Back to Article

  • Beenthere - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    With 28nm mobile GPUs, Bulldozer in a few weeks and Trinity in early '12 AMD is ramping very fast now that they have sorted Bulldozer production issues. The new GF Fab in NY should help supply demand in '12 also. It's all good as far as I can see, well except for Intel. Reply
  • mckirkus - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    Let's be reasonable. Intel is coming out with its 22nm Tri-gate transistors (Ivy Bridge) in a few months which will likely blow Bulldozer out of the water. Nvidia may have some rough times if they can't put out a competing product soon. Intel may never attempt to create a discrete 3D graphics card but if integrated graphics get powerful enough that market might be at risk of becoming obsolete. Reply
  • Beenthere - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    Don't hold your breath on Intel blowing Bulldozer out of the water any time soon. Stay tuned. :) Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Intel doesnt have to blow bulldozer out of the water. Intel has had a proven product (sandy bridge) out for many months now. It is up to AMD to prove if they are even competitive, if they ever get bulldozer out in the consumer market. And Trinity in early 2012?? We will be lucky to have Bulldozer out in significant supply by that time, in my opinion. Reply
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    You're wonderfully optimistic in all your posts, but I can't help feel that it's rather misplaced. Trinity is scheduled for 1H 2012 which means any time up to 30th June, and we have no idea what's "enhanced" about Enhanced Bulldozer. It could be a boost similar to the jump from Conroe to Penryn, but we don't even know how Zambezi will perform so there's little point speculating on Komodo, let alone predicting that AMD will stay ahead of the curve. Reply
  • Targon - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    We can predict that on a per-clock and per-core basis, Bulldozer will be faster than the current K10.5 designs, so going to an eight core processor should give AMD a product that will be in some demand. As far as Trinity, considering we have Llano, which is K10.5 CPU with the GPU included, Trinity going to a Bulldozer core with the GPU included may not be all THAT difficult, all things considered. AMD went to a 2-core per module approach to allow for combinations of CPU and GPU(so we could see 3 CPU+1 GPU, or 2 CPU+2 GPU for example). At least, that is what I remember from some of the AMD presentations about "Fusion".

    I agree that it is a bit premature to say just how good or bad the performance of Bulldozer will be, but considering that the reason for the delays to this point have been problems ramping clock speed, which are now shown to be resolved, it looks good for AMD to be on track for the next six months at least.
  • fic2 - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    I stopped holding my breath for AMD to actually release Bulldozer - bought an i5. Waited through the June non-release, started waiting until the September non-release, didn't want to wait until the October non-release. Reply
  • Targon - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    So, being reasonable is how good the performance will be as a platform. Intel still does not have a competitive graphics solution at this point, and while AMD CPU performance may have been lower, can you seriously tell me that a $500 Intel based computer tower is better in ALL ways compared to a $500 AMD based tower? In general, Intel has had the CPU advantage, but the graphics and other supporting chips and chipsets in an AMD based system are better.

    A Phenom 2 X4 955 right now when paired with a decent video card also has enough performance in games where I don't find it lacking, no matter that Intel has faster processors. Bulldozer will be faster per clock compared to the current K10.5 offerings, and with 8 physical cores, multi-threaded apps will see a huge benefit.

    So, who cares if Intel has the fastest chip as long as AMD performance is fast enough and is competitive for the money?
  • Makaveli - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    " chipsets in an AMD based system are better"

    i'm sorry but this made me laugh when has amd ever had a better chipset than Intel for motherboards.
  • wifiwolf - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    Amd based chipsets throw every feature into it so manufacturers decide what to implement. Intel on the other side seems to milk manufacturers and indirectly end users by having many different chipsets for :
    want integrated graphics go h67/z68
    dont want it go p67
    oh but i want ssd caching again z68
    dont want any advanced stuff h61
    oh but I want usb3 and sata3...
    and want support for more than 1333MHz RAM...
  • jabber - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Indeed. AMD boxes do work out better value.

    If I build a box to a price point and go for an AMD based box I can get a low end 880 AMD motherboard with HDMI/USB3/e-SATA/optical out/DVI etc. All good current stuff.

    If I choose an i3 chip and then have to put a low end Intel motherboard in we are limited to 4 USB2 ports and (FFS) serial and parallel ports. Thats it.

    The customer doesnt know the difference between a Athlon and i3 so give them the best all round value. Thats AMD.

    Especially if the AMD box comes in at such a lower cost than the Intel box that I can put in a 64GB SSD (plus keep all the modern connectivity). I just cant do that with the Intel option.
  • silverblue - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    I only have to look at X79 to see a rather missed opportunity. Hell, even the AMD A75 chipset boards come with USB3, and there's no Thunderbolt support. Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Dont really follow your reasoning. First you state that Intel does not have a competitive graphics solution, which is true relative to Llano at least. But graphics is not their main business. CPUs are, and they are very good at that.

    But then you talk about the value of an AMD system when using a discrete graphics card. So when you are talking about such a system, I dont see how Intel's graphics performance is relevant.

    I would say that an i3 2100 with a discrete card would be very competitive with the phenom system you mention for very close to the same price. The intel system would be faster in most cases, but the AMD might be faster in heavily multithreaded applications.

    The problem I see with AMD (Llano) on the desktop, is that the graphics is still not really adequate for any kind of serious gaming, and can be far exceeded by an 80.00 discrete card, and probably matched by a 50.00 card.
  • Targon - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    It's simple, with AMD, you can keep the same motherboard across multiple generations of CPUs, while with Intel you generally are forced to replace your motherboard with each new generation of CPU. AMD had socket 939, which went from single core to dual-core, Socket AM2 and AM2+ for the DDR2 based processors, and AM2+ allowed the latest Phenom 2 processors which support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory. Those same Phenom 2 processors with DDR3 support can also be used in new motherboards that have socket AM3 and AM3+ with DDR 3 memory, which will work with the Bulldozer "FX" processors.

    As a result, for someone who wants to be able to upgrade their system in stages, you have a LOT more room. The only reason for the move from AM2+ to AM3 was due to DDR3 memory needing a different type of memory.

    In the case of discrete graphics, Intel has an advantage in terms of performance, but if AMD has ENOUGH performance and is competitive in the price vs. performance arena, then again, we end up seeing Bulldozer as a viable CPU design.
  • Omega215D - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    To add, I just bought an Athlon II X4 for $80. Where else can I get a quad core that performs really well for that price?

    AMD has been really good in terms of backwards compatibility as well. AM3 CPU in an AM2/2+ motherboard that's most likely already filled up with DDR2 and when budget permits you can upgrade needing only the motherboard and RAM.

    Intel cannot beat AMD on integrated graphics front and they have been making promises of discrete cards for years and fail to produce them.

    If you are going for a value priced PC then AMD is a smart choice. Very few people will notice that it's not the top of the line CPU anyhow.
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    I agree that AMD is competitive on the lower end, and can be a viable option, especially for someone who builds their own system.

    However, I used to be an AMD fan, and I would like to see them competitive at the mid to high end, not just "good enough". Maybe Bulldozer will do this, but considering all the delays and lack of benchmarks, I seriously doubt it, except perhaps in very specific, highly threaded applications.
  • Omega215D - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    Most consumers don't care about benchmarks or other high end stuff. This is where focusing on the low to mid range make sense. Reply
  • adrien - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    IIRC, you won't see Tri-gate stuff in all Ivy Bridge CPUs. And knowing intel, they'll make you pay a premium for it.

    I'm simply highly skeptical in general.
  • jdietz - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    IG has a massively long way to go before it catches discrete graphics.

    I am interested in performance-tier products such as GTX460 or Radeon HD 6850.

    Current integrated graphics cannot match even budget-tier discrete graphics solutions. The Ivy Bridge integrated graphics may be able to match budget-tier solutions (obviating the need for them). It will be a long time before integrated graphics can match performance-tier solutions such as those I've mentioned.
  • Natfly - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    Any word on the architecture in this 7000 series of gpus? Are they going to be vliw4 like barts or is GCN coming out this soon? Reply
  • wifiwolf - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    Seems no point going back from vliw4 after all that work trying to justify the change from vliw4+1, at least too soon for that Reply
  • JPForums - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    The 7900 series is GCN.
    The rest of the 7000 series is the original VLIW4.

    Take a look at the number of cores and the number of clusters in the upcoming 7900 series. The GCN architecture is a 4 instruction width architecture and is likely an evolution of their previous VLIW4 architecture for handling more compute oriented tasks.

    Trinity was originally supposed to be bulldozer+VLIW4(original).
    However with the apparent changes to the pile driver core (relative to bulldozer), some have speculated that AMD will put the new GCN cores into Trinity instead of the original VLIW4 cores.

    I would expect to see the original VLIW4 architecture in Trinity given the timing and the probability that new GCN architecture takes up (marginally?) more space per core. It's quite possible that AMD will create a divergence between the performance and value oriented chips, similar to nVidia, where GCN derivatives are only used on their highest end models (x9xx series) and non-compute oriented VLIW4 derivatives are used for lower end. This, of course, would depend on how expensive the compute oriented changes are in regards to area and power. Eventually, AMD may decide that the cost of the compute oriented changes must be payed to further their CPU/GPU merger ambitions. For now, though, the current VLIW4 should provide more that enough compute capability for their goals.
  • HexiumVII - Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - link

    Looks like they are running out of numbers for the Radeons, they already have 7000 series (was that first or second gen radeons?) Maybe its time to revert back to 3 numbers like Geforce LOL. Reply
  • Arnulf - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    7000 was first generation ATI Radeon. They used XY00 model numbers back then and they are using XYZ0 now so at least there won't be as much confusion as there would have been had they used identical numbering scheme. Reply
  • Targon - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    The current Radeons have a designation of Radeon HD, even if the HD is left out most of the time these days. As long as they don't use something like Radeon 2-970 for the next loop around, it shouldn't be too bad. Reply
  • Filiprino - Thursday, September 15, 2011 - link

    We all want green products to eat healthy everyday. Just release Bulldozer and let the vegetation grow in the new and wonderful field.

    Radeon 7900 series now! Bulldozer? Too!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now