How AMD Bulldozer chips appear on the result on benchmarks?

[BOGUMIL]

New AMD "Bulldozer" chips supposedly on par with the completion of a bridge overclocking arena. If this is indeed true, then Congratulations huge AMD to try to regain the throne of performance from Intel. As the Athlon 64 smoked the Pentium 4 in almost every benchmark. Bulldozer is there any reference to back this up? In addition, chips bulldozer-amateur level with 8 physical cores and 16 threads physics. Each core has couple of CPU modules in them. It means that AMD's approach to hyper-threading should be quicker than Intel's logical arguments.

[Alexisus]

There are plenty of dubious benchmarks out there, but I really do not know. AMD claims that "more than 2 times Ph II X6 1100T" performance, but do not know what workload they are talking about. However, it appears possibly that the CPU 8 core Nehalem will match the presentation, which is very good. Hyperthreading so far I do not think it’s similar at all. Hyperthreading is a physical core and allows you to work on two issues as two logical cores. The result is not as good as a physical core can produce, but it's really fast. So the simple answer is no, the architecture of AMD is not known to be faster than hyperthreading.

[Nutty]

I was hoping that someone really had new information. So far all we have are the same essentials for three months: Bulldozer is late and has been delayed several times. Who knows when in fact they come? AMD is having problems with the manufacturing process. No evidence of performance, but speculations is losing clock-clock of the SB so it uses more cores. At least AMD believes in maintaining sockets so you can update.

[Terrextre]

Well, I left AMD's grand policy out of my bulldozer synopsis because it's not applicable. Bulldozer = Enthusiast. Currently if you are an enthusiast, you go with Intel. Conveniently for AMD, Enthusiasts are not your standard computer user. For most users, an AMD Llano platform would be perfect. Intel has no ideal result for the small financial plan mainstream user who dabbles in gaming or wants accelerated video playback. An i3-2100 is good, but it's going to be $50 more than Llano if you wish for any gaming potential. When we're talking sub $400 prices for entire systems, $50 a big deal.

[AmdUser]

Well, I left the grand strategy of AMD's my summary of bulldozer, it is not relevant. Bulldozer = Enthusiast. Currently, if you are an enthusiast, go with Intel. Conveniently for AMD, is not enthusiastic computer user’s standard? For most users, a Llano AMD platform would be perfect. Intel does not have a perfect solution for the average user who dabbles in low-budget games or want accelerated video playback. An i3-2100 is good, but it will be $ 50 more if you desire any Llano playability. When we are talking about sub $ 400 worth for complete systems, $ 50 is a big problem.

[Logan.M]

It is true that I do lack of data, which is why the call to clarify that speculation. Intel promises a 25% per clock cycle to improve performance with the SB. They brought it. What promises performance has given AMD Bulldozer? None - except for a promise of more cores than Intel has in the same price points. If Thuban was any indication, this core AMD needs to keep pace. It is speculation based on available knowledge. AMD and has declared the latest holdup was due to performance that is not what was intended.

[Aloke]

If I had a reason that could make some speculation on this forum. But it would be futile to speculate for or against BD at this point in time. Although apparently not stopped many people who continually after the BD will not be able to compete. Personally what I can say with confidence is that if AMD has created a chip that Intel completely linked in 100% of all available reference points, there would be many people who use that data to state that AMD cannot compete with Intel anyway.