AMD bets on Bulldozer to take back the desktop

It is frustrating I can understand that I timed my new build for BD and erm well it didn't turn up so I had to shove a budget CPU in there to tick me over. But I held the line and didn't run to Sandy Bridge tempting though it was.

Heck I'm actually glad I cheaped out CPU wise because it's probably fast enough for what I want I might even not bother with BD round 1 (might hold off until next year) folks it's not the end of the world.
 
the same jump we saw between the i7 920 and the 2600k. the old hex cores will get the sandy bridge architectural improvements. a 4 core sandy can hang with or beat a higher clocked hexcore (and use half the power), but now that the hexes will be sandy they will be killer. add 2 more cores to your 2600k and you have sb-e, there's some other chipset based improvements like 3 x16 pci-e lanes and better memory bandwidth.

they wont gain anything in single threaded applications, just multi threaded apps.
 
Michaelius said:
No need for compromises.
Click to expand...
Dodging the point. What about the SB-E is that special. Everytime the topic of cores comes up single core performance comes up. In theory any 6 or 8 core SBE is going to run slower then the 4 core options. Outside the fourth memory channel what are people really expecting out of SBE that they cant get out of a good 2600k setup?
 
for me single core performance is great to have but i love lots of cores, ill take 8 cores that might not clock as high as 4 even tho a game might only use 4 if your lucky i like being able to have vent and other misc programs i have run off extra cores plus if you have fraps going that eats another core. and i might be doing other work in the background where i just have to have more cores going.

i personally cant wait for bulldozer and i doubt ill be dissapointed how ever it turns out.
 
drescherjm said:
I think most would rather wait while AMD fixes the problems with BD instead of AMD releasing BD before its ready like they did with Phenom I.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, you know something more about this ? They did delay the desktop version but are you thinking that it is because of the performance problems ?
 
Topweasel said:
Dodging the point. What about the SB-E is that special. Everytime the topic of cores comes up single core performance comes up. In theory any 6 or 8 core SBE is going to run slower then the 4 core options. Outside the fourth memory channel what are people really expecting out of SBE that they cant get out of a good 2600k setup?
Click to expand...

Erm no it's only dodging point when you use your twisted logic and try to reduce single core performance arguments to absurd with your previous post.

Single threaded performance is important because majority of software uses only 2/3/4 threads therefore sweet spot for price/performance currently lies with fast quad cores like 2500K (2600K is waste of money for most users) but since there's some specialistic software that can use more than 4 threads that's where SB-E comes into picture - you can eat you cake and still have it - with uber single core performance and 6 cores /12 threads and no need for ugly compromises like Phenom II X6 which outperformed first gen i7 in few benchmarks at the cost of losing in everything else.

And if someone thinks quad core is always better than dual core he needs to look at some i3 2100 vs Pii X4 tests.
 
Topweasel said:
In theory any 6 or 8 core SBE is going to run slower then the 4 core options. Outside the fourth memory channel what are people really expecting out of SBE that they cant get out of a good 2600k setup?
Click to expand...

Intel will use 130W for these chips instead of the 95W that all lga1155 processors use. These will also not have a GPU so I would expect the 6 core 12 threaded SB-E processors to clock at least as high as the i7 2600.
 
Michaelius said:
Erm no it's only dodging point when you use your twisted logic and try to reduce single core performance arguments to absurd with your previous post.

Single threaded performance is important because majority of software uses only 2/3/4 threads therefore sweet spot for price/performance currently lies with fast quad cores like 2500K (2600K is waste of money for most users) but since there's some specialistic software that can use more than 4 threads that's where SB-E comes into picture - you can eat you cake and still have it - with uber single core performance and 6 cores /12 threads and no need for ugly compromises like Phenom II X6 which outperformed first gen i7 in few benchmarks at the cost of losing in everything else.

And if someone thinks quad core is always better than dual core he needs to look at some i3 2100 vs Pii X4 tests.
Click to expand...

I am not challenging that multiple cores can't be useful. I guess I just don't see the allure to the SB-E. People go out of their way to pick up a 2600k for overclocking. They get generally up to the High 4's. These are the same type of users that are looking at SB-E as some kind of super improvement. Upping the voltage will help drive clocks but I don't see it being as great or greater a oc chip as a 4 core option. I guess its one thing if your building a system then and want the latest and greatest.

Sure its a less compromised solution to adding more cores. But it is a compromise. But every discussion into the value of BD even if it draws even with SB, is that in the end we don't need the extra four cores because nothing uses it. How does that not apply to SB-E? We are not talking about Phenom X6 vs. SB i3 comparisons, we are talking about the projected value of SB-E and why its the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the BD is overkill where it matters the least.
 
Topweasel said:
I am not challenging that multiple cores can't be useful. I guess I just don't see the allure to the SB-E. People go out of their way to pick up a 2600k for overclocking. They get generally up to the High 4's. These are the same type of users that are looking at SB-E as some kind of super improvement. Upping the voltage will help drive clocks but I don't see it being as great or greater a oc chip as a 4 core option. I guess its one thing if your building a system then and want the latest and greatest.

Sure its a less compromised solution to adding more cores. But it is a compromise. But every discussion into the value of BD even if it draws even with SB, is that in the end we don't need the extra four cores because nothing uses it. How does that not apply to SB-E? We are not talking about Phenom X6 vs. SB i3 comparisons, we are talking about the projected value of SB-E and why its the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the BD is overkill where it matters the least.
Click to expand...

Well SB-E tends to get drawn into discussion on the following basis

User A: Bulldozer won't be able to compete in IPC/single core performance/games
User B: but it has 8 cores. 8 cores are a future who cares about single thread performance
User A: Intel has SB-E it will be great

For me I'd only buy it if i had money to burn :)
 
Michaelius said:
Well SB-E tends to get drawn into discussion on the following basis

User A: Bulldozer won't be able to compete in IPC/single core performance/games
User B: but it has 8 cores. 8 cores are a future who cares about single thread performance
User A: Intel has SB-E it will be great

For me I'd only buy it if i had money to burn :)
Click to expand...

Fully Agreed.

Sure its a less compromised solution to adding more cores. But it is a compromise. But every discussion into the value of BD even if it draws even with SB, is that in the end we don't need the extra four cores because nothing uses it. How does that not apply to SB-E? We are not talking about Phenom X6 vs. SB i3 comparisons, we are talking about the projected value of SB-E and why its the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the BD is overkill where it matters the least.
Click to expand...

The same that applies to BD applies to SB-E.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
This is interesting, you know something more about this ? They did delay the desktop version but are you thinking that it is because of the performance problems ?
Click to expand...

Not really any reliable information. I tend to believe that the rumors that the B1 stepping used too much power were true. I certainly believe that more than the official statement that we are delaying BD because we need to fill the demand for socket FM1 first. If this was the case I would have expected to see official benchmarks of final silicon. However maybe they do not want to be accused of a paper launch.. I do not know.
 
i3 2100 is priced higher than the X4 Athlon II/Ph II no lv 3 cache processors. And the i-3 doesn't have them in everything they take it for rendering and video encoding.

Folks should rest assured that the 4 core BD will completely destroy the i-3 2100, the 6 core will take out the 2500 and the 8 core will thump the i-7 2600 as well. I know there are some upset Intel folks but hey that's life you're about to get a sound dismissal from the new FX processors.

And people still bought Intel procesors when AMD were hammering them with the Athlon XP and Athlon 64 CPU's at much lower clock speeds and better thermals. You can't have it both ways the market chages over time.
 
8 core will thump the i-7 2600 as well.
Click to expand...

Thumping will only occur in applications that use 6+ threads otherwise the 8 threaded i7 2600 will have an IPC advantage. BD will combat its lower IPC against SB with higher turbos so that should make BD competitive in less than 6 threads.

Folks should rest assured that the 4 core BD will completely destroy the i-3 2100, the 6 core will take out the 2500
Click to expand...

I will buy this as long as the stock + turbo clocks of these BD chips are clocked high enough to make up for their IPC disadvantage.
 
Last edited:
I have high hopes for BD. The current Phenom II X6's are great chips, especially when clocked ~4ghz, so if the predictions for BD are anywhere near accurate, then Intel will have some serious competition.
 
drescherjm said:
Not really any reliable information. I tend to believe that the rumors that the B1 stepping used too much power were true. I certainly believe that more than the official statement that we are delaying BD because we need to fill the demand for socket FM1 first. If this was the case I would have expected to see official benchmarks of final silicon. However maybe they do not want to be accused of a paper launch.. I do not know.
Click to expand...

Well the idea is pretty obvious APU will ship a lot more units then Bulldozer, I do understand that part.

And the stepping of the retail Bulldozer parts will be B2 or B3 ? Lets hope that the people of doom and gloom comparing it to phenom 1 are wrong :) .
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Well the idea is pretty obvious APU will ship a lot more units then Bulldozer, I do understand that part.

And the stepping of the retail Bulldozer parts will be B2 or B3 ? Lets hope that the people of doom and gloom comparing it to phenom 1 are wrong :) .
Click to expand...



a few things don't add up.

Llano is 228mm2 and sells for a max of $138 and bulldozer is rumored to be 294mm2 and sell up to $320.

Also with bulldozer amd has a chance to sell a graphics card for greater profit. So llano would have to sell more than 2 times the amount to be a bigger money maker for amd than bulldozer
 
Last edited:
eastmen said:
So llano would have to sell more than 2 times the amount to be a bigger money maker for amd than bulldozer
Click to expand...

And Llano will, and probably at a larger ratio. OEMs are by far the biggest purchaser of CPUs, and Llano will be used for the vast majority of desktop builds they sell and notebooks/larger netbooks(where Bulldozer will not be put into to). Bulldozer has only the high-end desktop and server, and those are becoming increasingly low-volume markets(and AMD's margins are shrinking too due to Intel's dominance).
 
SicKlown42012 said:
And Llano will, and probably at a larger ratio. OEMs are by far the biggest purchaser of CPUs, and Llano will be used for the vast majority of desktop builds they sell and notebooks/larger netbooks(where Bulldozer will not be put into to). Bulldozer has only the high-end desktop and server, and those are becoming increasingly low-volume markets(and AMD's margins are shrinking too due to Intel's dominance).
Click to expand...

looking at the big vendors I highly doubt it .

HP is only selling one llano notebook and zero desktops.

So where are all these Llano machines ?
 
Cast your mind back not even that long ago the "big debate" about dual or quad cores. I even read articles saying you should buy a faster clock dual core because not many apps use quad core.

Well they were wrong to give that advice because as time passes more and more software makes use of additional cores. So it won't really matter with the more cores strategy because it's a winner from day one.

In a few years you'll struggle to find software that does not support 4 and more cores. BD will do well granted a few benchmarks won't please everyone but for critical heavy lifting it's going to deliver very nicely IMO.

Intel were IMO wrong to stick to dual cores for the i-3 and we'll see the dual core become super budget prices rock bottom entry level, quad as normal and higher as enthusiast level.
 
Intel were IMO wrong to stick to dual cores for the i-3
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with that. The i3 has 4 threads and is a 65W chip. The i3 2100 beats AMD's 4 core processors in most tasks. It also beats the AMD's X6 in games that do not use more than 4 threads. For a little more money Intel's 4 core / 4 threaded i5 processors add a little performance in applications that can make use of 4 threads. How would the i3 be different from the i5 if both have 4 cores?
 
Well I can't wait until the pro reviewers get there hands on it. Bulldozer being so late compared to Intel I was hoping for more. May by a 10 or 12 core processor
 
May by a 10 or 12 core processor
Click to expand...

The problem with that is power usage. AMD and Intel seem to not want to go over 140W for a stock CPU so this will limit the speed of such (10+ core) a chip to 2.X GHz which in tern will make it a bad choice for a desktop processor.
 
I have no doubt that the 8-core BD will be a worthy processor. However, my concerns are memory performance. Is there any change to the architecture in regards to this? Everyone knows Intel's memory performance is banana's in comparison and I was curious on others thoughts.
 
TooEasy! said:
I have no doubt that the 8-core BD will be a worthy processor. However, my concerns are memory performance. Is there any change to the architecture in regards to this? Everyone knows Intel's memory performance is banana's in comparison and I was curious on others thoughts.
Click to expand...

the only thing i think we know of is 1866 support.. wether or not we can see memory perf like that of sandy i would like to know aswell.
 
Wildace said:
the only thing i think we know of is 1866 support.. wether or not we can see memory perf like that of sandy i would like to know aswell.
Click to expand...

JF-AMD said memory controller got a major revamp, 50% more something even with dual channels. Still, waiting for benchies.
 
That does not even matter. memory bandwidth accounts for less then a percent of the total processor score. get your facts right.
 
eastmen said:
looking at the big vendors I highly doubt it .

HP is only selling one llano notebook and zero desktops.

So where are all these Llano machines ?
Click to expand...

Making their way I'm sure that in general APU is meant for lower part of the market where people not so much look at the components but more to the price, this segment is much bigger then Bulldozer desktop cpu market.

From a technology perspective not very exciting ;) .
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Making their way I'm sure that in general APU is meant for lower part of the market where people not so much look at the components but more to the price, this segment is much bigger then Bulldozer desktop cpu market.

From a technology perspective not very exciting ;) .
Click to expand...

I think the point is that Llano isn't out there making money for amd at the moment , at least not in the quanitys that people make it out to be. I really don't see Llano equiped platforms .

The hp laptop is really nice, might grab one maxed out for sw tor on the go
 
there are quite a few llano labtops available now. You have to keep in mind its been less than a month since the processor was officially released. Oems will like to clear out current inventory before introducing new models.

Hp, gateway, toshiba,acer , lenovo all have llano solutions that are available. More are coming.
 
Saw 1 Llano @ Staples the other day (an HP with a Blu-Ray drive for 599.99) getting school supplies and stuff. Saw like half dozen i3-i5 notebooks. One X2 or X4 and alot more older Intel models than anything.

I would say @ Staples. Intel has laptop products @ a 10/1 ratio vs AMD.

That's a Free market economy system for ya.
 
teletran8 said:
Saw 1 Llano @ Staples the other day (an HP with a Blu-Ray drive for 599.99) getting school supplies and stuff. Saw like half dozen i3-i5 notebooks. One X2 or X4 and alot more older Intel models than anything.

I would say @ Staples. Intel has laptop products @ a 10/1 ratio vs AMD.

That's a Free market economy system for ya.
Click to expand...

Tbh, if anything its marketing fail on AMD's part. Most non-tech people have no idea about anything besides Intel. Even when AMD was on top (obviously Intel has been proven to do wrong doing, and they got off easily with a one time payment), the masses had no idea that p4 wasn't nearly as good as the AMD processor.

Put AMD products where the masses see them, get them in TV shows, Movies, and on commercials. Apple is king of getting product placements in movies, and tv shows and people know the brand that its more than just a phone or tablet (iMacs and Macbook Pros are in so many shows)

You can have a crappy product and better marketing and the masses will buy it if they perceive its a better deal.
 
eldertru said:
Tbh, if anything its marketing fail on AMD's part. Most non-tech people have no idea about anything besides Intel. Even when AMD was on top (obviously Intel has been proven to do wrong doing, and they got off easily with a one time payment), the masses had no idea that p4 wasn't nearly as good as the AMD processor.

Put AMD products where the masses see them, get them in TV shows, Movies, and on commercials. Apple is king of getting product placements in movies, and tv shows and people know the brand that its more than just a phone or tablet (iMacs and Macbook Pros are in so many shows)

You can have a crappy product and better marketing and the masses will buy it if they perceive its a better deal.
Click to expand...

This. spot on.
 
eldertru said:
Tbh, if anything its marketing fail on AMD's part. Most non-tech people have no idea about anything besides Intel. Even when AMD was on top (obviously Intel has been proven to do wrong doing, and they got off easily with a one time payment), the masses had no idea that p4 wasn't nearly as good as the AMD processor.

Put AMD products where the masses see them, get them in TV shows, Movies, and on commercials. Apple is king of getting product placements in movies, and tv shows and people know the brand that its more than just a phone or tablet (iMacs and Macbook Pros are in so many shows)

You can have a crappy product and better marketing and the masses will buy it if they perceive its a better deal.
Click to expand...

Sad, but true :mad:
 
eldertru said:
Tbh, if anything its marketing fail on AMD's part. Most non-tech people have no idea about anything besides Intel. Even when AMD was on top (obviously Intel has been proven to do wrong doing, and they got off easily with a one time payment), the masses had no idea that p4 wasn't nearly as good as the AMD processor.

Put AMD products where the masses see them, get them in TV shows, Movies, and on commercials. Apple is king of getting product placements in movies, and tv shows and people know the brand that its more than just a phone or tablet (iMacs and Macbook Pros are in so many shows)

You can have a crappy product and better marketing and the masses will buy it if they perceive its a better deal.
Click to expand...

I Agree - I got to wonder why AMD hasnt been touting their new processor that is coming out.
- either they are still working on it or ... heaven forbid its not so hot.
- but if I were AMD Id be selling it to the common man as the next best thing.

Is it really coming out in 1 month? ... they sure know how to be tight lipped (you would think that they wouldnt want to sell any)
 
eldertru said:
Tbh, if anything its marketing fail on AMD's part. Most non-tech people have no idea about anything besides Intel.
Click to expand...

But what you are saying is weird, they don't know tech but they do know Intel ? The only question people have is will it run windows and sometimes will it run the games I like.

I mean what are you going to market it for , tech people already know. You are going to explain people who don't want to know about computers be filled with details about what again the cpu ?

That doesn't seem very likely. AMD can't spend money on name recognition on a part where the target audience couldn't care less if the cpu was called "blah blah" .

What AMD can do is improve their product. Llano is only the 1st step, Trinity is another thing to look forward to.
 
But what you are saying is weird, they don't know tech but they do know Intel ?
Click to expand...

I would say a lot of them do. On US television I see Intel advertizements every single time I turn on my TV for more than a few minutes and I rarely ever see a single AMD advertizement.
 
drescherjm said:
I would say a lot of them do. On US television I see Intel advertizements every single time I turn on my TV for more than a few minutes and I rarely ever see a single AMD advertizement.
Click to expand...

Never seen an AMD advert but the AMC24 movie theater I go to has giant intel ads playing before movies. DANCING PENGUINS ON A GIANT SCREEN. That is like crack for the average idiot computer purchaser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top