively from more physical CPU cores, then the 6 core AMD would be better for you. If on the other hand, you use a collection of apps/games and use your PC for general purpose everyday tasks, the Intel will likely give you the most all around performance. And in this case, the price of these 2 chips is nearly the same. They are within about 10% of each other. Hence the reason I say that AMD doesn't have the massive price difference benefit that it used to have.

 

[lehnerus2000]

My Bad

Agreed.
You should buy what is required to perform the task that you wish to accomplish.

I was using the other "popular metric", I must buy the top-of-the-line component.

One of my friends asked for advice about new laptops.
He edits videos (occasionally) writes emails when he is on the bus to work and he doesn't play games.

His preferred choice for his new laptop was a $4000+ Sager! :shock:

Additional

As you can see from that chart, here are the relevant PassMark scores

Intel 980X = 10,600
Core i7-2500K = 7,039
AMD 1100T = 6,281

In the "old days" (when I used to follow technical magazines) processors were rated by MFLOPS.
That measure fell out of favour years ago.
What do those numbers refer to?
Are those linear or exponential values?

 

[DaGooN]

Not sure if this is to be believed.


Read more: AMD Bulldozer "FX-8150P Black Edition" Processors Details Leaked, Features Turbo Boost upto 4.7Ghz

 

[Rhammstein]

I rather expected this on the 140w TDP, it wouldn't surprise me if it were true, and even if it's not, I feel strongly AMD will launch at least one, 140w Cpu.

 

[DaGooN]

AMD Confirms Price of FX-Series Bulldozer CPU - Softpedia

The chip in question is the eight-core FX-8130P, which will retail for $320, just as we previously reported.

This is the fastest FX-Series processor in AMD's arsenal and rumors suggest that it will have a 3.8GHz base clock speed and a 4.2GHz maximum Turbo Core frequency.

and this if it ain't been seen?

First AMD Bulldozer CPUs Will Have 6 Months Shelf Life

First AMD Bulldozer CPUs Will Have 6 Months Shelf Life - Softpedia

 

[seekermeister]

Since I didn't see it mentioned here, I thought that this should be posted:

AMD hits last minute delay with Bulldozer | thinq_

 

[MadSupra354]

AUGUST?
...

 

[Rhammstein]

Slightly off topic, but didn't want to start a new thread. This is a new AMD product. Pretty big news, must scare Intel a bit..

This is the fastest Llano chip to be released by the Sunnyvale-based company and packs four processing cores clocked at 2.9GHz, 4MB of Level 2 cache, a dual-channel DDR3-1866 memory controller and a Radeon HD 6550D graphics unit with 400 shader processors clocked at 600MHz.

The chip was bechmarked both at its default frequency and overclocked at 3.77GHz (1.520V), while the memory was pushed to 2320MHz.

At the latter frequencies, the A8-3850 APU was able to achieve 6160 points in 3DMark Vantage and 10,492 points in 3D Mark 06, making it the fastest integrated solution in the world.

In the latest edition of the 3DMark application, the AMD accelerated processing unit scored 1591 points.

The previous 3Dmark Vantage world record for integrated graphics was held by an Intel Core i7 2600K processor that was overclocked to 5GHz and used an MSI Z68A-GD80 (B3) motherboard.

AMD Llano A8-3850 APU Breaks 3DMark World Record for Integrated GPUs - Softpedia

My predictions have come true! I hope the same for Bulldozer, we'll see.

 

[pparks1]

Are people suddenly clamoring for chips with onboard video? Unless it's the most basic of budget builds, I don't even consider onboard video.

 

[smarteyeball]

Are people suddenly clamoring for chips with onboard video? Unless it's the most basic of budget builds, I don't even consider onboard video.

It's good news for those who are only interested in all-in-one solutions and there is a huge market for them.