Bulldozer will likely do 5.5 ghz on high end air @ddr3 2000 easy.

It should be a no brainer. Basic High end Intel setup.

Or High end bulldozer setup + SSD + beter GPU for the same money.

Cmon use your brains. unless you have money to burn or some very specific computing needs you will end up with a better system going AMD.

Crossfire or SLI it dosen't care, just plug em in.

Use the money saved and buy an SSD or a better video card and LoL as you rape em with a Radeon 7990.

Talk about a Intel fanboy, this article has it's ice cream all over it. Might as well just say it loud n clear. AMD doesn't stand a chance against Sandy. Im not a engineer but give AMD a chance. This might be it, the one to put em head to head for the years to come. Bulldozer should be a very positive surprise, cant wait.

Why do you assume that clock speed of bulldozer will be closer to Opterons. Bulldozer is a brand new architecture with different kind of specifications and looks nothing like opteron architecture. You havent even seen the performance numbers yet/

Why do you say FPU is shared? for 128-bit FP applications each BD module has two FP units corresponding to two integer cores.

Reverse Multi-threading? Really? Never heard of that technical jargon. There is nothing called reverse multi-threading. The very fact that you could find parallelism in one process, spawns the idea of thread. The OS will always associate one thread with one core. In reality one application process might have 4 threads for example simultaneously executing in 4 cores. What ever it means reverse Multi-threading.

20MB L3 cache looks like a lot. The current westmere core high end version probably has a max of 12MB L3 cache. How come in the same process with no major tweak in the architecture they could get lower latency for another 8MB? This one beats me. I guess the extra cache might be because of the two extra cores of SB compared to current max of 6 in one die. But what does this do to die area? How efficient is that to yield that kind of chip? Why there is no comment in this regard?

"As an example, a 3.6GHz highest end Sandy Bridge based dual Xeon workstation would, with its 16 total cores and AVX set, be able to churn out an astonishing 460GFLOPs in double precision floating-point"

Ah, pointless number guessing. That's useful.

"The Bulldozer-based Interlagos replacement for Magny Cours, with a total of eight dual-core blocks, provides for 16 integer cores with eight shared floating-point units."

No idea why you decided to invent a new substitute for the word "module", nor why any tech writer in their right mind finds it necessary to refer to a Bulldozer chip by both it's module count AND core count (way to be redundant).

I'm also not sure why you specify it as having 8 shared FPUs, considering that this will only be the case with 256-bit instructions. For everything else, the CPU has 16 FPUs.

"However, if AMD was to somehow enable reverse multithreading on the Bulldozer, allowing a single thread to use all of the dual-core block resources at once, we might, for the first time in a while, see AMD take the lead in per-thread performance too, especially the integer-rich ones."

I suggest you ask AMD about this, and see how much they laugh at you. I can't believe that you actually printed this.

"The nice thing about bulldozer, is *there is a dedicated vector processor* in the chip via the CPU+GPU merge (fusion)."

Bulldozer has nothing to do with Fusion.

First Main improvement is Herald'd, Vector Extensions, Vx. Bulldozer also has Vx. However, Sandy has VxVt or Vertulization of Vx, Deeper Mapping of NEW Item.

Certainly there is Massive Differences in Two New Models. InterLargos Vs Sandee'.

SB Seems to Have GPU on Die thats Paned out much more powerful than first skeptical pundits hailed. Just cost of 5450 saves bundle on sandy & since more gamers may not be possible, family can be satisfied Best CPU ,for them, in Business.

Next Intel does Hyper Threading ,While AMD Does Hypertransport. HyperThreading Is Much Better, Intel Processors work much smoother than Hyper Transport. If Os Stack Build is bit shakey & sticky, Hyper Threading will make that less, eventually, anybuild can be corrupted.

Hyper transport will always have glitches & problems.

Sacmo Sandy, Folk legend for Family, perhaps even lower performance point cost, given $150 SB Can beat Intels Extreme Processor family, With Ease. 2800, yet to see specs, might be Monster of Good Thing.

Filled with Benifits & Kindness. Bulldozer has Server in 2 core modules, while desktop has 3 core modules, as Eva Stateed here Yesterday. Both Good for Specific Uses. Mobile has ity bity chips, first seen yestrday at Global Foundry Exhibition.

What Better Choice Could Public Want. drashek for Hon President. Yes,yes?

"A few years ago, AMD was toying with a kind of 'reverse multithreading' approach..."

That was nothing but an urban legend. Pls. dont revive that again.

You are spending 1/3 of the article on it, and do you have credible sources Mr. Journalist?

If I'm not mistaken this will be the first time(?) that AMD will supports all instruction sets in intels CPU (SB) AND add some new of there own.

So if you like more instruction set then AMD will be your choice.

The nice thing about bulldozer, is *there is a dedicated vector processor* in the chip via the CPU+GPU merge (fusion).

If you are doing serious scientific number crunching (i.e. 8 threads worth), it will have been an optimized implementation to take advantage of 8 threads. Perhaps it would be better to optimize for the kick-ass GPU instead?

I think this 8-FP core performance stuff is a little bit of FUD.

The 1366 socket is going to be history very soon. Is 2011 enough pins?

Will the AMD chips work on Socket AMD3+ or whatever it's called?

I like the AMD thinking, and it seems a more obvious performance gain. In fact why are 4 cores appearing as 1 core to software?

We can take it that 2.5 tops is the most we can get from any X86 cpu at the moment without exotic cooling ?

this is why we need a new archtecture

Although we will only be sure if we see the numbers but AMDs approach to something simular as Hyperthreading from intel make much more sence.
The Integer cores are the threads (not shared)
and the FP core is shared like a co-processor.
and this all for a very small die size increase.
(most work of a CPU is integers)

Interesting article and interesting glimpses.
But with no sources these is mere speculation or at best logical inference.

Unfortunately, Sandy Bride B2 (i.e. top level Desktop) info is VERY thin on the ground. In fact even LGA2011 is not confirmed officially yet.

I do hope all you write is true but I can't quite believe it till I see it backed-up with some credible sources.