AMD details upcoming Bobcat and Bulldozer architectures

Jos

TS Evangelist
Speaking at Stanford University's Hot Chips conference this week, AMD offered up some new details about their most significant processor redesign since the K8 architecture in 2003, which made Athlon 64 processors favorites among enthusiasts. Specifically, the company talked about two x86 processor cores aimed at different ends of the market: Bobcat, which will be a low-power core aimed at netbooks, tablets and other portable devices where it will compete with Intel's Atom, and Bulldozer which will be used in multiple-core server and desktop chips due out next year.

Read the whole story
 

KG363

TS Guru
Bulldozer...That's where we'll see 16 cores!!!!(even thought that's probably a server model)
 

princeton

TS Addict
supersmashbrada said:
AMD gl. I want to pay less for more cores. Cores that work.
AMD's recent 6 cores(pathetic) has shown more cores does not equal better. Even with this It will probably compete with todays i7 and the low end sandy bridge. AMD better put the heat on intel and soon.
 

KG363

TS Guru
princeton said:
supersmashbrada said:
AMD gl. I want to pay less for more cores. Cores that work.
AMD's recent 6 cores(pathetic) has shown more cores does not equal better. Even with this It will probably compete with todays i7 and the low end sandy bridge. AMD better put the heat on intel and soon.
well with an extra 50% performance per core, even if that's just the maximum, is still pretty impressive
 

princeton

TS Addict
well with an extra 50% performance per core, even if that's just the maximum, is still pretty impressive
It's less impressive than you think considering they were a fair amount slower than intels cores before they got the "impressive" boost. That aside maybe bulldozer will bring intels control of the high end sector to an end.
 

grvalderrama

TS Addict
yeah... having more cores doesn't seem to make a difference against any core i7 and some core i5 (let's not forget the <outstanding> core i5 750 product). Amd's missing something else that can really take things to the next level.
 

princeton

TS Addict
This sounds good, I can't wait to see a 16 core laptop. Bring on the cores.
You don't understand. Even if they got the 16 cores in a laptop that would be years away. It's a server cpu. Besides. AMD's 12 core will most likely compete with intels 6 core. More cores doesn't mean better.

yeah... having more cores doesn't seem to make a difference against any core i7 and some core i5 (let's not forget the <outstanding> core i5 750 product). Amd's missing something else that can really take things to the next level.
What AMD is missing is the money to put into R&D. A 12 core cpu wont be that great when it uses more power than an intel 6 core runs hotter than them and performs the same or worse. AMD and ATI are all about slapping more cores onto the same architecture. This better turn that around.
 

dividebyzero

trainee n00b
You don't understand. Even if they got the 16 cores in a laptop that would be years away. It's a server cpu. Besides. AMD's 12 core will most likely compete with intels 6 core.
The Bulldozer 8 module is as you say, a server CPU.It will be competing against Intels Xeon Westmere-EX server CPU's (LGA1567) which will be 10 and 12 core (20 and 24 thread respectively) in the multi processor server line, and the 8 core (16 thread) Sandy Bridge-EN/-EP/-EX in the entry-level (1,2 and 4P) server arena.

Hopefully the desktop parts live up to the hype, but at the moment it's still all talking heads and slideshows, as it has been for the last three years and counting. It would have been good to have some idea of power consumption, die size, entry date, core speed and basic performance.
 

dividebyzero

trainee n00b
You're probably in the right ballpark with the TDP, although from what I hear, some AMD-centric blogs/fans are saying 100w and half the die size of Sandy Bridge...which would make the die 112mm² (SB is supposed to be 225mm²) -less than a third the size of a Phenom II 6-core (346mm²) -which doesn't seem likely to me. Die size and yield will denote BD's selling price, while die size, transistor density and core speed should give a good indication of TDP.

Would have been nice to get something a little more concise out of AMD. It seems like the semi-annual BD vagueness is becoming something of a saga.