a 4Ghz AMD is as fast as a 2.8Ghz Intel... hmmm

Sounds like Pentium 4 VS Athlon64 .. all over again but the other way around and the intel counterparts are at around 3.8Ghz VS AMD's 4.2Ghz

What AMD needs to do is scrap this bloated over the top super long PIPLEINE ( Pentium 4 ) Designed Bulldozer fail.

And go back to a Small pipeline with improved IPC and better performance per clock!... THe funny thing is that a Phenom II X6 1100T moved to 32nm with a clock of 4ghz would have been competative with intel but AMD went with a worthless garbage of a product! >Bulldozer.

AMD - When your older product "BEATS" your Newer product thats built on a smaller manufacturing technology. you have just created a pile of doggy dodo

vid_ghost: Go on and design better CPU yourself.

Bulldozer's pipeline is much shorter than Pentium 4's pipeline.

Actually, bulldozer's pipeline quite equally long to the pipeline of world's fastest CPU, IBM's power7. So it seems to be on the sweet spot of pipeline lenght.

Bulldozer's problems are elsewhere. With shorter pipeline it would be even worse cpu, as it would clock much lower.

And K10-basen "Athlon 6x" cannot clock to 4 GHz (reliably with reasonable power consumption) because of it's shorter pipeline, so you can stop dreaming about it.


Bulldozer is performing badly mostly because of:
1) Combination of small L1 caches and slow L2 caches. This problem stays with piledriver.
2) L1 instruction cache aliasing problems and write-through L1 caches causing excessive L2 traffic. This problem stays with piledriver
3) The made couple of small mistakes somewhere and it cannot reach the clock speeds it was supposed to reach/what speeds most of it's pipeline would allow. Piledriver will fix this.
4) To get full floating point performance, you have to use AMD's own FMA4 instructions. No legacy software uses those, and not all new software is going to use them because intel is not going to implement those same instructions. Piledriver is going to support Intel Haswell-compatible FMA3, so new code optimized to intel will give full fpu performance on piledriver, no need for amd-specific optimizations.

In 2 months we can compare piledriver (trinity) to K10(llano), both manufactured with same 32nm technology.

Then we will start seeing what piledriver gives compared to K10.

How much will AMD pay for that RCM licensing?
Will AMD manage to increase cpu ASP or sales to compensate the licensing?

Sandy bridge would be in a whole lot of trouble with a 32nm phenom with Clock Mesh Tech.

So much fanboism in this thread, it's not even funny.

Xbitlabs themselves have shown in their Bulldozer review that 2 Sandy Bridge cores are about as fast as 2 Bulldozer modules at the same clocks (i.e., 2 SB cores = 4 Bulldozer cores).

Furthermore, if we look at a benchmark such as Cinebench, we can see both single-threaded and multi-threaded performance. Cinebench scales extremely well with IPC and cores. It correctly shows that Phenom II is better per clock than Bulldozer, which has been shown by Xbitlabs and many other sites.

http://www.nordichardware...dge-3770k-benchmarks.html

Single-threaded Performance
FX-8150 3.6ghz = 1.02 (100%)
Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3ghz = 1.1 (108%)
Core i5 2500K 3.3ghz = 1.38 (135%)
Core i7 2600K 3.4ghz = 1.41 (138%)
Core i7 3770K Ivy 3.5ghz = 1.65 (162%)

On average, we can expect Ivy Bridge to hold about a 50-60% advantage in single-threaded performance over current iterations of Bulldozer (i.e., games such as Starcraft 2 and SKYRIM show this "Cinebench" % lead translates extremely well when comparing Sandy Bridge to Bulldozer). We can also see that Phenom II is better on both a per core and a per clock basis than Bulldozer architecture. This again has been shown by all the major professional reviewers.

Multi-threaded performance:
Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3ghz = 5.86 (97%)
FX-8150 3.6ghz = 6.03 (100%)
Core i7 2600K 3.4ghz = 6.88 (114%)
Core i7 3770K Ivy 3.5ghz = 7.52(125%)

Again, Bulldozer can only outperform Phenom II as a result of having 8 cores and more aggressive TurboBoost when all the cores are used. Phenom II is still the moer efficient processor even under multi-threaded tasks considering it has lower clocks and only 4 cores. Compared to Intel's offerings, Bulldozer's 8 cores still cannot even match 4 Sandy Bridge cores with HT and lose badly to 4 Ivy Bridge cores with HT.

Bulldozer would need a 25% increase in frequency just to match a stock Ivy Bridge Processor in multi-threaded tasks and an unreal increase in frequency to have any shot to beat Ivy Bridge in applications that use 1-4 threads only (something that won't happen on any refined 32nm process).

Now, even if AMD could release a 4.5ghz Piledriver, Ivy Bridge can still easily overclock from 3.5ghz to 5.0ghz on air cooling. Since we are enthusiasts and not average consumers, it's only logical to compare top speeds on air cooling. Not many people here spend $200-300 on a CPU and not overclock it. Under those conditions, Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge would have higher overclocking and at the same time lower power consumption, only extending their lead.

Essentially, Piledriver will not change a single thing. Next year Intel will add another 15% IPC increase with Haswell and most likely it will overclock even higher than 5.0ghz because 22nm process will have matured even more in 12 months.

It's perfectly OK to buy AMD chips because 1 person might prefer AMD over Intel. However, let's be subjective here and look at the reality based on facts. Right now, AMD's CPU performance is so far behind that even a 1st generation overclocked Nehalem/Lynnfield processor such as i7 920 @ 4.0ghz or i7 860 @ 3.9ghz would beat Bulldozer in 90% of applications. Bulldozer would net some wins in Rendering, Video Encoding, Encyption. If you perform those tasks often, there is a case for Bulldozer. Problem is i7 920 is a chip from 2008. So Bulldozer competes against SB and Piledriver will compete against IVB and most likely to some extent Haswell.

Basically, if someone wants to support AMD, there is a legitimate way to do so by buying their superior HD7900 series. But calling Intel CPU users fanboys is actually the most ridiculous thing anyone can say since it's actually difficult if not impossible to make a case for AMD's CPUs > $100 at the moment based on benchmarks, overclocking and/or power consumption.

But if people still want to argue facts, there are plenty of professional reviews that contradict their assessment that AMD has "competitive CPUs".

Gaming performance with HD7970:

For example, the Pentium G630 and Pentium G860 performed just slightly below and above AMD's venerable Phenom II X4 955, respectively. Even more eye-opening was that the new FX-4100, -6100, and -8120 actually underperformed both budget-oriented Intel chips, despite their higher price points. The Athlon II X3 and X4 CPUs were left in the dust, along with the Llano-based A8 and A6 APUs, and the A4-3400 performed dismally.

Pushed as far as they can go on air, no AMD CPU can touch a stock Core i5-2400 in the same benchmark suite.

http://www.tomshardware.c...eview-overclock,3106.html

It would be laughable for someone with HD7970 or a pair of those to use an AMD based CPU. Who would cripple $600-1200 worth of graphics performance? Even AMD tells reviewers to test their HD7970 graphics card with Intel CPUs to not show CPU bottlenecks!

I can see Intel winning the high-end and sometimes in mid-range performance levels but AMD will win in 2012/2013 if only because of their superior graphics and 2x the cores as Intel's ultrabook.

They told us the same with Bulldozer its great its good its fast bla bla untill we saw the benchmarks lol. Its better to wait and see it yourself.

Intel tri-gate provides more benefit than resonant mesh in Piledriver, so distance between AMD and Intel is still increasing.
AMD is no more competition for SB or IB. Intel previous CPU like Conroe based and Nehalem based, are much harder competition for SB or IB, than any CPU from AMD.
So Intel is hard pressed by his previous success, and must make serious improvements with any new CPU. If not, sales will fail, profit drops, and will lose more money than required to develop new CPU.

This is quite intresting. Atleast this is good news for power consumption. Expect trinity to oc to 5.2 ghz, and vishera to oc to 5.4 ghz on air. The gap between intel and AMD will continue to shrink for multithreaded CPU performance.

http://AMDFX.blogspot.com

As an Intel fanboy, I truly hope this works out for AMD.

The CPU is of minor importance at present as there is not acommercial OS which can use the capacity capacity of either make of CPU or use the multi-cores available. Most benchmark test use single core operation for benchmarks. There are very few programs written for multi-cored processors. A very few graphic programs use all the cores. Many programs open at the same time are just used by lazy operators or folks who were badly trained or not trained in the operation of a computer.

From what I hear Piledriver will have 10-15% better IPC than Bulldozer

Resonant clock mesh reduces power by 10% allowing 10% higher clocks. It also eliminates clock skew for another ~10% overclocking.

Bulldozer can get to 5ghz on air. Piledriver might get to 6ghz. Add 10-15% IPC increase and 10-15% boost from Windows 8 CMT and we might have Intel on the ropes as far as socket 1155 goes.

Intel might not be prepared to have a price war using socket 1366/1211.

It could be a very interesting year.

bestjinjo is really a hardcore intel boy.

AMD has gone too far sadly. These whole comments I've read didn't add anything to my knowledge. But then again while Intel has better techs and fabs and lower nanometer its harder and harder for AMD to catch up with, IMO.

Amd-s new architecture iz gaining on performance!
Bulldozers architecture iz the only new thing that happened for a long time in x86 world!
Intel's approach with i5 i7gen. deployed 4-core pump and doubled omount of logical rops.
This whose the real reason for such big performance gain over Amd and Intel's older platforms (50%). On the other side Amd iz going pretty good in server market where new core architecture iz showing all of it's benefits.
For all of as faster and more competitive Amd = Intel's care and development = more performance per $ and not the any other way around.
This iz the real Amd-s legacy. It happened twice that Amd whose better then Intel and it will happen again! Last time this happend Amd did not behaved politely! They fighting iz ours benefit. ARM gen progress in performance iz coming to 50% -100% due the more competitors an on PC this rate iz lazy 15% - 20%.

Haha there's a guy here called BestJinjo or dumbo that evens brags about how SuperPI proves how Intel improves its CPU's.

What a douche

What i see here,is that AMD will keep that promise of 10-15% improvement.Witch means that the architecture cannot be fixed.
Basically they are just using the clock mesh to keep the stock speed to 4Ghz.That is the same chip at a 10% higher stock overclock.Useless stuff here.
If they made a die shrink of phenom 2 they would of got more performance than this crap.
I see dark days for AMD until they ditch this stupid design.

And before any of you say something,i am an AMD fanboy.
Stop saying stupid things,just look at the facts.
They are just keeping this stupid design to make some money back from what they spent on it.
No thanks i will not buy that shit until they make something good.
I will not be amds next idiot to buy their cpus.
I just wish for the sake of competition and prices for AMD to do well.
But this is not the way to make money AMD.
Hope you see this.

frequencies of new FX:
http://foro.noticias3d.co...mp;viewfull=1#post4429008