# Bulldozer Aims For 50% Improvement By 2014: Is This Really Enough To Counter Intel?



## qubit (Oct 14, 2011)

The reviews are now out for AMD's brand new Bulldozer architecture, in the form of the Zambezi FX 8120 & FX 8150 processors and they don't paint a pretty picture of these flagship products. The chips use lots of power, run hot and significantly underperform compared to their Intel competition. On top of that, they are being marketed as 8 core processors, when they are actually 4 core with an advanced form of multi-threading, due to the siamesed nature of each dual processor module. Perhaps to counter this negative publicity and try to restore some faith in the AMD brand, they have released a roadmap for the planned improvements to the architecture, all the way to 2014 - an ambitious timeline, given how much and how unexpectedly things can change at the cutting edge of the technology world.



 




Looking at the chart, one can see that the various architectures Piledriver, Steamroller and Excavator all add up to between 30-50% projected improvement by 2014 (subject to change without notice, of course). These are all names designed to impart a tough-guy image to their products to give one the impression that they must perform very well, beating the competition into submission. Therefore, if they fail to perform competitively against Intel, those names will continue to be branding embarrassments like Bulldozer is, currently. As Intel is already 20-50% faster right now depending on the benchmark, how are these modest improvements possibly going to compete with Intel's future products? AMD has already had a change of management at the top recently, so we can only hope that the right CEO comes along and turns them around, otherwise they may end up not manufacturing x86 processors at all in future, possibly becoming a GPU company only.

The main problem with the current Bulldozer architecture is that it's very, very late to market. AMD started working on it four years ago in 2007, which is a very long time in the world of desktop processors, so AMD have effectively released a new "old" product. The two important things that it has going for it, are that it scales well with core count and clock speed - those 8GHz overclock marketing demos weren't completely without merit. What we need to see is AMD improving performance much more than the prediction slide they've released, more like 100% or more perhaps, which is not really such an unrealistic target to achieve in three years of design and process improvements. Perhaps discarding this whole architecture and starting afresh with fully discreet cores like on the Phenom might be the way forward? AMD has recently let go some of its top-level management, so perhaps their replacements can turn the company around?

So, even if AMD achieves this projected performance improvement and more, will it really be enough to counter Intel, or will Intel steamroller AMD's Bulldozer back into submission?

Source:X-bit labs and Bulldozer block diagram courtesy of Hexus' FX 8150 review. 

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## mtosev (Oct 14, 2011)

@AMD
Stop dreaming and make products. You have a lot of work ahead of you after your Bulldozer fiasco


----------



## NC37 (Oct 14, 2011)

I've been wanting to bug AMD and just say...Ever think about adding more cache? Gah, their CPUs just hardly have any. Maybe its just me not knowing enough about their designs, but I used to work with 7447s years back, and they could clock well but perform like crap compared to the 7455/57s all because they had half the L2 and were completely missing L3. Then the 7448s came along and resolved this by doubling the L2.

Wonder how I missed the part about them not being a real 8 core. Hmm, well that would solidify it for me to not buy one. Gimpy tricks to add more cores just don't make me want to buy it. Specially not first gens.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 14, 2011)

Looooooooool


----------



## option350z (Oct 14, 2011)

Come on AMD release that increase now and not later. I'm an undergrad in computer engineering and even I know not to release that kind of work to the public, let alone a professor!


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 14, 2011)

They can say whatever they want, just deliver it. 2014 is to late imo, by then Intel will be on 14nm Broadwell.


----------



## rampage (Oct 14, 2011)

so another 2 and a bit years of nothing, fantastic.

cant wait to see Intel prices go up


----------



## Exeodus (Oct 14, 2011)

Luckily Intel has no plans for improvements until 2015.


----------



## Necrofire (Oct 14, 2011)

NC37 said:


> I've been wanting to bug AMD and just say...Ever think about adding more cache? Gah, their CPUs just hardly have any. Maybe its just me not knowing enough about their designs, but I used to work with 7447s years back, and they could clock well but perform like crap compared to the 7455/57s all because they had half the L2 and were completely missing L3. Then the 7448s came along and resolved this by doubling the L2.
> 
> Wonder how I missed the part about them not being a real 8 core. Hmm, well that would solidify it for me to not buy one. Gimpy tricks to add more cores just don't make me want to buy it. Specially not first gens.



diminishing returns is why they haven't added more cache. The extra power, heat, and die-size isn't worth the speed increase to them.
To be fair, their modules are closer to 2 full cores than a core w/ hyperthreading.

Still, I'm dissapointed, as I was waiting to upgrade until their quad core came out. Now I'm seriously contemplating a 2500k setup instead. I want faster wii emulation than i have now on my 550 @ 3.6gHz.


----------



## v12dock (Oct 14, 2011)

Fire management and maybe we will see results


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 14, 2011)

AMD seems to be an Endless Hype machine. 

Less bark more bite please... I can say lots of stuff about my future too, doesn't mean it will come true no matter how hard I try to make it.


----------



## Trackr (Oct 14, 2011)

I think we can all safely say..

If AMD didn't buy ATi, they wouldn't exist by now.

What are the known for, really?

Having better clock-per-clock performance 7-8 years ago? Is that really worthy of the admiration that I've seen over the past 6 years?

They've been making lousy CPUs for 6 god-damn years. I simply don't see any reason to be an AMD fanboy anymore. I never was one, I gave it the benefit of the doubt, now I longer do.

People who still like AMD get high out of betting on the under-dog.. and there's apparently a ton of them.

But don't get me wrong, in terms of competition, what is best for the world, the chances that computers will be merged with humans and achieve immortality is all dependent on Intel having some competition right about now.

I guess I'm just venting. Thanks a lot, AMD.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 14, 2011)

They just got a new CEO, Rory P. Read.
He came on board a month before Bulldozer was being shipped out -- first result, Piledriver for AM3+, and postponing socket FM2 until 2013.  He was in damage control mode from the moment he started.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-names-rory-read-ceo-2011aug25.aspx


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 14, 2011)

Great. They'll catch up to Intel right when Intel releases a completely new architecture.


----------



## alucasa (Oct 14, 2011)

Hmph.

That's all I can say.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 14, 2011)

Exeodus said:


> Luckily Intel has no plans for improvements until 2015.



Intel actually has a lot from now until 2014.

They have Ivy Bridge(die shrink of Sandy) coming soon that will debut their 3D transistors then they'll have their new microarchitecture out which is Haswell (22nm) which will be out in 2013 and then finally in 2014 that will get a die shrink to 14nm which will be called Broadwell.

And yet in 2014, AMD will finally get Bulldozer to perform the way it should had at the beginning over 2 years ago.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 14, 2011)

Thats what they said about Phenom.

AMD = FAIL currently.

Other than their X6 Processors, they are dead to me. Good hardware killed by little to no software. 



Stream anyone?


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Oct 14, 2011)

By 2014? Really? By that time Intel will have something better and it will definitely outperform Bulldozer. Id say get good or get out, but if they got out, we'd be fucked when it comes to pricing.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

AMD can deliver 50% faster performance, but they would have to at the very least boost todays Bulldozer by about 20% or more, then by that new number they can gain an additional 50% for a total of about 70+%. 

But if they are going by todays Bulldozer, 50% won't be enough to compete with Intel. I think it's about time IBM steps in and helps out AMD with Bulldozer's future. There is no way AMD is scrapping 5+ years of hard work, so this design is here to stay. I have no problem with this, so long as they do something to boost it's performance per clock while keeping thermals at bay.

*AMD's success is Intel's Future, Remember that.*


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 14, 2011)

Given their latest performance this is a rather laughable claim, but I hope it's true.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 14, 2011)

Did someone at and actually....seriously come out with this plan to stay 2 years behind....:shadedshu
Wow amd did side with aliens to make bulldozer.  And after  years of alien probing. They come up with this?  Alien got the better part of the deal.


----------



## bear jesus (Oct 14, 2011)

50% by piledriver is what AMD needs then 10% to 15% improvement after that would not be so bad but i assume that's impossible so as it stands AMD intends to be under performing for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Rapidfire48 (Oct 14, 2011)

They are a joke at this point. They promise something and yet again they cannot deliver. They will never catch up to intel as long as they have asswipes in charge of things. Shit the Athlon FX would beat this POS.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Oct 14, 2011)

*Bulldozer Aims For 50% Improvement By 2014*

So thats like 5-10% using non-AMD mathematics right ?


----------



## Steevo (Oct 14, 2011)

Phenom was only 5-7% IPC faster than the FX series before it, now we have a chip that isn't even that.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Oct 14, 2011)

I don't know who to believe anymore. :shadedshu

I think I'll be going to Intel for a while. 1155 sounds like it has an upgrade path (Ivy) and it simply does its job. I played Brink multiplayer tonight and it was annoyingly choppy most of the time, even with a 4GHz PII X4 and an overclocked HD 5770. Crappy console port or not, it's still pretty lame that BD has trouble competing against PII X6 processors, so I don't feel it would be much of an upgrade.


----------



## nothappy (Oct 14, 2011)

*Worth of the device*

I am an enthusiast with low income, I bought my 5770 a year after its launch. And now with HD7000 at the horizon, I worked my butt off to get me a new rig. But alas the HMS AMD hit an iceberg, does the hull made of scrap? is there a breach in the hull? is there an intelligent being left onboard?

My ATHLON 64 X2 5200+ has been with me for 3 good long years, and now I am thinking of buying ether a VGA card or SSD. To have a HD6850 or above and then much later when I see a processor worth buying I'll add another HD7000 and called the machine "Zeroshift : Generations". I just hope its an AMD, but if it's an INTEL? then I call it "Zeroshift : Lost Generation".

Just a Vent, sorry about taking space


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 14, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> I don't know who to believe anymore. :shadedshu
> 
> I think I'll be going to Intel for a while. 1155 sounds like it has an upgrade path (Ivy) and it simply does its job. I played Brink multiplayer tonight and it was annoyingly choppy most of the time, even with a 4GHz PII X4 and an overclocked HD 5770. Crappy console port or not, it's still pretty lame that BD has trouble competing against PII X6 processors, so I don't feel it would be much of an upgrade.



Your a fool to believe AMD anymore as they have yet to miss a chance to fail.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 14, 2011)

WTF? AMD is in full retard mode, who handles their PR? I would fire their collective asses; is hyping all that's left to them? AMD better get down to earth and get their $hit together, or they risk become another Cyrix or Via, with no influence in the x86 market at all...

At least they've got Ati to fall back to... What a shame, as others said, we can only wait and watch as Intel processor prices go sky high, so much promise wasted...:shadedshu


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

I would estimate only 1% (Us PC builders) know what's really going on with Bulldozer. This is why AMD's PR people will make Bulldozer look great with all the colourful pictures. Companies like HP, DELL, ASUS, ACER and so on are going to make killer sales with AMD FX CPU's.


----------



## zx679 (Oct 14, 2011)

SuperXP is right. AMD needs IBM and they need them NOW. They need some serious technical leadership. People are desperately looking for 'silver linings' in Bulldozer's middling performance but the reality is this: Bulldozer puts AMD in a position where AMD competes only with its existing product line. Without more performance soon AMD will have to continue slashing prices in order to create 'value'. 

I guess AMD learned nothing from ATi's mistakes. When ATi released released chips with architectures that were _too_ forward thinking performance suffered. We don't need chips that will supposedly handle highly threaded applications very well five years from now. We need chips that run *today's* moderately threaded applications well.


----------



## Batou1986 (Oct 14, 2011)

By 2014 intel will have chips 50% faster then there current offerings which will put AMD 100% behind them, this claim only makes AMD look worse.
Now if they would have said a 30% faster on windows 8 new threading capabilities then it would be worth putting out there.


----------



## sunil (Oct 14, 2011)

Unfortunately I see nothing wrong with BD We have more powerful CPU in 2012 and next year is going to be an incredible year.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 14, 2011)

nothappy said:


> I am an enthusiast with low income, I bought my 5770 a year after its launch. And now with HD7000 at the horizon, I worked my butt off to get me a new rig. But alas the HMS AMD hit an iceberg, does the hull made of scrap? is there a breach in the hull? is there an intelligent being left onboard?
> 
> My ATHLON 64 X2 5200+ has been with me for 3 good long years, and now I am thinking of buying ether a VGA card or SSD. To have a HD6850 or above and then much later when I see a processor worth buying I'll add another HD7000 and called the machine "Zeroshift : Generations". I just hope its an AMD, but if it's an INTEL? then I call it "Zeroshift : Lost Generation".
> 
> Just a Vent, sorry about taking space


Former X2 5200+ user here (~OC'd to ~3.1Ghz+) good times 
VGA upgrade? going from 9600GT to GTX 460SE oc'd for me didn't offer much difference, changing the processor however, is a different story.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 14, 2011)

sunil said:


> Unfortunately I see nothing wrong with BD We have more powerful CPU in 2012 and next year is going to be an incredible year.
> 
> http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii144/dinarek/10-13-20117-38-20PM.jpg



I lol'd


That's what everyone said about bulldozer .. .. :shadedshu


----------



## semantics (Oct 14, 2011)

is it going to take 50% more watts to oc it, cuz i don't think the planet can take it.


----------



## MikeMurphy (Oct 14, 2011)

They took 4 years to actually get worse IPC while handily doubling the transistor count.

I don't expect SB IPC at all, but getting WORSE single-threaded IPC over the ancient K10.5????  I have no faith in what they'll do in the next few years.

Honestly, they shouldn't have even released BD for desktop CPUs.  They should have done an entire K10.6 update as they did on Llano and then work hard on a BD fix for the major issues it has.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 14, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> I don't know who to believe anymore. :shadedshu
> 
> I think I'll be going to Intel for a while. 1155 sounds like it has an upgrade path (Ivy) and it simply does its job. I played Brink multiplayer tonight and it was annoyingly choppy most of the time, even with a 4GHz PII X4 and an overclocked HD 5770. Crappy console port or not, it's still pretty lame that BD has trouble competing against PII X6 processors, so I don't feel it would be much of an upgrade.



Don't be mistaken. That the PII X6 beats the FX-8150 in some benchmarks doesn't mean that it will beat it in all of them.

In your case it seems an issue with memory bandwidth, which PII lacks (Sandy Bridge has almost twice). The FX falls right in the middle in that regard.





MikeMurphy said:


> They took 4 years to actually get worse IPC while handily doubling the transistor count.
> 
> I don't expect SB IPC at all, but getting WORSE single-threaded IPC over the ancient K10.5????  I have no faith in what they'll do in the next few years.
> 
> Honestly, they shouldn't have even released BD for desktop CPUs.  They should have done an entire K10.6 update as they did on Llano and then work hard on a BD fix for the major issues it has.




With the fact that Piledriver is being released so soon I believe that AMD knew about the design's problems (branch prediction, pipeline flushing, cache trashing, decode unit not wide enough) but instead counted on higher frequencies to make up until Piledriver could be released. Anandtech's review also shows that cache latency is worse than Phenom II. Both problems can be blamed on Global Foundries' poor 32nm process. Cache latency can be increased and clockspeeds lowered to get higher yields.

I think that AMD saw the problems that needed reworking but decided that clockspeed would be enough to counter them for the time being but then a few months later they find that yields were too poor and had no choice but to launch as is.


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 14, 2011)

I reckon they need to go more than 50% to keep up with intel. Imagine how much better intel processors will be at that time.

Ive always had AMDs since Duron but im really considering going Sandybridge because i dont think AMD have anything going for them anymore.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 14, 2011)

Where is the design team that brought us AMD Athlon (K7, Thunderbird) and AMD Athlon XP chips!? Those were really the golden days for AMD. I remember owning both of them, the AMD Thunderbird 1GHz (the first CPU that reached 1GHz clock at the time) and later AMD AthlonXP 2400+. Athlon64 era wasn't bad but then it all just went straight down. Only good thing coming from AMD these days are the low end and mid end parts where GPU bytes competition in the ass. C-50, C-60 and E-350 and E-450 are great combos. Same for A3 and A5 chips. But as far as CPU only goes, a bit disappointed...


----------



## Thefumigator (Oct 14, 2011)

at this moment shrinking K6-III could be a nice thing to try...


----------



## HXL492 (Oct 14, 2011)

The fermi was really messed up when it came out  and look where where it is now. I see great potential in bulldozer and i hope amd gets it fixed by the time i purchase a new pc


----------



## Undead46 (Oct 14, 2011)

You guys don't know what you're talking about, I can't wait to see AMD whoop Intel's beehind in 2014!!


----------



## Syborfical (Oct 14, 2011)

2014 in AMD's timeline.

so that would be 2020 + in the real world? 


AMD needs fix there mistakes in 3 months and actually release it on time.
Other wise they will lose more and more people.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 14, 2011)

3 years to gain 50% performance improvement? Hmm, If Moore's law states 100% improvement every 18-24 months, then at 36 months they should be at 100%*(36/24)^2=225% improvement. 

Therefore AMD is aiming at 50%/225% of the performance envelope, which is only 20% of what Moore's law would predict as being theoretically possible.

Now, is Moore's law completely wrong, or is AMD complete FAIL?

++++++

Someone made a very valid observation in a previous post, that AMD made a strategic mistake by killing the CPU design team and replacing them with a cpu-by-software construction kit playgroup.  It's like replacing machine code/assembly programmers with people who can only write stuff in BASIC.  No matter how good the compiler, a compiled BASIC program will never get anywhere near the performance of hand coded machine code.  And it will also miss many conceptual tricks for performance along the way. 

AMD is so far behind they have to admit they are now *in a different race*. They need to target the value segment and third world segments.  I think they could do well developing PC SoC concepts... everything but the RAM on one chip.  Great, cheap, small middle- and low-end stuff. Perhaps they should also try their hand at consoles.


----------



## naoan (Oct 14, 2011)

Déjà vu


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 14, 2011)

HXL492 said:


> The fermi was really messed up when it came out  and look where where it is now. I see great potential in bulldozer and i hope amd gets it fixed by the time i purchase a new pc



Well, to be honest, you must be referring to the GF100 (GTX 480 - very hot and loud) but which was still the most powerful gpu.  BD is not the most powerful cpu.  The GF110 (GTX 580) addressed some of the problems but still had a high power consumption.  Nvidia has had overly hot and power hungry chips since GF 100.  ATI (AMD) in that time produced marginally lesser gpu's but with far higher power efficiency - i.e. if you scaled up a ATI card to match Fermi power levels, you'd get a faster card (hypothetically speaking).

BD is more power hungry than SB AND performs worse.  But i don't disagree, BD (in PD guise) has more potential but then Ivybridge should release on a smaller fab with better power efficiency than SB and better performance. 

AMD will lag behind whichever way you look at it.  It needs to stop shouting about how great it is and deliver a cost/performance winning chip - which BD isn't compared to it's own Phenom 1100.


----------



## laszlo (Oct 14, 2011)

people don't forget that amd barely managed to survive so R&D is not what should be; i don't even compare to Intel $7.3 billion R&D for 2011 when Amd total revenue is $6.49 billion in 2010 so we get what they afford nothing more or less .


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 14, 2011)

They have to give out signals to the shareholders, investors whatever that they are working on something magical. They can't say now, look we'll have 3% increase in IPC over the next year. So this makes sense in a way, as it was the case when they presented Bulldozer long time ago as a big step forward. On the other hand things aren't looking to bright for them. Luckily Ivy will be a just a die-shrink of the current Sandy and if AMD will manage to improve a bit the FX series - like Nvidia did very quickly and in a spectacular way with Fermi - then there's hope for them.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 14, 2011)

nothappy said:


> I am an enthusiast with low income, I bought my 5770 a year after its launch. And now with HD7000 at the horizon, I worked my butt off to get me a new rig. But alas the HMS AMD hit an iceberg, does the hull made of scrap? is there a breach in the hull? is there an intelligent being left onboard?
> 
> My ATHLON 64 X2 5200+ has been with me for 3 good long years, and now I am thinking of buying ether a VGA card or SSD. To have a HD6850 or above and then much later when I see a processor worth buying I'll add another HD7000 and called the machine "Zeroshift : Generations". I just hope its an AMD, but if it's an INTEL? then I call it "Zeroshift : Lost Generation".
> 
> Just a Vent, sorry about taking space



maybe you should change the name of your current PC to 'Zeroshift: *LAST* Generation' 

haha, Im only kidding



sunil said:


> Unfortunately I see nothing wrong with BD We have more powerful CPU in 2012 and next year is going to be an incredible year.
> 
> http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii144/dinarek/10-13-20117-38-20PM.jpg



Yes!!! It will be an *INCREDIBLE* year for intel. AMD will be pushed to the back of the queue again mulling over dated fabs & silicon while Intel will already be 2 or 3 generations ahead.

It wasnt too long ago where AMD just released a good enough CPU to run toe to toe with a Core 2 Quad, Unfortunately the Core 2 era has long since been in the process of being phased out.

I have no idea if piledriver will be any good but Intel sure has a lot of work to do and they wont stop

And in 2014 when AMD can finally drop the sad puppy dog eyes "I-made-a-good-CPU-I-did-I-really-did!" look for their BD CPUs, they will be already obselete and nobody will care.

and since their design is already in the open. who says that intel wont try to create an architecture that uses the same or similar feature or something thats BETTER then it.

ask yourself....who are you fooling but yourself?


Trololol


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 14, 2011)

Exeodus said:


> Luckily Intel has no plans for improvements until 2015.



With the performance of BD compared to SB, Intel needs to give AMD time to catch up(again).


----------



## lashton (Oct 14, 2011)

2 things, why don't AMD add a massive amount like 20MB of level 3 cache and up the curre4nt Level 1 and 2 cache on their processors, sure decrease some overclock head room and increase a little TDP but it would add a SNOT load of performance, i think AMD is too stuck in the low power usage analogy, also Intel in 2014 will run out their core i line and will need to release another CPU architecture, and it may be like P4 Fail, so there are 3 years of important architectural changes coming up.


----------



## Fx (Oct 14, 2011)

Trackr said:


> I think we can all safely say..
> 
> If AMD didn't buy ATi, they wouldn't exist by now.
> 
> ...



its been said a million times how if AMD goes under then we as consumers are screwed but it is true. I still buy AMD to support the underdog but also because they are by far the closest in competition to Intel. then there is the fact that Intel used illegal practices to stifle them instead of just trying to bury them through innovation so it is pretty hard for me to embrace a company like that

all of that aside though... AMD takes care of everything I throw at it so I am content. I am a tech junkie and a gamer so I put my rigs through lots of rigorous use through various ways. I dont need 10-30% better performance to play all of my games on the highest settings, I dont need it to stream 1080p movies, I dont need it to play lossless music, and I dont need it to transfer, sync, torrent, encode and compress files

I dont need Intel but I do need AMD to bring those prices down a tad to be more aligned with their relational performance to Intel


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 14, 2011)

lashton said:


> i think AMD is too stuck in the low power usage analogy,



Have you actually read the some of the benchmarks???

they use a SNOT more power then their own current processors and also intels. and it gets worse when it comes to overlcocking...

jokes are already out that you need to buy a nuclear powerplant to run one of these


----------



## nt300 (Oct 14, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> Don't be mistaken. That the PII X6 beats the FX-8150 in some benchmarks doesn't mean that it will beat it in all of them.
> 
> In your case it seems an issue with memory bandwidth, which PII lacks (Sandy Bridge has almost twice). The FX falls right in the middle in that regard.
> 
> ...


Now you're thinking, I wouldn't be surprised if your statement is exactly how this came to be Good Job and hope you are right on 
If you are Piledriver should become a CPU to recon with.


----------



## qubit (Oct 14, 2011)

laszlo said:


> people don't forget that amd barely managed to survive so R&D is not what should be; i don't even compare to Intel $7.3 billion R&D for 2011 when Amd total revenue is $6.49 billion in 2010 so we get what they afford nothing more or less .



Yes, I'll bet this is absolutely true and with bad management as well, they released a rubbish product and are misleading customers into thinking it's an octa core CPU, when it's only a quad core with multi-threading. They're outright lying.

I'll bet if someone rich enough sued them over this, they'd win. :shadedshu


----------



## lashton (Oct 14, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I lol'd
> 
> 
> That's what everyone said about bulldozer .. .. :shadedshu



That doesn't make sense, Bulldozer is NOT a bad CPU its anew tech which is very hard to release, I think people had too much high hopes for it, if you didn't (like me) then its a good CPU, the price will drop and then they will sell but AMD will make a killing on these because thier channel partners will sell these and AMD will be laughing all the way to the bank, you wait and see, the core I line is almost at an end, whats Intel gonna do now, create another P4?


----------



## MikeMurphy (Oct 14, 2011)

lashton said:


> 2 things, why don't AMD add a massive amount like 20MB of level 3 cache and up the curre4nt Level 1 and 2 cache on their processors, sure decrease some overclock head room and increase a little TDP but it would add a SNOT load of performance, i think AMD is too stuck in the low power usage analogy, also Intel in 2014 will run out their core i line and will need to release another CPU architecture, and it may be like P4 Fail, so there are 3 years of important architectural changes coming up.



Are you prepared to pay $380 for this CPU with an additional 20mb of cache?

You know cache costs money, right?


----------



## MikeMurphy (Oct 14, 2011)

lashton said:


> That doesn't make sense, Bulldozer is NOT a bad CPU its anew tech which is very hard to release, I think people had too much high hopes for it, if you didn't (like me) then its a good CPU, the price will drop and then they will sell but AMD will make a killing on these because thier channel partners will sell these and AMD will be laughing all the way to the bank, you wait and see, the core I line is almost at an end, whats Intel gonna do now, create another P4?



I didn't have high hopes for it, I just expected it to be measurably better than the K10.5 line of CPUs it replaces.

You think the price will readily drop and AMD will make a "killing" on these?  Do you have any idea how much these things cost to make?  2 billion transistors at 32nm node, is VERY expensive.  MUCH more expensive than the superior Intel chips.  I wonder if AMD will ever be competitive with these, which begs the question as to why they were ever released as desktop chips in the first place.

Intel is a few generations ahead of AMD, and given BD, just pulled even further ahead.

I love AMD at heart and write this from my fantastic Llano setup, but WTF.  What happened to designing great chips?!?  I'll keep my Llano, thanks.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yes, I'll bet this is absolutely true and with bad management as well, they released a rubbish product and are misleading customers into thinking it's an octa core CPU, when it's only a quad core with multi-threading. They're outright lying.
> 
> I'll bet if someone rich enough sued them over this, they'd win. :shadedshu



I said before man, from a technical stand point* it is a 8 core chip as it can run two threads on a module at the same time.

Hyper threading CANNOT do this ( it essentially makes a nice orderly que)

Stop being so mad dude because you didn't understand or didn't read into what bulldozer is.

They're was slides about 1 year ago showing off the design and TPU had a news story every other week about it.


It's an 8 core chip with some scheduling problems at the moment.


*Go on wiki pedia and read the central processing unit page and the core page.


----------



## springs113 (Oct 14, 2011)

Hearing all this and talk reminds me of my amd CPUs....thorough rev A 2700, Barton 2500, Venice 3000, athlon x2 5200,x2 7700, p2 720be, p2 955be, n was hoping to put a bd system together but bd let me down not to mention my p2 955 system with dual 4850s is a mini space heater...really wanted to stay but couldn't wait anymore, maybe next build.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 14, 2011)

*m o n e y*

Inspite of what we tech types think.... do we have any sales data ? Launch day #s anything.   Even if A md,can't fool a couple thousand learned men and women....there are billions of lemmings left


----------



## springs113 (Oct 14, 2011)

We also gotta remember that we are minority, as a previous poster amd probably gonna make a killing with OEM s


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 14, 2011)

As others have said, these cpus will be great for servers.

1) Servers use slower memory and cache is like steroids for them - BD has metric tons of L2
2) Servers need lots of memory and memory bandwidth - BD has much better IMC performance coming close to 75% of SB's memory performance and nearly doubling PH II's
3) cores are like money in the server world, so the more you have of them, the more important you are and BD server chips come with 16 of those - that's the equivalent diamond bling teeth
4)AMD's stuff sells for less and they're much more willing to compromise compared to $ntel - all the MBA managers will drop to da floo' once they see those savings
5)...
6)PROFIT!!?


----------



## zx679 (Oct 14, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> As others have said, these cpus will be great for servers.
> 
> 1) Servers use slower memory and cache is like steroids for them - BD has metric tons of L2
> 2) Servers need lots of memory and memory bandwidth - BD has much better IMC performance coming close to 75% of SB's memory performance and nearly doubling PH II's
> ...



Any server application benchmarks out there that would let us see how bulldozer performs in that environment?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Oct 14, 2011)

lashton said:


> 2 things, why don't AMD add a massive amount like 20MB of level 3 cache and up the curre4nt Level 1 and 2 cache on their processors, sure decrease some overclock head room and increase a little TDP but it would add a SNOT load of performance, i think AMD is too stuck in the low power usage analogy, also Intel in 2014 will run out their core i line and will need to release another CPU architecture, and it may be like P4 Fail, so there are 3 years of important architectural changes coming up.



Like an AMD Engineer once stated: "Cache is the Fat of the Processor"
Its pretty expensive, and a good Architecture is performant, even with small caches (they just have to be fast enough)
gigantic caches take a lot of die space,and cost a lot of watt (and logically, heat), 
if im not wrong
Bigger Caches give a little speed, for a lot of Tradeoffs... i bet if AMD would have been able to design BD with smaller caches, but at the same performance level, cost,temperature and wattage would be MUCH better

@all
Dont loose hope people, in a parallel Universe, BD earned a performance increase of several hundred percent, and was able to more than double the power of SB, at only 65w TDP, with 4.5ghz stock, 5ghz turboboost, 6ghz under air,7ghz under Water, 8 under DICE and Dual Stage, 12 under LN2, and 15ghz under He2. And that, for under 150$! 
According to the multiversal theory, that really happened!
 Just not here


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 14, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> Like an AMD Engineer once stated: "Cache is the Fat of the Processor"
> Its pretty expensive, and a good Architecture is performant, even with small caches (they just have to be fast enough)
> gigantic caches take a lot of die space,and cost a lot of watt (and logically, heat),
> if im not wrong
> ...



Me and my 10 sexy wives all use BD in the 2nd Universe!


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 14, 2011)

This slide is ludicrous, 
Bulldozer- was not really what it was supposedly marketed in the first place, more like a fiat.
Piledriver- Only 10-15% boost, it will finally get up to the i72600-2500k reasonably well.. barly..
Steamroller- It will finally be the real marketed "bulldozer" we were all waiting for!!!!!!
Excavator- well I cant even predict how this will compete its only the future!!!!!

There going to make tons of money if they do it right, simply because of the number of releases               in consecutive years!!!

Some people are shelling out 250$ fx8150's 
It will probably be another 150-250$ for the Piledriver's 
It will probably be another 100-250$ for the Steamroller's 
It will probably be another 100-250$ for the Excavator's 
Count in all the regular OEM sale's ect ect... And if they manufacture everything with reasonable stock management they will make bank


----------



## techtard (Oct 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yes, I'll bet this is absolutely true and with bad management as well, they released a rubbish product and are misleading customers into thinking it's an octa core CPU, when it's only a quad core with multi-threading. They're outright lying.
> 
> I'll bet if someone rich enough sued them over this, they'd win. :shadedshu



It is a real octal core chip. They are just using 8 weak cores with some shared resources. They payed the price for gambling on heavilly multithreaded apps in the consumer userspace. We are still in firmly last gen when it comes to multithreading. They were looking too far ahead. 
If they and the major OS distributors can rework the scheduling, they may improve performance slighty. Not enough to call this chip a success, but enough to know what to adjust for piledriver.

They should have released the server chips first, delayed a few more months and tailored the desktop chips for todays software.

It would have been better to suffer a delay and more internet moaning than the huge negative hype of a botched release.

Hopefully they can actually hit their 50% target with their future revisions.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 14, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> This slide is ludicrous,
> Bulldozer- was not really what it was supposedly marketed in the first place, more like a fiat.
> Piledriver- Only 10-15% boost, it will finally get up to the i72600-2500k reasonably well.. barly..
> Steamroller- It will finally be the real marketed "bulldozer" we were all waiting for!!!!!!
> ...



That's why I didn't go AMD last time around.  When I had my 3800+ X2, and wanted to upgrade, Phenom I and a Q6600 were my options.  If I had gone with AMD, I would have needed to upgrade twice just to get the same performance I had for 2 solid years with my Q6600.  It would have been a cheaper initial investment, but in the long run, I find Intel CPU's to have a better shelf life.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 14, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> This slide is ludicrous,
> Bulldozer- was not really what it was supposedly marketed in the first place, more like a fiat.
> Piledriver- Only 10-15% boost, it will finally get up to the i72600-2500k reasonably well.. barly..
> Steamroller- It will finally be the real marketed "bulldozer" we were all waiting for!!!!!!
> ...


Hope it turns out rock solid with them. Else theyre just digging their own coffin with those Excavators and Bulldozers and stuff


----------



## archangel (Oct 14, 2011)

maybe intel buyed AMD and we do not know about! now intel rise the price of all products...


----------



## erocker (Oct 14, 2011)

I don't see AMD as a company by 2014. I don't see how they will be able to stay afloat. That 50% is needed now in 2011.


----------



## laszlo (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> I don't see AMD as a company by 2014. I don't see how they will be able to stay afloat. That 50% is needed now in 2011.



they will;low cpu prices and good GPU's will solve the financial problems so they'll float not like Intel in a luxury yacht just in a  small rubber salvage one...


another variant will be to sell gpu dept or to remain only with it;the shareholders and big "oil" rich investors will step in when shares will fall 2 high.... and we'll see maybe amd falling apart to smaller companies


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> I don't see AMD as a company by 2014. I don't see how they will be able to stay afloat. That 50% is needed now in 2011.



? so you think a company that just got all 3 major console companies to use their chips in the nex gen consoles isn't going to be around?

ati was too much for amd to take on and it nearly killed them. But right now amd pretty much reaps the benefit of that decision and it's about to get far more lucritive. By 2014 they'll have plenty in the bank. (nowhere near intel, but far closer to nvidia's bankroll)

sure the processor deivision failed to impress, what's new? Amd's still around now and they'll continue to be around and thriving by 2014.


----------



## qubit (Oct 14, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> ? so you think a company that just got all 3 major console companies to use their chips in the nex gen consoles isn't going to be around?
> 
> ati was too much for amd to take on and it nearly killed them. But right now amd pretty much reaps the benefit of that decision and it's about to get far more lucritive. By 2014 they'll have plenty in the bank. (nowhere near intel, but far closer to nvidia's bankroll)
> 
> sure the processor deivision failed to impress, what's new? Amd's still around now and they'll continue to be around and thriving by 2014.



The way they're going, I reckon they'll end up closing their x86 business and focusing on things like graphics cards and branching out into other areas where they have no presence at the moment. An AMD Android smartphone, perhaps? However, I'd never count them out until it actually happens, so who knows?


----------



## Fx (Oct 14, 2011)

wow, so many people acting like it is the end of the line for AMD. it is far from it. AMD has been through much harsher times. this is nothing compared to when they acquired ATI

times are different right now. there isnt a lot of software that even pushes hardware to the limits because software is currently behind in the race so it doesnt even pay off to pay premiums for the fastest available cpu

I am glad that AMD is looking forward and designed their hardware for the future. having said that- I agree that they should have focused on the server side first instead of rushing this to consumers


----------



## laszlo (Oct 14, 2011)

Fx said:


> wow, so many people acting like it is the end of the line for AMD. it is far from it. AMD has been through much harsher times. this is nothing compared to when they acquired ATI
> 
> times are different right now. there isnt a lot of software that even pushes hardware to the limits because software is currently behind in the race so it doesnt even pay off to pay premiums for the fastest available cpu
> 
> I am glad that AMD is looking forward and designed their hardware for the future. having said that- I agree that they should have focused on the server side first instead of rushing this to consumers



i agree but designing and selling a CPU now,without thinking that no current soft can use it at 100% (new added instructions which can make a difference if all current soft use it)only maybe a few years after release when it will be maybe obsolete denote a lack of current market needs which is in my opinion equal to self-suicide and a bad management of resources which are limited at amd...

don't forget my rig is amd so no fanboyism or trolling is in my post....


----------



## zx679 (Oct 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> The way they're going, I reckon they'll end up closing their x86 business and focusing on things like graphics cards and branching out into other areas where they have no presence at the moment. An AMD Android smartphone, perhaps? However, I'd never count them out until it actually happens, so who knows?



Agreed. They're in a position now where they need to continue diversifying and being creative. They've already failed in the high-end CPU market and that won't change for years. If AMD was ONLY a desktop CPU company they would be toast. But they aren't. They can offer GPUs, APUs and CPUs. They can offer platforms that are attractive for the low-end, mainstream and even integrated market segments. As a business they will likely survive.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 14, 2011)

AMD stock price has fallen 30% in last 30 days. 

Refinancing their debt is going to be difficult and expensive. A double edged sword.

Do you think there is any hope of a stock price recovery? Or is it a SELL?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

It depends on AMD's retail sales and how well they sell AMD FX based systems and chips. Personally I think they are going to sell quite well.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 14, 2011)

Er, I just saw this chart:







This chart does NOT say _*there will be *_10-15% performance increase per year, but there is a possibility of a 10-15% increase in performance per watt. READ THE AXIS. AND READ THE FOOTNOTE! Not actually a plan but an extrapolation based on history! WTF!

So 4 years of this magical-mysterious 10-15% performance per watt increase each year gives us the 50% figure we are discussing here.  But it is a bogus number made up for this slide and subject to change without notice. It is just PR guesstimates. There is NOTHING in the pipeline, or they would have made reference to it.

WATCH OUT! This is worse than I though!


Bullldozer -> Piledriver -> Steamroller -> Excavator  indeed!

What they mean is

Bucket and Spade -> Bigger bucket -> Wheelbarrow -> Get granny to help pull out the turnip!

It's over for AMD.  Never mind if they have any decent engineers left, they haven't got the right marketing and PR teams. It is FAIL right across the company rather than fail of a specific design. And that is going to be too difficult for AMD to fix. I'm selling the stock.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> The way they're going, I reckon they'll end up closing their x86 business and focusing on things like graphics cards and branching out into other areas where they have no presence at the moment. An AMD Android smartphone, perhaps? However, I'd never count them out until it actually happens, so who knows?



I find that hard to believe somewhat.

AMD will go back to doing what they do best and focusing on the low to mid range sector like they have been for the last few years.

Their APUs are in a league of their own currently. theres still no substitute for having a a dedicated graphics card though. 

AMD can only grow in areas they are familiar with.

As far as competition is concerned. The dream of AMD being the top dog in the CPU world is getting further and further away each time they release a new CPU and they have no doubt lost a lot of loyal fans with BD.
They can still pull a rabbit out of the hat though. but by that time i wonder if anyone would still be watching them and give them a round of applause.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> AMD can deliver 50% faster performance, but they would have to at the very least boost todays Bulldozer by about 20% or more, then by that new number they can gain an additional 50% for a total of about 70+%.
> 
> But if they are going by todays Bulldozer, 50% won't be enough to compete with Intel. I think it's about time IBM steps in and helps out AMD with Bulldozer's future. There is no way AMD is scrapping 5+ years of hard work, so this design is here to stay. I have no problem with this, so long as they do something to boost it's performance per clock while keeping thermals at bay.
> 
> *AMD's success is Intel's Future, Remember that.*



ummm...nice avatar? lol


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Oct 14, 2011)

dalekdukesboy said:


> ummm...nice avatar? lol



LOL  


Tom Baker


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

dalekdukesboy said:


> ummm...nice avatar? lol


 Nothing like Tom Baker, the best all time Doctor Who.


----------



## techtard (Oct 15, 2011)

The best Doctor was Mr Bean.


----------



## assaulter_99 (Oct 15, 2011)

techtard said:


> The best Doctor was Mr Bean.



I thought he was an alien! 

Back on topic though :

I honestly thought they were gonna bulldoze that sandy bridge easily... 

Hilarious though that the last name on the roadmap is Excavator, I only hope it's not for digging their own grave!

And, am I the only one finding these names funny? just think of it seriously. First, they are gonna bulldoze themselves off the market, piledrive themselves in earth then use the steamroller to secure their burial ground. If you're optimistic though, they can at least use that excavator to undig their grave and resurrect!


----------



## Jack Doph (Oct 15, 2011)

assaulter_99 said:


> I thought he was an alien!
> 
> Back on topic though :
> 
> ...



I had similar thoughts as well


----------



## Horrux (Oct 15, 2011)

Fx said:


> wow, so many people acting like it is the end of the line for AMD. it is far from it. AMD has been through much harsher times. this is nothing compared to when they acquired ATI
> 
> times are different right now. there isnt a lot of software that even pushes hardware to the limits because software is currently behind in the race so it doesnt even pay off to pay premiums for the fastest available cpu
> 
> I am glad that AMD is looking forward and designed their hardware for the future. having said that- I agree that they should have focused on the server side first instead of rushing this to consumers



I agree. AMD is doing very good business with the GPUs and APUs, and the latter's sales are bound to leap in volume, as they are ideal for both laptops and entry level desktops. What's interesting about the APUs is that they can sell in very large volumes, and they appropriate a lot more money from that traditionally low-margin segment to AMD, as compared to a standard CPU + IGP type deal where the IGP is often made by a competitor. The future looks very bright for the APUs, too. AMD has always been in the budget segment and this is a product line where they can get decent margins for once, and Intel can't touch them there. Not ever, IMO.

So while the CPUs are a large chunk of their business, AMD does have other things to fall back on, which makes them still a viable company while they fix the problems with the BD architecture. Hopefully they can make not a 50% increase in performance by 2014, but something closer to 100%. Hey, they did something similar with the Athlon/XP/64, maybe with the right management they can do it again.

So I'm not counting them out either, although I agree that these chips are not what we needed. If anything, they could surely release Piledriver as a quad-channel chip, make everybody angry if that requires a socket change, but then they could possibly claim a leap forward in performance. One big problem with that "option" is that BD already required a socket change. And for what. BAD AMD, BAD.


----------



## qubit (Oct 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Nothing like Tom Baker, the best all time Doctor Who.



+1 totally agree. It all went downhill after he left. Ok, no more off topic from me, this was too important to let pass, lol.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

Great point, how about releasing Piledriver as a quad-channel chip, make everybody angry if that requires a socket change say FM2 but still keep AM3+ alive for the rest of 2012. Intel is currently doing this right now with several sockets.


----------



## runevirage (Oct 15, 2011)

Given its thermals, they would have to boost performance by 50% TODAY in order to be competitive.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

runevirage said:


> Given its thermals, they would have to boost performance by 50% TODAY in order to be competitive.


The original Bulldozer should have been 50% performance from what we see today. If AMD can squeeze approx: 15% to 25% out of Bulldozer via a B3 stepping with some tweaking, then I can see Q1 2012 Piledriver hit with another 15% over current CPU's for a total of approx: 35% max boost. It's a stretch, but something that is achivable if AMD works hard on it along with collaboration with software developers and Microsoft.

AMD needs to learn from Intel, before Intel even thinks about releasing a CPU, they ensure they are in direct contact with Software and Hardware manufacutrers to ensure all there T's are crossed and I's are dotted.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 15, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> ? so you think a company that just got all 3 major console companies to use their chips in the nex gen consoles isn't going to be around?
> 
> ati was too much for amd to take on and it nearly killed them. But right now amd pretty much reaps the benefit of that decision and it's about to get far more lucritive. By 2014 they'll have plenty in the bank. (nowhere near intel, but far closer to nvidia's bankroll)
> 
> sure the processor deivision failed to impress, what's new? Amd's still around now and they'll continue to be around and thriving by 2014.



No, AMD will probably twist more to the video card market.

If anything, it will be, AMD GPU's and that's in 2014. Because there plan for the processor division honestly sucks so much balls, the naming scheme, the performance improvement's. 

The time and energy being wasted on small improvement's, adjustments in manufacturing (TSMC), The loads of money that are going to be spent on the marketing, and last but not least, the new scheme's and boxes for the processor's. 

The point is, it takes a lot of resource's to have yearly consecutive releases, and they already have problems getting shit on the shelve's. There plan is literally a grave digger in disguise.  

BUT, the grave that will be dug, is for the legend of the AMD CPU's.

They will live on with there graphics card market if it ever got that bad. Which frankly it will.


----------



## Fx (Oct 16, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> No, AMD will probably twist more to the video card market.
> 
> If anything, it will be, AMD GPU's and that's in 2014. Because there plan for the processor division honestly sucks so much balls, the naming scheme, the performance improvement's.
> 
> ...




this sounds like nothing but wishful thinking


----------



## HTC (Oct 16, 2011)

According to this, 40% gains are almost ready.

I'll believe it when i see it confirmed by reviewers, though.


----------



## TRWOV (Oct 16, 2011)

I think that reviewers will have to revisit the FX CPUs if the patch is as miraculous as rumors say.


----------



## HTC (Oct 16, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> I think that reviewers will have to revisit the FX CPUs *if the patch is as miraculous as rumors say.*



If true, imagine:

"Shocking news rocks CPU world: Bulldozer just bulldozed Intel's Sandy Bridge!!!!"

*Insert that avatar's pic with a bulldozer dozing off Intel's Sandy Bridge's CPU logos for a more dramatic effect*.


----------



## techtard (Oct 16, 2011)

I'm thinking it will be more like this:
*Patch does nothing, Nerds rioting all over the internet!*
*Insert picture of Nelson from the Simpsons wearing an Intel tshirt and pointing and laughing at a crying Ralph Wiggum decked out in AMD*


----------



## qubit (Oct 16, 2011)

HTC said:


> If true, imagine:
> 
> "Shocking news rocks CPU world: Bulldozer just bulldozed Intel's Sandy Bridge!!!!"
> 
> *Insert that avatar's pic with a bulldozer dozing off Intel's Sandy Bridge's CPU logos for a more dramatic effect*.



It would be incredible if that patch turned out to be real and very good news for AMD and the customer - and bad news for Intel.  However, if the performance problem was simply a software fix, you can bet your boots that AMD would have priced the chip much higher and made a helluva noise about it. Or at least a blog post.

Because of this, I think the "patch" is a fake and it's just some blogger trying to get attention on the internet.


----------



## HTC (Oct 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> It would be incredible if that patch turned out to be real and very good news for AMD and the customer - and bad news for Intel.  However, if the performance problem was simply a software fix, you can bet your boots that AMD would have priced the chip much higher and made a helluva noise about it. Or at least a blog post.
> 
> *Because of this, I think the "patch" is a fake and it's just some blogger trying to get attention on the internet.*



Which is why i said i'll believe it when reviewers confirm it.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> It would be incredible if that patch turned out to be real and very good news for AMD and the customer - and bad news for Intel.  However, if the performance problem was simply a software fix, you can bet your boots that AMD would have priced the chip much higher and made a helluva noise about it. Or at least a blog post.
> 
> Because of this, I think the "patch" is a fake and it's just some blogger trying to get attention on the internet.


AMD would never have priced it higher than it is right now, regardless whether a near future patch was set for release. You price the CPU for today's performance competition, not what it may do later on.

As for the Patch, it's already been confirmed, Windows 7 does a bad job with Bulldozer style of design. If people think this patch business is BS, then why does Bulldozer perform much better in Windows 8


----------



## qubit (Oct 16, 2011)

HTC said:


> Which is why i said i'll believe it when reviewers confirm it.



Indeed, I was just expanding on your point, not disagreeing with it. 



Super XP said:


> AMD would never have priced it higher than it is right now, regardless whether a near future patch was set for release. You price the CPU for today's performance competition, not what it may do later on.
> 
> As for the Patch, it's already been confirmed, Windows 7 does a bad job with Bulldozer style of design. If people think this patch business is BS, then why does Bulldozer perform much better in Windows 8



I'm not sure I believe that. Even if performance doubles tomorrow, the nature of things is such that they can't put the price up afterwards, as people will just not buy it. So no, I think they've priced it at its true potential. If Bulldozer really does fly with Windows 8 or a Windows 7 patch, then we can make a judgement then. Until then, I remain skeptical, which I think is very healthy for this situation.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> Indeed, I was just expanding on your point, not disagreeing with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I believe that. Even if performance doubles tomorrow, the nature of things is such that they can't put the price up afterwards, as people will just not buy it. So no, I think they've priced it at its true potential. If Bulldozer really does fly with Windows 8 or a Windows 7 patch, then we can make a judgement then. Until then, I remain skeptical, which I think is very healthy for this situation.



I couldn't agreee more, and I am no intel fanboi.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Oct 16, 2011)

Even after launch..... we still don't know bulldozer.


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> Indeed, I was just expanding on your point, not disagreeing with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I believe that. Even if performance doubles tomorrow, the nature of things is such that they can't put the price up afterwards, as people will just not buy it. So no, I think they've priced it at its true potential. If Bulldozer really does fly with Windows 8 or a Windows 7 patch, then we can make a judgement then. Until then, I remain skeptical, which I think is very healthy for this situation.



I am skeptical of the claims, but not completely dismissing it.

As mentioned, why does it perform better in Windows 8?  Looking around on the internet, some people are seeing some minor boosts in performance running windows 8. Others are showing it almost even though.

Assuming the latter then 10% is what you should expect a patch to be capable of with a windows 7 patch.


If threading is the issue though, has anyone tried enabling Thread ordering service on BD in 7?




Back OT: If they release a 12 core CPU at same clocks and same power usage by 2014, they have met their goal (50% performance improvement). Since that is what they are striving for, multi threaded designs only, it is a completely believable roadmap. 

Most everyone is saying this is a Fab and windows 7 issue (although windows 7 has been out so long, how they could not have known and created a patch for it at launch is beyond me).


----------



## Super XP (Oct 16, 2011)

I am hoping AMD's 8-core makes game developers start thinking about multi-threading to the max. I don't see why they couldn't make a game with the ability to either use one core or 8 cores, let it AUTO adjust all by itself depending on your CPU. 

Anyhow, they've been quite LAZY for the past several years.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I am hoping AMD's 8-core makes game developers start thinking about multi-threading to the max. I don't see why they couldn't make a game with the ability to either use one core or 8 cores, let it AUTO adjust all by itself depending on your CPU.
> 
> Anyhow, they've been quite LAZY for the past several years.



Multithreading has been the way to more processing power for a number of years now. Single-threaded performance has not progressed much over the last few years. However, it is true that game designers nowadays mostly think in terms of what a console can do, so the extreme progression in total processing power, going from, say, an athlon 64 3500+ to a Phenom II X6 1100t, roughly 10 times the total processing power, is somewhat irrelevant in a lot of games.

But it is changing, BF3 leading the way, Skyrim I expect to make use of multiple cores as well... It definitely is the way forward.


----------



## jamesy (Oct 17, 2011)

Necrofire said:


> diminishing returns is why they haven't added more cache. The extra power, heat, and die-size isn't worth the speed increase to them.
> To be fair, their modules are closer to 2 full cores than a core w/ hyperthreading.
> 
> Still, I'm dissapointed, as I was waiting to upgrade until their quad core came out. Now I'm seriously contemplating a 2500k setup instead. I want faster wii emulation than i have now on my 550 @ 3.6gHz.



to be fair....the cores are stuck with a quad core interface....i really dont care how many of em you give me...if i can't communicate with em effectively, i won't take em---even for free.

I wouldn't design a highway that needed 4 lanes with 2 lanes. Bottom line. People would crash and burn....amirite?


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 17, 2011)

jamesy said:


> to be fair....the cores are stuck with a quad core interface....i really dont care how many of em you give me...if i can't communicate with em effectively, i won't take em---even for free.
> 
> I wouldn't design a highway that needed 4 lanes with 2 lanes. Bottom line. People would crash and burn....amirite?



Computers are not cars, and if cars were computers, then yes 2 lanes might be enough since the computer would calculate traffic patterns and flow and fit extra cars in all the distances human drivers would need to stop.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Oct 17, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Nothing like Tom Baker, the best all time Doctor Who.



agreed, I grew up watching him....just hilarious you picked that same picture as I did lol, never saw it on anyone's avatar before, how long you had it? I can't remember but I think I had it since I added my avatar...and ontopic I admit I'm fairly frustrated with AMD, my last AMD chip is an fx-55 which I loved and is sitting in my closet with the abit mobo I used with it...and ever since core 2 duo's came out right up till now UNLESS this patch etc is enough to make a difference the AMD lineup is at best a good "value" but for pure performance and enthusiasts' I think AMD is really in a bad rut of trailing intel...


----------



## qubit (Oct 17, 2011)

dalekdukesboy said:


> agreed, I grew up watching him....just hilarious you picked that same picture as I did lol, never saw it on anyone's avatar before, how long you had it? I can't remember but I think I had it since I added my avatar...and ontopic I admit I'm fairly frustrated with AMD, my last AMD chip is an fx-55 which I loved and is sitting in my closet with the abit mobo I used with it...and ever since core 2 duo's came out right up till now UNLESS this patch etc is enough to make a difference the AMD lineup is at best a good "value" but for pure performance and enthusiasts' I think AMD is really in a bad rut of trailing intel...



Don't ever get rid of that Abit mobo and FX-55 ya hear! These are classics for their time and worth collecting. I've still got an Abit AN8 Ultra paired with an Athlon X2 3800+ and 4GB RAM and those are going nowhere.


----------



## jamesy (Oct 18, 2011)

Neuromancer said:


> Computers are not cars, and if cars were computers, then yes 2 lanes might be enough since the computer would calculate traffic patterns and flow and fit extra cars in all the distances human drivers would need to stop.





Eventually...flow routing and and speed limits reach a point of diminishing returns....we've been at that point for years. Eventually you have to add more lanes.

And speak of this patch.....I heard Ryan shroudt and Patrick Norton talking about it ...they expect 4-6 percent. And I trust them.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 18, 2011)

jamesy said:


> Eventually...flow routing and and speed limits reach a point of diminishing returns....we've been at that point for years. Eventually you have to add more lanes.
> 
> And speak of this patch.....I heard Ryan shroudt and Patrick Norton talking about it ...they expect 4-6 percent. And I trust them.


Do you have a link? That would be great news, when you consider Piledriver is also suppose to rectify most of Bulldozer's issues.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 18, 2011)

erocker said:


> I don't see AMD as a company by 2014. I don't see how they will be able to stay afloat. That 50% is needed now in 2011.


Which is why they might stick with low to mid based performance parts and go aggressive with Graphics, something Intel currently lacks. In other words, this stinks for everybody, because we will be seeing high end Intel CPU's priced in excess of $800 

We can hope that Piledriver will be a nail in Intel's coffin


----------



## boise49ers (Oct 18, 2011)

Well all I have to say is I'm glad I decided to just go with the PhenomII x6 
instead of dropping cash on a problem child. I haven't had any problem with 
my CPU and have it running cool and quiet at 3.7 on a Micro ATX.


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Which is why they might stick with low to mid based performance parts and go aggressive with Graphics, something Intel currently lacks. In other words, this stinks for everybody, because we will be seeing high end Intel CPU's priced in excess of $800
> 
> We can hope that Piledriver will be a nail in Intel's coffin



Oh thats a given.  Socket 2011 was expected months ago to be priced in the 1-1.5K range.

If it has 6 or 8 cores available UNDER $1000 I will be surprised


----------



## alucasa (Oct 19, 2011)

To be utterly honest, you should have known that BD was going to be a flop.

If you followed JF-AMD's posts on web, he started not to talk about IPC at some point. In addition, AMD CEO and other top staff left; that should have been enough signals that BD wasn't going as good as they hoped.

Well, I shouldn't have sold my semi-rare 95w 1065T part, dang it. But I've found i3-2100T (35w) to be a very good cpu for very small builds. AMD has nothing (not even close) that can compete with i3-2100T at the moment.
So, I guess it's Intel for me for a while.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

For some Bulldozer is far from being a flop, and to others, well need I say more. 
I for one am going to pick one up when the bloody thing becomes available.


----------



## zx679 (Oct 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> For some Bulldozer is far from being a flop, and to others, well need I say more.
> I for one am going to pick one up when the bloody thing becomes available.



I just don't see the point. It's not much of an upgrade if it doesn't offer much of a performance increase. Considering how cheap the Phenom II range is you'd be better off with a PII X4 980 or an X6 and OC'ing it. That is, unless you just want to burn up some money.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> Don't ever get rid of that Abit mobo and FX-55 ya hear! These are classics for their time and worth collecting. I've still got an Abit AN8 Ultra paired with an Athlon X2 3800+ and 4GB RAM and those are going nowhere.



Still Using a MSI Platinum Neo2 with a FX-55 here. Pitty mines a clawhammer so it doesnt overclock very well  I bought it new off a guy on ebay many many moons ago.

My 3000+ clocks better though lol Ive hit as far as 2.7 or 2.8Ghz on it


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

zx679 said:


> I just don't see the point. It's not much of an upgrade if it doesn't offer much of a performance increase. Considering how cheap the Phenom II range is you'd be better off with a PII X4 980 or an X6 and OC'ing it. That is, unless you just want to burn up some money.


I have a PII x4 940 OC'ed to 3.60 GHz and I know for a fact the FX 8150 blows it out of the water. Anyway I already purchased the Crosshair V Formula on sale along with 16GB of DDR3-1866 (4GB x 4) GSkill RipJaw memory just sitting on my desk all along waiting for Bulldozer's release. This is why I want to upgrade my CPU.


----------



## zx679 (Oct 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I have a PII x4 940 OC'ed to 3.60 GHz and I know for a fact the FX 8150 blows it out of the water. Anyway I already purchased the Crosshair V Formula on sale along with 16GB of DDR3-1866 (4GB x 4) GSkill RipJaw memory just sitting on my desk all along waiting for Bulldozer's release. This is why I want to upgrade my CPU.



I don't doubt it. It's the price that bothers me. From NCIX:
PII X4 980 is $180
FX 8150 is $282

and the FX is only faster by about %10 some of the time. The extra $100 doesn't buy you much.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

zx679 said:


> I don't doubt it. It's the price that bothers me. From NCIX:
> PII X4 980 is $180
> FX 8150 is $282
> 
> and the FX is only faster by about %10 some of the time. The extra $100 doesn't buy you much.


Well perhaps in stock speeds, anyhow I need it more than just gaming personally, so I can use those extra cores. But I fully agree, it's way too overpriced right now, what happend to the original $245 price tag


----------



## zx679 (Oct 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Well perhaps in stock speeds, anyhow I need it more than just gaming personally, so I can use those extra cores. But I fully agree, it's way too overpriced right now, what happend to the original $245 price tag



Good ol' supply vs. demand


----------



## nt300 (Oct 19, 2011)

I would agree, so many people want Bulldozer, just not enough out yet.


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Oct 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> Don't ever get rid of that Abit mobo and FX-55 ya hear! These are classics for their time and worth collecting. I've still got an Abit AN8 Ultra paired with an Athlon X2 3800+ and 4GB RAM and those are going nowhere.



yeah they are, just like my and xp's avatar are pure classics However point remains I was making is AMD is a dissapointment now unlike that fx-55 which was awesome and dealt with elder scrolls iv oblivion splendidly with my x1900xtx ati card which I also still have


----------



## Super XP (Oct 20, 2011)

Dam that avatar keeps tricking me. I read your post and I am like, NO I didn't post that, then I see your name on top  Nice Avatar


----------



## dalekdukesboy (Oct 20, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Dam that avatar keeps tricking me. I read your post and I am like, NO I didn't post that, then I see your name on top  Nice Avatar



I have the lighter version of the avatar...a second later or earlier in the opening song sequence where his face washes out with light lol, that is the only way to tell the difference in our avatars...it's how I waded through this forum and all your responses without thinking it was me


----------



## Super XP (Oct 20, 2011)

Yes, for me it was a late night , but yes I can tell the difference, just sometimes looking at it from the side makes me think its my avatar. I believe we've broke the record if there was every one, with 4 Tom Baker Avatars in a row of posts.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 20, 2011)

Who the hell is Tom Baker?


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Who the hell is Tom Baker?



The Best all time Doctor Who (1974 to 1981) Doctor Who was suffering, but once Tom Baker took the role, it skyrocketed to success. It was if he was born for the part. What pissed me off is when the producers wanted to change the show somehow and Tom Baker didn't like the changes so his final year of being the Doctor was in 1981. Rumours state that he would have been acting as Doctor Who for at least another 4 to 6 years if it wasn't for the dam producer and his dumb changes....

Tom Baker is one with the longest running Doctor Who ever. He also won the title Best Ever Doctor Who every single year and only lost to 2 other guys 3 times. 

ALSO, What I like about the NEW Doctor Who (Matt Smith) is he sort of reminds me of Tom Baker's Charisma, passion, style of acting and the energy he put into it. 

LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Baker

Now back to *BULLDOZER*


----------



## DOM (Oct 21, 2011)

No


----------

