Here, take some salt. AMD reportedly gave out performance figures in a presentation to its partners, performance figures seen by DonanimHaber. It is reported that an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" high-performance CPU architecture is pitched by its makers to have 50% higher performance than existing processors such as the Core i7 950 (4 cores, 8 threads), and Phenom II X6 1100T (6 cores). Very little is known about the processor, including at what clock speed the processor was running at, much less what other components were driving the test machine.



Taking this information into account, the said Bulldozer based processor should synthetically even outperform Core i7 980X six-core, Intel's fastest desktop processor in the market. Built from ground-up, the Bulldozer architecture focuses on greater inter-core communication and reconfigured ALU/FPU to achieve higher instructions per clock cycle (IPC) compared to the previous generation K10.5, on which its current Phenom II series processors are based. The processor is backed by new 9-series core logic, and a new AM3+ socket. AMD is expected to unveil this platform a little later this year.

424 Comments on Bulldozer 50% Faster than Core i7 and Phenom II

#1 jmcslob

To say the least if true Holy Shit!!! Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:00 Reply

#2 Melvis

Wow if this is true, AMD will take the performance crown once again.



Im sure these wont even be the FX version's ether? Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:05 Reply

#3 Lionheart

My have a big smile on my face now after reading this :) Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:09 Reply

#4 erocker

* This is suprising news if true. A 50% increase in speed over what I currently have is finally an acutal worthy upgrade. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:10 Reply

#5 RejZoR

They just have to ship the stuff fast. AMD had bright ideas all along, but the time is what has drove them over each time. And Intel was "sitting" in it. I mean what good is it to have 50% better performance now when you suck on the actual hardware release day...



So good luck to AMD and i hope they'll get the stuff out in time. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:12 Reply

#6 LAN_deRf_HA

Let's not start the selective memory loss crap. We know how this goes. These things are always hand picked numbers from very specific instances, if not totally bs from some performance "simulation". Give a real chip to a bad asian plumber and maybe we'll see something to get excited about. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:13 Reply

#7 Yellow&Nerdy?

This is from AMD, so it might not be 100% legit. But it should be very close to the 980X, if not on par or better. Performance is surprisingly good, but this probably means that they won't be very cheap either. We'll see. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:18 Reply

#8 FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!" I bet a hexa-core Sandy Bridge would beat the octo-core Bulldozer, not to mention handling 50% more threads. At least it is a significant improvement from Phenom II.



The one thing AMD, for sure, has going for them is not drastically changing sockets like Intel has, yet again, made a habit of doing. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:21 Reply

#9 blu3flannel

This will hopefully be a worthy upgrade from my i5 750, I want some new hardware to play with. :) Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:23 Reply

#10 random

I hope this is true, not to keen on staying with intel for too long since I'm really tired of having to switch platforms every so often. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:25 Reply

#11 Volkszorn88

This will be an instant success. I can't even wrap my mind around 50% faster. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:27 Reply

#12 gumpty

Crikey doodle dandy. It would be cool if this is true.



Hopefully they compete well in the price/performance & performance/watt stakes. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:30 Reply

#13 T3RM1N4L D0GM4

Do want REAL bench....



NOW!

:rockout: Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:45 Reply

#14 1Kurgan1

The Knife in your Back



Lets hope it's true. Though if it is, I expect it to be too expensive for my blood for a while, sadly. Lets hope it's true. Though if it is, I expect it to be too expensive for my blood for a while, sadly. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:47 Reply

#15 unknwn

They need to be as fast or faster than intel at not fully threaded applications too (games, desktop apps) otherwise it won't be that good for casual users. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:47 Reply

#16 Yukikaze

This needs to be taken with a mountain of salt, not just a grain of it. While I am all for AMD making a decisive comeback to drive prices in the high-end lower and lower (and make Intel drive forward faster), this reminds me of the pre-release nVidia slides for Fermi. After all the NV-hype was done, we were left with good cards, but nothing truly as revolutionary as nVidia would have us believe.



Until I see a TPU review, this is all manuFUD. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 3:58 Reply

#17 mcloughj

Looks like I'll hold off on my new system for a little while longer... just in case! Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:02 Reply

#18 Zubasa

Yukikaze This needs to be taken with a mountain of salt, not just a grain of it. While I am all for AMD making a decisive comeback to drive prices in the high-end lower and lower (and make Intel drive forward faster), this reminds me of the pre-release nVidia slides for Fermi. After all the NV-hype was done, we were left with good cards, but nothing truly as revolutionary as nVidia would have us believe.



Until I see a TPU review, this is all manuFUD. Actually this is not far fetched at all.

Notice they say their Octa-Core (8) proc is 50% faster than the i7 950 Quad-Core (4).

If both chips are running at the same clocks, that just means the Bulldozer isn't any/much faster IPC than a Nehalem. Actually this is not far fetched at all.Notice they say their Octa-Core () proc isthan the i7 950 Quad-Core (). Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:11 Reply

#19 arroyo

Zubasa, you made a point!



That's true. They comparing 4 cylinder Intel engine with new V8 from AMD. Of course it would be faster than Intel! Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:16 Reply

#20 Yukikaze

Zubasa Actually this is not far fetched at all.

Notice they say their Octa-Core (8) proc is 50% faster than the i7 950 Quad-Core (4).

If both chips are running at the same clocks, that just means the Bulldozer isn't any faster IPC than a Nehalem. This really depends on what they call a core:

1. A real core.

2. One half of their SMT arrangement.



In the case of 1, I agree. In the case of 2, their octa-core processor is not a "true" octa-core. According to what I know about bulldozer every pair of cores is a hybrid between Intel's SMT approach (HyperThreading) and a true pair of separate cores. It is getting hard to define this architecture by the number of cores in the way previous generations could be, but on strict terms, this is a 4-core processor with AMD's flavor of SMT.



In case 1, we're talking about nothing special. In the case of 2, we're talking about some serious processing power. This really depends on what they call a core:1. A real core.2. One half of their SMT arrangement.In the case of 1, I agree. In the case of 2, their octa-core processor is not a "true" octa-core. According to what I know about bulldozer every pair of cores is a hybrid between Intel's SMT approach (HyperThreading) and a true pair of separate cores. It is getting hard to define this architecture by the number of cores in the way previous generations could be, but on strict terms, this is a 4-core processor with AMD's flavor of SMT.In case 1, we're talking about nothing special. In the case of 2, we're talking about some serious processing power. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:17 Reply

#21 Zubasa

In case 2, Intel will finally have some serious competition I have been waiting for.

On the other hand, we have yet to see how Intel's LGA2011 chips performs.

Also remember that these are PR figures likely done with cherry picked applications in the second case. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:24 Reply

#22 bear jesus

When overclocked the i5 2600k can beat the i7 980x in some cases, what will the hyper threaded 6/8 core sandy bridge i7's do?



To be honest this release is far from specific enough, 50% core for core would be amazing but I'm doubting that, an 8 core CPU that's 50% faster than a 6 core CPU does not exactly sound amazing unless the 8 core is clocked much lower but no details.



I want to be impressed but until i see something more specific it's hard to be :( Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:25 Reply

#23 Bo$$

Lab Extraordinaire this brought a tear to my eye, lets hope prices are decent around june/july time, so i can build an amazing PC Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:27 Reply

#24 bear jesus

Using Google translate the one line i notice most is this "125 watts running at 3GHz + with 8-core"



So if it were 50% faster core for core than previous 3ghz cpu's that would very much impress me as long it did not cost an arm and a leg. Posted on Jan 13th 2011, 4:30 Reply