AMD Bulldozer and Bobcat introduction

[Giuly]

YouTube-Video from AMD, furtherer explainations on Planet3DNow or over at Anandtech.

This is what AMD did over the last years, while Intel was busy with Nehalem. They'll be available in Q4 2010, starting with "Interlagos" server processors with 16 cores, achieving 50% more power than 12-Core Opterons today. But the real question is A) How do they compare to SandyBridge and B) Can I finally have AMD processors now, Apple?

 

[TSE]

AMD's new platforms look very, very interesting. If they work out, I could see them being in the MacBook Air possibly, allowing for a price drop too.

 

[cube]

And they are finally introducing a high-k metal gate process, which is important for competitiveness.

 

[Mord]

Looks like too little too late to me, AMD's kinda looked a bit long in the tooth every since Intel abandoned Netburst, I always thought they only held the edge due to Intel's blind desire for higher clock speeds, now that's no longer the case I just don't see them competing well.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

AMD competes very well in the not-quite top of the line sector. Their Phenom II chips compared very well to mid-range C2D and even slower C2Quad chips. They just weren't at the same level as the high end core 2's... but since the MBA has a mid range, or even low end now, c2d chip, I can see AMD being very competitive.

 

[cube]

AMD gives you interesting features at great price points, for example:

- Athlon and Phenom support ECC.
- Their top Opteron chipset provide more PCI Express lanes than in Xeon chipsets like in the Mac Pro.
- Relatively inexpensive Opteron CPUs support 4-way systems, as opposed to only 2-way for comparable Xeons.
- A 2-way 2.6GHz 6-core Opteron costs $200. You can build a 12-core system.
- A 4-way 2 GHz 8-core Opteron costs $280. You can build a 32-core system.

With the current Opterons you can build relatively inexpensively 48-core systems, with Bulldozer, 64 (OK, for floating point it would be like 32).

 

[chrmjenkins]

I was hopeful AMD would rekindle their competitiveness of x64 days with phenom, but that did not come to pass. Without any solid benchmarks, I'm being very cautious here. However, I have to admit that the integration of CPU and a capable GPU in one platform has to be attractive to Apple for <= 13" notebooks. Particularly at the prices AMD is likely to offer to win their business.

 

[TSE]

If AMD processors ran cooler and with less energy, they would be winning the battle with Intel. 95% of people aren't going to notice the difference between a Turion II processor and a Core i5 processor.

 

[Giuly]

AMD competes very well in the not-quite top of the line sector. Their Phenom II chips compared very well to mid-range C2D and even slower C2Quad chips. They just weren't at the same level as the high end core 2's... but since the MBA has a mid range, or even low end now, c2d chip, I can see AMD being very competitive.

The point is: Intel quad cores with HT are comparable with 6-Core Phenom IIs.

That's why a top-of-the-line 2.2GHz 12-core Opteron costs the same as a 2.8GHz 6-core Xeon. Sure, the 6-core Xeon busts the 12-Core Opteron in <6 thread applications, but this is due to 600MHz higher clock rates. Add 4 Cores and alter the clocks a bit, and it may look different.