Killmur

Starting to feel like I should ditch the Intel plans and invest in AM3+ if BD is looking as good as the samples show it to be.

Engineer Sample*
 
The Engineer Samples don't actually show exact performance they are made for testing purposes not for consumer use
 
For a Testing Sample to get these scores means the Consumer(Production) Samples will get higher scores how high well that is determined by the GHz clock and how much tweaks they do between B1->B2

If you ask me, I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. I feel like the $320 part will be faster than this and it will be one hell of a performer and quite possibly with an unbeatable performance/price ratio. That works for me..
To be honest I never expected Bulldozer chips to outperform 6 core Nehalems. So, no disappointments at all here ;)
 
Still, I'll have to see the folding numbers from retail parts to decide!
 

Exciting outlook here.  I have high hopes for AMD.  $320 for a cpu that comes within spitting distance of a chip 3 times it's cost?......WINNING!
 
 

Anything past single core it should be good enough the FX-8110+ till 16 cores/threads
 
If you have single core games and want the maximum performance go Intel
 
For those who want a comparison to Sandy Bridge in silicon get out your magnifying glasses
 

 

 
I looked for text
 
Really the only difference between Zambezi and Sandy Bridge is the L2 Cache and the AMD and Intel name and how the contents are arranged in

Not forgetting the fact Zambezi doesn't use SMT but CMT but basically with the pictures of silicon stuffz we can basically say hey its physical SMT(but not double clocked or whatever SMT does) named CMT+extra resources
Not forgetting the fact that i7 2600k has an IGP pimple
 
SB L1D: 32KBs x 4
Zambezi L1D: 16KBs x 8
Same basically
SB L2: 256KBs x 4
Zambezi L2: 2 MBs x 4
Different
SB L3: 8MB
Zambezi L3: 8MB
Same
 
Sandy Bridge can do x86-64 (64 bit) executions twice per clock per core
Zambezi can do 2 x86-64 (64 bit) executions per module(1 per core)
^How floating point units work into this I don't know
I am only comparing it to the i7 2600K because the Engineer Sample is so close to the tech specs and is very alike to the i7 2600K other than the IGP pimple
 
Two different ways of the doing the same thing
AMD says our way is more efficient
Intel says our way is more efficient
 
Who will win this more efficient war lol

seronx

sengutso

^^^ lol but u said amds cache is faster and why is it lagging on all test? im guessing if the memory controller is bugged out does it also affect the cpu's L1, L2 and L3 cache? base on the L cache test i7 980x destroyed bulldozer most of it.  

I said AMD has more cache not that it is faster
...

 

 

seronx
 
...

So, AMD has a faster L2 and a fast L3 for backup

You're all over place.

ty_ger07
You're all over place.

1. The first comment was about the Engineering Sample
 
2. The second comment is about the technical specs what Zambezi should technically be able to do but this is a B1 stepping 1 more stepping generation to B2!!
 

Hog54

It would cost me like $500 to upgrade to bulldozer and about $1500 to go intel.A $500 upgrade wins over a $1500 upgrade everytime in my book.

 
Actually it's basically the same price
CPU i7 2600K $315 FX-8130P $320(Max estimate)
Motherboard P67/Z68 $200 990FX $200
RAM same price
CPU Cooler can use the same
 
So, the difference isn't that big anymore

So wait bulldozer will have quad channel support?  Won't that require a new chipset instead of the 990 also what is the SLI support going to be with bulldozer 16x/16 , 16/8/8 etc?

Crusheddream

So wait bulldozer will have quad channel support?  Won't that require a new chipset instead of the 990 also what is the SLI support going to be with bulldozer 16x/16 , 16/8/8 etc?

Yes the design supports quad channel, but it is only active on G34 socket server boards. This has been the case with g34 for like 2 years already...quad channel ddr3 that is.
 
Perhaps, bulldozer will eventually be released with a fully redesigned chipset, that supports sli, quad channel ram, and a LGA rather than PGA.
 
There were originally rumors taht there was going to be a 16 core desktop part around a year after the first fx parts launch.

lehpron

No, Bulldozer is an entire architecture, like Nahelem or Sandy Bridge that fit into multiple sockets, too many simplifications are being made that generalize and cause confusion.  The variant of Bulldozer coming for consumers is a dual-channel AM3+ part codenamed Zambezi, there is a server variant of Bulldozer as well with quad-channel DDR3 which is the direct competior to LGA2011, which is codenamed Interlagos.  Both are Bulldozers; just like Sandy Bridge-E isn't just an enthusiasts CPU just because X79 is bringing one to us...

 
Actually there are two variants of Server Bulldozer
 
Entry-Level Valencia
and
High-End Interlagos
 
Valencia is for the Dual/Tri Channel C32 socket
and you already stated Interlagos
 

Bruno747
...fully redesigned chipset

FMx next year, with the Komodo CPUs and the Trinity APUs
 

Bruno747
, that supports sli

900 Series already supports SLI
 

Bruno747
, quad channel ram

Not going to happen....
 

Bruno747
, and a LGA rather than PGA.

Not going to happen...
 

Crusheddream
I thinks ill just get a 6 core i7 and sit on my x58 platform for another year until all this stuff is released and ironed out before i make a decision on my next CPU.  Seems all the newer stuff is aimed at servers.  which makes sense seeing as that would be bigger money maker.

 
Zambezi is built for gamer enthusiasts
Not built for Servers
and no one is forcing you to buy anything or choose any route
 
http://fudzilla.com/proce...ormance-figures-are-in
Zambezi ES 8130P 3.2GHz vs Sandy Bridge-P i7 2600K 3.4GHz
 
Zambezi wins

Hmm Interesting  AMD claim Bulldozer is 50 percents faster than i7 950 well heres what the article above just posted "The Fritz Chess result of 14,197 suggests that a 3.2GHz eight-core Bulldozer is ~23 percent faster than a 3.2GHz six-core Thuban. Since an eight core chip has 33 percent more cores than a six-core chip, that's precisely the sort of scaling we'd expect to see from a chip with two additional cores bolted on" Lmao so much for amd  claming its 50 percent faster than i7 950 now to me that is faildozer.

seronx

sengutso

Hmm Interesting  AMD claim Bulldozer is 50 percents faster than i7 950 well heres what the article above just posted "The Fritz Chess result of 14,197 suggests that a 3.2GHz eight-core Bulldozer is ~23 percent faster than a 3.2GHz six-core Thuban. Since an eight core chip has 33 percent more cores than a six-core chip, that's precisely the sort of scaling we'd expect to see from a chip with two additional cores bolted on" Lmao so much for amd  claming its 50 percent faster than i7 950 now to me that is faildozer.

Engineer Sample

...warns that it's unwise to draw conclusions based on engineering samples

  Lol dont get ur hopes up the bulldozer benches are all fake! on this website. it could be much slower than we thought.

"The original source of the information that Donanim Haber published this week on the alleged AMD Bulldozer engineering sample has admitted that the information was faked. Many sites were fooled by this information, including Ars, particularly because the results were plausible and fit the information we had about Bulldozer so far. Editor Emeritus Jon Stokes vetted our analysis, also believing the information to be true"  and the bad thing is bulldozer was delayed again to october.
 
"Bulldozer should be launching around the same time as Intel's Sandy Bridge-based Xeons. There's simply no way that Bulldozer will be able to compete with those processors in raw performance when it can just barely keep up with quad-core, "consumer grade" parts. Still, if the final hardware is priced right and saves a few watts per server, it could prove to be a success"

"On the other hand, Intel's Ivy Bridge desktop processors should be coming out sometime in the next 6-12 months. Again, Bulldozer's 32nm design simply won't be able to compete with the performance of Ivy Bridge's 22nm 3D tri-gate transistor technology, so price will be a key differentiator in this space as well."

Sources: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/07/bulldozer-prototype-suggests-amd-shooting-for-sandy-bridge-performance.ars 
I Smell Faildozer

{uZa}DOA

It's all hear say til they are released and i can test them out myself.... You can show me all the "Leaked" info you want... Nothing is said and done til the chip on my workbench period...

/fanboys unite!!

lol a fake info was leaked and an amd fanboy even made it worse hahaha! "spread the failure" ahaha

First, this is Zambezi not Bulldozer
Bulldozer is the architecture of which Zambezi, Valencia, and Interlagos are built on
 
None of those three CPU types will share the same ideals so there is no real pure Bulldozer CPU since they will all be tweaked differently
But, there is a Zambezi CPU, a Valencia CPU, and an Interlagos CPU
 
Zambezi is tweaked for speed, super high clocks and super high performance
Much higher, than Phenom II(It will also consume alot less power than Phenom II)
 
Second, Engineer Samples do not provide accurate performance numbers for speculation on the final CPU
They aren't built for high performance, they are ran through "cold" for high yields
While the retail samples will be ran through "hot" for high performance with a low to mild hit to yields
 
Third, we can go off the CPU Architecture and we can clearly find the winner in design
 
Sandy Bridge(Nehalem included) has 4 cores that try to mimic 8 almost-real threads
Zambezi has 4 modules that have 8 almost-real cores
 
Cores always beats out Threads
 
Fourth, AMD has one upped with Zambezi/Valencia/Interlagos with the fusion of SSE5 and AVX(FMA4, XOP, CVT16, AVX)
 
Fifth, How much CPUs produced for AMD =/= Launch
 
How much CPUs produced for AMD = Price
 
Launch date doesn't affect Price
Price doesn't affect Launch Date
 
The CPUs launch when every Technical/Partner/Event checkpoints are achieved

sengutso
cores always beat out threads? then explain why quadcore i7 920 beat the crap out of x6 hexacore phenom 2?  and if amd 8 core is superior architecture? why has it not surpass the 6 core i7 980x? which is still relies on i7 design and its about 4 years old.  i guess this is where i will  prove ur point wrong that dont mean more cores are better than more threads lol i7 980x has less core and more threads and 8 core bulldozer has more cores and less threads and 980x is still faster.

 
A Phenom II X6 does beat out an i7 920
 
It hasn't all the benchmarks up to now are fake(Donanimhaber+OBR blew the water)
 
The performance isn't final nor do we know the what the performance will be
 
We only know that it will be better than the equivalent architecture out
 
Which is Sandy Bridge
Both have AVX capabilities so they are Competing
 
We don't know the prices of the AMD Zambezi, but AMD as a source has said "Cheap" and "Acceptable" which most likely means it is cheaper than a 970 Hexa-core

seronx

sengutso
cores always beat out threads? then explain why quadcore i7 920 beat the crap out of x6 hexacore phenom 2?  and if amd 8 core is superior architecture? why has it not surpass the 6 core i7 980x? which is still relies on i7 design and its about 4 years old.  i guess this is where i will  prove ur point wrong that dont mean more cores are better than more threads lol i7 980x has less core and more threads and 8 core bulldozer has more cores and less threads and 980x is still faster.

A Phenom II X6 does beat out an i7 920

It hasn't all the benchmarks up to now are fake(Donanimhaber+OBR blew the water)

The performance isn't final nor do we know the what the performance will be

We only know that it will be better than the equivalent architecture out

Which is Sandy Bridge
Both have AVX capabilities so they are Competing

We don't know the prices of the AMD Zambezi, but AMD as a source has said "Cheap" and "Acceptable" which most likely means it is cheaper than a 970 Hexa-core

not in winrar benchmars, z zip, and heavily threaded benchmarks like 3ds max 9 . it does win againts 920 on some benches but other 4 core i7 it never stood a chance even if its 6 core. it is pathetic to see i x6 1055t 2.80 gzh get whoop by an i7 860 2.80 gzh clock for clock.
Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/7