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

[JeremyAlexander]

No my son has an aging emachines and needs my (el cheapo) amd Athlon IIx4 620 for dirt 2 and dirt 3 he's all excited about even though he hasn't finished dirt 2. But the point is I get an upgrade out of the deal and I don't have anything that's affordable that would be too much of an upgrade if I try to stay with AMD is all I'm saying. It's just really becoming clear to me that the intel's prices will drop before amd ever has anything to match the price point, if that makes any sence.

 

[essenbe]

I just built a Sandy Bridge rig. About 3 days later the Motherboard to my 1055T died. So, lets see-- I have a case, PSU, about 5 hard drives an SSD. You know, that Bulldozer thing might just work. Just thinking out loud...

 

[essenbe]

No my son has an aging emachines and needs my (el cheapo) amd Athlon IIx4 620 for dirt 2 and dirt 3 he's all excited about even though he hasn't finished dirt 2. But the point is I get an upgrade out of the deal and I don't have anything that's affordable that would be too much of an upgrade if I try to stay with AMD is all I'm saying.

If you can wait about 3 more weeks you might have some new options. I want to see some real unbiased reviews. But rumor has it that it is supposed to be good.

 

[hjonesMCT]

I WANT A BULLDOZER.

just because it's expensive and shiny and 2 more cores than my 1090T

Me too!

WHEEEE! It's an AMD fanparty!!

Seriously, though, I have an extra 1090T. Ridiculous. My computer was slowly dying over the past year and I couldn't figure out why; it turned out I had the rare "proc-that-still-worked-but-had-a-dead-core"!!! The 6th core was totally toast and would corrupt files, cause random memory-based BSODs, and totally befuddled me until I got fed up (because I couldn't play SC2 at a LAN party) and ripped it apart and bought new parts until it got fixed. Now after RMA I have 2 procs. And now Bulldozer comes out... WHY, AMD, WHY?

 

[pparks1]

[Myself tho, honestly, I just cannot overlook AMD's prices. But who knows, perhaps Ivy Bridge will pull off an i5 type part that's fantastic.

The next few months are going to be a party for us tech heads

I just haven't found that AMD chips are superior per dollar in the past few years. Sure, if all you count is cores, then the 6 core AMD is far cheaper than the 6 core Intel. But if you consider that the 1100T usually benchmarks a little lower than a core i5 2500 and both are the same price...i don't see the huge value appeal that AMD used to have.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. I currently have a 2 year old Q9550 quad core. And for everything I do, it's still more than enough. So, I decided to skip the Core i3/5/7 and I'm skipping Sandy Bridge too. Unsure if this Bulldozer option will make me reconsider, or if I am simply going to wait for the next big thing after Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge.

 

[essenbe]

[Myself tho, honestly, I just cannot overlook AMD's prices. But who knows, perhaps Ivy Bridge will pull off an i5 type part that's fantastic.

The next few months are going to be a party for us tech heads

I just haven't found that AMD chips are superior per dollar in the past few years. Sure, if all you count is cores, then the 6 core AMD is far cheaper than the 6 core Intel. But if you consider that the 1100T usually benchmarks a little lower than a core i5 2500 and both are the same price...i don't see the huge value appeal that AMD used to have.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. I currently have a 2 year old Q9550 quad core. And for everything I do, it's still more than enough. So, I decided to skip the Core i3/5/7 and I'm skipping Sandy Bridge too. Unsure if this Bulldozer option will make me reconsider, or if I am simply going to wait for the next big thing after Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge.

I think you have just nailed the real issue. All of us tech heads (myself included) always want the newest fastest Rig around. We look at benchmarks and say the i5 can out perform the 1090T, so I'm going for the i5. The truth is that the i5 will out perform most chips, but do we really need that much power and speed? I doubt many of us on this forum have ever maxed out and boged down a 1090T. It will do anything we want it to. So why, other than ego or something, did I buy a Sandy Bridge rig. It really wasn't because I needed more performance. Truthfully, I could probably be happy with a Piix4. But like someone said earlier, I wanted one of those new shiney things. I wanted it - but didn't need it. Most of us don't really need what we already have.

 

[pparks1]

Most of us don't really need what we already have.

Funny, just had this conversation with a coworker who just upgraded his Core i7-920 with 6GB of RAM, Nvidia GTX 285 GPU, 620w Corsair Modular PSU, and 80GB Intel SSD and 2 x 10,000RPM RAPTOR RAID 1 in an Antec P182 case to a shiny new Core i7-2600k, 8GB of RAM, OCZ Vertex 3 SSD, running Dual AMD 6970 GPU's, in a Corsair 600T.

He said, "yeah, I don't really even know why I decided to upgrade this Core i7-920, it's got more power than I ever use" Somebody at work said, why don't you sell your old box to Pat (me), he said..."he wouldn't want this old thing". And I said, while you are right I'm not going to buy it, you do realize it's better than my highest end box that I use at home which I still consider to be a beast.

It all comes down to priorities I guess. For my coworker, he is married, but no kids and no plans for kids. His computer is what he does. I've got kids, cars, and lots of other hobbies. So for me, it's usually a new computer every 2-3 years.

 

[Wallonn7]

I WANT A BULLDOZER.

just because it's expensive and shiny and 2 more cores than my 1090T

Me too!

WHEEEE! It's an AMD fanparty!!

Seriously, though, I have an extra 1090T. Ridiculous. My computer was slowly dying over the past year and I couldn't figure out why; it turned out I had the rare "proc-that-still-worked-but-had-a-dead-core"!!! The 6th core was totally toast and would corrupt files, cause random memory-based BSODs, and totally befuddled me until I got fed up (because I couldn't play SC2 at a LAN party) and ripped it apart and bought new parts until it got fixed. Now after RMA I have 2 procs. And now Bulldozer comes out... WHY, AMD, WHY?

Do not cry, my dear ... I have a solution for your extra processor: make a soul happy, donate it!

 

[Rhammstein]

[Myself tho, honestly, I just cannot overlook AMD's prices. But who knows, perhaps Ivy Bridge will pull off an i5 type part that's fantastic.

The next few months are going to be a party for us tech heads

I just haven't found that AMD chips are superior per dollar in the past few years. Sure, if all you count is cores, then the 6 core AMD is far cheaper than the 6 core Intel. But if you consider that the 1100T usually benchmarks a little lower than a core i5 2500 and both are the same price...i don't see the huge value appeal that AMD used to have.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. I currently have a 2 year old Q9550 quad core. And for everything I do, it's still more than enough. So, I decided to skip the Core i3/5/7 and I'm skipping Sandy Bridge too. Unsure if this Bulldozer option will make me reconsider, or if I am simply going to wait for the next big thing after Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge.

Think upgrade path. Over the last few years, those running AMD systems could simply drop in a new quad, and recently, hexcore, without upgrading their board, or Ram.
I find AMD still superior > performance-per watt-per dollar. My 1100T is $199, there's nothing it can't do, and an i5 could never render or multi-task as well, costs more and requires all new parts around it. It's no surprise AMD is the gamers choice, and surprising as it is, tons of benchmarks show AMD superior at extreme resolutions. Honestly I don't understand it, the Intel's are technically faster, but something about the architecture has this happening. (This was versus first gen core chips) AMD has been simpler and cheaper, compared to those on Intel platforms the last few years, constantly having to purchase and re-purchase boards and memory.

I hope the 8130p and Llano APU (Zacate will without a doubt be a nightmare for Intel, they absolutely can no longer compete with AMD in the mobile space, not even close) cause serious problems for Intel, after reading and discovering what I'd always suspected. Although I'm very dissapointed AMD settled, they should have sacrificed the short term money, and let the public know what Intel did. Pretty hard to focus on chip design and manufacture when your competitor is making it impossible to sell your present chips. I'll never, ever buy an Intel product. I just hope nothing overly nasty comes out of the AMD camp, I'd have to switch over to PowerPC!

Half asleep and half joking, but whatever. 8130 here I come.

 

[cmd187]

That 1100T may be great at multitasking or rendering but anything Intel 1156 or 1155 quad will murder it gaming FPS wise. The difference is rather minimal though.

 

[Rhammstein]

That 1100T may be great at multitasking or rendering but anything Intel 1156 or 1155 quad will murder it gaming FPS wise. The difference is rather minimal though.

Yeah you're right, I'm sure I'd have a tough time having my frame rates fall from 300 to 285. 6-8% certainly does resemble murder. Murder, but minimal. Hmmm.
Only in gaming, and never noticeable. I'll enjoy my multithreading performance over a few frames that do, absolutely, nothing. I may indeed have made a poor investment afterall. /sarcasm

 

[pparks1]

Think upgrade path. Over the last few years, those running AMD systems could simply drop in a new quad, and recently, hexcore, without upgrading their board, or Ram.

Fair enough, and I will be honest, I don't usually consider upgrades as I never upgrade my CPU. Instead, I buy a whole new kit and then re-purpose and rotate the running machines in my house. I just figure if my mainboard is 2 years old, Idon't want to just dump in the latest CPU and have outdated equipment in other areas.

I find AMD still superior > performance-per watt-per dollar. My 1100T is $199, there's nothing it can't do, and an i5 could never render or multi-task as well, costs more and requires all new parts around it. It's no surprise AMD is the gamers choice, and surprising as it is, tons of benchmarks show AMD superior at extreme resolutions.

I disagree that a Core i5 2500K could NEVER render of multitask as well as an 1100T BE. Just because the 1100T has more cores, doesn't necessarily dictate it will always multitask well. Here is a nice comparison showing which chip actually performs better in a variety of areas; and they do flip flop back and forth.
AnandTech - Bench - CPU

Sure, if you already have all of the core pieces of an AMD system and simply have to put in a CPU, it's cheaper than buying a whole Intel rig from the ground up. 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.

As far as AMD being the "gamers choice", I believe that to be wholeheartedly true during the AMD Athlon 64 X2 days...as it was my choice as well. But most gamers that I know today, are all running C2D's, or Corei7's (both previous gen and Sandy Bridge)...as Intel has been spanking AMD for the past 5 years. At work, I tried to spec out a low cost gaming box for somebody and used an AMD chip and my gaming coworkers were like, "AMD???? Why on earth would you recommend that these days?" I said, in order to stay under $900 for the entire build, I had to. Had that constraint been lifted, I would have not gone that route. They said, "well, If it were me, I would simply wait a while longer and save some more cash". So, not all gamers universally seem to agree that AMD is the superior choice.

I hope the 8130p and Llano APU (Zacate will without a doubt be a nightmare for Intel, they absolutely can no longer compete with AMD in the mobile space, not even close) cause serious problems for Intel, after reading and discovering what I'd always suspected.

Still waiting to see that. For me, on mobile platforms, I want quiet, cool and LONG battery life. Intel has dominated the low battery usage for years and years.

I'll never, ever buy an Intel product.

Gotcha, so I see you are a fanboy of AMD to the core (pun intended). To me, I don't have brand loyalty when it comes to computers. I go with whatever is best in my opinion at the time. By not even considering Intel, I think you sell yourself short and have to compromise. I'm not saying you are wrong to feel the way you do, but it certainly does make having an open and frank discussion somewhat moot as you won't see both sides of the story.

I've owned both Intel and AMD over the years. Had a number of AMD K62 boxes, I have a Sempron 2800+ currently running my file server, and currently still have an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ running my linux desktop. My build from 2 years ago, was a Core 2 Quad and I have a couple of Intel SSD drives...which are awesome. So, while I might not agree with all Intel business ethics and decisions, I sure do like some of their products.

And trust me, if Bulldozer comes out and kicks absolute butt, I will in no way hesitate from recommending them to friends, gamers, and family alike. I wouldn't hesitate for 1 second to use one in a build for myself. Just gotta wait and see what performance really is, what the mainboards are really like and what the price is at the end of the day. I don't mind 1 bit even paying MORE for AMD over Intel, as long as it outperforms it.

 

[Rhammstein]

At 1080p the GPU becomes more important than any CPU, as long as the CPU is sufficient and a Phenom x4 is more than enough. Have you ever seen a six-core recommended for any game? Games will not take advantage of Bulldozer for a long while yet. AMD screwed up the GPU drivers, a 6970 should not be getting barely 40FPS at 1080p with the Witcher 2. For the multithreading part, I have not seen or played one game that I would say utilizes threads properly. ARMA is just as bottlenecked by a GPU as it is by a CPU. Thuban may be inferior from every tech perspective but its enough for gaming now and for a long while yet.

Have you looked at 'my' specs? I have a 965, and it bottlenecks my old 4890, just imagine what it would do to a more modern, more powerful card. My second system this doesn't happen, somehow the 1100T keeps up to the 6990, AMD has done miracles with their drivers for the 6990, but they had to, it's their flagship, the drivers are just as important as the card itself. For many of the reasons each of us have mentioned, regardless how irrelevant or false some of those points may be.


/////

Think upgrade path. Over the last few years, those running AMD systems could simply drop in a new quad, and recently, hexcore, without upgrading their board, or Ram.

Fair enough, and I will be honest, I don't usually consider upgrades as I never upgrade my CPU. Instead, I buy a whole new kit and then re-purpose and rotate the running machines in my house. I just figure if my mainboard is 2 years old, Idon't want to just dump in the latest CPU and have outdated equipment in other areas.

I find AMD still superior > performance-per watt-per dollar. My 1100T is $199, there's nothing it can't do, and an i5 could never render or multi-task as well, costs more and requires all new parts around it. It's no surprise AMD is the gamers choice, and surprising as it is, tons of benchmarks show AMD superior at extreme resolutions.

I disagree that a Core i5 2500K could NEVER render of multitask as well as an 1100T BE. Just because the 1100T has more cores, doesn't necessarily dictate it will always multitask well. Here is a nice comparison showing which chip actually performs better in a variety of areas; and they do flip flop back and forth.
AnandTech - Bench - CPU

Sure, if you already have all of the core pieces of an AMD system and simply have to put in a CPU, it's cheaper than buying a whole Intel rig from the ground up. 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.

As far as AMD being the "gamers choice", I believe that to be wholeheartedly true during the AMD Athlon 64 X2 days...as it was my choice as well. But most gamers that I know today, are all running C2D's, or Corei7's (both previous gen and Sandy Bridge)...as Intel has been spanking AMD for the past 5 years. At work, I tried to spec out a low cost gaming box for somebody and used an AMD chip and my gaming coworkers were like, "AMD???? Why on earth would you recommend that these days?" I said, in order to stay under $900 for the entire build, I had to. Had that constraint been lifted, I would have not gone that route. They said, "well, If it were me, I would simply wait a while longer and save some more cash". So, not all gamers universally seem to agree that AMD is the superior choice.

I hope the 8130p and Llano APU (Zacate will without a doubt be a nightmare for Intel, they absolutely can no longer compete with AMD in the mobile space, not even close) cause serious problems for Intel, after reading and discovering what I'd always suspected.

Still waiting to see that. For me, on mobile platforms, I want quiet, cool and LONG battery life. Intel has dominated the low battery usage for years and years.

I'll never, ever buy an Intel product.

Gotcha, so I see you are a fanboy of AMD to the core (pun intended). To me, I don't have brand loyalty when it comes to computers. I go with whatever is best in my opinion at the time. By not even considering Intel, I think you sell yourself short and have to compromise. I'm not saying you are wrong to feel the way you do, but it certainly does make having an open and frank discussion somewhat moot as you won't see both sides of the story.

I've owned both Intel and AMD over the years. Had a number of AMD K62 boxes, I have a Sempron 2800+ currently running my file server, and currently still have an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ running my linux desktop. My build from 2 years ago, was a Core 2 Quad and I have a couple of Intel SSD drives...which are awesome. So, while I might not agree with all Intel business ethics and decisions, I sure do like some of their products.

And trust me, if Bulldozer comes out and kicks absolute butt, I will in no way hesitate from recommending them to friends, gamers, and family alike. I wouldn't hesitate for 1 second to use one in a build for myself. Just gotta wait and see what performance really is, what the mainboards are really like and what the price is at the end of the day. I don't mind 1 bit even paying MORE for AMD over Intel, as long as it outperforms it.

Bulldozer we must wait a few weeks, and I'll eat my words at the time if I'm wrong As for Zacate, it has, seriously, literally, WRECKED, every, single, Intel part on the market (Mobile Space)

As for power draw? Wow... Here, see for yourself, don't take "MY" word for it! ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74

As for the rest of your post, I'm finished here, it could be an endless debate, if you can't see the simple logic, it's unfair to the rest of the users here, I've posted enough as it is. If you'd like to continue, please take me to PM.

Lastly, forgive if I sound like a fanboy, but I took an entire day to read through the Intel/AMD settlement, that along with the 'facts', and also my own math showing Bulldozer will be above and beyond Sandy Bridge. But I admit AMD won't have the simple upgrade path they've enjoyed the last nearly 3 years. AM3+ is here. Anyway, not a fanboi, I'm a realist, and smart consumer.

/end to PM I will not respond here any further, it's inappropriate.

 

[pparks1]

As for Zacate, it has, seriously, literally, WRECKED, every, single, Intel part on the market (Mobile Space)

Not according to what I am reading. Here is one article that I used for research, Zacate, Sandy Bridge square off in low-power showdown - The Tech Report

In it, they said,

to get a sense of the performance offered by the latest low-power platforms, Xbit Labs has tested an E-350 Zacate APU against the Core i3-2100T, a dual-core Atom, and a couple of older budget Intel CPUs. In application benchmarks, the E-350 is simply outclassed by everything but the Atom. Seeing Sandy Bridge so far ahead isn't a big surprise, but I didn't expect the old Pentium G6950 and Celeron E3500 to have their way with the fastest Zacate APU on the market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdPi4GPEI74[/URL]

Yes, that was a nice video from AMD. Did you ever consider the fact that they might have slanted the demonstration to show their device in a positive light? It's like running 30 benchmarks and losing all but 1 of them...but focusing exclusively on the 1 benchmark that you won to try to convince the world that your product will dominate.

From an outside 3rd party source, here is the article that discusses and tests power consumption;
Every Watt Counts: AMD E-350 vs. Intel Core i3-2100T - X-bit labs

According to this page, you will see that in EVERY SINGLE test, the Core i3 consumed less power than the Zacate;
Every Watt Counts: AMD E-350 vs. Intel Core i3-2100T. Page 11 - X-bit labs

Quoted right from the article;

It turns out that miraculous energy-efficiency of the AMD Brazos platform is in fact a myth created by smart marketing team at AMD. As we have just seen with our own eyes, it is more energy-efficient than ION2. But if you are all about saving energy, then you may want to go with an even better option. Core i3-2100T processor on Sandy Bridge microarchitecture with 35 W TDP allows you to build a system that will be more energy-efficient than AMD Brazos in most cases, and will be several times more superior than the latter in terms of performance-per-watt.

As for the rest of your post, I'm finished here, it could be an endless debate, if you can't see the simple logic, it's unfair to the rest of the users here, I've posted enough as it is. If you'd like to continue, please take me to PM.

Not all things are as simple as they look. There are always different ways to look at any situation.

And I don't feel that my responses are degrading, or flaming in any way...nor are they inappropriate for this forum. I am calmly discussing the pros and cons of technological advances. I see no reason our discussion needs to be in private messages, and the technical discussion might help other members on the fence decide which way to go on a future purchase.

Lastly, forgive if I sound like a fanboy, but I took an entire day to read through the Intel/AMD settlement, that along with the 'facts', and also my own math showing Bulldozer will be above and beyond Sandy Bridge. But I admit AMD won't have the simple upgrade path they've enjoyed the last nearly 3 years. AM3+ is here. Anyway, not a fanboi, I'm a realist, and smart consumer.

If that's your viewpoint, I'm fine with that.

I reserve the right to make a decision about BullDozer until it's actually in the market place and I can see the true price of the chip. Right now, everything is speculation and assumptions. I simply don't buy into hype....and like I said before...if Bulldozer comes out and is incredible, I will surely recommend and support them. Just gotta wait and make sure it's true before I go out on a limb.

 

[Rhammstein]

Well I've gotta give you credit for the amount of time it must have taken to sort out all of the specific benchmarks that show Intel's leads, bouncing from one platform to another; as if I'm not going to click the link, and read the following sentence, where, big surprise, the Zacate wins out in games, exactly what it's designed for, graphics, and more specifically; heterogenerous computing. I realize it's a fairly new concept for most people, but nobody can deny the potential. It is clear Intel is in the dog house. Have a look at the Mac forums, HD 3000 is a joke and nothing on their present roadmap can sustain them, at least IMO. I may very well be wrong, I'm sure there's plenty I'm unaware of, but; Intel is huge, and has a lot to lose, and I honestly can't imagine what their plans are over the next five years, besides taking on ARM(And using their muscle and wealth to...?).

As time passes and software evolves to adopt GPGPU, the Fusion platform will stand out more and more as the better choice for consumers.

Eh... lets move on.

When you show Intel to have an edge in power consumption, you link to an Atom... seriously? Ouch.

When you show Intel to have an edge in x86, you use their most expensive, best performing x86 part. Forgetting graphics, power consumption, and price. Ouch.

When you show Intel to have an edge in graphics, oh wait, you didn't. Ou..

I took the time and went over everything in your post, and honestly, Intel is more competitive than I suggested, this is surely why you feel I'm biased. It's easy to go overboard defending the underdog who's been cheated, beaten up and burned at every turn. (I know...prove it right..)

Forgive my turning this from tech vs tech, to something more personal, but realize it's only to illustrate a point, nothing more.

I guess in my reply, since there are no boundaries, I should defend the AMD x86 performance by comparing an 1100T to an Atom, forget power consumption, platform, and cost, so long as it suits my agenda.

I really wanted to wait a few weeks, for Bulldozer, but I just had to respond to such an incredibly disingenuous post.

But you're right, I may be putting too much weight into the one particular Zacate/i7 benchmark, but I do for two reasons. One, they showed this identical demo to their partners, and the public, and two, they chose one of the best Intel parts available.

(Intel: All fantastic at 'something'. AMD: Pretty damn good at 'everything'.)

I'm drinking tonight, I hope I make sense and apologize ahead of time if my ego got the best of me, I'm sitting here in 'preview post' trying to be coherent.

I guess you've convinced me this is worth debating still, but I don't feel like this is going to enlighten anyone. I love debate, but open (public) debate immediately introduces forces that corrupt the entire process.

Edit:

I reserve the right to make a decision about BullDozer until it's actually in the market place and I can see the true price of the chip. Right now, everything is speculation and assumptions. I simply don't buy into hype....and like I said before...if Bulldozer comes out and is incredible, I will surely recommend and support them. Just gotta wait and make sure it's true before I go out on a limb.

Agreed, but now I'm confused, why you wish the debate to continue.

Peace

 

[pparks1]

When you show Intel to have an edge in power consumption, you link to an Atom... seriously? Ouch.

When I posted the following link to power consumption, it's not linking to an Atom. The lowest power consumption CPU shown is the Core i3-2100T, followed next by the AMD E-350. Is this AMD E-350 NOT the Zacate mobil processor that is currently on the market right now? Is this not the same CPU that you said,

"seriously, literally, WRECKED, every, single, Intel part on the market (Mobile Space)"

Here is the exact page showing power consumption, the Intel Chip ranked #1 in lowest power consumption is not an ATOM;
Every Watt Counts: AMD E-350 vs. Intel Core i3-2100T. Page 11 - X-bit labs

When you show Intel to have an edge in x86, you use their most expensive, best performing x86 part. Forgetting graphics, power consumption, and price. Ouch.

The only thing that I talked about was the Core i3-2100T. And the reason I compared the AMD offering to this CPU was that you said specifically that the Zacate wrecked EVERY SINGLE product that Intel had in the mobile space.

Perhaps when you say Zacate you are talking about something different than what I am. I was thinking the E-240, E-300, E-350 and E-450 chips (forthcoming). Is there something else out there right now, that I neglecting to consider?

When you show Intel to have an edge in graphics, oh wait, you didn't. Ou..

Yeah, I didn't even bring up graphics.

So, here are the 3d graphics results. These results don't appear to me that AMD is absolutely destroying everything that Intel has to offer. In fact, it seems to say in most cases, it seems to lose;
Every Watt Counts: AMD E-350 vs. Intel Core i3-2100T. Page 9 - X-bit labs

I took the time and went over everything in your post, and honestly, Intel is more competitive than I suggested, this is surely why you feel I'm biased. It's easy to go overboard defending the underdog who's been cheated, beaten up and burned at every turn. (I know...prove it right..)

Thank you for taking the time to read what I posted, I appreciate that.

And I understand you standing behind AMD as the underdog competitor. And I agree that the big players in the market, (Intel, Microsoft, Apple), often times employ business practices that are outright despicable. So, endorsing and standing behind AMD because you believe they have been treated unfairly is a perfect fine stance. But to come out and say that AMD has "literally,WRECKED, every, single, Intel part on the market (Mobile Space)" isn't exactly factual. But if you were to say, "While I admit that Intel has good products, I simply choose to support AMD because they are the company I would rather do business with support with my money"...cannot be argued against. That's supporting the underdog.

Forgive my turning this from tech vs tech, to something more personal, but realize it's only to illustrate a point, nothing more.

No worries, I don't take thing personally on the Internet.

I guess in my reply, since there are no boundaries, I should defend the AMD x86 performance by comparing an 1100T to an Atom, forget power consumption, platform, and cost, so long as it suits my agenda.

Again, I thought we were talking about the mobile space. As I understood it, the Zacate E-350 (Brasos platform) would compete with the Core i3-2100T platform. I didn't grab a Core i7 mobile processor here. I wasn't trying to do anything to suit my agenda, I was just trying to point out that I didn't feel that AMD has

seriously, literally, WRECKED, every, single, Intel part on the market (Mobile Space)

Agreed, but now I'm confused, why you wish the debate to continue.

Because your responses seem to be calling me out as an IDIOT, who doesn't have any idea whatsoever about what I am talking about. Your statements regarding AMD seemed a bit too "grandiose" for my liking. Therefore, I felt spending some time and doing some research would be the best bet since maybe AMD sneaked some massive power house right be me without me knowing.

And I like to argue facts, but am good at not going personal with it and getting out of line. Personally, I have enjoyed this discussion, I'm not irate, angry or upset in any way. And I will be the first to admit, I have been proven wrong many times by the person who has a totally different insight into the situation than I have. If i were to simply walk away when the going got tough, I would lose out on the truth.

 

[Rhammstein]

Obviously the way I perceived your review of the different Cpu's wasn't accurate. It certainly looked as though you were picking very specific bits, here and there, to illustrate your point, and to do so very well.

Seeing that, I instantly made the assumption that you were pulling a stunt we see too often, especially on the internet. After looking more closely, I still believe you did this, but only slightly, not to the extent that I should have even called you out on it.

I still believe very strongly in Fusion, not a single benchmark showing an Intel part defeating a Fusion part means much to me, not because I'm stubborn, but because Fusion is just better, period. The APU is brilliant, and I absolutely believe, at this point in time, it's without a doubt superior to every single Intel part in these low-power form factors.

However, I realize much of this is my opinion, of course. It's not just about the cold facts, which honestly I concede overall Intel is better than I suggested, but more the fact that Intel's present parts, future roadmap as outlined by them, doesn't seem to fit with the reality of the industry. Windows 7, Ubuntu, OSX even, and countless applications, are far better suited for an APU. I just can't possibly think of any good reason to recommend someone an Atom, or even i7 part with the HD3000, over similarily priced Fusion parts.

I sound incredibly biased, but until Intel can demonstrate they're not completely and utterly consumed by their overly stubborn adherence to x86 over 'anything' else, I can't be seen flying their flag. Forgive the pun, but the future is Fusion. lol... Okay I'm absolutely finished here, you made great points, I was too hard on Intel, but for damn good reason. I overstated a few things, and should be narrowed my critisisms a bit to reflect exactly the specific faults of 'each' part, but that would have taken hours to put together into a coherent post.

In the end, Fusion, and ARM, are extremely corrosive to Intel, period. Bulldozer will be interesting, hopefully it performs as the math suggests it should. If Bulldozer isn't at least 'as good' as Sandy Bridge, I will lose all of my confidence in AMD, possibly even Fusion as well. AMD cannot be beaten again, they need to overtake SB, a loss to IB is fine, and is what would usually be considered perfectly normal. Nvidia/AMD, back and forth. You know all of this, but I have to repeat it to be perfectly clear what I really mean by all of this.

Lastly, I've gotta admit I'm surprised more people aren't as aware just how much of a problem Fusion could be for Intel, it really does kind of leave me wondering if somehow I've got this alll wrong, and GPGPU is somehow, 'not', the future. In an age now where almost everything we compute is graphics related, and even when it isn't, CUDA/Stream/OpenCL etc etc, all do great things and are still very much under utilized. If software evolves the way it's supposed to, I fail to see where the APU comes up short, regardless of a few watts here, or a few frames there. It's the package that matters, overall. Intel, cannot compete with the APU, physically, plain and simple. However we all know the best team doesn't always win the game, and I think more than anything this should be an exciting time, even for those who hate AMD, at least it could drive down Intel's prices.

I'm rambling and need to end here, but I read everything you posted and fully understand your points, and you're right. I just realized we're not exactly on the same page, we obviosly value things very, very differently. It's that simple. Oh yeah, I never called you anything, even if it looked as though I was suggesting something, if it wasn't said, it wasn't said, and this is exactly why I do not, debate these things in public. If this were in PM, we could be quite a bit more honest and get to the point. This is more about being right, than enlightening anyone here, who by this point probably can't stand to see this thread.

 

[pparks1]

Bulldozer will be interesting, hopefully it performs as the math suggests it should. If Bulldozer isn't at least 'as good' as Sandy Bridge, I will lose all of my confidence in AMD, possibly even Fusion as well. AMD cannot be beaten again, they need to overtake SB, a loss to IB is fine, and is what would usually be considered perfectly normal. Nvidia/AMD, back and forth. You know all of this, but I have to repeat it to be perfectly clear what I really mean by all of this.

Yeah, it will be interesting to see what Bulldozer really does. Like I said, I've owned multiple AMD products over the years, but it's been all Intel since the Core 2 Duo was released. Years ago, the biggest advantage to going AMD was cost. You could have hundreds and get 90% of the performance. Unfortunately, Intel has lowered their prices to such a degree that the AMD discount is nowhere near as massive as it used to be. In fact, it's often as little as $20-$40. But I'm not going to take a 10% performance loss to save $20. I'll just eat out 1 less time.

Lastly, I've gotta admit I'm surprised more people aren't as aware just how much of a problem Fusion could be for Intel, it really does kind of leave me wondering if somehow I've got this alll wrong, and GPGPU is somehow, 'not', the future. In an age now where almost everything we compute is graphics related, and even when it isn't, CUDA/Stream/OpenCL etc etc, all do great things and are still very much under utilized. If software evolves the way it's supposed to, I fail to see where the APU comes up short, regardless of a few watts here, or a few frames there. It's the package that matters, overall. Intel, cannot compete with the APU, physically, plain and simple. However we all know the best team doesn't always win the game, and I think more than anything this should be an exciting time, even for those who hate AMD, at least it could drive down Intel's prices.

Well, AMD would really have to come through with a powerhouse, which would then force stores and manufacturers to offer more systems based on AMD. Right now, many consumers don't even know AMD is a choice...and regardless of performance, with the exception of enthusiasts and gamers..who build their own computer...the overwhelming majority of the PC market is just going to buy whatever Dell, HP, BestBuy, etc are peddling.

As far as Intel prices to, I haven't found them to be expensive except for the very high end $1000 chips. I found the Core 2 Duo's to be fairly priced, the Core 2 Quads better yet, the Core i5/i7 to be decent and the Sandy Bridge just flat out cheap for the performance.

 

[essenbe]

PParks1, I agree with you 100%. I am hoping Bulldozer lives up to the hype. I'd love to build one. I just built a system. I looked at all the chips from the 1090T to the i3's. After all the research I came to the conclusion that it was a no brainer. The new Intel chips were the best on the market no matter how you measure them. For price/performance there is nothing close and I came from a PhenomII x6. I can tell you that the X6 won't compete with the 2500K. And for $29 more, how can you make another choice? I love AMD but as of right now they can't compete. I hope Bulldozer has a lot of gas in the tank.

 

[pparks1]

For price/performance there is nothing close and I came from a PhenomII x6. I can tell you that the X6 won't compete with the 2500K. And for $29 more, how can you make another choice? I love AMD but as of right now they can't compete. I hope Bulldozer has a lot of gas in the tank.

LOL, are you telling me that you upgraded from a 6 core AMD chip to a SB Core i5-2500K? I'm on a Q9550 Core 2 Quad and I still haven't been able to justify an upgrade to anything out there right now.