• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AMD | Bulldozer, Fusion, AM3+, FM1, and What's To Come

·

·feist·

Member
AX6FL.png


This item was last known to be back-ordered, however, that may no longer be accurate. You may order this product regardless of availability.
Click to expand...

3EU/6T
$188.32 - FX-6100 SIX CORE AM3+ 14MB BOX 95W 3300MHZ
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=01100300U031_BLA5136P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!

4EU/8T
$221.73 - FX-8120 EIGHT CORE AM3+ 16MB BOX 125W 3100MHZ
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=01100300U031_BLA5135P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!

4EU/8T
$266.28 - FX-8150 EIGHT CORE AM3+ 16MB BOX 125W 3600MHZ
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/shop.cgi?action=thispage&thispage=01100300U031_BLA5134P.shtml&order_id=!ORDERID!
 
A

Angelus Errare

Banned
Brace yourself for half truthful benchmarks...

Or awesome pricing since it's not going to be able to compete with Intel's Sandy Bridge from a pure performance perspective; they'll compete from a price/performance perspective.
 
P

pseudocaesar

Member
Zombie James said:
An 8-core processor for $220... I don't think Intel offers anything comparable at that price range.
Click to expand...
Hahah yeah when AMD brought out the 6 core wasnt Intels equivalent like $900 or something?
 
A

Angelus Errare

Banned
·feist· said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24605375&postcount=18186
Click to expand...

I wanted to believe, and I say this as someone who went from a Athlon XP 3000+ to Athlon 64 3500+ to Athlon 64 X2 4800+ to Phenom X4 9500 to Phenom II X3 740 Black Edition and currently a Phenom II X6 1065T. Owned some Intels in between but AMD's upgrade path is so much sensical (is that even a word) than Intels.

So I'm only calling it like I see it.
 
E

evlcookie

but ever so delicious
Don't get too excited about AMD pumping up "whatever" for IDF. They do that every year and it's nothing to wet your pants over.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Oh crap, this isn't looking good at all. Looks like I'll hold onto my crappy Intel Q8200 until AMD can put out something that really has some teeth to go up against Intel's best offerings. I do recall AMD saying they were gonna improve the tech on what seemed like a yearly basis, perhaps Bulldozer 2 in 2012 or 2013 will have significant improvements.

I really hate having to continue to use Intel; I can only hope Bulldozer turns out to be better than what we're seeing here so I can switch back.
 
J

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Angelus Errare said:
I wanted to believe, and I say this as someone who went from a Athlon XP 3000+ to Athlon 64 3500+ to Athlon 64 X2 4800+ to Phenom X4 9500 to Phenom II X3 740 Black Edition and currently a Phenom II X6 1065T. Owned some Intels in between but AMD's upgrade path is so much sensical (is that even a word) than Intels.

So I'm only calling it like I see it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just been supplanted by "sensible" in modern English.
 
H

Hazaro

relies on auto-aim
Zombie James said:
An 8-core processor for $220... I don't think Intel offers anything comparable at that price range.
Click to expand...
But it isn't comparable to what most people consider a core. It is different and we don't know how applications will make use of them.

I'm all for competition, and if those prices are true AMD thinks it can be competitive enough to charge those prices. So we will see.
 
·

·feist·

Member
evlcookie said:
Don't get too excited about AMD pumping up "whatever" for IDF. They do that every year and it's nothing to wet your pants over.
Click to expand...
Well, they do have that "Fusion Zone" event lined up...


Angelus Errare said:
I wanted to believe, and I say this as someone who went from a Athlon XP 3000+ to Athlon 64 3500+ to Athlon 64 X2 4800+ to Phenom X4 9500 to Phenom II X3 740 Black Edition and currently a Phenom II X6 1065T. Owned some Intels in between but AMD's upgrade path is so much sensical (is that even a word) than Intels.

So I'm only calling it like I see it.
Click to expand...
Hey, you did say to quote you, though you posted that nearly a year ago. That is, before BD engineering samples were even sent out to partners.

If AMD actually does show their cards, tomorrow is going to be a very interesting day. In part, the diehards on both "sides" can finally stop their asinine bloviating. Can't remember the last time we've had so much ill-informed over-hyping, or preemptive downplaying, combined with the blue-only/green-only crowd already preparing excuses as to how the results reflect on their preferred company, in case things don't go their way.

There's hope, and there's reality. Most of us just want viable competition.
 
U

Unknown Soldier

Member
·feist· said:
There's hope, and there's reality. Most of us just want viable competition.
Click to expand...

AMD hasn't been a viable competitor to Intel since the first Core 2 Duo back in 2006, and so far everything's been just fine. Competition in the x86 space will always exist in the form of people needing a reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest. AMD is entirely irrelevant to that and has always been. The vast majority of high-end chip purchases go to the same markets year in and year out.

Zombie James said:
An 8-core processor for $220... I don't think Intel offers anything comparable at that price range.
Click to expand...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=27379693&postcount=53
 
R

Rabid Wolverine

Member
Just posted by AMD. The big secret?


http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases...011sept13.aspx

A longtime favorite of performance enthusiasts and overclockers around the world, AMD (NYSE: AMD) today announced it has achieved the Guinness World Record for the “Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor,” by overclocking the upcoming 8-core AMD FX desktop processor.

“The record-breaking processor speed that resides in the AMD FX CPU clearly demonstrates performance gains for the new AMD ‘Bulldozer’ multi-core architecture, which will provide x86 computing power for this CPU and future AMD Accelerated Processing Units,” said Chris Cloran, corporate vice president and general manager, Client Group at AMD. “Along with world-record frequencies, the AMD FX processor will enable an unrivaled enthusiast PC experience for the money – extreme multi-display gaming, mega-tasking and HD content creation.”

The AMD FX CPU, set to launch in the fourth quarter of 2011, achieved a top speed of 8.429 GHz, surpassing the previous record of 8.308 GHz. The record was set on Aug. 31, 2011, in Austin, Texas, by “Team AMD FX,” a group comprised of elite overclocking specialists working alongside top AMD technologists, who will also be named in the Guinness World Records.

“We applaud AMD for their entry into Guinness World Records® for achieving the Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor,” said Freddie Hoff, adjudicator for Guinness World Records, who is presenting the award today at the AMD Fusion Zone, a technology showcase in San Francisco, Calif. “We congratulate everyone involved in this record-breaking achievement.”

The record marks another accomplishment in the storied history of the FX brand, which represents amazing, unrestrained PC experiences that users can see and feel. All FX branded products, including the upcoming AMD FX CPU, will offer completely unlocked processor clock multipliers for easier PC enthusiast overclocking, and include exclusive AMD software through the AMD VISION Engine to fine-tune system performance. For FX branded processors, AMD has removed all the stops to enable a fully unlocked experience, giving overclockers and PC enthusiasts complete customization and flexibility.
Click to expand...
 
I

itsgreen

Member
Just got myself a X6 1055 on a 990FX motherboard... was on a budget and wanted enough options to give me more breathing room in the future so 990FX chipset was the obvious choice :)
 
C

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
More competition is never a bad thing. The interesting thing is, no matter how far behind AMD get they aren't going anywhere. Otherwise Intel would be screwed due to having a monopoly on the general PC market. Right now the market is exactly how Intel wants it to be - they have a competitor, but it's a weak competitor.

Still, I fully believe things like the OC gimping that started with SB are entirely due to Intel's grip on the market, if AMD actually offered similar performance they probably couldn't get away with that in the retail CPU market.

I'd love for BD to be awesome, but I'm not counting on it due to how quiet AMD has been. And the prices baffle me for that reason, no way should even their best CPU cost that much if it can't beat the 2500k, which I'm not counting on.

Still 8 core.

Are there any good news feeds / live blogs of IDF?
Click to expand...
If your definition of "core" is" int units. And that's not what a "core" is. See Unknown Soldier's link.


And regarding that record, isn't that old? A friend of mine said something about BD breaking that record like a month ago, and that was why he spend like $1500 on an AMD build, so he could drop in BD and OC it to ridiculous speeds...

Edit: I guess it's kind of old, pretty sure he was talking about it before the end of August though so I have no idea what he was talking about.
 
R

Rolf NB

Member
Angelus Errare said:
I wanted to believe, and I say this as someone who went from a Athlon XP 3000+ to Athlon 64 3500+ to Athlon 64 X2 4800+ to Phenom X4 9500 to Phenom II X3 740 Black Edition and currently a Phenom II X6 1065T. Owned some Intels in between but AMD's upgrade path is so much sensical (is that even a word) than Intels.

So I'm only calling it like I see it.
Click to expand...
Is that even a sentence?
 
M

Mudkips

Banned
chaosblade said:
If your definition of "core" is" int units. And that's not what a "core" is. See Unknown Soldier's link.
Click to expand...

A "core" is whatever the hell it wants to be. Back in the day there were ONLY integer units, and you needed a math coprocessor for floating point calculations.

The vast majority of work a CPU does is fetch/decode and integer operations.
The FPU is used least of all. The FPU is used more in gaming, media, and scientific applications, but scientific and media applications are increasingly using the GPU to do the runt of their work. Furthermore, the floating point unit in a BD core is actually two 128-bit floating point units. The two can function as a single 256-bit FPU, or they can function as two symmetrical 128-bit FPUs. Very few things need 256-bit precision.
 
D

Datschge

Member
Mudkips said:
The FPU is used least of all. The FPU is used more in gaming, media, and scientific applications, but scientific and media applications are increasingly using the GPU to do the runt of their work.
Click to expand...
And this is where AMD wants to go, Fusion APUs where the GPU part transparently serves as FPU as well. Will take a couple more years though until the more generic GCN replaces all forms of graphics biased VLIW.
 
G

GameplayWhore

Member
Angelus Errare said:
Owned some Intels in between but AMD's upgrade path is so much sensical (is that even a word) than Intels.
Click to expand...

"Sensible" is what you were looking for. You were going for "...AMD's upgrade path is so much more sensible".

I just got a Phenom II X4 955. It should last me for quite some time, but the upgrade waters are getting a little muddy. My processor has four cores, and the highest level upcoming AMD processor for the AM3+ platform seems to be Zambezi, which has 8/4 cores (that is, eight integer cores, four shared fp regions), so it's not too astounding an upgrade. It looks like next year's Komodo will go on a new family of sockets starting with the "FM" designation.

It'll be incredibly disappointing if the aforementioned Zambezi processor is all I can get out of my current socket. AM3+ just became available, and it'd be pretty crap if it were functionally retired within a year. It is a transitional socket, but AM2+ was a transitional socket, and it got about three years of effective life (it came out in 2008, I think, and there were processors introduced this May that it could upgrade to).

So maybe not amazingly happy here. Granted, memory capacity and I/O speed are my real bottlenecks, so I'm not raging.
 
H

Hazaro

relies on auto-aim
Mr_Brit said:
An OC record? Seriously, who cares. If it wasn't achieved using air then it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...
If it is with all 8 cores on then it is impressive.
If its just 1 on, rest disabled (which it probably is) then it is still impressive.

Just having it run at those speeds is nice. The previous record was an old Pentium based on C2D I think. Hopefully this bodes well for overclocking it on air.
 
1

1-D_FTW

Member
Hazaro said:
If it is with all 8 cores on then it is impressive.
If its just 1 on, rest disabled (which it probably is) then it is still impressive.

Just having it run at those speeds is nice. The previous record was an old Pentium based on C2D I think. Hopefully this bodes well for overclocking it on air.
Click to expand...

Were there ever Pentium based on C2? I thought the Pentium 3 was just a POS that excelled only at meaningless clock speeds even though AMD was thrashing them in real world performance.

EDIT: Meant Pentium 4.
 
C

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Hazaro said:
If it is with all 8 cores on then it is impressive.
If its just 1 on, rest disabled (which it probably is) then it is still impressive..
Click to expand...

Its one core.
 
·

·feist·

Member
W6sbj.jpg


First official benchmarks AMD FX processor
http://nl.hardware.info/nieuws/24619/eerste-officiele-benchmarks-amd-fx-processor

translated:
First of all, it showed a comparison between a new AMD FX processor and unspecified unspecified Intel Sandy Bridge Core i5 processor, which using the Handbrake a video clip of 5 minutes is converted to h.264 video in SD resolution. The AMD FX processor with eight cores performs this task with an average of 223 frames per second, the Core i5 with four cores came in at 188 fps. Both systems are similar in terms of price, will according to AMD which demonstrate that AMD a better price/performance ratio. That may be the case, but who is with a more negative view of a double number of cores will conclude that AMD looks to less than 20% better performance.

The second one showed the game demo-Setup 3 2560x1600 resolution, running on two Dirt in and about Radeon HD cards in Crossfire. In one system were the cards combined with an Intel Core i7 980 x, in the second system with an AMD FX processor. The Intel machine to produce an average of 80.9 fps, the AMD knew machine average 82.8 fps. The much cheaper AMD FX processor is faster than the Core i7 980 x-so we want to demonstrate-though we have to prick through 3 is here really: Dirt on this resolution with the chosen video card GPU very gelimitteerd. The 2 extra fps of the AMD system can be declared on 101 ways, all of which are not necessarily on CPU performance.

For real benchmarks we will have to wait until the AMD FX processors actually become available. Fortunately, that will probably no longer too long.
Click to expand...
O0Nfs.jpg


AMD's 2012 Trinity APU Playing Deus Ex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa-Fdh3BXSs


Unknown Soldier said:
AMD hasn't been a viable competitor to Intel since the first Core 2 Duo back in 2006, and so far everything's been just fine. Competition in the x86 space will always exist in the form of people needing a reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest. AMD is entirely irrelevant to that and has always been. The vast majority of high-end chip purchases go to the same markets year in and year out.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone who's paid attention over the last few years can honestly dispute just how closely Core 2 Quads perform in relation to Phenom II X4s. As unfortunate as that may be, it doesn't exactly surprise anyone who deals in reality. Instead of "viable competition" I should have said what I mentioned earlier, which was "compelling alternative." That's simply in reference to the upper mid-tier, and high end, since they have offered viable options for users in different segments. In a world where the majority of Intel's install base is running 775, and will be for years to come, AMD is doing fine by just being "good enough," while they work on addressing the technology gap.
 
C

Commanche Raisin Toast

Member
i'm still waiting to see if any of the Bulldozer chips are going to be worth upgrading from my X4 BE 3.5ghz.

there aren't going to be any 6-core-supported games for a while, so i might as well get a beefy quad, but are any of these going to outperform my current chip at a lower frequency? benchmarks, i want them.
 
C

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
So if those are legit the best model is roughly around the 2500k/2600k level. Not bad, especially if Ivy Bridge doesn't add a whole lot to SB (which is probably the case since IB is primarily improvements on the GPU side). If they had this out in May or during the summer it would have been pretty big.

$245 is kind of a shame too, considering the difference between it and a 2500k in most cases isn't going to be very big. Guess they are hoping the "8 cores" thing is going to attract people deciding between the two. On the other hand being fully unlocked means you could possibly get a good board for less. Guess we'll see.
 
E

eastmen

Banned
chaosblade said:
So if those are legit the best model is roughly around the 2500k/2600k level. Not bad, especially if Ivy Bridge doesn't add a whole lot to SB (which is probably the case since IB is primarily improvements on the GPU side). If they had this out in May or during the summer it would have been pretty big.

$245 is kind of a shame too, considering the difference between it and a 2500k in most cases isn't going to be very big. Guess they are hoping the "8 cores" thing is going to attract people deciding between the two. On the other hand being fully unlocked means you could possibly get a good board for less. Guess we'll see.
Click to expand...


4 core performance on par with an 2500k with 5+ thread perforamnce looking like its on par with the i7 2600k isn't bad. It also seems to be priced close to the 2500k than the 2600k
 
S

Shambles

Member
·feist· said:
I don't think anyone who's paid attention over the last few years can honestly dispute just how closely Core 2 Quads perform in relation to Phenom II X4s. As unfortunate as that may be, it doesn't exactly surprise anyone who deals in reality. Instead of "viable competition" I should have said what I mentioned earlier, which was "compelling alternative." That's simply in reference to the upper mid-tier, and high end, since they have offered viable options for users in different segments. In a world where the majority of Intel's install base is running 775, and will be for years to come, AMD is doing fine by just being "good enough," while they work on addressing the technology gap.
Click to expand...

Not to mention only a few percent of the market actually gives a shit about high end performance and anyone who honestly believes that AMD has been behind the ball in consumer products over the last several years is pretty disillusioned. Until Sandy Bridge came out AMD had Intel beat on performance/dollar at every price point up to 200$ at which only Intel really had viable products above that. Bulldozer doesn't have to outperform sandy bridge, it just has to outperform it at the price points that the majority of the market buys at. I think it's easy to forget that even though we're the enthusiasts, we're largely irrelevant to the market forces that drive the decisions for these businesses.
 
S

syko de4d

Member
mercenar1e said:
thinking of buying a new PC.. should i go for the "8" core bulldozer or sandybridge i7 2600K?
Click to expand...
wait 3-4weeks when we get real benchmarks and the price. No one can answer ur question right now :)
 
C

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
Lesiroth said:
So is the jury's still out on BD's performance?
Click to expand...
Yeah, these slides aren't much to go by since they are from AMD themselves. The comparisons should give you a very general idea, but we won't know specifics until chips are in the wild and independent benches are done.

I think it's looking like the 8150 is going to be competitive with the 2500k (more relevant than the 2600k for most), but the price ranges don't really line up in AMDs favor right now. Maybe some real benches will tell a different story.
 
T

Tallshortman

Member
There's actually no confirmation those are real slides, I've seen them on a few sites already and apparently they leaked originally from a site that faked leaks in the past. I'd take those with a grain of salt either way.
 
M

mercenar1e

Member
chaosblade said:
Yeah, these slides aren't much to go by since they are from AMD themselves. The comparisons should give you a very general idea, but we won't know specifics until chips are in the wild and independent benches are done.

I think it's looking like the 8150 is going to be competitive with the 2500k (more relevant than the 2600k for most), but the price ranges don't really line up in AMDs favor right now. Maybe some real benches will tell a different story.
Click to expand...


I'm hearing that the BD FX 8150 performs slower then the 2500k.. release is so close and there already shipping the processors to retail.. isn't that a bad sign?
 
C

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
mercenar1e said:
I'm hearing that the BD FX 8150 performs slower then the 2500k.. release is so close and there already shipping the processors to retail.. isn't that a bad sign?
Click to expand...
We really don't have much to go off of. Or anything if those slides are fake.

I think the combination of delays and the total lack of benchmarks or anything from AMD is pretty telling though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AMD Ryzen 4000 And Radeon RX Navi 2X ‘RDNA 2’ Graphics Cards Expected To Launch In October 2020
News Rumor Hardware
20
2K
TaySan replied
AMD Computex 2018 – Will Demonstrate Never-Before-Seen Hardware - Higher Performance APUs with HBM
37
5K
Dontero replied
How Much It Would Cost To Build A PC As Powerful As The Xbox One X? (2019 edition)
3 4 5 6 7
327
19K
Damian black replied
AMD: AM4 and Ryzen will last four years.
0
4K
Caayn replied
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
86 87 88 89 90
4K
896K
Phatosaurus replied
Top Bottom