<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>AMD details its Bulldozer and Bobcat architecture</title>
		<description>Discuss AMD details its Bulldozer and Bobcat architecture</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 01:58:49 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/19917/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2887</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think the best bet for AMD to attack intel in the datacenter is with Bobcat. Intel really isn't getting behind Atom for hyperscale build-outs. Some smaller companies are using it for such, but intel isn't behind it because it would rather sell higher margin Xeons. If AMD makes a serious push with Bobcat in this area, I think that they'll do well. Not only is intel ignoring it but it looks like AMD also has a better performing product.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:40:56 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2887</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2886</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sandy Bridge is a tock, that'll be somewhat to significantly different from Nehalem is to be expected. In what ways are the question. I think AMD will fail with Bulldozer, for one simple reason. AMD best attacks intel where intel is weak. When intel mandated EPIC for the 64-bit upgrade path, when intel was forced to stick with the front side bus, when intel was pushing RAMBUS. These are where AMD has beaten intel. Right now, intel's conventional server processors are rock solid. They beat AMD at 1S, 2S, 4S and 8S. They all have QPI now as well. Let's not forget, Bulldozer is designed first and foremost to be a server processor.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:39:30 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2886</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>agent_47 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2753</link>
			<description><![CDATA[from the statement you provided, it seems like SP will produce more performance per watt, (not per cycle).....so basically, it a i7@3.2Ghz will be rated at 95W and not 130W. Conroe is a completely different from its predecessor (p4). P4 has lighter pipelines, so could could climb in frequency scale, at the cost of IPC. Conroe was complete opposite.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>agent_47</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:14:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2753</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2745</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The thing is, Bulldozer looks a lot like Nehalem/Westmere as far as architecture goes. It has power gating, a real turbo mode, a wider front-end, and better prefetch. Sandy Bridge isn't exactly focused on power, it's focused on delivering more performance in the same transistor and power budget. So was Conroe. As for the GPU side of things in SB, it appears that a lot of those chips won't ship with GPUs. The B2/EN/EP/EX Sandy Bridge processors won't ship with GPUs. I think it's pretty obvious that Sandy Bridge will be a lot faster than Westmere (it is a 'tock' after all) and most likely, faster than Bulldozer.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:46:01 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2745</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bl0bb3r says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2725</link>
			<description><![CDATA[AFAIK, it will feature Evergreen or SI graphics... so no point comparing that to HD4000 series.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bl0bb3r</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:16:49 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2725</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>agent_47 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2713</link>
			<description><![CDATA[avx on amd is taken from intel. one of the gains amd made from the amd-intel settlement SB from what i read, SB is actually a improvements in power consumption+gpu . the cpu architecture is same so not much reason for things to get better. when phenom I architechture was out, there wasnt enough changes to catch up to intel. small cache size being the prime reason and the slower latencies in l2 compared to c2q. but this have changed enough i think with BD. regarding bebcat, it should be better than intel as it has all the instruction from a x86+it is a out of order cpu. but igp part will be the key. if the igp is like 4250, amd might have a problem. 4250 igp in laptop with x3 is better than intel but not worth for even light gaming.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>agent_47</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:52:54 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2713</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2690</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For AMD's sake, they'd better at least pull performance parity with Westmere-EP. I think Westmere-EP performance is a fairly likely, real-world, result +/- 10% depending on applications. Intel has been eating their lunch in desktop and server sales the last few months. Not only does Bulldozer have to be a good server chip, it has to be a good notebook chip. AMD has never built a particularly good mobile chip, considering how important this segment of the market is becoming (notebooks are quickly replacing desktops) they really need to get on it. Bobcat isn't enough, it in fact may be too little too late despite better performance than Atom.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:52:17 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2690</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2689</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Considering how little we know about Sandy Bridge I think it's far, far to early to declare victory for AMD based on their absolute best case numbers. I tested an X6 1090 for Blu-Ray trancoding and found it to be slower than an i7 870 by 25-33% even with a 50% higher core count and roughly 10% higher clockspeed. It's not like x264 isn't a heavily threaded program. AMD would have to pull of an absolute miracle AND intel would have to drop the ball for Bulldozer to win. I did not know about AVX on AMD's side, is it the exact same implementation?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:48:58 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2689</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>agent_47 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2682</link>
			<description><![CDATA[also current intel is about 27% faster than PII. SB might be 35% faster. so amd dont need 50. check the cinebench r10 - single threaded bench: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=45 as per amd slides, amd is expectin 50% jump in performance from 33% more core. based on that, a amd x4 will become a x5.32 (4*1.33=5.32) and be 5.5% faster than current i7 with 4 core. 5.32 core is not possible, so if you want 6 cores (3modules) amd is 6.6% faster in cinebench r10 multithread. single thread, a 3.2GHz BD will perform the same as 3GH i7 (6% slower). so, yes, maybe my 3GB single threaded 7zip compression (if you can manage that :p) will be takes 1 minute longer, but given the added "cores", i would take that. b **based on AMD's number]]></description>
			<dc:creator>agent_47</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:35:57 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2682</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>agent_47 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2680</link>
			<description><![CDATA[-if single core (.5 module) performance is similar to deneb, a 3 module core will beat 4core i7 in multitasking due to the added integer core. each additional integer core is 12% more die space. so 3 modules are 3.4 cores, traditionally speaking - per core performance is to improve if amd can pull it off the additions i mentioned eariler http://www.anandtech.com/show/3863/amd-discloses-bobcat-bulldozer-architectures-at-hot-chips-2010/5 -amd will also have AVX. check the above link. CPU instruction wise, BD is same as SB. design wise, it is very similar too. so is latency wise. i know its too early to say, but i feel optimistic that amd will pull off big single thread performance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>agent_47</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:21:52 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/19917-amd-details-its-bulldozer-and-bobcat-architecture#comment-2680</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
