# AMD Piledriver is called "FX NEXT"



## Super XP (Oct 4, 2011)

So what is AMD calling Piledriver? FX-Next. 
Several websites reporting that Piledriver based on Socket AM3+ will be 10% faster than current Bulldozer CPU's.


> AMD Piledriver 10% faster than Bulldozer
> 
> CPU / Chipset | 2011/10/03 09:20 | Jacob Hugosson
> 
> ...


LINK:
http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/44317-amd-piledriver-10-faster-than-bulldozer.html


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 4, 2011)

Will I buy an FX processor at release? _*No*_.
Will I buy an FX processor? Maybe.
Will I buy a Piledriver cpu? Maybe.
Will I buy a Piledriver cpu at release? Maybe.
Will I buy either an Bulldozer or Piledriver cpu? _*Yes*_.
_When_ will I buy an FX or 'FX-next' processor?  _Yet to be determined_.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Oct 4, 2011)

I just like saying "piledriver" It sounds like some sort of sexual innuendo


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 4, 2011)

Kevinheraiz said:


> I just like saying "piledriver" It sounds like some sort of sexual innuendo



Makes me think of the wrestling move the "piledriver".


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 4, 2011)

Piledriver/Tombstone piledriver >8D


----------



## erocker (Oct 4, 2011)

So when you figure the delays Piledriver will eventually have, it's just like Phenom -> Phenom II all over again. Oh well.


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 4, 2011)

erocker said:


> So when you figure the delays Piledriver will eventually have, it's just like Phenom -> Phenom II all over again. Oh well.



I actually skipped the original Phenom, i dont remember it being around long wasn't it late 2007 then in late 2008 we got the Phenom IIs?

Wasn't AM2+ around for a hell of a long time? Can we expect AM3+ to do the same? I read a lot of AM3+ boards will support Piledriver with a bios update.


----------



## ViperXTR (Oct 4, 2011)

Gen2 PCI-E eh


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> Makes me think of the wrestling move the "piledriver".



thats what they mean exactly.

Im Just Glad AM3+ wont be shunned n will have life in it, so AMD will have 2 Next Gen CPUs on AM3+, Im suspecting BD/Piledriver to be on FM2 I suppose n eventually FM2 will replace AM3+ as the complete Platform, I wouldnt be surprised if APUs are on FM2 aswell, now what gets me is, too bad APUs cant be configured a certain way, say if you have like a high end vid card, you dont need the graphics portion of the APU, why not make that space useful for FPU math for the CPU itself, or precaching graphical stage for the external vid cards.


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 4, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> thats what they mean exactly



"Piledriver" is the wrestling move.
"Pile driver" is the machine.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2011)

these 2 deserved what they got,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8YzeJhOmq0


----------



## techtard (Oct 4, 2011)

Need one more option in the poll. : 'Waiting to see reviews before making a decision.'


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 4, 2011)

techtard said:


> Need one more option in the poll. : 'Waiting to see reviews before making a decision.'



this

also an "I is too poor to buy anything" option


----------



## nt300 (Oct 4, 2011)

erocker said:


> So when you figure the delays Piledriver will eventually have, it's just like Phenom -> Phenom II all over again. Oh well.


May be true, but I don't see this that way. We are getting 8 cores with 16MB of cache for a steal. I can see Bulldozer winning in price/performance.

Phenom I was a mistake, due to upper management. Phenom II is that mistake sort of made right; though it didn't perform the way it was meant to. It was designed to perform much better. Bulldozer may be for instance Phenom II with Piledriver succeeding it as say Phenom III, but no way is Bulldozer Phenom I in my opinion.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> I actually skipped the original Phenom, i dont remember it being around long wasn't it late 2007 then in late 2008 we got the Phenom IIs?
> 
> Wasn't AM2+ around for a hell of a long time? Can we expect AM3+ to do the same? I read a lot of AM3+ boards will support Piledriver with a bios update.


The 8-Core Piledriver (Bulldozer II) based on Socket AM3+ is different than the 10-Core Piledriver (Piledriver II) based on Socket FM2 that may get released sometime in 2013, and is set to completely replace Socket AM3+. 

This IMO is great news because Socket AM3+ will have a long life with a solid upgrade path. Knowing AMD very well, they might further the life of Socket AM3+ beyond 2013. 

That said, I think AMD needs to leave Socket AM3+ and move to Socket FM2 in order to take full advantage of Bulldozer/Piledriver's successor. 

What AMD needs to do is FIX there IMC and perhaps either go Tri-Channel for the high end market or Quad-Channel. If done properly this could boost CPU performance by a HUGE amount and the DDR manufacturers will love 8 x DDR slots on mobo's.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> What AMD needs to do is FIX there IMC and perhaps either go Tri-Channel for the high end market or Quad-Channel. If done properly this could boost CPU performance by a HUGE amount and the DDR manufacturers will love 8 x DDR slots on mobo's.



Can I buy pot from you?

X79 has twice the memory bandwidth of 1155. You know how much that helped performance? 0-1% outside of memory specific synthetic benchmarks. Everyone goes on about memory but it makes such a small freakin' difference it's akin to an audiophile buying monster cable.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Can I buy pot from you?
> 
> X79 has twice the memory bandwidth of 1155. You know how much that helped performance? 0-1% outside of memory specific synthetic benchmarks. Everyone goes on about memory but it makes such a small freakin' difference it's akin to an audiophile buying monster cable.


Listen Tri and Quad sound better than Dual O.K.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 14, 2011)

I got this from somewhere but don't remeber right now.

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 re-working 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.


----------



## INSTG8R (Oct 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> I got this from somewhere but don't remeber right now.
> 
> 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 re-working 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.



Pretty much what I was thinking. Piledriver will be the CPU they "should" have released(or so the specs of it would lead us to believe) But they were already committed to Bulldozer.


----------



## techtard (Oct 14, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Can I buy pot from you?
> 
> X79 has twice the memory bandwidth of 1155. You know how much that helped performance? 0-1% outside of memory specific synthetic benchmarks. Everyone goes on about memory but it makes such a small freakin' difference it's akin to an audiophile buying monster cable.



Audiophiles don't buy Monster cables. Poseurs do.  (And n00bs)

Memory bandwidth will help in professional market, with their multithreaded and bandwidth hungry apps.
But they will have server mobos and memory for that.

More memory would be a boon for pro-sumers too, people who work at home and buy consumer grade gear to do professional work. 
And students, too in certain scenarios.


----------



## Nick89 (Oct 14, 2011)

666. lol


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 14, 2011)

dont waste your time waiting .. again


----------



## erocker (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Piledriver based on Socket AM3  will be 10% faster than current Bulldozer CPU's.



Not close to being enough. Everyone waiting for this do yourself a favor and buy a 2500/2600K. It's a vastly superior chip. I bought a Bulldozer and I knew it stunk before I bought it. It's now going to sit in it's tin can until issues are worked out.


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 14, 2011)

There should be an option that say "No, planning to upgrade later" or "I don't know" I voted "waiting for Piledriver" because it's the closest option but I am not waiting straight for Piledriver. I won't buy Bulldozer, nor I am an Intel-only. 

EDIT: *How I can change my vote to "Just No" now that it has been added?  *


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> So what is AMD calling Piledriver? FX-Next.


Ahahahahahahahah!!!  

So their marketing team is great at overhype and get a pie in the face when they have to come up with product names.   Too funny! 


10% faster than slow is...slow.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> Not close to being enough. Everyone waiting for this do yourself a favor and buy a 2500/2600K. It's a vastly superior chip. I bought a Bulldozer and I knew it stunk before I bought it. It's now going to sit in it's tin can until issues are worked out.



If Erocker said this was a bad chip.

Everybody else run away, of all people I trust his word the most. Been hear for years and always recognized his opinion's as simple, strait to the point, fact. 

and its true,

I feel absolutely sorry for anybody that dished out 200$+ for the bulldozer (kia performance in disguise). 

AND now there expecting people to dish out another 200$+ for a 10% increase? That's fuckin low. 

I can increase bulldozer performance, by just setting the stock clock to 4.2Ghz and be done with it, I NEED TO GET A JOB AT AMD RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## erocker (Oct 14, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> If Erocker said this was a bad chip.
> 
> Everybody else run away, of all people I trust his word the most. Been hear for years and always recognized his opinion's as simple, strait to the point, fact.
> 
> ...



People are putting too little faith in reviews. All the numbers are there, it's quite easy to come to that conclusion whether you have the chip or not.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> People are putting too little faith in reviews. All the numbers are there, it's quite easy to come to that conclusion whether you have the chip or not.



IF TPU had a review, there'd be no question. Fact of the matter is that most TPU'ers depend on TPU to set the facts straight, and currently, as a site, we cannot.

Don't blame the users..blame AMD. Hard to trust a site that said three days ago, Bulldozer was the next best thing, and then they turn it around, and say it isn't. Well, what about what they said a few days before?



Perfect example, two posts above..you are more reliable to 3volvedcombat than any of those reviews, even though you are not a reviewer. Plain and simple, many sites have lost TONNES of credibility because of this launch.


----------



## erocker (Oct 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Perfect example, two posts above..you are more reliable to 3volvedcombat than any of those reviews, even though you are not a reviewer. Plain and simple, many sites have lost TONNES of credibility because of this launch.



Bah, I can't even get this thing to run for more than a half hour without BSOD'ing at stock. Probablly a bad Windows install or something... I stayed up way too late last night and right now I have no working computer at home. More work to do after work.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 14, 2011)

Right, and that's pretty disappointing. Hopefully it is just the OS install...would suck if you killed it in less than 12 hours.

Lots of issues with these chips it seems...hopefully Piledriver comes soon, and works far, far better.


----------



## Baam (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> So what is AMD calling Piledriver? FX-Next.



FX extreme.


----------



## techtard (Oct 14, 2011)

They should call it RadeonFX. Then it would sell.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

Baam said:


> FX extreme.


How about AMD FX2 just like they did with Phenom II


----------



## seronx (Oct 14, 2011)

FX Nextreme!!!

Lol

IPC decreases


----------



## techtard (Oct 14, 2011)

Hey seronx what happened to you? You were the most hardcore Bulldozer supporter, even going so far as to make up information about the chip. So weird to see people do stuff like this.


----------



## seronx (Oct 15, 2011)

techtard said:


> Hey seronx what happened to you? You were the most hardcore Bulldozer supporter, even going so far as to make up information about the chip. So weird to see people do stuff like this.



I didn't make up information I was using the paper specifications


----------



## Steevo (Oct 15, 2011)

As I recall the only reason AMD even got ahead was Intel fell down. AMD has almost ALWAYS been behind Intel. 

Athlons were slower per clock than PIII, its just they were cheaper and easy to overclock during the time Intel was dabbling with RAMBUS. 

Intel decided that core clock was the way to go, and made a less efficient CPU, AMD really just updated their Athlon and a die shrink made it that much better. AMD has a piece of crap chip here, and will likely have another, 10% fewer watts than 223 is still 200, and most of that could be die shrink. Why do you all think the APU's are still on Phenom cores? 

Speaking of that, APU, GPU and cheaper systems are the only way AMD is going to keep floating.


----------



## seronx (Oct 15, 2011)

AMD had a 3 year lead with K8 but didn't do anything with it....

2003 - 2006


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

Steevo said:


> As I recall the only reason AMD even got ahead was Intel fell down. AMD has almost ALWAYS been behind Intel.
> 
> Athlons were slower per clock than PIII, its just they were cheaper and easy to overclock during the time Intel was dabbling with RAMBUS.
> 
> ...


Remember Where AMD innovates, Intel followed.
Remember it was AMD that released the Monster inside Intel. What AMD needs is IBM.



erocker said:


> Bah, I can't even get this thing to run for more than a half hour without BSOD'ing at stock. Probablly a bad Windows install or something... I stayed up way too late last night and right now I have no working computer at home. More work to do after work.


My middle name is AMD 
Perhaps you are having issues with the OS, though it sounds more like a memory problem. Nobody is posting Blue Screen of Deaths with Bulldozer. I really hope you get it resolved. Your opinion is like GOLD IMO.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 15, 2011)

W1zzard said:


> dont waste your time waiting .. again



Expecting anything but failure from AMD is like expecting it not to rain in Seattle.


----------



## DigitalUK (Oct 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> IF TPU had a review, there'd be no question. Fact of the matter is that most TPU'ers depend on TPU to set the facts straight, and currently, as a site, we cannot.
> 
> Don't blame the users..blame AMD. Hard to trust a site that said three days ago, Bulldozer was the next best thing, and then they turn it around, and say it isn't. Well, what about what they said a few days before?
> 
> ...



im still waiting for a proper techpowerup review of bulldozer, clean cut from reviewers i trust.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

DigitalUK said:


> im still waiting for a proper techpowerup review of bulldozer, clean cut from reviewers i trust.


W1zzard's Reviews are 100% on target, straight and FAIR. If Bulldozer is not what was originally expected we will find out. If Bulldozer requires further tweaking? We will find out.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 15, 2011)

I mean i would agree with that ^ except for the fact that the reviews are so numerous and overwhelmingly sound in their conclusion...

its not really an "IF" at this point... but rather "to what extent".


----------



## DigitalUK (Oct 15, 2011)

alot of these "Review sites" dont run proper unbias tests, some even copy and paste what they have seen on other sites, or re-write someone elses reviews to the point of a lie becomes mainstream truths and half truths. which is why techpowerup should have been given a retail chip before release for review. i have seen loads of reviews over the last few days eg.. some saying BD is great at encoding beating i7 another saying BD is not very good running the same benchmark.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> What AMD needs is IBM.



...

wat?


----------



## 15th Warlock (Oct 15, 2011)

What's the sense in prolonging the agony, just let it die already, no sense in beating a dead horse...


----------



## techtard (Oct 15, 2011)

seronx said:


> AMD had a 3 year lead with K8 but didn't do anything with it....
> 
> 2003 - 2006



Actually AMD couldn't expand to capitalize on their advantage due to anticompetitive measures on Intel's part.
There was even a lawsuit.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> People are putting too little faith in reviews. All the numbers are there, it's quite easy to come to that conclusion whether you have the chip or not.


I find it interesting that the reviews of Oct 12, 2011 differ from other reviews which claim to have used Retail Copies Bulldozer chips. What I mean is the retail are performing better....


----------



## xenocide (Oct 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I find it interesting that the reviews of Oct 12, 2011 differ from other reviews which claim to have used Retail Copies Bulldozer chips. What I mean is the retail are performing better....



There will always be variance, bias, etc.  I saw a number of sites people were pointing to that used mismatched setups to compare SB to AMD's offerings.  Such things as using slower SSD's, different motherboards for 2 SB setups, and any number of differences.  The best bet is to consider them all.  The bottom line becomes BD is at times on par for or better than SB, but in most situations SB is ahead.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 15, 2011)

Now all AMD needs to do is release a revision with better performance all accross the board.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 15, 2011)

erocker said:


> Not close to being enough. Everyone waiting for this do yourself a favor and buy a 2500/2600K. It's a vastly superior chip. I bought a Bulldozer and I knew it stunk before I bought it. It's now going to sit in it's tin can until issues are worked out.



I don't have money like you do sadly, you can buy both a SB setup and a BD setup if you want, i bought a 990FX board hence im willing to wait for a decent FX chip that at least performs better then their current Phenom II's, that is all i'd like, it doesn't need to win the performance battle against Intel. For someone who hasn't bought a 900 series/AM3+ board, then i agree, Sandy Bridge is more worth your money and time.



cadaveca said:


> IF TPU had a review, there'd be no question. Fact of the matter is that most TPU'ers depend on TPU to set the facts straight, and currently, as a site, we cannot.
> 
> Don't blame the users..blame AMD. Hard to trust a site that said three days ago, Bulldozer was the next best thing, and then they turn it around, and say it isn't. Well, what about what they said a few days before?
> 
> ...



That's how it has been done for years, most people here ''new design'' and wet their pants over it, but that doesn't mean their reviews are less honest or less credible then TPU or any other site when they actually get the chips in hand. TPU does the same thing, front page full of Bulldozer speculation and expectations about how they''ll be 50% faster then the 980x, news posts advertising the slides AMD showed off etc. and people in the community hyping it up because of such things. But of course it was not their fault that their exceptions didn't come true or that the news on the front page didn't come true. Why should anyone expect to here something different from TPU?

I love TPU, but i don't pretend it's any more reliable then HardOCP, XbitLabs, XtremeSystems etc.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 15, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Why should anyone expect to here something different from TPU?
> 
> I love TPU, but i don't pretend it's any more reliable then HardOCP, XbitLabs, XtremeSystems etc.



I agree with you here 100%. But just read the posts here, man. Some people prefer to get TPU's own view, and while TPU may have posted news with the same info that turned out to be wrong, never once was TPU the SOURCE of that info, which is ultimately a critical detail.

It's simply becuase in the face of all the early "info", today the picture BD paints is quite shocking, and has created the situation where everyone is questioning things.

Just because you personally are not as loyal to TPU as some others, clearly some are, myself included. The only sites, to me, that are less relaible, are the ones that sourced the info that said BD was better...and at other sites, I always check the author of the article, as some reviewer's opinions I value more than others. It doesn't mean some are less "reliable", but yeah, their opinion is less important, for sure.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 15, 2011)

TPU is basically my priority review site because their tests are generally as close to flawless as you will find.  It's the attention to details really.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I agree with you here 100%. But just read the posts here, man. Some people prefer to get TPU's own view, and while TPU may have posted news with the same info that turned out to be wrong, never once was TPU the SOURCE of that info, which is ultimately a critical detail.
> 
> It's simply becuase in the face of all the early "info", today the picture BD paints is quite shocking, and has created the situation where everyone is questioning things.
> 
> Just because you personally are not as loyal to TPU as some others, clearly some are, myself included. The only sites, to me, that are less relaible, are the ones that sourced the info that said BD was better...and at other sites, I always check the author of the article, as some reviewer's opinions I value more than others. It doesn't mean some are less "reliable", but yeah, their opinion is less important, for sure.




Yes i agree that TPU generally isn't the source of the speculation, but many sites aren't either. It has no ties to the credibility of the site though, ive sourced information from HardOCP, XS, Mad Shrimps etc. and all the information that was sourced were factual. Most of the sites that are consistently inaccurate that get sourced are generally sites that hold barely any weight in the first place

I understand that some people wait for their own sites review because it's like their online home, i'm only loyal to TPU in the aspects that i come here a lot and i like the community and news, so yes, i agree that there are a lot more people loyal to this site then myself. I have been a member of HardOCP for over 5 years and have accounts on many other hardware sites too, but again, i am only loyal in certain aspects, as i am more about the bottom line and not about who has the funniest community troll. I don't hold one site above the other, because ive seen that they both have contributed similar things so i have no reason not to trust one or the other.



xenocide said:


> TPU is basically my priority review site because their tests are generally as close to flawless as you will find.  It's the attention to details really.



I look at every sites reviews including TPUs and if the general consensus is similar then that's that, if one site hasn't given their review yet but the general consensus is the same, then that review isn't of much importance to me, i'll still read it, but i don't expect much.

Ive seen other sites that use better methodologies then TPU in certain reviews. It just depends.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 15, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I understand that some people wait for their own sites review because it's like their online home, i'm only loyal to TPU in the aspects that i come here a lot and i like the community and news, so yes, i agree that there are a lot more people loyal to this site then myself. I have been a member of HardOCP for over 5 years and have accounts on many other hardware sites too, but again, i am only loyal in certain aspects, as i am more about the bottom line and not about who has the funniest community troll. I don't hold one site above the other, because ive seen that they both have contributed similar things so i have no reason not to trust one or the other.



For the bigger sites, sure, I agree again, 100%. I visit [H], XS, and many others daily as well, but it's not becuase they are a site, but because of who works there, and generates the content.

Also, TPU doesn't have a "community troll" unless you are refering to me. If you are talking about Mailman, he's not gonna be posting for quite some time.

Hopefully AMD will do things right for the PileDriver launch, and TPU will have a review when every other sites does. In all honesty, logistics problems prevented TPU from having a BD review at launch.


Those differences in methodologies is what separates the sites form one another, and I chose to take it all in, and then make decisions. I might appreciate someone's writing style a bit more, etc...but you are very right, when the general concensus agrees, then there's little left to wonder, but that's not going to make people want to see a TPU less, more often than not, if only in hopes that AMD's marketing team pulls it's socks up.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> For the bigger sites, sure, I agree again, 100%. I visit [H], XS, and many others daily as well, but it's not becuase they are a site, but because of who works there, and generates the content.
> 
> Also, TPU doesn't have a "community troll" unless you are refering to me. If you are talking about Mailman, he's not gonna be posting for quite some time.
> 
> ...



I agree with all of that.

And yes, by ''community troll'' it would mainly mean Mailman for this site pretty much lol.

I trust Steve and Al who delivers the [H] news daily as much as btarunr or qubit. Though i'm not a fan of Kyle Bennett though for many reasons, granted his reviews tend to be solid.


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 15, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Will I buy an FX processor at release? _*No*_.
> Will I buy an FX processor? Maybe.
> Will I buy a Piledriver cpu? Maybe.
> Will I buy a Piledriver cpu at release? Maybe.
> ...



Sums it up for me as well.

I will definitely end up getting both (although I voted waiting for piledriver) I will probably wait for piledriver and then get a first gen used for cheap 

I am currently waiting till after Christmas to pick up some more thubans  Although I just ordered parts for a LLano build for a friend.


----------



## RevengE (Oct 15, 2011)

Will I buy bulldozer? No
Will I buy piledriver? Maybe


----------



## arnoo1 (Oct 15, 2011)

Will i buy bulldozer or piledriver: no won't
Will i buy ivy bridge: maybe, i have sandy bridge, 2600k ;p


----------



## Steevo (Oct 15, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Remember Where AMD innovates, Intel followed.
> Remember it was AMD that released the Monster inside Intel. What AMD needs is IBM.
> 
> 
> ...



"Advanced Micro Devices was founded on May 1, 1969, by a group of former executives from Fairchild Semiconductor, including Jerry Sanders III, Ed Turney, John Carey, Sven Simonsen, Jack Gifford and three members from Gifford's team, Frank Botte, Jim Giles, and Larry Stenger. The company began as a producer of logic chips, then entered the RAM chip business in 1975. That same year, it introduced a reverse-engineered clone of the Intel 8080 microprocessor. During this period, AMD also designed and produced a series of bit-slice processor elements (Am2900, Am29116, Am293xx) which were used in various minicomputer designs."


Wiki


In 1991, AMD released the Am386, its clone of the Intel 386 processor. It took less than a year for the company to sell a million units. Later, the Am486 was used by a number of large original equipment manufacturers, including Compaq, and proved popular. Another Am486-based product, the Am5x86, continued AMD's success as a low-price alternative. However, as product cycles shortened in the PC industry, the process of reverse engineering Intel's products became an ever less viable strategy for AMD.


I owned and overclocked many early AMD/Intel rigs. 


Intel has fallen down twice in big ways, first with RAMBUS, second with their stupid ideas about Netburst. 

AMD has maintained a small performance gap from Intel throughout the years, their pricing in later years has been on the edge of where it needs to be for the performance per dollar. 


This chip does NOT, does NOT, provide the same sort of performance per dollar that the X6 1100T does, its only $189 with free shipping. It does NOT provide the performance per dollar a 2500 or 2600 does.

The only people who should buy this from a logical standpoint are those who have a board that will accept it. Enthusiast overclockers should buy this as the next challenge. Fanbois will buy it, and thats OK, no one will stop them. 

But, dollar for dollar, cent for cent, pound for pound, transistor for transistor. This chip is a fail. 


Buy a dual socket C32 board, $289, two 4130 Opterons, $216, 

8 cores with more bandwidth and you can get 50-150% more performance. But not due to the memory bandwidth alone.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 16, 2011)

I agree AMD needs to lower the price of the AMD FX CPU's but you know how it is, retailers set the price. And because it's new they will keep it somewhat higher. I think $245 is a great price for the AMD FX 8150, especially with all that hidden horse power. Anyhow, I already have a ASUS Crosshair V Formula Socket AM3+ so I apply to your above statement  If I had known Bulldozer would not Bulldoze as we all expected, then I would never have bought the ASUS board. I would have stuck it out longer for Piledriver, hoping they revise it for better overall performance.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 16, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I agree AMD needs to lower the price of the AMD FX CPU's but you know how it is, retailers set the price. And because it's new they will keep it somewhat higher. I think $245 is a great price for the AMD FX 8150, especially with all that *hidden horse power*. Anyhow, I already have a ASUS Crosshair V Formula Socket AM3+ so I apply to your above statement  If I had known Bulldozer would not Bulldoze as we all expected, then I would never have bought the ASUS board. I would have stuck it out longer for Piledriver, hoping they revise it for better overall performance.



Why?

You continue to say there is hidden power locked away in BD.  Every time someone says that its performance is underwhelming you respond with "there is hidden potential not being tapped in BD."

AMD could well have harnessed the power of Thor, Zeus, and any other lightning controlling god in BD.  What is seen during common use is something akin to a microwave oven, not a lightning bolt.

Awkward metaphores aside, there is no indication that BD has hidden power.  There is plenty of indication that the multithreaded applications of today will run better on BD, but the numbers indicate that single threaded applications do not perform well at all.  If there is some hidden power AMD better pull it out of its butt before SB-e comes out.  The only great thing for AMD is the server market, which is a sizeable market but very not like the consumer market.  Whenever BDs restructured "8 cores" can come to the table in a useful way wake me up.


----------



## seronx (Oct 16, 2011)

unused power is more like it...but in this case SSE5 and AVX are not going to be the first things to be used in vidya gaems

IPC decreased so game performance decreases!


----------



## nt300 (Oct 17, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Why?
> 
> You continue to say there is hidden power locked away in BD.  Every time someone says that its performance is underwhelming you respond with "there is hidden potential not being tapped in BD."
> 
> ...


You don't think this bulldozer has hidden secret powers? I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that one.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 17, 2011)

Those that say there is ''untapped hidden power'' behind these chips are generally people in denial because they so desperately can't stand that it's a terrible chip. When compared to other chips in the market for around the same price, it's not a good buy for most, get over it.

It craps out badly in single threaded applications and doesn't actually perform even decently until work loads that use it's 8 threads are actually used and yet the cores are still not strong enough overall to make a dent. While at the same time delivers higher power consumption.

I'm still going Bulldozer at some point though.


----------



## techtard (Oct 17, 2011)

It shows some strength in heavily multi-threadded apps. There's next to none on the consumer desktop front though.
Maybe next time Skynet will send their future CPU back to the correct year.


----------



## Dopamin3 (Oct 17, 2011)

I like how on the slide it says "10% better x68 performance (Based on AMD projections using digital media workload)".  Probably means IPC that is still really bad, maybe 1.25% better per "core" and 10% in highly threaded apps :shadedshu


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 17, 2011)

Single threaded performance isn't impressive, I agree.
It's about as good as my Phenom II.  Which is OK, for most things, but you'd expect it to be higher, being a new design...
At this point, I'm probably going to go ahead and buy an x6 phenom to play with and pick up a Piledriver at some time in the future.  Will it be a huge improvement going from an x6 to Piledriver?  I doubt it, but it'll be an upgrade worth making at some point.

That being said, if I was planning a new rig right now, I'd be looking at an SB-E.  I don't like the limited PCI-E lanes on the P67 and Z68 boards.  If you're just gaming, they're fine, but for more connectivity/long term upgrading, not so good.


----------



## alucasa (Oct 17, 2011)

FX-666 is (going to be) the new FX .


----------

