AMD Details Bulldozer at ISSCC

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
One more thing I want to say is another reason Intel is so far ahead of AMD is because of bad business practices by Intel. They repeatedly do illegal maneuvers against AMD to screw over AMD.

LIKE THIS STUFF

"The biggest case is in Europe, where regulators have fined Intel a record $1.45 billion over what they described as Intel's illegal tactics to bully PC makers into choosing Intel chips over AMD's. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said that the European Commission "takes note" of Intel's settlement with AMD but that it does not change Intel's duty to comply with European antitrust law.
Intel is also fighting an $18.6 million fine in Korea and a federal lawsuit filed last week by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who accused Intel of abusing its dominance to "rule with an iron fist." The U.S. Federal Trade Commission also is investigating"

AND LIKE THIS STUFF.

"Here's something you probably don't know, but really should - especially if you're a programmer, and especially especially if you're using Intel's compiler. It's a fact that's not widely known, but Intel's compiler deliberately and knowingly cripples performance for non-Intel (AMD/VIA) processors.
Agner Fog details this particularly nasty examples of Intel's anticompetitive practices quite well. Intel's compiler can produce different versions of pieces of code, with each version being optimised for a specific processor and/or instruction set (SSE2, SSE3, etc.). The system detects which CPU it's running on and chooses the optimal code path accordingly; the CPU dispatcher, as it's called.

"However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string," Fog details, "If the vendor string says 'GenuineIntel' then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version."

It turns out that while this is known behaviour, few users of the Intel compiler actually seem to know about it. Intel does not advertise the compiler as being Intel-specific, so the company has no excuse for deliberately crippling performance on non-Intel machines."

They have been crippling AMD CPUS for years and years. AND there is also a lot of other illegal stuff Intel does to screw over their competitors.


 
[citation][nom]alphadark[/nom]ARGH!!!!!! Give a release date and some benchmarks AMD!!! If you don't release info soon I am upgrading to the sandy bridge platform.[/citation]
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]This wait is getting tiresome. Maybe I'll do Intel for my next build.[/citation]
u guys better wait until intel fixed their bug tho
 
Intel has plenty of money to spend on something stupid that says "I have the fastest CPU". AMD doesn't have the money to waste resources on a CPU that only 1000 people are going to buy. Intel probably loses money making that CPU.
Click to expand...

well, it's not entireley stupid/waste. look at how people perceive intel. they have a flagship that is light years ahead of AMD's flagship so commoners (such as my dad) would go for something that is branded as the top tier.
for example, if you can afford a mercedes but a toyota offers something "cheaper" but still has the elegance, power, and the bells and whistles of a classy car, where would you settle?
 
One more thing I want to say is another reason Intel is so far ahead of AMD is because of bad business practices by Intel. They repeatedly do illegal maneuvers against AMD to screw over AMD.
Click to expand...
if AMD had the chance to do those things, AMD would've done the same thing. it's called BUSINESS. jeeez.

before you call me an intel fanboy, i use a phenom ii x4 940 and it serves me quite well. would build another AMD system if bulldozer is the bang for the buck gaming cpu :)
 
[citation][nom]jmm5351[/nom]AND using just logic and common sense it is pretty obvious they are not going to be crap because why would AMD spend years developing "crap".[/citation]

Why would Intel and Nvidia spend years developing crap (Larrabee and Fermi)? AMD doesn't have a choice but to go with what they've got. As for performance claims, a AMD is claiming their 8 core CPU will be faster than Intel's (now previous generation) 4 core CPU but unless you do 3D rendering or transcoding all those extra cores (and the claimed 50% performance boost) will go to waste because most games aren't even using four cores let alone eight.

Bulldozer is also year and a half behind Intel in terms of process (Intel had 32nm in January 2010, AMD will have 32nm in mid 2011).

I would love to be wrong, the last Intel I bought was a Celeron in 1999 and the industry needs stong competition but AMD have dropped the ball in the past two years and the gap between them and Intel is increasing.
 
AMD with the 6-core t-series at 200$ is the only thing that is keeping the CPU market from insane prices. I bought the i7 2600k, my first ever intel chip. but hey, I waven't had a rig since '03, so buying a new mobo isn't a big deal, but the new 1155 would piss me off if i were an intel fanboi... the i5 2XXX(k) series is great too and at 200$ it is a great time to build a new rig for first timers. I don't think their has ever been this kind of bang for the buck market since the socket A days.
 
[citation][nom]carlhenry[/nom]if AMD had the chance to do those things, AMD would've done the same thing. it's called BUSINESS. jeeez.before you call me an intel fanboy, i use a phenom ii x4 940 and it serves me quite well. would build another AMD system if bulldozer is the bang for the buck gaming cpu[/citation]

You can clearly see in my statement that I said what you said bud. I said if I was rich, implying that I had the money, that I would buy the 980X/990X. And the CPU's are pretty pointless again because they are much much much faster than anyone needs currently. It is all bragging rights for Intel and who buys them. And I also And I disagree by saying that it is light years ahead of AMDs best offerings. It is a lot faster than AMD's 1100T CPU in single threaded applications, but in thread applications the 1100T holds its ground against the 980X and even the 990X. You can look that up if you don't take my word
 
[citation][nom]fyasko[/nom]AMD with the 6-core t-series at 200$ is the only thing that is keeping the CPU market from insane prices. I bought the i7 2600k, my first ever intel chip. but hey, I waven't had a rig since '03, so buying a new mobo isn't a big deal, but the new 1155 would piss me off if i were an intel fanboi... the i5 2XXX(k) series is great too and at 200$ it is a great time to build a new rig for first timers. I don't think their has ever been this kind of bang for the buck market since the socket A days.[/citation]

They compared to Intel's last generation of I7 series processors because Sandybridge was not yet released. And Intel is making 8 core Sandybridge processors. Most newer games uses up to 6 cores currently because 6 cores are out on the market. Starcraft II Civ5 and many many more. Most of the new games support 6 cores. When 8 cores are released, new games coming out will support 8 cores. The only games that won't support 8 cores will be budget games or games that don't require a lot of muscle to properly play.
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Why would Intel and Nvidia spend years developing crap (Larrabee and Fermi)? AMD doesn't have a choice but to go with what they've got. As for performance claims, a AMD is claiming their 8 core CPU will be faster than Intel's (now previous generation) 4 core CPU but unless you do 3D rendering or transcoding all those extra cores (and the claimed 50% performance boost) will go to waste because most games aren't even using four cores let alone eight.Bulldozer is also year and a half behind Intel in terms of process (Intel had 32nm in January 2010, AMD will have 32nm in mid 2011). I would love to be wrong, the last Intel I bought was a Celeron in 1999 and the industry needs stong competition but AMD have dropped the ball in the past two years and the gap between them and Intel is increasing.[/citation]

I never called out one individual here and called them an Intel fanboy. I was being general and cautious when I stated Intel fanboys. Never said you were but there are a few here.
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]As for performance claims, a AMD is claiming their 8 core CPU will be faster than Intel's (now previous generation) 4 core CPU but unless you do 3D rendering or transcoding all those extra cores (and the claimed 50% performance boost) will go to waste because most games aren't even using four cores let alone eight.[/citation]

Also, the mid-range i5-2500K is outperforming the i7-950 in every benchmark so if AMD is 50% faster than the i7-950, that isn't something to brag about compared to Intel.
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Why would Intel and Nvidia spend years developing crap (Larrabee and Fermi)? AMD doesn't have a choice but to go with what they've got. As for performance claims, a AMD is claiming their 8 core CPU will be faster than Intel's (now previous generation) 4 core CPU but unless you do 3D rendering or transcoding all those extra cores (and the claimed 50% performance boost) will go to waste because most games aren't even using four cores let alone eight.Bulldozer is also year and a half behind Intel in terms of process (Intel had 32nm in January 2010, AMD will have 32nm in mid 2011). I would love to be wrong, the last Intel I bought was a Celeron in 1999 and the industry needs stong competition but AMD have dropped the ball in the past two years and the gap between them and Intel is increasing.[/citation]

They compared to Intel's last generation of I7 series processors because Sandybridge was not yet released. And Intel is making 8 core Sandybridge processors. Most newer games uses up to 6 cores currently because 6 cores are out on the market. Starcraft II Civ5 and many many more. Most of the new games support 6 cores. When 8 cores are released, new games coming out will support 8 cores. The only games that won't support 8 cores will be budget games or games that don't require a lot of muscle to properly play.

 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Also, the mid-range i5-2500K is outperforming the i7-950 in every benchmark so if AMD is 50% faster than the i7-950, that isn't something to brag about compared to Intel.[/citation]

If you do that math killerclick which is not difficult math what so ever, then 50% increase on i7-950 roughly equates to the performance of the new 2600k. It is right on par with sandybridge : )
 
[citation][nom]kilo_17[/nom]No release date yet?[/citation]

No official release as of yet. But AMD's roadmap suggests that 8 core Zambezi chips are supposed to be for sale the 2nd quarter of this year. So anywhere from April to June. If this doesn't change I suspect it to be late June because normally they release their stuff the latest that they suggest.
 
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]This wait is getting tiresome. Maybe I'll do Intel for my next build.[/citation]I don't get why people say stuff like this. Why not cease your tiresome waiting and simply not worry about it? Then when you ACTUALLY do your next build, THEN worry about it. If there's a product, look at it. If there isn't, oh well, you'll find something else to shove in there. No point in getting all bent out of shape because they don't have something on the market.

I mean, if they don't release info, slides, projected release dates people cry "Tell us something! Give us info!". Then when they release information it changes to "Where's the product! Where's the benches! Don't make me go buy from your competitor!" Why freakin worry about it? Do you honestly think they've already built several hundred thousand units and they're just sitting on them to be dicks? You don't think they want this thing on the market ASAP?
 
[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]I don't get why people say stuff like this. Why not cease your tiresome waiting and simply not worry about it? Then when you ACTUALLY do your next build, THEN worry about it. If there's a product, look at it. If there isn't, oh well, you'll find something else to shove in there. No point in getting all bent out of shape because they don't have something on the market.I mean, if they don't release info, slides, projected release dates people cry "Tell us something! Give us info!". Then when they release information it changes to "Where's the product! Where's the benches! Don't make me go buy from your competitor!" Why freakin worry about it? Do you honestly think they've already built several hundred thousand units and they're just sitting on them to be dicks? You don't think they want this thing on the market ASAP?[/citation]

WOW you need to calm down haha. And of course AMD is not sitting on their CPU's haha that would be just flat stupid. No one said they built 1000's of units, but they probably have built 1000's of units and ramping up their production so they have enough stock when they are ready to release their CPU's. Secondly Intel's South-bridge is having problems so I don't want to buy Intel right now. And secondly if Intel was not have south-bridge problems, then I would still wait for AMD to release their line up because I want to get the best bang for buck. Thirdly, are people not allowed to to say that stuff. I have to agree it takes AMD a long time to release these processors and I myself am getting tired of waiting. But I don't want to just go splurge my money on Intel when AMD is right around the corner you see. Maybe if I were rich then I would because I would have no value for money. But even AMD knows they are taking a long time to release these new chips. That is partially the reasoning of firing Dirk Meyer. And AMD has already mentioned that were several delays through the process that held back their new chips. But I think people are just excited and eager to get a new CPU from AMD that shows a lot of potential.

I am sure you have felt tired of waiting for "something", something means anything, in some point in your life time. If you bought a 360 or play station online and you knew it was going to be at your house in a week, would you not feel eager to play it? After that week passed by and you did not receive it yet, would you not wonder where it is. If another week passed by and you still didn't have it, would not be a little tired of waiting for it to arrive? The answer is of course you would : )
 
Je je When I knew that programing and programs weren't good enough for Amd Cpu's was beacuse of Intel, it was 2005 when I used to thought my P4 HT-650 3.4ghz 90nm was "fast".. then a cousin which is programmer told me this: "Programing is not made for AMD CPU's just for Intel CPU's that is why those look slower but they are not is just programming making them slower". An then until now, I know he was not the only one who knew the Intel's crappy business.

Anyway I will change from my RIG with socket 1366 to AM3+, just because I know I wont have to change all my RIG just because "they" want me to pay even more for something new. So I do not care how long does AMD take to release those Bulldozer, I will wait and then buy the best Bulldozer CPU, Is just MORE for my money and not less.
 
[citation][nom]leon2006[/nom]Another promises to be broken.... Another product with moving release dateAnother product when release will be outdated[/citation]

lol leon. too funny how people say this stuff.
 
@jmm5351

you need to follow killerclicks thread on sandybridge, he thinks it is so awesome that there is no chance in hell anything else can be better then it, there is no way in hell sandy bridge is only 50% better then nehalem, has to be closer to 200% thats why AMD can never make anything to beat it, it almost like AMD is attempting to divide by zero
 
I just built a 955 phenom machine back in March so I don't think I'll be upgrading to soon but if the bulldozer is an affordable alternative for the 990x I might think about upgrading and if I can keep my 880g mother board.
 
[citation][nom]jmm5351[/nom]For anyone wondering, AMD said that the 8 core Zambezi is supposed to be 50% faster than a core i7-950 in gaming to give you an idea of performance. I expect that it will even be a little faster.[/citation]
Whoa there, where did you read that? I didn't hear anything like that. I heard Interlagos will offer 50% more peformance from 33% more cores, but not many other performance claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom