Upcoming Releases

**Sir Shfvingle** · February 20, 2011, 07:25 PM

Hello again! I've been doing more research into many things computer related and I'm having a bit of trouble in comprehending some of it. I'm looking in to motherboards and processors right now and I have a few questions concerning them.
-First off: I've read all about AMD's new cpus(bulldozer, etc) and can't really make sense of how it will actually be different. Obviously a new design is an improvement, but do we know if the processors' actual performance will be greatly improved? Similarly, how will/do Intel's Sandy Bridge processors stack up?
Second: will this new release of processors bring about an entirely new selection of motherboards or will the processors be backwards compatible?
Third: Will upcoming games/programs be quick to utilize this new technology or will I have plenty of time to upgrade when I see fit?(like games don't require 6 cores now though they have been out for a while).

Please share any insight you have on any of these questions. It's very appreciated.

**Top-Tier-Tech** · February 20, 2011, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Shfvingle

(like games don't require 6 cores now though they have been out for a while).

I don't even know of a game that fully utilizes 4 cores and quad core CPU's have been out for years.

The Sandy Bridge i7-2600 has a 50% performance increase over the stock i7 920.

I haven't payed much attention to Bulldozer, there are no real official benchmarks to compare them against intel's offerings for now.

**Sir Shfvingle** · February 20, 2011, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by ChaobSiroc

I don't even know of a game that fully utilizes 4 cores and quad core CPU's have been out for years.

Oh, that makes me a little more safe about my processor.

And so Sandy Bridge owns the old stuff. How does it compare with Amd's latest generation of cpu's(before bulldozer)?

**ROFL Copter** · February 21, 2011, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Shfvingle

Oh, that makes me a little more safe about my processor.

And so Sandy Bridge owns the old stuff. How does it compare with Amd's latest generation of cpu's(before bulldozer)?

They slaughter them. Feels bad man.

**WelshDragon** · February 21, 2011, 07:34 PM

Good for AMD... I have always like their processors, but right now Intel is just pwning them. Hopefully this next generation chip set will get them back in the game (so to speak).

**Sir Shfvingle** · February 21, 2011, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by ROFL Copter

They slaughter them. Feels bad man.

Dang it. I suppose I need a bulldozer then...

**Top-Tier-Tech** · February 21, 2011, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Shfvingle

Dang it. I suppose I need a bulldozer then...

Historically intel has been beating AMD's CPU's performance with every lineup for years now. AMD has better value though in the sub $150 price range.

**mrcrusty** · February 24, 2011, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Shfvingle

Hello again! I've been doing more research into many things computer related and I'm having a bit of trouble in comprehending some of it. I'm looking in to motherboards and processors right now and I have a few questions concerning them.
-First off: I've read all about AMD's new cpus(bulldozer, etc) and can't really make sense of how it will actually be different. Obviously a new design is an improvement, but do we know if the processors' actual performance will be greatly improved? Similarly, how will/do Intel's Sandy Bridge processors stack up?

The Design is very different. There is an excellent article on PC Perspective if you want a more detailed look at Bulldozer's architecture.

It's AMD's biggest architectural change in their CPUs since their Athlon K7 based processors were released in 1999. Yes, there have been major tweaks here and there but AMD's base architecture up until K10.5 (Hex Cores) have been derivatives of an architecture released in 1999.

In the same time period, Intel has had the NetBurst (Pentium 4) architecture, the Core 2 (Core 2 Duo / Quad) architecture and the Nehalem (Core i3/5/7) architectures. Sandy Bridge is a derivative of the Nehalem architecture.

I would say that Intel has the bigger R&D, but AMD has the more talented engineers and designers. Athlon was one scalable beast and apparently Bulldozer is too. So don't be surprised if the next 10 years of AMD processors are derivatives of Bulldozer architecture.

In terms of performance, we have no idea. No authentic benchmarks or anything definitive have been released. But we can always guess and speculate. AMD are bringing back FX branded CPUs. That is a big deal, as FX CPUs are considered the AMD equivalent of Intel's Extreme Edition processors. Think of this. The last AMD FX CPU was in 2006, when AMD's architecture was still superior to Intel's.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/9262/17

Our test results make it clear, however, that Intel probably won't be able to catch up with AMD using processors based on the Netburst microarchitecture; it will have to wait for its new microarchitecture for that. Despite being produced at 90nm and having a much lower clock speed, the Athlon 64 FX-60 nearly ran the tables in our array of benchmarks, and it did so while consuming less power—both at idle and under load—than the Pentium Extreme Edition 955. The FX-60's performance dominance wasn't always deep, but it was very wide, with the top spot in only a few tests going to an Intel processor.

Ouch.

Originally Posted by Sir Shfvingle

Second: will this new release of processors bring about an entirely new selection of motherboards or will the processors be backwards compatible?

Yes, new motherboards. No, they won't be backwards compatible. Current processors however, will be forwards compatible. AM3 processors will work in AM3+ motherboards.

Originally Posted by Sir Shfvingle

Third: Will upcoming games/programs be quick to utilize this new technology or will I have plenty of time to upgrade when I see fit?(like games don't require 6 cores now though they have been out for a while).

Please share any insight you have on any of these questions. It's very appreciated.

IPC is better, the IMC is much more powerful so I imagine that Quad Core Bulldozers will see an improvement over Quad Core Phenom IIs, but justifying an Octo Core Bulldozer purchase just to play games will require some mental gymnastics.

**Smokey** · February 25, 2011, 04:23 AM

@mrcrusty
Thanks for the well written educational post. With some relevant links.

@chaobsiroc
Sorry but we all know you have a hard on for Intel & nvidia but please keep it in your pants , and if you do take it out please back it up with relevant information.

**Top-Tier-Tech** · February 25, 2011, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by ChaobSiroc

Historically intel has been beating AMD's CPU's performance with every lineup for years now. AMD has better value though in the sub $150 price range.

Originally Posted by Smokey

@chaobsiroc
Sorry but we all know you have a hard on for Intel & nvidia but please keep it in your pants , and if you do take it out please back it up with relevant information.

Read what I said carefully, it is truth.

Out of my 4 desktop PC's only one has an intel CPU. Why? Because AMD has a better value in the sub $150 price range. Also I like their mobo platforms better than intels for an average PC build. So seems how I use AMD in 75% of my desktops I don't think I fit your description. I only recommend intel when someone has a budget of around $200-$300 for their CPU.

Speaking of AMD have you seen their new Fusion APU platform? The Zacate E350 with the 18watt 1.6 dual core cpu and 6310 graphics? That platform has the potential to whip intel's atom linup. It runs cool enough that Asus build a mobo that is passively cooled using that chip.