Bulldozer vs Nehalem

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
the P4 never slaughtered the athlon xp. the xp always had a price/performance advantage. It just went from huge to not quite as huge. And the reason the xp could not keep up with the P4 was because the xp did not have the 800mhz fsb. Once intel had that, there was no way the xp could compete on a performance level
 
MS may have launched a mixed bag product with Vista (maybe more like the kind of bag you have to take with you when you walk your dog), but they wouldn't be dumb enough (at least I'm hoping) to turn off 32-bit execution anytime soon. I don't know if you're aware of it, but Vista (32-bit version, not the 64) still runs 16-bit code. Windows 1.0 was 16-bit based and Windows Vista still supports 16-bit code - that's a long lifetime of support. Why would they dump 32-bit support in the generation immediately following the partial dumping of 16-bit? That doesn't seem plausible.
 



I doubt their next TOTAL REDESIGN will be that great. Look what their current "total new design" has gotten them? Nothing...
 


Now all AMD has to do is get their 64 core CPU out and we'll have a real winner...ya know, looking past the 3kw PSU just to run the damn thing. As for OCing...don't even think about it... 😉
 


OCing? We'll be lucky if it hits the shelves with a speed of 10Mhz. Maybe if you disable 63 cores....
 


10 MHz x 64 = 6400 MHz right?

So that'd be faster than a 3.2 GHz Dual Core!

AMD WINS!
 


Okay, Bulldozer is supposed to be an AMD development, and Nehalem is supposed to be an Intel development. I'm not sure where we got into comparing and talking about a problem which occurred in the near east with CPU architecture.
What I do know is that AMD will need a Bulldozer to scrape the slate clean and come out with a CPU architecture which is both innovative and competitive.
 

Imagine being able to OC each core separately, all 64 of them :lol:
 


Or imagine threads being created like:

Why does CPU-Z show 32 CPUs at 1.2ghz and the other 32 CPUs at 2ghz? They are all suppose to be 2.4ghz??? :fou: . o O (HELP MEEEEE!!)
 
this thread is sooo funny... im savin this ****! talk about bulldozers and amd winning with 64 cores (LOL!) wow keep it commin im LMAO!
 


AMD made that statement in November of last year at an analyst meeting. You aren't going to get any better proof.
 

So she was helping the terrorists in Israel and deserved what she got!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.