# Your Opinion: Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge



## spynoodle

So as AMD's new 32nm Bulldozer architecture comes out with a whopping 8-16 cores at the end of 2010, Intel plans to release Sandy Bridge, its new 32nm architecture, with only 2-6 cores to begin with. As AMD plans to finally conquer the market for the highest-performing processor, Intel plans to try to bring quad-core processing to the mainstream market. It seems like Intel's trying to innovate the architecture as much as possible before moving to dies with a multitude of cores packed into them, whereas AMD's trying to pack as many cores into a die as possible. So how do you think this clash will turn out? Here's my prediction:

Both the Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer dies sound pretty powerful, but the question is: which combination of performance/GHz and number of cores will win? Considering the fact that the Phenom II's architecture isn't even as fast per clock as the 45nm Core's is, I can only guess that Bulldozer will be just slightly faster per clock than Nehalem is. This being said, though, it does still have 16 cores on a die. If Intel aims for 8 as AMD aims for 16, Sandy Bridge would have to be twice as fast as Bulldozer. Also a factor: cost. AMD usually holds the budget end, but will they now try to swap positions with Intel? It's been said that the beginning Sandy Bridge chips are aimed towards the mainstream market. Either way, when it comes down to the fastest chip, you also have to think about how AMD will only just be entering the 32nm market. Maybe it'll only be as fast as Westmere! Maybe we'll see a repeat of the Pentium 4 era all over again, just this time AMD will have the Phenom X16. Intel will have ads about the "Core Myth" instead of the "Gigahertz Myth." Only time can tell.


----------



## bomberboysk

Current architecture doesn't mean a whole lot...an example i will give is back in the netburst/P4 era. Intel had been selling nutburst architecture CPU's for years, just creating faster clockspeeds, which compared to the AMD Athlon 64 processors of the time were pretty much rubbish. Then came along conroe, which had excellent performance compared to other processors of the time...i have a feeling similar things will happen in relation to how bulldozer will come into play. I quite strongly believe that AMD is going to have the more powerful processor with bulldozer.

P.S. The megahertz myth was used by apple when comparing performance between their powerpc based computers and an x86 Pentium 4 from intel.


----------



## StrangleHold

I would like to believe Bulldozer will be AMDs come back. From the small look they let you have of the core design it looks like it will definitely be faster clock wise. And the way it has two sets of pipelines on each core it should wipe the floor with Hyperthreading. And if it has alot of clock room

But I will wait and see, made me gun shy with all the hype they put out about the Phenom I. Was nothing but 4 brisbane cores on a die with 2mb. of L3 and 1066 support. The core itself was no faster then the brisbane core.

Looking forward to it.


----------



## jarlmaster47

well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever


----------



## StrangleHold

jarlmaster47 said:


> well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever


 
This nonsense crap is really getting old. You have no idea of architecture CPU history.


----------



## bomberboysk

jarlmaster47 said:


> well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever



Actually, magny cours processors are cheap for server cpu's, take a look at intels 6 core xeons on socket 1366...and then compare that to a 12 core magny cours processor.

Also, go back about 4 years and say that, back when AMD dominated the market with intels netburst nonsense.

I'm getting sick of hearing how AMD has no chance...people don't ever think about how ATI pulled a good one on nvidia with both the HD4xxx and HD5xxx series, when with the HD3xxx series ATI was not really a whole lot of competition for nvidia...same thing applies in the CPU world, just because at this point in time intel has a more evolved architecture...doesn't mean they will forever.


----------



## Blurredman

jarlmaster47 said:


> well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever



12 cores, efficient or not sounds pretty damn better than 1


----------



## mx344

it looks interesting, i cant wait too see the preformance these new arch. offer, and at what price point...


----------



## mihir

There are many Intel biased people.
The ATI crushed NVIDIA with their HD 5000 series.
IMO the AMD is gonna crush intel with the bulldozer and even now with the release of the six cores AMD is starting to take over Intel.

Any confirm news on which socket would be used by the Bulldozer and sandybridge


----------



## StrangleHold

From what I understand the first ones will be compatible with AM3 socket. But it will have a dual/quad channel memory controller. So there will be a new socket/board for quad channel memory. Kinda like the way you can run a AM3 proocessor on a AM2+ board with DDR2. But they are dropping the DDR2 memory controller, so no AM2/+ board will be compatible.


----------



## mihir

StrangleHold said:


> From what I understand the first ones will be compatible with AM3 socket. But it will have a dual/quad channel memory controller. So there will be a new socket/board for quad channel memory. Kinda like the way you can run a AM3 proocessor on a AM2+ board with DDR2. But they are dropping the DDR2 memory controller, so no AM2/+ board will be compatible.



So in a quad memory controller then 4GB(4x1Gb) or 8GB(4x2GB) would be best for optimum performance am I right.

And what about the INtel sockets


----------



## StrangleHold

Well you can do 4 sticks now with dual channel. Waiting to see how they will get 8 memory slots on a board.

Intel sockets are to damn confusing to keep up with. These processors with that socket, those processors with that other socket. All they need is another one for those other processors.


----------



## mihir

StrangleHold said:


> Well you can do 4 sticks now with dual channel. Waiting to see how they will get 8 memory slots on a board.
> 
> Intel sockets are to damn confusing to keep up with. These processors with that socket, those processors with that other socket. All they need is another one for those other processors.



Yeah seriously the way intel switched between 775->1366<->1156->(sandybridge socket)

And amd being stable that make it a really good future proof solution :good:


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> P.S. The megahertz myth was used by apple when comparing performance between their powerpc based computers and an x86 Pentium 4 from intel.



The only reason I thought that AMD marketed it too was because of this quote from the Pentium 4 article on Wikipedia:



> The two classical metrics of CPU performance are IPC (instructions per cycle) and clock speed. While IPC is difficult to quantify (due to dependence on the benchmark application's instruction mix), clock speed is a simple measurement yielding a single absolute number. Unsophisticated buyers would simply consider the processor with the highest clock speed to be the best product, and the Pentium 4 was the undisputed megahertz champion. As AMD was unable to compete by these rules, it countered Intel's marketing advantage with the "megahertz myth" campaign. AMD product marketing used a "PR-rating" system, which assigned a merit value based on relative performance to a baseline machine.



Is it just a Wikipedia misconception, or did AMD market it too?



jarlmaster47 said:


> well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever


Dang, I'm getting behind on my AMD again.  Just looked up some of those Magny Cours processors on Newegg: The cheap ones aren't that expensive. The 6128 is only a bit over $300. Still, it is pretty slow. It barely threatens the i7 in performance and it has 8 cores. Of course, those 8 cores run at around 2GHz. I partially agree with you on AMD jumping into several cores too fast. I mean, socket G34 is two CPUs wide. I think they're gonna improve on that a bit with bulldozer. Server CPUs are always ahead of their time a bit. Intel had the Dunningtion 6 core Xeons a good few years ago. Now the question remains: exactly how much faster is Bulldozer gonna be?


mihir said:


> IMO the AMD is gonna crush intel with the bulldozer and even now with the release of the six cores AMD is starting to take over Intel.


The Phenom II X6 isn't really all that great. It poses some competition for the mid-range i7s, but I saw a review once that seemed to pose that the Turbo Core function actually made them a good amount worse than the i7s in programs that take advantage of all six cores. Like Bomber said, though, AMD could pull a fast one with Bulldozer. Sandy Bridge isn't looking all too promising. The first ones to be released have only 4 cores and run on another entirely new socket: socket 1155. Apparently this is a replacement for 1156. Intel's starting to get people ticked off with all these new sockets all at once.


----------



## mihir

The phenomIIx6 isint that great but has a performance improvement over the previous Phenom II x4 and now comes in competetion with the i7s because now if you are going for a high end build atleast you can have a debate on which processor to go for the i7 or the phenom II x6 earlier it was just like high end - i7 budget - amd phenom II x4


----------



## spynoodle

mihir said:


> The phenomIIx6 isint that great but has a performance improvement over the previous Phenom II x4 and now comes in competetion with the i7s because now if you are going for a high end build atleast you can have a debate on which processor to go for the i7 or the phenom II x6 earlier it was just like high end - i7 budget - amd phenom II x4


True, true. It's really only a logical upgrade path for current AM3 and AM2 motherboard owners, though. If you have a lower-end Phenom II, it would still be a decent boost.


----------



## FuryRosewood

all i can say is, things can never stay the same, they will always change, so be ready for change... without change we would have a one sided industry with sky high prices....I LIKE COMPETITION 

...and i like the fact amd doesnt play socket games as much as intel has been...


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> True, true. It's really only a logical upgrade path for current AM3 and AM2 motherboard owners, though. If you have a lower-end Phenom II, it would still be a decent boost.



Well, if you are buying at retail(eg- no microcenter around), at the $199 price point the Phenom II X6 is an excellent workstation CPU, if i had the money i'd put together a rid with a Phenom II X6 because rendering in kerkythea really takes longer than i would hope on my q9450.


----------



## Stildawn

jarlmaster47 said:


> well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever



Haha this cracks me up.... Like I admit Im no cpu guru like half of you guys on here (i mainly feed of what you all say lol)

But hell even I can remember when AMD dominated and clearly so haha... Saying Intel has been better forever is a load of crap if I ever did see one...

I might do some research on the bulldozer... Sounds great... I really do hope AMD pulls one over intel... Im not a fan boy but come on AMD just seems like a more friendly, customer orentated company lol. Like the good guys vs the bad guys lol.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> Well, if you are buying at retail(eg- no microcenter around), at the $199 price point the Phenom II X6 is an excellent workstation CPU, if i had the money i'd put together a rid with a Phenom II X6 because rendering in kerkythea really takes longer than i would hope on my q9450.


I just looked up a Guru3d review on the X6: It seems like it actually performs better than the i7s in some scenarios, falling behind in others. I would place each series around the same mark. You also have to remember, though: Although the X6 has 6 physical cores, the i7 has 8 logical cores too, which should be almost as good. That, coupled with the i7's superior architecture should put it a bit above the X6.


----------



## maroon1

spynoodle said:


> So as AMD's new 32nm  architecture comes out with a whopping 8-16 cores at the end of 2010



16 core version is for servers.

Only 8 cores and less will be released for desktop

Not to mention that Bulldozer 8 core won't scale exactly as good as true 8 cores, because each two cores share a lot components unlike the current design . This has an impact on performance but the good thing about sharing components is that you would have much smaller die size

I do recommend that you read these articles if you want to know more about Bulldozer
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/14/amd_bulldozer_preview/page2.html
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/2881?cPage=2&all=False&sort=0&page=2

Also, Bulldozer, is not coming out in 2010 but sometime in 2011


----------



## justinmmm690

I'm predicting a new socket: AM3+ or AM4 socket that will support dual and triple channel memory.  I think AMD will still stick to it's backwards compatibility with it's sockets.  So you could potentially use the new Bulldozer CPUs on an AM2+ and AM3 board.  We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## spynoodle

justinmmm690 said:


> I'm predicting a new socket: AM3+ or AM4 socket that will support dual and triple channel memory.  I think AMD will still stick to it's backwards compatibility with it's sockets.  So you could potentially use the new Bulldozer CPUs on an AM2+ and AM3 board.  We'll just have to wait and see.


No, I remember reading that they're going to put it on a socket called (or at least codenamed) AM3r2, but that any CPUs for AM3r2 won't be compatible with AM2 or AM2+. Only AM3. It's because Bulldozer is going to drop a ddr2 memory controller.

@Maroon1: Thanks for the info! It definitely seems that Bulldozer is going to pack a lot of performance into each core. I think a deciding factor for Bulldozer is going to be the price. Being AMD, they'll probably try to keep the desktop versions under $400. That should bring a good price/performance ratio with the expected GFLOPS Bulldozer's going to bring. I would mention that Sandy Bridge is targeted to the mainstream sector, but Intel's socket change is probably going to damage that "budget" vision. If there's one thing that I like about AMD, it's definitely their easy upgradeability.


----------



## StrangleHold

justinmmm690 said:


> I'm predicting a new socket: AM3+ or AM4 socket that will support dual and triple channel memory. I think AMD will still stick to it's backwards compatibility with it's sockets. So you could potentially use the new Bulldozer CPUs on an AM2+ and AM3 board. We'll just have to wait and see.


 
They are skipping triple, going to quad channel. It will be backward compatible with AM3, but not AM2/+

Newer link
http://tech.icrontic.com/articles/what-we-know-about-amds-next-generation-processors/


----------



## bomberboysk

Also, socket G34(the current magny-cours socket) will be bulldozer compatible in addition to AM3...kind of a thing to look at for people who will want to upgrade their servers in the future.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> Also, socket G34(the current magny-cours socket) will be bulldozer compatible in addition to AM3...kind of a thing to look at for people who will want to upgrade their servers in the future.


G34 is...... interesting. First socket to put two of a CPU on one die. The rectangle thing is cool. Server CPUs seem to be where all the interesting stuff happens.


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> G34 is...... interesting. First socket to put two of a CPU on one die. The rectangle thing is cool. Server CPUs seem to be where all the interesting stuff happens.



No, there were quite a few non monolithic cores out there. The Pentium D was two processor dies on one chip, the Core 2 Quads were just two core 2 duo's on one chip, etc.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> No, there were quite a few non monolithic cores out there. The Pentium D was two processor dies on one chip, the Core 2 Quads were just two core 2 duo's on one chip, etc.


Well, the difference with this one is that AMD took two dies that filled the entire square, whereas the C2D and Pentium 4 must have only filled half of it, right? Maybe Cedar Mill filled a quarter, but of course a Pentium Q would be waaaaaay too hot.


----------



## jarlmaster47

well Intel HAS always dominated the cpu market. Intel was the company that invented the cpu so AMD loses right there. ATI beat Nvidia because ATI always had more stream processors per card then Nvidia but their architecture and drivers weren't up to par. It was only a matter of time as I had predicted and sure enough ATI eclipsed Nvidia. AMD is already behind Intel in every respect. Intel has better architecture, lgas, dies, wafers, and cpu features. AMD does not have one area at which they are better like ATI had vs Nvidia. The i7's have been out for about 2 years and AMD STILL can't beat them.


----------



## justinmmm690

jarlmaster47 said:


> well Intel HAS always dominated the cpu market. Intel was the company that invented the cpu so AMD loses right there. ATI beat Nvidia because ATI always had more stream processors per card then Nvidia but their architecture and drivers weren't up to par. It was only a matter of time as I had predicted and sure enough ATI eclipsed Nvidia. AMD is already behind Intel in every respect. Intel has better architecture, *lgas*, dies, wafers, and cpu features. AMD does not have one area at which they are better like ATI had vs Nvidia. The i7's have been out for about 2 years and AMD STILL can't beat them.



You know that LGA stands for Land Grid Array right?  It's not something to be compared.  It just states that the motherboard has the pins rather than the CPU.  AMD did beat Intel for a while.  In the P4 era, AMD had better processors.  AMD still dominates the low-mid range CPU market.


----------



## bomberboysk

jarlmaster47 said:


> well Intel HAS always dominated the cpu market. Intel was the company that invented the cpu so AMD loses right there. ATI beat Nvidia because ATI always had more stream processors per card then Nvidia but their architecture and drivers weren't up to par. It was only a matter of time as I had predicted and sure enough ATI eclipsed Nvidia. AMD is already behind Intel in every respect. Intel has better architecture, lgas, dies, wafers, and cpu features. AMD does not have one area at which they are better like ATI had vs Nvidia. The i7's have been out for about 2 years and AMD STILL can't beat them.


1)Wrong, the entire Pentium 4 era was a complete flop for Intel. The netburst architecture was extremely ineffecient, clock for clock, even an athlon XP was nearly twice as fast per Ghz, let alone the Athlon 64. Just because intel has had a hold in the market for a few years now, that doesn't change the fact of how long they stuck with an architecture that simply "sucked".

2) The nomenclature CPU has been around long before intel ever existed as a company. Intel build the first "CPU on a chip" so to speak with the 4004 however.

3) Wrong, drivers are not any reason why ATi cards have been slower.There is quite a difference between a stream processor used in an ATI GPU and a shader used within an nVidia GPU. Shaders are more powerful and much larger than a stream processor like ATi uses. There is no way to directly compare the numbers, this is why with the GF100 GPU's from nvidia with 512 shaders on die(with some disabled) is still a much much larger core than the HD58xx gpu line.

4)Processors take time to develop, just because the i7 has been out for awhile, AMD had to develop an interim product to bulldozer(the phenom II's). As far as features/instruction sets, bulldozer is going to have the same instruction sets as sandy bridge(SSE 4.1/4.2, AES, CLMUL, AVX) and will have instruction sets that sandy bridge will not have (XOP, CVT16 and FMA4). As far as wafers and processes, current wafer technology between AMD and Intel is roughly identical, bulldozer will be using the same 32nm SOI process that intel will be using for sandy bridge.




spynoodle said:


> Well, the difference with this one is that AMD took two dies that filled the entire square, whereas the C2D and Pentium 4 must have only filled half of it, right? Maybe Cedar Mill filled a quarter, but of course a Pentium Q would be waaaaaay too hot.


No, the cpu die is no where close to filling up the entire chip, in fact, you could probably fit all the magny cours dies onto a single AM3 sized chip, but unlike the previous non monolithic dies used, in essence, each cpu die has a dedicated set of pins for power/data, which is why the socket is nearly twice the size of a standard socket. The octa core processors use two quad cores, and the dodeca core processors have two hex core dies.


----------



## spynoodle

justinmmm690 said:


> You know that LGA stands for Land Grid Array right?  It's not something to be compared.  It just states that the motherboard has the pins rather than the CPU.  AMD did beat Intel for a while.  In the P4 era, AMD had better processors.  AMD still dominates the low-mid range CPU market.


Well I guess you could kinda consider it an advantage. I've accidentally bent the pins on a CPU a couple of times. LONG STORY.  It is undeniable that AMD had the advantage with the Athlon 64. Intel stuck with Netburst for way too long. It depends how you define advantage, though. Since Netburst was a great marchitecture, it sold pretty well due to its high clock speeds. AMD actually never jumped ahead of Intel in market share. I also wouldn't say that they "dominate" the low-mid range market. When you get down to <$100 processors, the difference between an Intel processor and an AMD one with similar performance is only maybe a $10 difference. Still, the Phenom II series offers great bang for the buck.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> No, the cpu die is no where close to filling up the entire chip, in fact, you could probably fit all the magny cours dies onto a single AM3 sized chip, but unlike the previous non monolithic dies used, in essence, each cpu die has a dedicated set of pins for power/data, which is why the socket is nearly twice the size of a standard socket. The octa core processors use two quad cores, and the dodeca core processors have two hex core dies.


Thanks for the info bomber. :good: I've seemed to be wrong about things a lot today when it comes to CPUs.  Does the manufacturing size of the CPU determine how large the die is, though? For example, could you fit more 22nm cores on a die than 32nm ones?


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> Well I guess you could kinda consider it an advantage. I've accidentally bent the pins on a CPU a couple of times. LONG STORY.  It is undeniable that AMD had the advantage with the Athlon 64. Intel stuck with Netburst for way too long. It depends how you define advantage, though. Since Netburst was a great marchitecture, it sold pretty well due to its high clock speeds. AMD actually never jumped ahead of Intel in market share. I also wouldn't say that they "dominate" the low-mid range market. When you get down to <$100 processors, the difference between an Intel processor and an AMD one with similar performance is only maybe a $10 difference. Still, the Phenom II series offers great bang for the buck.


Well, netburst was never a great architecture, the pipeline was FAR too long, which reduced instructions per clock, and really killed performance. I remember when the P4 was released, clock for clock, the Pentium 3 was faster. 


spynoodle said:


> Thanks for the info bomber. :good: I've seemed to be wrong about things a lot today when it comes to CPUs.  Does the manufacturing size of the CPU determine how large the die is, though? For example, could you fit more 22nm cores on a die than 32nm ones?



Manufacturing size just determines overall size of the transistors, which in turn allow the size of the die to be smaller. The size of the die is not really as important as is power consumption and such, although a smaller die allows more processors to be fit onto a single wafer. The die is the actual piece of silicon that is the processor, so in a sense, yes you could fit more 22nm cores, however with each evolving architecture the number of transistors increases, which means that core sizes stay relatively similar.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> Well, netburst was never a great architecture, the pipeline was FAR too long, which reduced instructions per clock, and really killed performance. I remember when the P4 was released, clock for clock, the Pentium 3 was faster.


I didn't say it was a good architecture, I said it was a great _marchitecture_, which means that although it wasn't that great it got a decent market share for its high clock speeds. Thanks for the info on the manufacturing size! :good:


----------



## StrangleHold

spynoodle said:


> which means that although it wasn't that great it got a decent market share for its high clock speeds. Thanks for the info on the manufacturing size! :good:


 
Now you know thats not the reason Intel kept its market share for 6 years making slower clock for clock prosessors what even ran hot. Look what happen to AMD the last 4 years doing the same thing.

Unfair business practices ring a bell. Paying off AMD 1.25 billion by passing up going to court with them. Being found guilty court case after court case. Intel threatened almost all manufacturers with retaliation if they even thought of using more % of AMD processors.


----------



## Method9

spynoodle said:


> No, I remember reading that they're going to put it on a socket called (or at least codenamed) AM3r2, but that any CPUs for AM3r2 won't be compatible with AM2 or AM2+. Only AM3. It's because Bulldozer is going to drop a ddr2 memory controller.



I wonder if the 1055T/1090T is going to become the CPU of desire in a few years for those still running AM3 mobos, kind of like how this is reflected in the overinflated prices on used Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 939 CPUs.


----------



## spynoodle

Method9 said:


> I wonder if the 1055T/1090T is going to become the CPU of desire in a few years for those still running AM3 mobos, kind of like how this is reflected in the overinflated prices on used Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 939 CPUs.


Probably not, since you should still be able to use Bulldozer on AM3. I know what you mean, though. With Intel there are also a bunch of examples: Pentium D for motherboards that don't support C2D, socket 478 Pentium 4s, etc.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Method9 said:


> I wonder if the 1055T/1090T is going to become the CPU of desire in a few years for those still running AM3 mobos, kind of like how this is reflected in the overinflated prices on used Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 939 CPUs.




not sure...i still want a 4800+ tho...would be nice to wake up my old 939 board with the 4000+ in it tho...


----------



## Stildawn

I just heard this in regards to Bulldozer:



> Bulldozer. It is going to be 9 cores with the 9th (central) core controlling the other 8. The 9th core will be 128-bit and the rest are 64-bit cores.


----------



## mihir

what do they mean 9th controlling the other


----------



## spynoodle

mihir said:


> what do they mean 9th controlling the other


It sounds almost like the PS3's Cell processor to me, but kind of backwards. Maybe an advanced clocking system that utilizes highly overclocked speeds on specific cores when others are inactive? A sort of advanced turbo boost. I wouldn't think you would need an entire core for that though. Sounds pretty cool, though.


----------



## StrangleHold

I have no idea what they are talking about, link would be nice!

The first Bulldozer desktop will be called Zambezi. Suppost to be a 4/8 and 8/16 core, because each core has two 128-bit FMAC with two sets of pipelines. Hyperthreading on steroids.


----------



## spynoodle

StrangleHold said:


> I have no idea what they are talking about, link would be nice!
> 
> The first Bulldozer desktop will be called Zambezi. Suppost to be a 4/8 and 8/16 core, because each core has two 128-bit FMAC with two sets of pipelines. Hyperthreading on steroids.


So instead of splitting the pipeline it has two separate pipelines? Guessing that's going to give performance close to multiple physical cores. I would think that would make a major handicap on clock speeds, wouldn't it? You could probably overclock it easily to significantly higher speeds if you disable the multithreading. Probably would be great for if you don't need more than a couple threads.


----------



## StrangleHold

From what I understand both FMAC and pipelines can process a single thread or two. Each has its own L1 but share the L2 cache


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> So instead of splitting the pipeline it has two separate pipelines? Guessing that's going to give performance close to multiple physical cores. I would think that would make a major handicap on clock speeds, wouldn't it? You could probably overclock it easily to significantly higher speeds if you disable the multithreading. Probably would be great for if you don't need more than a couple threads.



All modern CPU's have multiple pipelines, there are 4 pipelines for each of the two "cores" however. The first cpu's to market will be 8 core processors (with four bulldozer modules, so its not a true 8 core, somewhat of a pseudo 8 core).




StrangleHold said:


> I have no idea what they are talking about, link would be nice!
> 
> The first Bulldozer desktop will be called Zambezi. Suppost to be a 4/8 and 8/16 core, because each core has two 128-bit FMAC with two sets of pipelines. Hyperthreading on steroids.


In technical terms....bulldozer uses the exact opposite of what hyperthreading is.


----------



## Stildawn

I heard it from some guy who claims to know a guy who has a chip (works for AMD or something) who let that info slip in a convo... And regreted it immediately cause hes under a NDA..

So saying that... It could all be BS... But you never know... It does sound interesting... And why is it 128bit... Some people have suggested that the 9th core is a dedicated single thread app core... but I dont think that really makes sense...


----------



## StrangleHold

bomberboysk said:


> The first cpu's to market will be 8 core processors (with four bulldozer modules, so its not a true 8 core, somewhat of a pseudo 8 core).


 
Pretty sure that has changed. At first I think people thought a module was going to be counted by AMD as 2 cores. So two modules would be a 4 core. 

Pretty sure that has changed and AMD is counting a module as a single core. 

_Think of each twin Integer core Bulldozer module as a single unit_

I took that to mean that my assumption was correct and 4 Bulldozer cores meant 4 Bulldozer modules

link
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2881


----------



## bomberboysk

StrangleHold said:


> Pretty sure that has changed. At first I think people thought a module was going to be counted by AMD as 2 cores. So two modules would be a 4 core.
> 
> Pretty sure that has changed and AMD is counting a module as a single core.
> 
> _Think of each twin Integer core Bulldozer module as a single unit_
> 
> I took that to mean that my assumption was correct and 4 Bulldozer cores meant 4 Bulldozer modules
> 
> link
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/2881



"bulldozer core" is the same as "bulldozer module", but it will be marketed as an 8 "core" from what i have seen.




Stildawn said:


> I heard it from some guy who claims to know a guy who has a chip (works for AMD or something) who let that info slip in a convo... And regreted it immediately cause hes under a NDA..
> 
> So saying that... It could all be BS... But you never know... It does sound interesting... And why is it 128bit... Some people have suggested that the 9th core is a dedicated single thread app core... but I dont think that really makes sense...


I would highly doubt that, considering the fab that will be making bulldozer chips isnt even operational yet AFAIK.


----------



## StrangleHold

http://en.fah-addict.net/news/news-0-141+amd-s-bulldozer-revisited.php


----------



## Stildawn

> I would highly doubt that, considering the fab that will be making bulldozer chips isnt even operational yet AFAIK.



Having the actual chip may not be right lol. Ill have to go re read, perhaps it was just "in the know lol"


----------



## bomberboysk

Stildawn said:


> Having the actual chip may not be right lol. Ill have to go re read, perhaps it was just "in the know lol"



Well, unless he is an AMD employee or employee of a motherboard manufacturer...i'd still be skeptical, as AMD is nowhere near as giving when it comes to information or ES chips as intel is.


----------



## Stildawn

> ES chips



Thats what he said lol...

But yeah like I said, could all be BS, who knows. Just thought Id share.


----------



## bomberboysk

Stildawn said:


> Thats what he said lol...
> 
> But yeah like I said, could all be BS, who knows. Just thought Id share.



I would quite think so, when's the last time you saw an ES chip from amd on the open market? Pretty much never, as only a very select few ever get their hands on ES's from AMD.


----------



## Remeniz

So which platform is worth investing in now? The i7 and X58 or Phenom and AM3?


----------



## spynoodle

Remeniz said:


> So which platform is worth investing in now? The i7 and X58 or Phenom and AM3?


Well.... you already chose X58, right? I would have to say AM3. Supposedly AM3 will support Bulldozer, which is supposed to be a lot faster than Nehalem. It depends, though. If you don't need anything faster than the i7 then you might want X58. If you want to upgrade in the future, though, since Intel is coming out with socket 2011 you'll be out of luck. You might just want to get an AM3 mobo with a Phenom II X6. Honestly, I would choose neither at this point. You may as well wait half a year until the next generation of processors by Intel and AMD come out, so we can see for sure which is the better choice. For me personally,  I don't need a upgrade. I'm not a gamer, and my C2Q gives me plenty of performance to spare. I don't need an upgrade until my computer can't run VB and the cheapest version of Windows that still gets updates. Up until last year I was running a Pentium III 800MHz. I seriously needed an upgrade.


----------



## Remeniz

spynoodle said:


> Well.... you already chose X58, right? I would have to say AM3. Supposedly AM3 will support Bulldozer, which is supposed to be a lot faster than Nehalem. It depends, though. If you don't need anything faster than the i7 then you might want X58. If you want to upgrade in the future, though, since Intel is coming out with socket 2011 you'll be out of luck. You might just want to get an AM3 mobo with a Phenom II X6. Honestly, I would choose neither at this point. You may as well wait half a year until the next generation of processors by Intel and AMD come out, so we can see for sure which is the better choice. For me personally,  I don't need a upgrade. I'm not a gamer, and my C2Q gives me plenty of performance to spare. I don't need an upgrade until my computer can't run VB and the cheapest version of Windows that still gets updates. Up until last year I was running a Pentium III 800MHz. I seriously needed an upgrade.



Yea i'm not upgrading anytime soon, I got plenty power for a while yet. I was just asking cause a few have suggested AMD platforms after i've recommended Intel platforms suggesting that the AMD setup is more future proof.

To be fair this rig will last me at least 2/3 years.


----------



## FuryRosewood

no kidding, honestly so much in the air right now, i wouldnt put any cash on either, from an upgrade path perspective, id look at am3 but as far as how intel has been handing it clock per clock against amd, and i was willing to wait, id just wait, and grab intel when the price settles to a reasonable level/bugs get worked out


----------



## spynoodle

Did you guys here Paul Otellini's comment on Sandy Bridge?


> I am more excited about Sandy Bridge than I have been about any product that the company has launched in a number of years.


Link to one of the articles about it here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20010470-64.html
Seems like Intel's really excited about it. Otellini could just be trying to produce hype, and it could actually be really bad, but who knows? Maybe it's going to be better than I first expected.


----------



## El Gappo

StrangleHold said:


> http://en.fah-addict.net/news/news-0-141+amd-s-bulldozer-revisited.php



That's legit info. I think he grabbed it straight from the server rep on OCN forums lol. 

The first one will be the 4module/8threaded cpu for desktops with the 8/16 going straight into the servers. It will be out early next year which sucks for forum wars but they've mentioned early Q1 and it's not beyond AMD to release it early to make the last quarter look better ala 5*** series release. We might see 2010 after all. 

I just want to know how it will handle super pi if I'm honest


----------



## 87dtna

I doubt bulldozer will see 2010.  I also still doubt it will be compatable AM3.  If it is compatable with AM3, I predict a serious let down on the performance.  Similar to that of the original gtx400 fermi's when first released which were suppose to ''crush'' the 5k series of ATI.
AMD needs a full revamp of architecture and a new socket, having compatability with old hardware I think keeps their new products from performing well.  I heard awhile back that bulldozer really needs more than 938 pins.  I mean look at intel, they have 1366 pins for a reason.  So again, I think it's gonna be a huge performance let down compared to even nehalam let alone sandy bridge if it remains compatable with AM3.


----------



## El Gappo

Yeah.. They have clearly said 2011 numerous times but you can't help but dream  

It's going to be AM3r2 whatever that is.. No missing pins maybe? Backwards compatibility with am3 cpu's on the new board but no bulls on the old boards I'm guessing.


----------



## spynoodle

El Gappo said:


> Yeah.. They have clearly said 2011 numerous times but you can't help but dream
> 
> It's going to be AM3r2 whatever that is.. No missing pins maybe? Backwards compatibility with am3 cpu's on the new board but no bulls on the old boards I'm guessing.


Well, even 941 pins (that's the max, right? Is it 942?) isn't much better than 938.


----------



## El Gappo

God knows. Could not even be square


----------



## StrangleHold

All I know is, AMD is being shut mouthed about it ths time. Not runing their mouth like they did with the Phenom I, then turned out to be nothing but 4 brisbane cores on a monolith chip. So maybe its a good sign.


----------



## 87dtna

El Gappo said:


> God knows. Could not even be square




LOL, I'd love to see a round CPU.....or maybe an octagon would be cool  




StrangleHold said:


> All I know is, AMD is being shut mouthed about it ths time. Not runing their mouth like they did with the Phenom I, then turned out to be nothing but 4 brisbane cores on a monolith chip. So maybe its a good sign.



Yeah maybe, but I doubt it.  I've lost faith in AMD.


----------



## spynoodle

87dtna said:


> LOL, I'd love to see a round CPU.....or maybe an octagon would be cool


Well, with Magny Cours we've got rectangle down *checks off of list of odd shapes*  I would personally love a triangle.


----------



## FuryRosewood

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwa...mpaign=Feed:+bit-tech/all+(bit-tech.net+feed)

...ouch looks like OCing on sandy bridge will be pretty damn near impossible except for unlocked multi chips


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah thats only for socket 1155 versions, first sentence on there.


----------



## spynoodle

87dtna said:


> Yeah thats only for socket 1155 versions, first sentence on there.


But do you know how much that still sucks? Socket 1155 = ALL CHEAP VERSIONS OF THE CHIP TILL MID 2011!!! I'm pissed now. Part of the whole reason a lot of us buy Intel is because of their superior overclockability! What's this crap all about????? If they hate overclocking this bad then apparently they hate profits too, because they're not going to get a lot pulling this kind of crap.


----------



## 87dtna

True.  We'll just have to stick with the I7's until prices come down on the good stuff.  I don't see I7's being obsolete for several years yet.

The way I see it, having so many cores is like having 50mb/s internet service.  Sure you have the possibility of downloading that fast, but you are limited by the server you are downloading from anyway.  Same thing with cores.  We have CPU's with 6 cores now, soon 8 soon 12.....but nothing except our CPU benching tests utilizes more than 4 cores right now anyway and for awhile yet as tons of things can't even utilize more than a dual core right now.  An I7 is still fairly futureproof at this point.


----------



## StrangleHold

Almost hilarious


----------



## Twist86

Easy to fix this issue...don't buy the chips the limit and they will stop asap. Liter all the sites with this info to help idiot buyers to not buy them.


----------



## spynoodle

87dtna said:


> True.  We'll just have to stick with the I7's until prices come down on the good stuff.  I don't see I7's being obsolete for several years yet.
> 
> The way I see it, having so many cores is like having 50mb/s internet service.  Sure you have the possibility of downloading that fast, but you are limited by the server you are downloading from anyway.  Same thing with cores.  We have CPU's with 6 cores now, soon 8 soon 12.....but nothing except our CPU benching tests utilizes more than 4 cores right now anyway and for awhile yet as tons of things can't even utilize more than a dual core right now.  An I7 is still fairly futureproof at this point.


I'm still pissed, though. What would possess them to do this? They've kept market dominance for around half a decade and they think somehow disabling overclocking will help them? Who comes up with this &&*^*&^*&^!!!!!?????


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> I'm still pissed, though. What would possess them to do this? They've kept market dominance for around half a decade and they think somehow disabling overclocking will help them? Who comes up with this &&*^*&^*&^!!!!!?????



The enthusiast market is only a small amount of their business. Intel is banking on having the better chip and being able to beat amd clock for clock, plus intel is a master at marketing, just look at netburst.


----------



## Drenlin

I'm going to laugh if Bulldozer somehow ends up wiping the floor with them. AMD's chipsets are currently much better for enthusiast builders(imo), so if overclocking is gone and Bulldozer is faster, they may very well lose that whole market. Not that it would hurt them much, but still...


----------



## 87dtna

How exactly are AMD's chipsets better?  And what are you smokin?


----------



## FairDoos

jarlmaster47 said:


> well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever



Lol fail fan boy you have no idea what your talking about no shoo..


----------



## Twist86

spynoodle said:


> I'm still pissed, though. What would possess them to do this? They've kept market dominance for around half a decade and they think somehow disabling overclocking will help them? Who comes up with this &&*^*&^*&^!!!!!?????



Greed and the fact AMD can't touch them yet. The only solution is to make sure Sandy bombs on sales but sadly the overclocking market vs main stream is tiny in comparison. Its like the graphic vs gameplay...most of us that remember GREAT games want gamplay but the mainstream want graphics more then anything.


I plan to go AMD next upgrade...but that will be 2 years easily and I might overclock to 3.6ghz to stretch it longer if possible.


----------



## FuryRosewood

bomberboysk said:


> The enthusiast market is only a small amount of their business. Intel is banking on having the better chip and being able to beat amd clock for clock, plus intel is a master at marketing, just look at netburst.


their going for rock solid reliability, as usual, and to be totally honest, i think this is probably a good way to ensure data gets in and out of the machine intact...


----------



## Twist86

FuryRosewood said:


> their going for rock solid reliability, as usual, and to be totally honest, i think this is probably a good way to ensure data gets in and out of the machine intact...



I am sorry mind rephrasing that for me because overclocking does nothing to data going in and out of the machine as long as its stable.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Twist86 said:


> I am sorry mind rephrasing that for me because overclocking does nothing to data going in and out of the machine as long as its stable.



not sure how to explain it, but i do know when i have overclocked my video cards, i got massive bus noise over my onboard sound, which was a way of what goes in, isnt always what comes out...which is why i stay stock from now on, at least video card wise, not sure if the cpu has any issues there...but there may be a possibility there. mainly with a overclock id be afraid of running any software based raid configurations, even if its stable, id be afraid of some sort of noise somewhere messing with things. i think this is why intel is tying everything together.


----------



## Remeniz

FuryRosewood said:


> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwa...mpaign=Feed:+bit-tech/all+(bit-tech.net+feed)
> 
> ...ouch looks like OCing on sandy bridge will be pretty damn near impossible except for unlocked multi chips



Yea I read that but like they say, I reckon Intel will force the OC enthusiast to buy the premium chips.



> their going for rock solid reliability, as usual, and to be totally honest, i think this is probably a good way to ensure data gets in and out of the machine intact...



Nothing to do with ensuring safe data throughput; any data corrucption will usually give a BSOD, freeze or some kind of error. An OC can be just as stable as stock speeds.


----------



## StrangleHold

FuryRosewood said:


> their going for rock solid reliability, as usual, and to be totally honest, i think this is probably a good way to ensure data gets in and out of the machine intact...


 
Thats not it at all. 98% of their market share is OEM anyway. Which means no overclocking options the the bios. Its all about money. If your a enthuthiast (build your own) and want a higher clocked CPU, there going to make you pay for it. Plain and simple!


----------



## FuryRosewood

recanting what ive said about the chipset design, according to the rep sources that was being told to the reseller i know, the design is to get overclockers to buy more expensive CPUs, and thats a freaking joke...looks like this may be intel's vista, in a way


----------



## Twist86

FuryRosewood said:


> not sure how to explain it, but i do know when i have overclocked my video cards, i got massive bus noise over my onboard sound, which was a way of what goes in, isnt always what comes out...which is why i stay stock from now on, at least video card wise, not sure if the cpu has any issues there...but there may be a possibility there. mainly with a overclock id be afraid of running any software based raid configurations, even if its stable, id be afraid of some sort of noise somewhere messing with things. i think this is why intel is tying everything together.



Ah I see thanks for clarifying that. I personally think they are just getting greedy.
I mean Q6600 = 2.4ghz stock most get 3.2ghz-3.6ghz out of it. I7 people get 4.0ghz out of it thus they sell less $600 chips because the $250 does the same thing.

But who knows.....I do know I wont buy it and will go with AMD unless they also do it (which is highly doubtful)


----------



## FuryRosewood

according to the rep twist, thats exactly what it is, theres no reason for this right now other then them wanting clockers to buy their ExtremelyExpensive chips


----------



## maroon1

Those who say that Sandy-bridge can't overclock are very wrong. All Sandy-bridge CPUs are going to overclock. But the ones that don't have fully unlocked multi are going to have limited overclocking ability








As you see above, intel is going to make sandybridge CPUs with either partially unlocked multi, or with fully unlocked multi (like i7 875K). 

You can overclock the ones with partially unlocked multi, but there are going to be a limit. (for example you could overclock to 4.5GHz, but you won't able to go any higher)

On the other hand the ones with fully unlocked multi won't have any limited overclocking ability


----------



## ScottALot

Hey, ATi pulled a fast one on nVidia, I think AMD could do the same to intel. However, the whole "lets add more cores" thing seems a little immature. You can relate having more cores to having more GPUs in a system sometimes, and I think this is one of those times. Lets say there's one rig with 4 5770s in CFX and another with two 5870s in CFX. I don't have any numbers, but my bet's on the 5870s because they're better cards and having two of them means that each one should be worth the investment. The 5770s on the other hand, will have issues with getting info across the cards fast enough, so minimal performance improvements will be seen. If the Bulldozers could completely shut off some cores if you chose to, that would be pretty cool because you'd get a better cross-core efficiency and if you were doing something like video rendering then you could turn on all of them and get the rendering done fast, but you'd have to be ready for heat. The Sandy Bridge idea is pretty cool, bringing the power of a quad-core to the average user, but that's just improving off of the Phenom II X4s or Athlon II X4s. Recently, AMD has been improving on Intel's ideas brought to the table. For example, after the Core2Quads came the Phenom II X4s (and maybe the Athlons too?) and with intel's 980X release came the 1090T and the 1055T. Now AMD has been thinking about their own version of HT which I don't have a link to, but that sounds interesting... However, this generation coming up seems to be AMD's time to shine.


----------



## linkin

I'll wait for benchmarks. everything up to this point is just rumours and speculation.

EDIT: and hopefully AMD will beat intel this round in overall performance.


----------



## takeulo

justinmmm690 said:


> You know that LGA stands for Land Grid Array right?  It's not something to be compared.  It just states that the motherboard has the pins rather than the CPU.  AMD did beat Intel for a while.  In the P4 era, AMD had better processors.  AMD still dominates the low-mid range CPU market.



yes i agree even in price for performance basis AMD still the best choice so why i'll lacerate my pocket just to buy an expensive one  "INTEL   eww".  i dont care about the benchmarks when it comes to performance but im basing it on what i've experienced AMD is more efficient and stable.


----------



## 87dtna

I have no idea how you guys think AMD dominates the mid-low end market.  Everything AMD has Intel has a similar price equivalant thats stronger.  Intel's also overclock higher everytime, but typically clock for clock intel is faster anyway on all it's equivalents.

Case in point-

Athlon II 250 VS E5300

Phenom II 555 VS I3 530

Phenom II 965 VS I5 750

Phenom II 1090T VS I7 930


In every case here, the intel can overclock higher, is WAY faster in single threaded apps, and will win clock for clock in 99% of multithreaded apps.

The only thing AMD has on intel is the Athlon II quads, which aren't that great for gaming because of the lack of L3 cache.  And honestly, I'd rather have an I3 than an Athlon II quad anyday.


----------



## Ethan3.14159

87dtna said:


> I have no idea how you guys think AMD dominates the mid-low end market.  Everything AMD has Intel has a similar price equivalant thats stronger.  Intel's also overclock higher everytime, but typically clock for clock intel is faster anyway on all it's equivalents.
> 
> Case in point-
> 
> Athlon II 250 VS E5300
> 
> Phenom II 555 VS I3 530
> 
> Phenom II 965 VS I5 750
> 
> Phenom II 1090T VS I7 930
> 
> 
> In every case here, the intel can overclock higher, is WAY faster in single threaded apps, and will win clock for clock in 99% of multithreaded apps.
> 
> The only thing AMD has on intel is the Athlon II quads, which aren't that great for gaming because of the lack of L3 cache.  And honestly, I'd rather have an I3 than an Athlon II quad anyday.


AMD actually does dominate the low-mid range market. Cheaper motherboards and cheaper CPU's. Low to mid-range AMD motherboards have far better features than the equivalent Intel boards. Better integrated video, more connectivity via firewire, usb, etc. Who gives a shit about gaming or overclocking? Not many people still game on PC's, and even fewer overclock. Intel dominates the higher end market, but that's not where the money is made. Intel still makes loads of money from strong-arming OEM's like HP and Dell into buying their CPU's, and their domination of the mobile market.

I don't see intel offering quad cores for ~$100 US or 6 cores for $200.


----------



## FuryRosewood

linkin said:


> I'll wait for benchmarks. everything up to this point is just rumours and speculation.



Couldn't agree more, right now its just hearsay at this point.

And at this point both AMD and Intel have Spots in the low to mid sector, doesnt mean they have to have the same number of cores, just means they have products of similar performance in the same price range. Yes some intel boards are more expensive, but there are also those that are not, same can be said for some amd based boards. Right now with competition how it is, its basically coming down to what side of the fence you want to be on really.


----------



## bomberboysk

87dtna said:


> I have no idea how you guys think AMD dominates the mid-low end market.  Everything AMD has Intel has a similar price equivalant thats stronger.  Intel's also overclock higher everytime, but typically clock for clock intel is faster anyway on all it's equivalents.
> 
> Case in point-
> 
> Athlon II 250 VS E5300
> 
> Phenom II 555 VS I3 530
> 
> Phenom II 965 VS I5 750
> 
> Phenom II 1090T VS I7 930
> 
> 
> In every case here, the intel can overclock higher, is WAY faster in single threaded apps, and will win clock for clock in 99% of multithreaded apps.
> 
> The only thing AMD has on intel is the Athlon II quads, which aren't that great for gaming because of the lack of L3 cache.  And honestly, I'd rather have an I3 than an Athlon II quad anyday.



Lets See here.

Athlon II 250 VS E5300 -> Yes, intel wins this one in speed. However then you factor in that 775 is EOL, 775 motherboards cost more feature for feature, and AMD starts to become the better value. Plus i've seen some great overclocks from both of the chips, in this case i wouldnt really consider the E5300 to be a better overclocker. Check CPU-Z for both chips on hwbot, the athlon II 250 has higher CPU-Z validations.

Phenom II 555 VS I3 530 -> In that scenario, sure intel wins. How about perhaps the Athlon II X4 630 though, which will beat out the I3 530 in any multithreaded app.

Phenom II 965 VS I5 750 -> Not really processors that i would consider low to mid end, starting to get a bit higher end so intel obviously is gonna win there. As far as overclocking though, on HWBOT the top Phenom II nets nearly 1.5Ghz higher clocks than the i5 750.

Phenom II 1090T vs I7 930 -> Not to mention the fact that the 1055T overclocks just as well, yet is $100 less than the 1090T, i'd say AMD wins price/performance. Not to mention that in any heavily multithreaded app the 1090T outperforms the 930. Also the fact that AM3 boards are far cheaper than 1366 boards. This is one case where AMD shines at the higher end. And again with overclocking, take a look at CPU-Z validations on HWBOT, higher clocks than the intel 920 or 930.

Which, reiterates the point that AMD is better in the value sector. Especially considering the fact someone can go out and buy an AM3 Sempron and a cheap motherboard, and when they get the cash drop in a 1055T hex core. With intel you have no such option in the value sector because of how they like to have multiple sockets. And yes, i know the HWBOT CPU-Z validations i used as source in overclocking were under dice/LN2/lhe, however you simply stated overclocking, which would include extreme overclocking. On air i have seen both chips net similar results to each other, although intel does take the edge on air. Soon as you get into sub ambient though, AMD processors really start to shine.


----------



## 87dtna

I'm glad you mentioned the fact that HWBOT high scores are LN2 mostly.  You are talking low to mid end cpu's here, LN2 never entered my thoughts.  On air, intel absolutely dominates.  Now that AMD have C3's, that has helped a TON.  Most amd's struggle to hit 4ghz on air, almost any new intel chip easily hits 4ghz.  And remember, most intel chips start out at lower clocks than the AMD in the first place.

Yes like I said the Athlon II quads are AMD's strong point in the intel VS amd battle.  However, like I said intel way overclocks better.  My I3 would hit 4.6ghz at 1.3625 Vcore, I'd like to run that against a 3.8ghz 630 and see the results.  I bet the margin of difference would be very little in 4 threaded benches.

The 1055t does not overclock as well as the 1090t on air cooling.  The 1055t struggles to hit 3.8-4ghz, most 1090t's can easily do 4.2ghz.  

You talk about multithreaded apps, when 95% of apps are single threaded which intel dominates at.  

And I don't really understand your thoughts on motherboard pricing.  Any sub- $80 is crap whether it be intel or AMD.  1366 boards are expensive yes, but then again the cheapest 1366 board has as much or more features than the most 790FX AM3 boards.

Also, the ICH10R is STILL superior to the SB850, and the ICH10R has been out for years kicking the crap out of the SB750.


----------



## bomberboysk

87dtna said:


> I'm glad you mentioned the fact that HWBOT high scores are LN2 mostly.  You are talking low to mid end cpu's here, LN2 never entered my thoughts.  On air, intel absolutely dominates.  Now that AMD have C3's, that has helped a TON.  Most amd's struggle to hit 4ghz on air, almost any new intel chip easily hits 4ghz.  And remember, most intel chips start out at lower clocks than the AMD in the first place.
> 
> Yes like I said the Athlon II quads are AMD's strong point in the intel VS amd battle.  However, like I said intel way overclocks better.  My I3 would hit 4.6ghz at 1.3625 Vcore, I'd like to run that against a 3.8ghz 630 and see the results.  I bet the margin of difference would be very little in 4 threaded benches.
> 
> The 1055t does not overclock as well as the 1090t on air cooling.  The 1055t struggles to hit 3.8-4ghz, most 1090t's can easily do 4.2ghz.
> 
> You talk about multithreaded apps, when 95% of apps are single threaded which intel dominates at.
> 
> And I don't really understand your thoughts on motherboard pricing.  Any sub- $80 is crap whether it be intel or AMD.  1366 boards are expensive yes, but then again the cheapest 1366 board has as much or more features than the most 790FX AM3 boards.
> 
> Also, the ICH10R is STILL superior to the SB850, and the ICH10R has been out for years kicking the crap out of the SB750.



All valid points, but the one thing about motherboard pricing i do have a few things to say. I have seen some quite good motherboards for sub $100 that feature for feature beat out most 1156 boards for the price. Also, as far as multithreaded apps, more and more apps are becoming multithreaded so it does add a bit of "futureproofing".


----------



## 87dtna

True true, but the best feature most of all IMO is that most decent 1156 and all 1366 boards can do both Xfire and SLI.  To me, thats worth $20-30 more alone.


----------



## spynoodle

87dtna said:


> And remember, most intel chips start out at lower clocks than the AMD in the first place.


I know this isn't what you're saying, but I actually have been wondering if Intel makes a larger barrier between what clock speed its chips can handle and what they clock them at compared to AMD. For example, I could EASILY run my Pentium 4 520 with 2.8 GHz stock at 3.2GHz without a voltage bump. Is this just some stupid thought or is it an actual possibility?


----------



## linkin

It's all the standards for voltages they set. Each chip runs at a similar voltage at a rated speed, you could safely overclock the chip without bumping voltage or you could undervolt the system at the same speed.


----------



## 87dtna

spynoodle said:


> I know this isn't what you're saying, but I actually have been wondering if Intel makes a larger barrier between what clock speed its chips can handle and what they clock them at compared to AMD. For example, I could EASILY run my Pentium 4 520 with 2.8 GHz stock at 3.2GHz without a voltage bump. Is this just some stupid thought or is it an actual possibility?



I'm not really sure what you are even asking here.

I had an E3200 celeron dual core, which is 2.4ghz stock, overclock to 3.4ghz on stock voltage and got it to 4.2ghz on air cooling.


----------



## spynoodle

87dtna said:


> I'm not really sure what you are even asking here.
> 
> I had an E3200 celeron dual core, which is 2.4ghz stock, overclock to 3.4ghz on stock voltage and got it to 4.2ghz on air cooling.


What I'm trying to say is that I think Intel is more conservative when it comes to clock speeds than AMD is. It seems like you can easily overclock an Intel CPU several hundred MHz above stock speed at its stock voltage. Do they just clock them lower for stability? Why don't they just clock it higher to begin with?


----------



## Mez

Blurredman said:


> 12 cores, efficient or not sounds pretty damn better than 1



I feel you my one core brother.


----------



## 87dtna

spynoodle said:


> What I'm trying to say is that I think Intel is more conservative when it comes to clock speeds than AMD is. It seems like you can easily overclock an Intel CPU several hundred MHz above stock speed at its stock voltage. Do they just clock them lower for stability? Why don't they just clock it higher to begin with?



Oh I see what you are saying.

Well I'm not really sure why they do that.  Longevity is a concern, less heat, intel is typically faster clock for clock than the comparable AMD so they don't have to run as high of clocks, and of course it just makes them look better having a higher % of overclock across the board.


----------



## spynoodle

87dtna said:


> Oh I see what you are saying.
> 
> Well I'm not really sure why they do that.  Longevity is a concern, less heat, intel is typically faster clock for clock than the comparable AMD so they don't have to run as high of clocks, and of course it just makes them look better having a higher % of overclock across the board.


True. A CPU will still consume more power and give off more heat when it's overclocked, stock volts or not, right?


----------



## 87dtna

Yup.


----------



## bomberboysk

ScottALot said:


> Hey, ATi pulled a fast one on nVidia, I think AMD could do the same to intel. However, the whole "lets add more cores" thing seems a little immature. You can relate having more cores to having more GPUs in a system sometimes, and I think this is one of those times. Lets say there's one rig with 4 5770s in CFX and another with two 5870s in CFX. I don't have any numbers, but my bet's on the 5870s because they're better cards and having two of them means that each one should be worth the investment. The 5770s on the other hand, will have issues with getting info across the cards fast enough, so minimal performance improvements will be seen. If the Bulldozers could completely shut off some cores if you chose to, that would be pretty cool because you'd get a better cross-core efficiency and if you were doing something like video rendering then you could turn on all of them and get the rendering done fast, but you'd have to be ready for heat. The Sandy Bridge idea is pretty cool, bringing the power of a quad-core to the average user, but that's just improving off of the Phenom II X4s or Athlon II X4s. Recently, AMD has been improving on Intel's ideas brought to the table. For example, after the Core2Quads came the Phenom II X4s (and maybe the Athlons too?) and with intel's 980X release came the 1090T and the 1055T. Now AMD has been thinking about their own version of HT which I don't have a link to, but that sounds interesting... However, this generation coming up seems to be AMD's time to shine.



1) AMD's "Version" of HT is nothing like HT, in fact, its the exact opposite of hyperthreading electrically speaking.

2) More cores is the future, more and more applications are making use of multithreading. We have reached the clockspeed limits pretty much.

3) There isnt gonna be much heat at idle, its the same way current chips are, they will have cool and quiet to downclock when at idle if you so choose.


----------



## ScottALot

bomberboysk said:


> 1) AMD's "Version" of HT is nothing like HT, in fact, its the exact opposite of hyperthreading electrically speaking.
> 
> 2) More cores is the future, more and more applications are making use of multithreading. We have reached the clockspeed limits pretty much.
> 
> 3) There isnt gonna be much heat at idle, its the same way current chips are, they will have cool and quiet to downclock when at idle if you so choose.



Also have you noticed the format of the CPUs between AMD and Intel? Intel had a heat spreader while AMD had none and Intel had pads instead of pins while AMD still had pins, but now they have pads.


----------



## bomberboysk

ScottALot said:


> Also have you noticed the format of the CPUs between AMD and Intel? Intel had a heat spreader while AMD had none and Intel had pads instead of pins while AMD still had pins, but now they have pads.



The IHS did nothing to improve thermal performance, if anything it hurt thermal performance. Intel only came out with the IHS to help prevent cracking of the die.

Intel also went with LGA vs PGA as it is cheaper to produce an LGA processor. I for one prefer PGA as the pins are much more sturdy than the LGA pins for sockets 775/1366/1156/etc, as LGA pins are much more fragile than PGA pins.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> Intel also went with LGA vs PGA as it is cheaper to produce an LGA processor. I for one prefer PGA as the pins are much more sturdy than the LGA pins for sockets 775/1366/1156/etc, as LGA pins are much more fragile than PGA pins.


Yeah, but you've never bent pins on a processor before. *shudder*


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> Yeah, but you've never bent pins on a processor before. *shudder*



I've seen plenty of bent pins, i have a little tool i made to straighten the pins actually(small metal tube), much easier than trying to bend the "pins" of an lga socket back into place, darn near impossible.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> I've seen plenty of bent pins, i have a little tool i made to straighten the pins actually(small metal tube), much easier than trying to bend the "pins" of an lga socket back into place, darn near impossible.


Very true. I'm lucky that I've never had to deal with that (yet). You should market that tool, btw. Could've saved me a LOT of hassle last September.


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> Very true. I'm lucky that I've never had to deal with that (yet). You should market that tool, btw. Could've saved me a LOT of hassle last September.



Haha, its not hard to make, just get a small hollow metal rod at your local hardware or hobby store.


----------



## spynoodle

bomberboysk said:


> Haha, its not hard to make, just get a small hollow metal rod at your local hardware or hobby store.


You could make some money off of it, though. If someone can sell the plastic microwave pasta maker then you can sell the CPU pin unbender. I can see the commercial now....*man tries to unbend pins, ends up snapping CPU in half. Uses metal rod and fixes it perfectly. Smiles contently*


----------



## bomberboysk

spynoodle said:


> You could make some money off of it, though. If someone can sell the plastic microwave pasta maker then you can sell the CPU pin unbender. I can see the commercial now....*man tries to unbend pins, ends up snapping CPU in half. Uses metal rod and fixes it perfectly. Smiles contently*



Lol


----------



## 87dtna

I agree with bomber.  It's a lot easier to fix PGA bent pins on an AMD cpu than it is to fix LGA socket pins.  Mostly because the socket pins are at an angle, cpu pins are straight up.


----------



## DTM23

spynoodle said:


> You could make some money off of it, though. If someone can sell the plastic microwave pasta maker then you can sell the CPU pin unbender. I can see the commercial now....*man tries to unbend pins, ends up snapping CPU in half. Uses metal rod and fixes it perfectly. Smiles contently*


As much as I'd hate to say this, this 'tool' you speak of can be found anywhere: the metal tip of 0.5mm lead mechanical pencils is perfect for fixing bent pins. 
Sry, no new invention


----------



## spynoodle

DTM23 said:


> As much as I'd hate to say this, this 'tool' you speak of can be found anywhere: the metal tip of 0.5mm lead mechanical pencils is perfect for fixing bent pins.
> Sry, no new invention


And all you need to make pasta is a pan and a stove, but now there's the ALL NEW MICROWAVE PLASTIC PASTA MAKER! $19.95 + $345 shipping and handling!


----------



## spynoodle

I just recently read on some news feed that Intel announced that Sandy Bridge would in fact have overclocking, but a clock limit on lower end models. They of course did say that there would be unlocked models and extreme models, I think. Did anyone else hear about it?


----------



## linkin

I stand by what i said before: everythis is speculation and rumours for now. 

Altough I'm loving my new AMD build


----------



## spynoodle

linkin said:


> I stand by what i said before: everythis is speculation and rumours for now.
> 
> Altough I'm loving my new AMD build


Seems pretty sweet for gaming. The fact that it has 4 cores is probably why it beats your Pentium Dual @ 4.xGHz, right? How much faster is it compared to your Pentium?


----------



## linkin

Well I score about a thousand more points in vantage but in 06 i score 2k less 

Haven't really done much gaming yet, still installing stuff. Gunna buy metro 2033 and install crysis again.


----------



## 87dtna

pretty hard to accurately base an intel VS AMD argument when comparing an old tech socket 775 dual core with slow DDR2 ram VS the latest AMD architecture quad core with ddr3 1600.


----------



## linkin

Well I just got this chip overclocked and I score more in vantage and about 16.5k in 06 now. Just need a better cooler... i'll have to run some other benchmarks.


----------



## spynoodle

I always thought that Vantage and 06 were multithreaded. I guess only vantage is. Good luck with your further overclocking!


----------



## linkin

They are multithreaded.


----------



## spynoodle

linkin said:


> They are multithreaded.


Why was your score less than before on 06, then? 

EDIT: Maybe 06 is threaded for only 2 cores but vantage is threaded for 4?


----------



## 87dtna

No, 06' is very CPU clockspeed dependent.  The dual core had a much higher clockspeed.  Vantage is a better benchmark of true graphics performance.


----------



## spynoodle

87dtna said:


> No, 06' is very CPU clockspeed dependent.  The dual core had a much higher clockspeed.  Vantage is a better benchmark of true graphics performance.


So it's multithreaded but has trouble taking advantage of it?


----------



## 87dtna

No thats not it.  The higher clockspeed sways the graphics scores in 06' when it should not really affect them (unless the CPU is a bottleneck).  In vantage, the GPU score is almost totally unaffected by the CPU's clockspeed.  The CPU score will be higher with a quad even at lower clockspeed for both 06' and vantage.   But the GPU scores are higher with a higher clockspeed with 06', no matter if it's a quad or not.


----------



## linkin

I think I'll be using vantage from now on then. 06 is just outdated now


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah vantage is the only good bench that gives a true indication on GPU performance.


----------



## spynoodle

Now I see.....

btw, what's your pic, Linkin? It's on the tip of my tongue.....


----------



## fastdude

spynoodle said:


> Now I see.....
> 
> btw, what's your pic, Linkin? It's on the tip of my tongue.....



Crash Bandicoot


----------



## spynoodle

fastdude101 said:


> Crash Bandicoot


THAT'S it. Thanks.


----------



## mx344

^^awesome game  jus playd it a few days on ago on the ps3   I love all those pixels on the 60' tv haha.


----------



## fastdude

Thread bump 

I don't care how good Bulldozer is or will be, just look at this picture.





I mean, how can you not love it?

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=5&subid=1906


----------



## W-type

*seriously*



jarlmaster47 said:


> well I feel that amd is getting ahead of themselves here. I mean they had the 12 core magny cours but those are extremely expensive and not as efficient as could and should be. Intel has always dominated the market of cpus and Bulldozer wont change it. Intel is being smart. Get the new architecture down and then increase cores. AMD is going to flop. AMD has weaker architecture anyway. If they are worse at 40nm then Intel is at 45nm just wait. Intel has THE most features in their cpus and are really top notch. Intel forever



Amd was the 1st to put out a 64bit cpu plus the 1st dual core. Amd ever challenged to a dual core test intel didn t show up. I woundn t sleep on amd. there isnt any thing with one or the other choose the 1 like.


----------



## W-type

I think it is all part of business one company gets ahead 4 awhile than the other does the same. If you choose to get sucked in by charts and graphs more than experiencing it yourself


----------



## ScottALot

I don't have a preference, so here's my input/summing up my favorite things.

Sandy Bridge Q1 - They're a significant improvement over the last generation of intel's chips, but not anything too amazing. They seem to have great overclockability and stability, but the process of getting them to that stability seems tedious.

Bulldozer - Their new architecture splitting off the cores into sets of two is genius. It's like hyperthreading, only without the performance loss from virtualizing. Dual-cores are one of the most significant performance increases we've seen and Bulldozer is truly taking multiple dual-cores and having them work together, but in independent pairs. Hopefully 990X will give these things the performance their potential deserves.

Q3/4 Sandy Bridge - These will include more core count and a vast performance increase. This is more like the 920-980X line being upgraded. The Q1 i7s are too close in performance to the Nehalem i7s, so I don't consider them true i7s unless they're strictly talking about i7-860/870 upgrade.


----------



## Candlepally

W-type said:


> Amd was the 1st to put out a 64bit cpu plus the 1st dual core. Amd ever challenged to a dual core test intel didn t show up. I woundn t sleep on amd. there isnt any thing with one or the other choose the 1 like.



not quite, Intel was first to market with Dual Core, The Xeon Dual core then PEntiumD followed about a month later. AMD had Athlon 64 X2 ready 3 days after PEntiumD though.


----------



## Method9

Candlepally said:


> not quite, Intel was first to market with Dual Core, The Xeon Dual core then PEntiumD followed about a month later. AMD had Athlon 64 X2 ready 3 days after PEntiumD though.



I'm using Wikipedia as a source, but for what that is worth the first dual core Opteron was in May 2005, whereas the first dual core Xeon was in October 2005.


----------



## JackMcHale

.


----------



## Okedokey

ScottALot said:


> Sandy Bridge Q1 - They're a significant improvement over the last generation of intel's chips, but not anything too amazing. They seem to have great overclockability and stability, but the process of getting them to that stability seems tedious.



I would say 5GHz on air by putting in the number 50 in the bios is pretty significant and not altogether tedious


----------



## 87dtna

bigfellla said:


> I would say 5GHz on air by putting in the number 50 in the bios is pretty significant and not altogether tedious



lol, yeah when I had sandy bridge with an ASRock P67 board they had a setting in the bios where all you had to do was select 4.0/4.2/4.4/4.6/4.8 overclocks.  I selected 4.6, manually set the Vcore as it gave it too much on auto and then it was rock stable.  Not very hard at all.


----------



## 87dtna

87dtna said:


> I doubt bulldozer will see 2010.  I also still doubt it will be compatable AM3.  If it is compatable with AM3, I predict a serious let down on the performance.  Similar to that of the original gtx400 fermi's when first released which were suppose to ''crush'' the 5k series of ATI.
> AMD needs a full revamp of architecture and a new socket, having compatability with old hardware I think keeps their new products from performing well.  I heard awhile back that bulldozer really needs more than 938 pins.  I mean look at intel, they have 1366 pins for a reason.  So again, I think it's gonna be a huge performance let down compared to even nehalam let alone sandy bridge if it remains compatable with AM3.



Just quoting my original post in this thread just to say......I told you so.


----------



## BurningSkyline

87dtna said:


> Just quoting my original post in this thread just to say......I told you so.



How much of a performance increase would you expect if they upped the pin count to lets say... 1155.


----------



## Aastii

Pins = performance guys, come on, didn't all know that


----------



## jonnyp11

now just wait for sb-e, taking a 4 core 8 thread with 1155 pins and adding 2 cores and 4 threads almost doubles (299 away from it) the necessary pins? never seen scaling like that before, maybe by this logick we'll have never seen performance like it either


----------



## 87dtna

Aastii said:


> Pins = performance guys, come on, didn't all know that



First of all, I never said that straight out like that....I just said that BD needs more pins (because I was comparing Intel, they moved on from 775 pins for a reason) and AMD has only killed the performance of BD by keeping it backwards compatable.  They need to move on and create a new socket that will no longer keep their hands tied.


----------



## linkin

87dtna said:


> First of all, I never said that straight out like that....I just said that BD needs more pins (because I was comparing Intel, they moved on from 775 pins for a reason) and AMD has only killed the performance of BD by keeping it backwards compatable.  They need to move on and create a new socket that will no longer keep their hands tied.



Most people buy new motherboards anyway, so it can't really be a bad thing. I mean, how long has AM2/AM2/AM3 been around? You're right, it's time to move on and drop the compatibility.


----------



## StrangleHold

AMD should have never called the module a 2 core. Dont think AMD would have been taking just a big hit in the reviews if they had them as a 2/3/4 module. Should have called it what is, a module. People look at a core as a full core and these are not.

Instead like this. Never even use the word CORE.
FX 8150 4 module, 8 thread
FX 6100 3 module, 6 thread
FX 4100 2 module, 4 thread


----------



## 87dtna

Good point strangle, but the real issue is BD still sucks at single threaded performance which is very shocking.


----------



## jonnyp11

which should be taken care of in the updates coming


----------



## StrangleHold

I was surprised too by the IPC performance. I kinda thought it would not match 2500/2600 in single thread, but hell it should have been faster the the Phenom II. AMD went to far with long pipelines trying to get clock speed out of it. Then still could not get enough to over take Intels IPC. 

In the long run all they accomplished was to over take Phenom II by shear clock speed. I would still recommend them over Phenom II if the price gets right. Like a 8120 or 6100 over a Phenom II X4/6, just for the fact that they overclock so much better. But its sad they have to use clock speed just to beat a older generation.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I was sad to find the Phenom II 1090T Six-Core beats the FX-6100 Six-Core in processing power.  And the Phenom II series only use DDR3 1333 versus DDR3 1866 memory with Socket AM3+.  I hope software updates can fix these problems.  It makes you wonder why AMD did not see these problems coming before release?

If I were doing a new build now I would pick a Phenom II 960T Quad-Core or a Phenom II 1035T Six-Core Processor over the Socket AM3+ for now.  Hopefully fixes can be made within 40 days.


----------



## StrangleHold

The 960T is not a bad deal. I would probably still get the FX 6100 or 8120 at its price over a Phenom II X4/6. The only reason is how well they overclock.


----------



## 87dtna

960t and try to unlock to a hex is a decent gamble cuz you still have a thuban quad then...maybe even atleast a 5 core cpu if only 1 core will unlock.  Still better than 4, and it was free.

The problem with BD is they are not really ''cores''.  It's so deceiving the way the designed bulldozer to be able to call each module 2 ''cores''.


----------



## kennebell347

I am glad I didn't wait for bulldozer. Bit the bullet on the 2500k setup and couldn't be happier. Got it all up and running today and it absolutely destroys my old 955 be. In every way. Intel also seems to have better build quality from look and feel. 

But I do hope everything gets straightened out for the people who are waiting on fixes.


----------



## StrangleHold

One problem the AMD/Microsoft patch/driver is suppost to help with is, windows has no idea what a module is. It just looks like a 8 core. If something has 2 or 4 threads it will double it up on a module. Better performance would be to spread it out with one thread on each module. But from what I heard it only jumps performance to around 4-10% on multi threaded. Thats ok, but not a game changer.

AMD should have built it to where a single thread could be run on both sets of pipelines on a single module. Would have really (in my opinion) bumped up single threaded performance. They could have had 4 threads being run on 8 sets of pipelines, damn. Windows thread scheduler would have to shift threads around if you started hitting more then 4 threads. But considering AMD have been designing this thing for 4 years, I'm sure they could have worked it out with microsoft. 

But I dont know, since they are already having a problem with the scheduler. What were they thinking at AMD, I mean in 4 years nobody in AMD though, you guess we might ought to contact microsoft about a new processor driver. Your fired, your fired and your fired.


----------



## Okedokey

A lot of the issue is the L1 and L2 cache latency.  As Strangle pointed out, the improvements to the scheduler are only going to see in reality around 4% improvement.  This is not really detectable.  Even 10%.  The problem here is that each module has only 1 floating point unit for every 2 integer units, thereby relying on large caches with larger TDP and latencies.  Thus the issue.  Really, 2billion transistors should see more performance.  This is a workstation CPU, not a desktop CPU.  A bit lame really considering the hype.


----------

