Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
TRENDING TODAY
Home > News > Technology and Gadgets > CPU

January 13th, 2011, 12:11 GMT · By

AMD Says Bulldozer Is 50% Faster than Core i7 CPUs [UPDATED]

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

AMD says Bulldozer is 50% faster than Core i7 and Thuban CPUs
Enlarge picture
AMD's long anticipated Bulldozer architecture that has been in development since 2005 is finally getting ready for prime time, and early reports suggest it to be 50% faster than current Core i7 and Phenom II processors, a worthy feat however you may look at it.

According to the DonanimHaber website, AMD reportedly gave out these performance figures in a presentation to its partners.

The document cited compared an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture with a 4-core, 8-thread, Intel Core i7 950 and with a six-core Phenom II X6 1100T CPU, in three different usage scenarios (media, rendering and games).

The results varied depending on the tasks run, but, finally, the Bulldozer processor proved itself to be approximately 50 faster than the Core i7 950.

Very little is known about the CPU used by AMD for running these benchmarks, but the 950 features 8MB of L3 cache, a tri-channel memory controller, runs at 3.06GHz and can reach speeds up to 3.33 GHz thanks to the Turbo Boost technology.

If the numbers demoed by AMD are true, the said Bulldozer chip should even outperform the six-core Intel Core i7 980X CPU.

In development since 2005, Bulldozer is AMD's next high-performance processor architecture, and is optimized to deliver better inter-core communications and a higher instructions per clock cycle count.

As a result, AMD used a modular approach, each dual-core module being comprised of 2MB of L2 cache, 16kB 4-way L1 data cache per core and a 2-way 64kB L1 instruction cache per module, two dedicated integer cores and two symmetrical 128-bit FMAC pipelines that can be unified into one large 256-bit wide unit.

In addition, Bulldozer CPUs can be configured with up to 8MB of L3 cache shared between the available cores.

The chips will use AMD's 9-series motherboard chipsets as well as the new AM3+ socket, MSI already presenting such a board to the world. (via TechPowerUp)

UPDATE: The AMD presentatin slide that DonanimHaber based its assuptions on was just published on the website. Read more bout it here.

FILED UNDER:
AMD
CPU
Bulldozer
Core i7
Thuban


36,608 hits · 15 comments
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


AMD to Ship First Bulldozer Server CPUs in Q3 2011

AMD's Bulldozer Will Rival Intel's Core i7 in Performance

8-Core AMD Desktop Zambezi Bulldozer Chips Coming in Q2 2011

Globalfoundries Says 32nm SOI Manufacturing Process Is on Track, Dismisses Analyst Claims

Oracle Reveals 16-Core SPARC T3 CPU for Servers

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Insane on 14 Jan 2011, 03:39 UTC reply to this comment

To good to be true.


Comment #2 by: ice on 18 Jan 2011, 13:46 UTC reply to this comment

50% Faster too good to be true? Hardly. An 8 core vs a 4 core and its only 50% faster would mean an i7 950 core is 33% faster than a bulldozer core.

Comment #2.1 by: JJ on 26 Feb 2011, 13:32 GMT

The Core i7 950 has 4 cores, 8 threads, just like the Bulldozer. So no, the i7 wouldn't be 33% faster.

Comment #2.2 by: Lee on 23 May 2011, 01:51 GMT

Actually JJ, You are wrong. The article states that the bulldozer is a 8-core cpu and not a 4-core 8-thread CPU.

Comment #2.3 by: 5tyl0 on 09 Jun 2011, 23:00 GMT

You need to revise back bulldozer architecture.Theres 4 bulldozer core which consist 2 small core in that core.So,it has 8 core.Amd wanted to pronounced it differently and its far from hyper-threading.


Comment #3 by: robar on 19 Jan 2011, 01:01 UTC reply to this comment

Well, if they price it right, it will cause Intel to lower its bloated prices and bring some real competition in the CPU market.

Comment #3.1 by: katpo on 01 Jun 2011, 20:13 GMT

they said thet for the first time will focus on performance not price


Comment #4 by: Techman on 23 Feb 2011, 16:51 UTC reply to this comment

I don't know why amd hasn't stolen and used a technology from intel (like hyperthreading).Intel has allready stolen so many technologies from amd.Why not do the same to give yourself a competitive edge?Hopefully these chips work out.If it competes with intels they will be the first in a long time.

Comment #4.1 by: Revox on 01 Mar 2011, 20:05 GMT

Because that will cost AMD royalties for every CPU they sell. Otherwise it will be a patent breach which Intel will use to sue AMD.

What AMD have done is a much more clever aproach to do the same thing Intels HT does.
AMD have 2 physical throughputs pr "module" or "core if you like in hardware. While Intel have one core with som instructions or software if you like to tell it what to do.

Intels HT is still based on one core doing the job of two cores, which can't compete with AMD's solution.
But if AMD's solution works in real life is still unknown.

Comment #4.2 by: MItch on 20 Mar 2011, 11:04 GMT

I like your post. BUT maybe AMD have more integrity


Comment #5 by: My 2 cents on 23 Mar 2011, 21:44 UTC reply to this comment

Personally I don't trust any manufacturer's claims. We have witnessed all manufacturers using test that "highlights" their products, only to disappoint us when we buy them. Until an independent test is performed I'm not spending my money on anyones marketing schemes.


Comment #6 by: Gasmz on 02 Jun 2011, 19:51 UTC reply to this comment

There is no way this thing is going to out perform a 2600k. Especially when overclocked


Comment #7 by: LeMan on 11 Jun 2011, 13:40 UTC reply to this comment

AMD is trying but they will not succeed outperform 2600k.The fact that they took back the release date of "Bulldozer" shows that everything is a marketing trick and nothing more.
It reminds me some movie trailers when they market it and market it all over again , and at the end the movie is horrible.
This will happen also here as you will see, IF AMD finally is able to produce the chip, lol


Comment #8 by: arthur on 14 Oct 2011, 22:27 UTC reply to this comment

EPIC FAIL 10-14-2011


Comment #9 by: Sam on 15 Jan 2012, 15:29 UTC reply to this comment

AMD became the * liars.

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM