Bulldozer delayed again?

[enaberif]

Intel has been winning the cpu wars now for like what 3 years? Nothing amd has put out has been able to compete at all.

[terrybear]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Intel has been winning the cpu wars now for like what 3 years? Nothing amd has put out has been able to compete at all.

Maybe if your 1 of those users whom draws such conclusions based on "syntheric" biased benchmarks like your coment sounds. But again like I have said, unlabeled systems with same preformance parts/specs 1 intel & 1 amd, 99% of folks will not notice a diffrence.

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by terrybear

Maybe if your 1 of those users whom draws such conclusions based on "syntheric" biased benchmarks like your coment sounds. But again like I have said, unlabeled systems with same preformance parts/specs 1 intel & 1 amd, 99% of folks will not notice a diffrence.

How does encoding MP3s and videos perform on AMD systems nowadays compared to Intel? I know lots of laymen folk who take videos from their cameras, or take avi's of TV shows and movies to encode and put on their ipods etc for travel to keep the kids occupied.

[terrybear]

Originally Posted by chrisk

How does encoding MP3s and videos perform on AMD systems nowadays compared to Intel? I know lots of laymen folk who take videos from their cameras, or take avi's of TV shows and movies to encode and put on their ipods etc for travel to keep the kids occupied.

I don't do alot of that stuff nowadays to be honest with you, but the last time i was doin convertx2dvd converts, on a Phenom II X4 955 be @ 3.8 vs X6 @ 3.8 ghz on the same board to convert a 800 meg xvid to dvd on the X4 would take me just over a hour vs on the X6 it was taking me 18-20 minutes.

Just like I get a good lil chuckle when I read on this & other forums/sites that claim X6 cpu's are not good for gaming ..... thats why @ the same clocks my X6 garnered me 20-40 more fps in GTA4 with everything on @1920x1080 vs the X4.

Thats why i think peaple are nuts thinkin the dozers will be not much better then the Phenom's or close enough in preformance to sandy's.

But again, the truth will only be known once the hardware sites get them & run them thru there paces.

[dma0991]

BD might not even beat Phenom II if Phenom II results are extrapolated to be an 8 core processor @ 32nm if the module is only 1.8x of an actual dual core without resource sharing. If the 6 core BD is not even as good or better than a Phenom II X6, then I'm a little worried about how BD would perform. Even before BD launches, it is very well expected that BD would possibly have superior multithreaded performance over SB but still lose out in terms of single threaded performance.

The problem with BD is that the performance is a big unknown. As far as its architecture goes it is yet another deciding factor that would make it harder to decide whether BD is a success or a flop. With all of the possibly fake leaks out there just to add more confusion. For the sake of healthy competition, it is for the best that AMD brings something worth shouting about.

[chrisk]

I dont think you can extrapolate BD based on Phenom ii perf. Its a new architecture which is what is exciting.

As far as gaming, Phenoms of any type are good enough. But its the encoding performance that often leads me to suggest Intel. Lots of folks i know do tasks like encode media for use in portable devices, so I often suggest Intel. If they insist they wont do this, I will look to Amd in some of those cases.

[YukonTrooper]

Originally Posted by dma0991

The problem with BD is that the performance is a big unknown. As far as its architecture goes it is yet another deciding factor that would make it harder to decide whether BD is a success or a flop. With all of the possibly fake leaks out there just to add more confusion. For the sake of healthy competition, it is for the best that AMD brings something worth shouting about.

I think a win for AMD would be clock-for-clock Nehalem performance, good power and heat profile, at a very competitive price.

AMD also really needs to focus on on-die GPU performance. Intel is really starting to pick up the pace in that department.

I dunno I just bought a 990FX board and I'm going to be impressed if bulldozer with 8* cores can do what the 2600k can do on 4 cores on heavily threaded applications.

I think the dozer will compete with the 2600k at a higher pricepoint but still get destroyed in performance when it comes to single threaded applications. Oh and it will overclock like a sick dog without even showing a 10% improvement.

[sswilson]

Originally Posted by enaberif

Intel has been winning the cpu wars now for like what 3 years? Nothing amd has put out has been able to compete at all.

Originally Posted by terrybear

Maybe if your 1 of those users whom draws such conclusions based on "syntheric" biased benchmarks like your coment sounds. But again like I have said, unlabeled systems with same preformance parts/specs 1 intel & 1 amd, 99% of folks will not notice a diffrence.

Sorry, but I have to agree with enaberif on this one, and it's a lot more than just synthetic benchmarks.

I've personally found that PH & PHII procs have needed a hell of a lot of OC'ing (Bus especially) to get that "snappiness" I've come to expect from a current day proc. Nothing AMD has put out has really impressed me since the S939 days, but I keep buying/trying them in the hopes that they'll come up with something even close to Intel's mainstream proc of the week....

As it stands, I'd put AMD a good 2 years behind in performance.

With that said and done.... I'm praying that BD actually does something impressive (whether it's performance, or possibly 12+ cores / proc for overall single chip folding performance doesn't matter that much to me) or AMD will be forever relegated to the low power / APU market.

[Borg]

I've read that the delays indicate internal problems. Rumors and theories and they're not from me but that's been the speculation that I've read.

My impression is still Intel Sandy Bridge parts running at a much lower power consumption (and probably temps) for comparable chips. Maybe there's something to be said for an extra two cores (Phe. II X6 v.s. i5-2500k) but the performance difference appears considerable.

I'm not sure whether AMD chips are priced cheap enough when comparing that. I don't have the price/performance stats handy, though.