The next generation of CPUs incoming.

[Deleted]

Like a week ago I bought a i5 and it's still unused. Do you guys think I should return it and wait for BD benchmarks and/or price drops on it? Don't have all the other parts of the PC anyways so I won't really be able to use it till like next month. I have 1 more weeks time to return it.

Sorry to bump this post but could someone please answer this?

[Mister K]

Oh and when Ivy's come out Bulldozers better hide! I am probs upgrading to Bulldozers temporarily if there is a decent one for £100 ...

[Asera]

Sorry to bump this post but could someone please answer this?

For gaming, I'd just hold onto it.

[Deleted]

For gaming, I'd just hold onto it.

Okay then. I'll do that.

[vesseblah]

Sorry to bump this post but could someone please answer this?

Nothing leaked so far tells tells 100% surely that BD would be better for gaming than i5-2500K, all real numbers are under NDA.


If I was betting my money on it, I'd say no BD released this year will be faster than i5-2500K on a gaming computer. Simply because AMD is still basing their technology on multiple cores, while software companies are not.

[Deleted]

I guess I'll upgrade when Ivy Bridge comes on the market and keep my Motherboard.

[Deleted]

For the world record they went up to 8.4, I would have kept pushing it until it exploded lol. They used liquid helium cooling, so yea I bet a 2600k could get there on that kind of insanity as well.

It wont, its tested in the same conditions, none of Intel chips can go that high.

Regardless, I expected more from BD, if its just competitive (and much more expensive to make than Intels previous gen), how it will do against IB? Not much software is optimized for so many cores, so main BD advantage wont be seen by most users, same as super fast execution of complex math tasks.

Bright point is, on servers BD should do better than last gen.

[bergmann620]

As others have said, I will wait for some real numbers by trusted sources. I will be looking to build a tower for my wife after the first of the year, and the Intel vs AMD war will be on at that point.

When I built my new tower 6 months ago, I went with the i3, and for Warcraft, etc, it has been plenty.

I'm wondering if AMD has any plans for a budget line based on the new architecture?

[Deleted]

I'm wondering if AMD has any plans for a budget line based on the new architecture?

Of course, even small Fusion chips will eventually get BD cores.

[vesseblah]

It wont, its tested in the same conditions, none of Intel chips can go that high.

Sandy Bridges are capped to 57x, so they cant go past 6GHz no matter what you try. SB-E might come in uncapped variety at very high price.

I'm wondering if AMD has any plans for a budget line based on the new architecture?

They already did few months ago. Llanos are meant for budget builders, Bulldozer is the enthusiast line.

[wooootles]

http://vr-zone.com/articles/more-san...ght/13639.html

SB-E has a higher cap than the 1155 SB's. Even a locked i7-3820 (which still has a 45x multiplier) can probably be stable at 5 GHz.

It's cheaper than the i7-2700k too, by almost $40.

lol now who wants to see if some crazy out there can get near Intel's theoretical 9.5GHz max on SB-E hahah

[haxartus]

The Llanos don't use the new architecture.
About the performance numbers.
The Bulldozer probably won't beat i5-2500k for gaming on default. However, this is the first generation of the architecture. The old architecture was pretty much a dead end. This one has a lot of potential for future improvements.
The single threading performance in theory should be superior than the previous generation i7-9xx including 980X.
This is possible due to the fact that if you have an application that is optimized for 4 threads, each thread gets it's own module with all of it's resources.
This way you get higher performance from weaker clusters ("cores"), while using less die space and lower power consumption.

[vesseblah]

The single threading performance in theory should be superior than the previous generation i7-9xx including 980X.
This is possible due to the fact that if you have an application that is optimized for 4 threads, each thread gets it's own module with all of it's resources.

There's pretty big logic fail in that thought.

And so far AMD has been advertising with multithread performance, not single thread, maybe there's a reason for it?

[Sekul]

You lost me at AMD.


[mod edit: user was infracted for this post. Don't do brandwars.]

[haxartus]

There's pretty big logic fail in that thought.

And so far AMD has been advertising with multithread performance, not single thread, maybe there's a reason for it?

Well, it should be slower than i5-2500k in single threading, that's why. The architectures has improvements for multi threading too.

[Simca]

That site's grammar and sentence structure is so poor I'm 90% sure it is literally a google translate pull from the german news site they got the slides from.

Also, comparing the top end Bulldozer to a first gen i7 that is overpriced to hell is hilarious.

[haxartus]

Also, comparing the top end Bulldozer to a first gen i7 that is overpriced to hell is hilarious.

They are comparing their fastest CPU to the competition's fastest CPU. Nothing wrong with that.
The overpricing is Intel's problem.

[Cilraaz]

They are comparing their fastest CPU to the competition's fastest CPU. Nothing wrong with that.
The overpricing is Intel's problem.

I see no benchmarks. I see slides with pretty numbers on them, with zero backing. There is no mention of testing method, test setups, etc. That would be the equivalent of me going:

============================   i5 2500k
=======                        FX-8150

As you can see, the i5 2500k performed 400% better than the FX-8150.  It's obviously a superior chip.

The article also starts with "omg! 8.4GHz!", without mentioning that the CPU that did that was a special design with a single module. That pulls a lot of complexity out of the chip and is nowhere near what a standard retail bulldozer CPU will be like. Yeah, it's a good accomplishment, but people need to be informed that they didn't get there with the same kind of CPU they'll be selling.

[haxartus]

The article also starts with "omg! 8.4GHz!", without mentioning that the CPU that did that was a special design with a single module.

It wasn't a special design, just the best overclocking CPU from 10-20 samples tested.
And if you want to achieve the highest overclock, it's normal to disable the weaker modules and leave only the "strongest" one.