By: HiTEK (noone.delete@this.home.com), January 16, 2011 2:49 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 1/15/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>rwessel (robertwessel@yahoo.com) on 1/15/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 1/14/11 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>AMD's Bulldozer Microprocessors Expected to Offer 50% Higher Performance than Core i7, Phenom II Chips.
>>>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110114134306_AMD_s_Bulldozer_Microprocessors_Expected_to_Offer_50_Higher_Performance_than_Core_i7_Phenom_II_Chips.html
>>
>>
>>An eight core Bulldozer is expected to offer 50% higher performance than a quad-core
>>i7? Which side are you arguing here?
>
>A eight core Bulldozer is the same die size as a quad-core i7.
>
>Adding Hypethreading to i7 add ~5% to die size.
>Adding a second integer unit to each Bulldozer compute engine adds ~17%.
>
>A eight core Bulldozer can be looked at as 4 cores with 8 threads.
>
>Intel will try and use a die shrink 8 core to compare to AMD, but the thermal limits
>may make it no faster than Bulldozer.
>
>AMD will dominate compute per die area, compute per thermals, compute per cost.
>
>AMD has an overwhelming advantage for the first time, AMD needs to grab market
>share while they can. In two to four years Intel will copy this and be back to
>having a volume advantage, and be able to squeeze AMD again, unless AMD has grabbed
>enough more market share to negate that advantage.
>
>The next two years decides AMDs survival.
>And whether Intel is the next International Harvester.
>(A dominate monopoly replaced by John Deere)
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JDTractorDUBIA7800.jpg
>
You are comparing a 45nm intel CPU with a 32nm Bulldozer? You should be comparing it to the Gulftown. Then it's apples to apples except that Gulftown is old by now. If Sandy Bridge is 25% faster core by core, then Sandy Bridge EP will give the Bulldozer a run for it's money, with no cheating involved. But you will never believe that.
---------------------------
>rwessel (robertwessel@yahoo.com) on 1/15/11 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Brett (ggtgp@yahoo.com) on 1/14/11 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>AMD's Bulldozer Microprocessors Expected to Offer 50% Higher Performance than Core i7, Phenom II Chips.
>>>http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110114134306_AMD_s_Bulldozer_Microprocessors_Expected_to_Offer_50_Higher_Performance_than_Core_i7_Phenom_II_Chips.html
>>
>>
>>An eight core Bulldozer is expected to offer 50% higher performance than a quad-core
>>i7? Which side are you arguing here?
>
>A eight core Bulldozer is the same die size as a quad-core i7.
>
>Adding Hypethreading to i7 add ~5% to die size.
>Adding a second integer unit to each Bulldozer compute engine adds ~17%.
>
>A eight core Bulldozer can be looked at as 4 cores with 8 threads.
>
>Intel will try and use a die shrink 8 core to compare to AMD, but the thermal limits
>may make it no faster than Bulldozer.
>
>AMD will dominate compute per die area, compute per thermals, compute per cost.
>
>AMD has an overwhelming advantage for the first time, AMD needs to grab market
>share while they can. In two to four years Intel will copy this and be back to
>having a volume advantage, and be able to squeeze AMD again, unless AMD has grabbed
>enough more market share to negate that advantage.
>
>The next two years decides AMDs survival.
>And whether Intel is the next International Harvester.
>(A dominate monopoly replaced by John Deere)
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JDTractorDUBIA7800.jpg
>
You are comparing a 45nm intel CPU with a 32nm Bulldozer? You should be comparing it to the Gulftown. Then it's apples to apples except that Gulftown is old by now. If Sandy Bridge is 25% faster core by core, then Sandy Bridge EP will give the Bulldozer a run for it's money, with no cheating involved. But you will never believe that.
