Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Upgrades Hardware

AMD Bulldozer Information and Benchmarks Leaked 126

Posted by timothy
from the just-a-pinch-of-salt-between-cheek-and-gum dept.
MojoKid writes "With Bobcat and Llano launched, AMD has one more major product overhaul set for this year. The company's Bulldozer CPU will launch in the next few months, and after years of waiting, enthusiasts and IT industry analysts are both curious to see what AMD has in its high performance pipeline. According to recently leaked info, one of the new AMD octal-core processors will be an AMD FX-8130P running at 3.2GHz base speed, with what's reported as a 3.7GHz Turbo speed, and a 4.2GHz clock speed if only half the CPU's cores are in use." Writer Joel Hruska justly points out that measures based on unofficial data and unreleased chips are subject to all kinds of potential errors, not to mention Photoshop.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Bulldozer Information and Benchmarks Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • Why the hype? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15, 2011 @02:38AM (#36772386)

    I don't really understand the hype behind Bulldozer. Do people really believe that it'll be on-par with Sandy Bridge? The $200 2500k competes well with their own $700+ CPU's. That is absolutely ridiculous performance that I wouldn't have dreamed of 5-10 years ago, for that price.

    Sure, maybe having more cores will mean better multi-threaded performance, but this still isn't taken advantage of. I don't see Intel losing in the single-threaded department anytime soon.

  • I think most here are missing the forest for the trees. Unless you are a Crysis playing ePeen "must win teh benchmarks!" type AMD doesn't have to win all they have to be is "good enough" which I would argue they currently are and these new chips will simply make it better.

    I currently have a Deneb AMD quad as my main home machine and slam the living hell out of it. Video transcoding, using it as a Win 7 DVR, playing games for hours, often WHILE transcoding or recording and you know what? it works great. And I'm a hardcore case, most folks still only do one task at a time, be it gaming, browsing, whatever. Now most importantly I have a machine that will do all that, as well as take a 6 core later on if I wish, with 1.5Tb of HDDs and 8Gb of RAM and an HD4850 and the whole smash, including Win 7 HP X64? Less than $600 after MIR.

    And THAT is what matters especially in a dead economy. Folks want a reasonably powerful machine that will last them for years and won't break their wallets and AMD frankly gives them overkill for cheap. I have built fully loaded triples that crank out the video at 1080p all day long for less than $450, quads less than $500 and thanks to how long AMD sticks with sockets if 5 years down the road they decide they want a little more oomph I can pick them up a cheap OEM and just drop it in.

    I have found for the jobs the vast majority of folks that walk into my shop have "good enough" was passed with the dual core chips but thanks to AMD for nearly the same money they can go triple or quad which just gives them more years of service without slowdown. Hell the prices are so cheap i built my dad a quad for home. Does he need a quad? Oh hell no, he still single tasks everything like it is 1993! But by going quad I know that no matter how much crap like messenger he ends up running in the task bar he'll never lose responsiveness, and this machine will probably last him the rest of his life.

    So unless you are trying to do the super heavy lifting like multiple compiles or hardcore video editing (which I'll admit there is more guys here that do such hardcore CPU pounding than the general pop by a long shot) then all the extra $$$ you spend by going Intel is simply wasted money. I'd say as long as AMD can stay even within a third of the performance of the Intel chips they'll be "good enough" for the vast majority, and having nice low prices simply seals the deal.

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert

Working...