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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.