# Why BD failed? AMD Ex-Employee speaks out!



## Kantastic (Oct 13, 2011)

Read this on OCN. Main source: Click



> On paper bulldozer is a lovely chip. Bulldozer was on the drawing board (people were even working on it) even back when I was there. All I can say is that by the time you see silicon for sale, it will be a lot less impressive, both in its own terms and when compared to what Intel will be offering. (Because I have no faith AMD knows how to actually design chips anymore). I don’t really want to reveal what I know about Bulldozer from my time at AMD.
> 
> What did happen is that management decided there SHOULD BE such cross-engineering ,which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style. This results in giving up a lot of performance, chip area, and efficiency. The reason DEC Alphas were always much faster than anything else is they designed each transistor by hand. Intel and AMD had always done so at least for the critical parts of the chip. That changed before I left – they started to rely on synthesis tools, automatic place and route tools, etc. I had been in charge of our design flow in the years before I left, and I had tested these tools by asking the companies who sold them to design blocks (adders, multipliers, etc.) using their tools. I let them take as long as they wanted. They always came back to me with designs that were 20% bigger, and 20% slower than our hand-crafted designs, and which suffered from electromigration and other problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lionheart (Oct 13, 2011)

Interesting 

So disappointed in AMD but what can ya do, oh wait... there's Intel


----------



## micropage7 (Oct 13, 2011)

i dunno, maybe AMD took a wrong way to design it
and its pretty sick that after a while the market wait for new stuff called BD and the result far from what we expected


----------



## Melvis (Oct 13, 2011)

Well thats a bummer.

They better do something fast or things are going to get real bad for AMD in the future (desktop wise)


----------



## Jack Doph (Oct 13, 2011)

Melvis said:


> They better do something fast or things are going to get real bad for AMD in the future (desktop wise)



Not just for AMD, but for us all.
If AMD goes cactus in the desktop arena, there won't be an incentive for Intel to keep pushing the technology envelope: we all lose..


----------



## TIGR (Oct 13, 2011)

Jack Doph said:


> Not just for AMD, but for us all.
> If AMD goes cactus in the desktop arena, there won't be an incentive for Intel to keep pushing the technology envelope: we all lose..



Exactly. Whether you prefer AMD or Intel there's good reason to want AMD to be more competitive. Solid competition means more motivation to innovate, progress, and offer better products at better prices.


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 13, 2011)

Now guys, take all of this with a grain of salt because there's a reason this is coming from an "ex" employee. He might have been fired for being incompetent or something else work-related and is now just trying to crap on AMD. I don't see how he can lie about this though, it can all be proven since there should be a pretty wide paper trail.


----------



## mrsdnf (Oct 13, 2011)

There are a loyal lot of people out there who would not buy Intel and will stick with AMD through thick and thin. Lets hope there is enough of them that there will continue to be a healthy rivalry for the benefit of all.


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 13, 2011)

I don't understand some things despite read many reviews, is BD superior to SB when using multithread apps or not. I know it has worse performance per core, etc..


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 13, 2011)

What you call the main source doesn't say anything more than what you posted though.  And that site, Insideris.com references a thread in the Macrumors forum from 2010 concerning Apple possibly switching to AMD...
The forum member who made those comments seems to be rather bitter, here's a message from right before the first part of the snippet above:



> I think you are letting your emotions get in the way. Parting was obviously sad for you, but very rarely there is only one emotion present in an event. Otherwise mental therapy wouldn't exist.
> '...always suck...' is a very subjective and emotionally filled term. If you had said, "AMD sucks now and probably will for a while" is more reflective of the truth.
> 
> _Your attempts at psychoanalysis are both inappropriate and ineffctual.
> ...



That was April 2010.  Actually, he didn't state facts, only claims, since we don't have any way to verify without AMD's permission to do so... but there must be some truth in some of them, outside of the obvious extreme bitterness about the design path and methodology taken.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 13, 2011)

Derek12 said:


> I don't understand some things despite read many reviews, is BD superior to SB when using multithread apps or not. I know it has worse performance per core, etc..



In new and upcoming multithreaded apps and benchmarks it (8150) will perform on par or better than i5-2500K.  In older apps and benchmarks, with older code, it will not be superior to SB, it will perform at least as well as a x6 Phenom II or better, depending on the app.
In lightly threaded apps and benchmarks (which are nearly all based on old code) it will only perform as well as an x4 Deneb or x6 Thuban, in some cases worse, depending on the workload (i.e if floating point performance is needed, it will underperform).


----------



## r9 (Oct 13, 2011)

Nooo this can`t be true also the reviews all over the net it is a conspiracy against AMD. 
You want to know how I know this ? Well there is guy registered here at TPU that works for AMD he told us that there were no benchmarks before launch because it will disrupt the OEM partners, and not because new AMD cpus are garbage. 
And this must be true because he would not lie to us.


----------



## Recus (Oct 13, 2011)

Why BD failed? Let's see:

*Shi**y Marketing Killed the Bulldozer Star*
Shi**y Performance



			
				amdFAILEDagain said:
			
		

> windows 8 final? LOL - typical amd fanboys - always tomorow,never now
> 
> http://fudzilla.net/processors/item/24435-amd-falls-short-with-bulldozer


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 13, 2011)

man.. so many AMD haters glorifiying themselves these days grabbing the trollin opportunity


----------



## Derek12 (Oct 13, 2011)

Many thanks Inceptor for the clarification 


-------
I don't know why some people all over Internet is pleased of this, if AMD would fall, it will be bad even for Intel users who have to buy a CPU.


----------



## Rapidfire48 (Oct 13, 2011)

Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> man.. so many AMD haters glorifiying themselves these days grabbing the trollin opportunity



I don't think they are haters or trolls. So much hype was built up for the release of BD and from what the benchmarks show is not impressive at all. I for one am an AMD supporter and I am tired of all of there misleading bullshit . Why would you label a cpu FX when it is not worthy of the title? The AMD FX chips were beast and the new FX 8150 in my opinion is SHIT.


----------



## Jack Doph (Oct 13, 2011)

Rapidfire48 said:


> I don't think they are haters or trolls. So much hype was built up for the release of BD and from what the benchmarks show is not impressive at all. I for one am an AMD supporter and I am tired of all of there misleading bullshit . Why would you label a cpu FX when it is not worthy of the title? The AMD FX chips were beast and the new FX 8150 in my opinion is SHIT.



The issue is with one of competition in the CURRENT market, when AMD has, as it seems, at least, been trying to look forward in a way that shows them as being ponces right now, but may well be vindicated in time.

Alas, this is many-a-company's epitaph (I'm too sexy for your time, too sexy for your time - too far ahead, it may leave me dead) - that sort of stuff :/

A pity, for sure - as it took me more than 12 years (!) to get another Intel-based system.

All of us need the competition, the drive and the incentive, of the 2 most prominent CPU players in the market today.
The loss of either of these, means the loss of invention for ALL of us.
I don't care what kind of 'fanboi' anyone may be, but the fact remains: no competition = no invention == stagnation of computing in the world as we know it.

Never *EVER* allow a single company to dictate the terms, in any way, shape or form.
This is the biggest 'fail', as has been said, on the part of AMD.
Intel doesn't care - they're in the top spot. The only thing they stand to lose is a minor market-share. Stuff that bothers corporate executives at night, when they think they're being video-taped banging their secretaries (rather than their wives), instead of focussing on what THE REST OF THE WORLD WANTS.
And they *CAN* deliver.

For the sake of all of us, let's hope AMD gets its shit (shit, shite, excrement) together, so we may all benefit, in one way or another


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2011)

mrsdnf said:


> There are a loyal lot of people out there who would not buy Intel and will stick with AMD through thick and thin. Lets hope there is enough of them that there will continue to be a healthy rivalry for the benefit of all.



The rivalry is not all that healthy to be honest, despite AMD increasing thier market share slightly in Q1 and Q2 of 2011, this is how the picture looks in share terms.....

Desktop CPU - Intel 70.9%, AMD 28.9%
Mobile CPU - Intel 84.4%, AMD 15.2%
Server/workstation CPU - Intel 94.5%, AMD 5.5%


----------



## Bo$$ (Oct 13, 2011)

Rapidfire48 said:


> in my opinion is SHIT



Well what is shit for you??? may appeal to others, to get massive parralisation in certain programs is really useful, getting 2500K perf at a lower overall price. Granted it was a little bit of a let down but if you feel like that you aren't their target market.
The speculation was too much i think


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

OMG what a f* disaster. :shadedshu I've just seen a block diagram and explanation for the Bulldozer architecture: it's not an 8-core chip at all. The two 'cores' are siamesed into one building block and share lots of resources and lose lots of performance. *This thing is actually merely a quad core processor with a souped-up version of HyperThreading or whatever the AMD equivalent is.*

Here's the block diagram taken from Hexus' review:







See what I mean? The only thing it seems to be good at is overclocking and that only brings it within reach of Intel's top parts at *stock*, it doesn't even beat them, all the while using a huge amount of power and requiring expensive cooling. This chip is a lemon like Vista was for Microsoft, or perhaps even worse.

I'll soon be upgrading my aging E8500 to an i5-2500K. No point in waiting any more.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 13, 2011)

Recus said:


> Why BD failed? Let's see:
> 
> *Shi**y Marketing Killed the Bulldozer Star*
> Shi**y Performance



Ya right. The only problem is that right now I can get a 1090T for less than a 6100 and get both a better single and multi-threaded performance...Yes you are missing out on some of the new stuff like lower idle consumption, working turbo, AES-NI and advanced instructions(which you may never actually use) but you're getting so much more performance it's just silly


----------



## nt300 (Oct 13, 2011)

Interesting..... 
Bulldozer is here to stay and AMD will figure out a way to make it deserving of the "FX" moniker.

The reviewer from Guru3D says it right. Bulldozer is way ahead of it's time. There is nothing wrong with concentrating on massive multi-threading software, but you still need to have the horse power for single threaded software too. This is where Bulldozer falls flat on its face.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 13, 2011)

Tatty_One said:


> The rivalry is not all that healthy to be honest, despite AMD increasing thier market share slightly in Q1 and Q2 of 2011, this is how the picture looks in share terms.....
> 
> Desktop CPU - Intel 70.9%, AMD 28.9%
> Mobile CPU - Intel 84.4%, AMD 15.2%
> Server/workstation CPU - Intel 94.5%, AMD 5.5%



Amd will never touch intel in the server market there are way to many programs designed to run on intel chips that have nothing but problems running on AMD.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 13, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Interesting.....
> There is nothing wrong with concentrating on massive multi-threading software, but you still need to have the horse power for single threaded software too. This is where Bulldozer falls flat on its face.


Its way ahead of its time indeed. And if current apps would take advantage of it, it would surely be a beast as it was evident on some heavy multithreaded benchies


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> OMG what a f* disaster. :shadedshu I've just seen a block diagram and explanation for the Bulldozer architecture: it's not an 8-core chip at all. The two 'cores' are siamesed into one building block and share lots of resources and lose lots of performance. *This thing is actually merely a quad core processor with a souped-up version of HyperThreading or whatever the AMD equivalent is.*
> 
> Here's the block diagram taken from Hexus' review:
> 
> ...




Seriously you've only just realised this?

It's literally the main selling point for bulldozer.

It means instead of building a whole entire core they use 25% of one and still get MOST of the performance of an extra core. ( In theory a shit ton better than hyper threading )

To put it simply, AMD may of had an underwelming release but they've just started a core race with Intel ( I imagine it's due to silicone not going to go much further IPC and clock speed wise) Piledriver will be 10 cores and the chips after that will be 20 core monsters. ( I suspect AMD are going to try and push OPEN CL big time in order for the cores to be taken advantage of easily)

They've a plan, they may not pull it off but if they do they'll become server CPU kings and if they can increase IPC a wee bit to bring it into line with competing processors then it will be a beast.



I'm aware it doesn't seem like they're pulling that off at the moment but I'm fairly certain something is wrong either with software or hardware ( rather than design) as a chip with twice the transistors of phenom x6 should be smashing it.


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> OMG what a f* disaster. :shadedshu I've just seen a block diagram and explanation for the Bulldozer architecture: it's not an 8-core chip at all. The two 'cores' are siamesed into one building block and share lots of resources and lose lots of performance. *This thing is actually merely a quad core processor with a souped-up version of HyperThreading or whatever the AMD equivalent is.*
> 
> Here's the block diagram taken from Hexus' review:
> 
> ...



8 integer cores = HT? I'm not that knowledgeble about this, but that is a simplification.


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Seriously you've only just realised this?
> 
> It's literally the main selling point for bulldozer.
> 
> ...



I've only just looked at the architecture in any detail, yes. Taken together with the benches, it's not hard to see why performance falls short. Also, the memory bandwidth is not especially high in the benches, which leads to bottlenecks. The Intel chips have higher bandwidth with less cores, so they're gonna be able to breath better.

This is definitely a 4 core chip with two threads per core, not a true 8 core chip, end of story.

I think having AMD say that the software isn't optimized for it is a bit of an excuse. Hexus said it was a dangerous argument to base a purchasing decision on, too.

I definitely don't think AMD should be marketing this as an 8 core chip.



Frick said:


> 8 integer cores = HT? I'm not that knowledgeble about this, but that is a simplification.
> 
> http://images.anandtech.com/doci/4955/BDArch.png



Yes, the integer units are separate, but most of the core is all shared resources, so it's just one core that's able to handle two threads. Just look at a block diagram for something like a Phenom or my E8500. You'll see that everything is separate, apart from the cache and glue logic.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> I definitely don't think AMD should be marketing this as an 8 core chip.




That's what I thought when I first read about the architecure  Knew it would bite them in the arse as people would expect you know, the whole performance of a core 


From a definition POV though it does count as a "core" as it's actually scheduling and excuting two threads at the same time.

( hyper threading is more like smart HW based thread scheduling from my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong folks!)



What I'd like to know is, what was the BD release supposed to coincide with?

Generally AMD try and get their launch dates close a launch of something else so help boost sales.

So what was it? lol


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 13, 2011)

the whole idea behind bulldozer was to decrease the size of a core from X transistors to 50-75% of X while still keeping a similar level of performance. The bad thing is that at the last moment someone decided to add all these other "useful" things like a humongous L2 cache, AES hardware decription and new instruction sets and the whole thing quickly grew out of proportions.

See once again AMD tried to do too much at once and ended up with a botch job just like with the original phenom. Be aware of your abilities and don't overstate them - that simple :/






$ntel found out long ago that a smaller but faster cache beats a bloated large cache every time yet if you look at the picture above roughly 1/3 of the die is L2 cache - it's almost as big as the module itself :/

AMD are trying to blame Glo Fo but imagine how much leaner the original phenom could have been if they had decided to keep the L3 for the next process node or if BD had "only" 512kb L2 per module and didn't require a 2 billion die...


----------



## Nick89 (Oct 13, 2011)

If the price on the 8150 drops to 200$ or less it will be my next processor.


----------



## Mindweaver (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> OMG what a f* disaster. :shadedshu I've just seen a block diagram and explanation for the Bulldozer architecture: it's not an 8-core chip at all. The two 'cores' are siamesed into one building block and share lots of resources and lose lots of performance. *This thing is actually merely a quad core processor with a souped-up version of HyperThreading or whatever the AMD equivalent is.*
> 
> Here's the block diagram taken from Hexus' review:
> 
> ...




Hey NEWS guy.. Each Bulldozer core has 2 threads... This has been know for quite some time now...  I don't see what all the fuss is over? Nobody in this thread has a BD.. Wait till the actual chip gets released, before passing judgment.. Use common sense.. if the best BD Stock chip only performs on par with a 2500k... Then they would not set the price higher than a stock 2500k. There is a lot more people that buy pc's and leave them stock then OCing them. Those people will buy a faster AMD pc.. What ground will amd lose by staying where people expect them to be? None... Does everyone in here think that the few OCer's in these forums keep AMD alive? Well no.. they do not pay there bills..


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 13, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Seriously you've only just realised this?
> 
> It's literally the main selling point for bulldozer.
> 
> It means instead of building a whole entire core they use 25% of one and still get MOST of the performance of an extra core. ( In theory a shit ton better than hyper threading )



It was obvious for me from the start, when I first saw the diagrams, that all those claims were complete bull. Or in other words it was taking the whole thing with 100% optimism and wishful thinking. The key of the matter is that each module has a single scheduler capable of issuing 4 instructions. The fact that the entire module can execute 8 instructions (4 per "core"), which is what AMD marketing department has been selling all the time is almost completely irrelevant. 99% of the time Zambezi is capable of only 4 instructions per module, that is 4 x 4 = 16 instructions for the entire chip. For comparison Thuban is capable of issuing and executing 3 instructions per core, so 3 x 6 = 18. Of course this only accounts for the maximum capacity and in a sense this is where BD was going to excell. If the software only requires 2 instructions, then BD can still execute 16 (2 per core) and Thuban is left with only 12. This was the logic behind the BD concept and this is what any kind of multi-threading tries to maximize the use of the resources. After all has been said and done and benchmarks have been performed, the bad thing for AMD is that Intel's SMT more than suffices for this task and has proven to be a lot more efficient.

And come on AMD's claims about 25% more area for 80% more performance was complete bull. I mean 2 billion transistors for 4 modules (8 non real cores), when Thuban is only 900 million or 750 million for Deneb. How is that a 25% increase at all? They could have made a real 8, hell probably even a 12 core Thuban-based chip on the same transistor budget and it would have been 100x times better, even if core scaling kind of sucked in comparison.


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> This is definitely a 4 core chip with two threads per core, not a true 8 core chip, end of story.



This has been the talk for quite some time now, so yeah.

And remember that it only fails in single threaded performance. When increasing load there it is on par with SB.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 13, 2011)

Could W1zz or someone else try and kept a statement from AMD asking them what's up?

Or have AMD just pulled of a GTX480 and packed to much into one die?

I'm still just shocked something with twice the transistor count can do so badly.( well not badly, I'd say performance was acceptable)


----------



## naoan (Oct 13, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> They could have made a real 8, hell probably even a 12 core Thuban-based chip on the same transistor budget and it would have been 100x times better, even if core scaling kind of sucked in comparison.



I wish they would just do this


----------



## Therion_I (Oct 13, 2011)

There are some early suggestions that it could be a bug with BD working with Asus Crosshair V and GTX580 which most benchamarks have been run with. See this thread on Toms:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/315775-10-asus-crosshair-giving-biased-results-bulldozer

To sum up, benchmarks run on ASRock 990FX Extreme4 with a Sapphire Radeon HD 6950 2GB Toxic Edition and 2x 4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 seem much closer to i7 2600k.

Not sure what to believe but could the poor performance really be just a bios bug...?


----------



## xenocide (Oct 13, 2011)

Therion_I said:


> There are some early suggestions that it could be a bug with BD working with Asus Crosshair V and GTX580 which most benchamarks have been run with. See this thread on Toms:
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/315775-10-asus-crosshair-giving-biased-results-bulldozer
> 
> ...



I would imagine since they are using a weaker GPU, the bottleneck is there instead of at the CPU which would result in a more "level" outcome.


----------



## Tank (Oct 13, 2011)

despite all the issues i will still buy amd. just bought another phenom today to get my pc up and running again

will buy a 8150 later on once my finances recover after i get a job again.

regardless in high end games bd's performance is acceptable to me


----------



## nt300 (Oct 13, 2011)

Nick89 said:


> If the price on the 8150 drops to 200$ or less it will be my next processor.


Me too. At $200 it's a deal and a half. Use the included AMD software to optimise it for further gain.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 13, 2011)

Yeah if Benchmarks show that BD is an improvement orver my Phenom II 965 I'll be upgrading to it as well.

Maybe I'll wait for a price drop.

Perhaps this is why the Chip has been delayed? I mean if they are so crappy you'd think they would have released before all this trash got washed up on the beach.


----------



## bucketface (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> This thing is actually merely a quad core processor with a souped-up version of HyperThreading or whatever the AMD equivalent is.



wait, people still didn't know this?? 
In Anand's 2010 analysis of the bulldozer arch, thats pretty much what he said.



pantherx12 said:


> I'm aware it doesn't seem like they're pulling that off at the moment but I'm fairly certain something is wrong either with software or hardware ( rather than design) as a chip with twice the transistors of phenom x6 should be smashing it.



half the bloody BD chip is cache... they really needed to shave at least half the l2 cache, at least. also the cache has really, really high latencies, something in the order of 2x or 3x intels cache.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 13, 2011)

What a bios bug? Well I know for a fact ASUS is working day & night on a new bios update to resolve some known Bulldozer issues via it's AM3+ mobo's. I wonder if this will help BD perform better....


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Oct 13, 2011)

I think we are watching a CPU manufacture turn into a graphics card one...Just my own opinion.Next year they will push the A FM2 sockets to us with built in 7000 gpu`s just to laugh at us further,AMD as a cpu company died 5 years ago after the x2 64 FX chips.Why do you think they put ATI logo out the backdoor and killed it so fast.And if the 10 core -16 core cpus desktop refresh of BD are good they will kill AM3+ mobos and make the FM2 a multi purpose to have A and Fx in it.


----------



## _JP_ (Oct 13, 2011)

Therion_I said:


> There are some early suggestions that it could be a bug with BD working with Asus Crosshair V and GTX580 which most benchamarks have been run with. See this thread on Toms:
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...ults-bulldozer
> 
> ...


I know that some sites are preforming reviews with 1600MHz RAM, instead of 1866MHz, which seems to be the ideal RAM speed for BD. Also, RAM timmings always contributed to improve the performance results with AMD processors, so this one should be no different.
As for board specific issues, didn't notice it.
For once, though, I think the usual PR crap about pairing and AMD CPU with an AMD GPU actually means something, but I'll have to look further into that before having any conclusions.


----------



## Nesters (Oct 13, 2011)

Where's seronx?


----------



## heky (Oct 13, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> I know that some sites are preforming reviews with 1600MHz RAM, instead of 1866MHz, which seems to be the ideal RAM speed for BD. Also, RAM timmings always contributed to improve the performance results with AMD processors, so this one should be no different.



Really, and the Intel SB chips were tested with 1333 ram and they still beat faildozer. Stop looking for excuses and admit to yourself the chip was over-hyped and fails to deliver.


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 13, 2011)

Kantastic said:


> Read this on OCN. Main source: Click



amd needs a new head. amds policies and strategies sucks ass. 

hint hint, i am unemployed talented and  i am an INDIAN.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Oct 13, 2011)

H82LUZ73 said:


> I think we are watching a CPU manufacture turn into a graphics card one...



Well, hey, the graphics cards are still quite up to par, at least, time after time at the same price point with their primary competitor, now aren't they?


----------



## _JP_ (Oct 13, 2011)

heky said:


> Really, and the Intel SB chips were tested with 1333 ram and they still beat faildozer. Stop looking for excuses and admit to yourself the chip was over-hyped and fails to deliver.


What a productive comment. 
Uhm...if you had read any of my posts/replies, you would know I never said the chip was not over-hyped.
It's only obvious that, if bulldozer is optimized for 1866MHz RAM and has mediocre results with 1600MHz, with 1333MHz sticks it would be even worse. 
Also, it's no big news that Intel's memory controllers are very good and AMD has yet to come up with something to counter that.
Bulldozer is not FAIL, it just needs some tweaks. Maybe this generation of CPU will not be able to do something remarkable, but there's always piledriver.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> What you call the main source doesn't say anything more than what you posted though.  And that site, Insideris.com references a thread in the Macrumors forum from 2010 concerning Apple possibly switching to AMD...
> The forum member who made those comments seems to be rather bitter, here's a message from right before the first part of the snippet above:
> 
> 
> ...



Its true, because basically what he said is coming true, how is it not? 

8 cores at 3.6Ghz is barley competing with the same architecture revision's of previous generations? Its a simple fact that they started doing what this ex amd guy said, about bulldozer specifically. They might keep it that way to. 

There is no more to be said, bulldozer has bigger number's on paper then anything around it, but it's got low efficiency, getting low number's, and not performing like marketed. You couldnt get any more suck out of that?

Unless you hear about these FX core's failing because of ET migration within 2 years or less. He also stated that no?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 13, 2011)

I can't wait to see Intel's "really real cores" marketing campaign for their octo parts.


----------



## Inceptor (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> I definitely don't think AMD should be marketing this as an 8 core chip.



Well, I think you're right on that... and yet wrong.  I think AMD just didn't know how to market it properly.
Yes, it's in many ways _*functionally*_ a quad-core with a kind of hyperthreading.
But, because of its architecture, it is able to function as a kind of hybrid or 'true' octo-core depending on the workload.
The easiest way to think about it is this:  It's a quad-core with the on-chip granularity to allocate up to 8 'cores' to different tasks, if you so choose.  This is very interesting, especially if you compare it to the i5-2500K which is 4 cores, 4 threads.  And I think performance-wise that is a good comparison.
AMD needs to refine the stepping, lower power consumption, and lower the prices a bit, then there will be  some competition.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Oct 13, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Well, hey, the graphics cards are still quite up to par, at least, time after time at the same price point with their primary competitor, now aren't they?



and is there something wrong with what i typed? GPU`s are the only income AMD has these day`s


----------



## RevengE (Oct 13, 2011)

mrsdnf said:


> There are a loyal lot of people out there who would not buy Intel and will stick with AMD through thick and thin. Lets hope there is enough of them that there will continue to be a healthy rivalry for the benefit of all.



I'm one of those guys. I knew this was coming though so it's no surprise for me.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2011)

We have to remember, just because "we" say it's fail, does not make it a fail, enthusiasts only consitute at most (guess) 5% of the market, OEM's constitute a large part of it, the product will be pitched as "AMD's newest" etc etc and many people out there will purchase I am willing to bet, especially the 4 core and perhaps the 6 core models..... where most of the business should come from anyway, providing those lower end processors are cost competative they will do alright with it, after all if this year AMD have increased market share, albeit by a very small margin, and they have done that off the back of mainly 2/3/4 core P II's, this will at least sound, to the unknowing ear as a vast improvement


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 13, 2011)

"EX-Employee" without identification makes this rumour.


This is news how?


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 13, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> "EX-Employee" without identification makes this rumour.
> 
> 
> This is news how?



what he said, is matching what were seeing.

So I can justify his opinion as somewhat correct.

Quote " .....which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style. This results in giving up a lot of performance, chip area, and efficiency......"

The chip hogs watts 
The chip is lacking in performance with its specifications 
its huge over 2 billion transistors, pointless l2 cache and a bunch of other shit jumbled in it. 

There is nothing more to explain, it should have been optimized better for gaming, and the operating systems, ect.. ect... Should have been thought out way more, cause I can see the shitload of problems and I have -1% experience with management and design ect ect.....

What he said is a grain of "salt" though, could be bias. But in general its still lacking in power, efficiency, and a combo plate for a die architecture. 

There is nothing more to even Derp about now...


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Well, I think you're right on that... and yet wrong.  I think AMD just didn't know how to market it properly.
> Yes, it's in many ways _*functionally*_ a quad-core with a kind of hyperthreading.
> But, because of its architecture, it is able to function as a kind of hybrid or 'true' octo-core depending on the workload.
> The easiest way to think about it is this:  It's a quad-core with the on-chip granularity to allocate up to 8 'cores' to different tasks, if you so choose.  This is very interesting, especially if you compare it to the i5-2500K which is 4 cores, 4 threads.  And I think performance-wise that is a good comparison.
> AMD needs to refine the stepping, lower power consumption, and lower the prices a bit, then there will be  some competition.



Yes, that's why I said it's like HyperThreading on steroids. I would say a closer comparison would be the 2600K, as that's got HT and so can also present 8 threads to the OS and compared to that chip it gets cained. Here's a gaming benchie from guru3d for example: FX8150 = 75fps, 2600K = 94fps. It's just wrong. :shadedshu


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yes, that's why I said it's like HyperThreading on steroids. I would say a closer comparison would be the 2600K, as that's got HT and so can also present 8 threads to the OS and compared to that chip it gets cained. Here's a gaming benchie from guru3d for example: FX8150 = 75fps, 2600K = 94fps. It's just wrong. :shadedshu



I wouldn't say wrong as such. Bad, yes.

But again, in some heavily multithreaded apps it is on par with SB. I do not know why people ignore this. BD is slower overall and in singlethreaded it's awful though, there is no denying that, but credit where credit is due.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 13, 2011)

Tatty_One said:


> We have to remember, just because "we" say it's fail, does not make it a fail, enthusiasts only consitute at most (guess) 5% of the market, OEM's constitute a large part of it, the product will be pitched as "AMD's newest" etc etc and many people out there will purchase I am willing to bet, especially the 4 core and perhaps the 6 core models..... where most of the business should come from anyway, providing those lower end processors are cost competative they will do alright with it, after all if this year AMD have increased market share, albeit by a very small margin, and they have done that off the back of mainly 2/3/4 core P II's, this will at least sound, to the unknowing ear as a vast improvement



You think OEM's are going to be up for a CPU you eats twice as much power (forcing more powerful\reliable PSU's) and offers the same performance to it's customers?  They could just as easily market an i3-2100 and advertise it as "Energy Efficient!".


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 13, 2011)

xenocide said:


> You think OEM's are going to be up for a CPU you eats twice as much power (forcing more powerful\reliable PSU's) and offers the same performance to it's customers?  They could just as easily market an i3-2100 and advertise it as "Energy Efficient!".



Yes of course, after all they still put PII's in them when for the same money pretty much you can get an i3/i5 that will outperform it, they will still cater for all markets, possibly because they get incentives to do so....... with an OEM it is not just about speed or efficiency, it's about marketability and for many who buy OEM's "new" sells more than "old"...... even if in this case "old" might even be better in some things.


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

_JP_ said:


> What a productive comment.
> Uhm...if you had read any of my posts/replies, you would know I never said the chip was not over-hyped.
> It's only obvious that, if bulldozer is optimized for 1866MHz RAM and has mediocre results with 1600MHz, with 1333MHz sticks it would be even worse.
> Also, it's no big news that Intel's memory controllers are very good and AMD has yet to come up with something to counter that.
> *Bulldozer is not FAIL, it just needs some tweaks. Maybe this generation of CPU will not be able to do something remarkable, but there's always piledriver.*



Doesn't this situation feel like Vista for Microsoft? Think about it, Vista had lots of "groundbreaking" new technology in it, yet it sucked balls, with low performance, bugs and resource hogging. Only when SP2 arrived were the kinks mostly ironed out. It never had that much performance though and it took Win7 to turn it around. I just wonder if the same will be true for AMD with their next gen CPU's? I wouldn't hold my breath though.



xenocide said:


> You think OEM's are going to be up for a CPU you eats twice as much power (forcing more powerful\reliable PSU's) and offers the same performance to it's customers?  They could just as easily market an i3-2100 and advertise it as "Energy Efficient!".





Tatty_One said:


> Yes of course, after all they still put PII's in them when for the same money pretty much you can get an i3/i5 that will outperform it, they will still cater for all markets, possibly because they get incentives to do so....... with an OEM it is not just about speed or efficiency, it's about marketability and for many who buy OEM's "new" sells more than "old".



And don't forget the financial incentives that AMD could put these OEMs' way too, of course.  Otherwise yes, xenocide is right, using the best chip would make complete sense. In the end, the whole thing turns political with who pays who, muddying the waters considerably, lol.


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> Doesn't this situation feel like Vista for Microsoft? Think about it, Vista had lots of "groundbreaking" new technology in it, yet it sucked balls, with low performance, bugs and resource hogging. Only when SP2 arrived were the kinks mostly ironed out. It never had that much performance though and it took Win7 to turn it around. I just wonder if the same will be true for AMD with their next gen CPU's? I wouldn't hold my breath though.



Vista was never that bad. The problem was that OEM's sold it on very low powered systems with tons and tons of bloatware. A clean install on a machine that could handle it and it was smooth. Also drivers, but I'm not sure Microsoft should be blamed for that.


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

xenocide said:


> You think OEM's are going to be up for a CPU you eats twice as much power (forcing more powerful\reliable PSU's) and offers the same performance to it's customers?  They could just as easily market an i3-2100 and advertise it as "Energy Efficient!".





Frick said:


> Vista was never that bad. The problem was that OEM's sold it on very low powered systems with tons and tons of bloatware. A clean install on a machine that could handle it and it was smooth. Also drivers, but I'm not sure Microsoft should be blamed for that.



I think it was that bad in the beginning. It really wasn't hard to blue screen it at all. However, the endless patches properly cured this particular fault. And yes, it was put on low powered machines with 'only' a gig of RAM, which really strangled it - heck, that strangles Win7 today.

Having said that, I've got a HP d530 PC with 2GB RAM. This is a Pentium 4 2.8GHz PC, so is quite slow by modern standards. Running Win7 is quite acceptable on it and Aero runs smoothly (GF6200 plugged in) while Vista is noticeably sluggish, with every window opening after a noticeable delay.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> I think it was that bad in the beginning. It really wasn't hard to blue screen it at all. However, the endless patches properly cured this particular fault. And yes, it was put on low powered machines with 'only' a gig of RAM, which really strangled it - heck, that strangles Win7 today.
> 
> Having said that, I've got a HP d530 PC with 2GB RAM. This is a Pentium 4 2.8GHz PC, so is quite slow by modern standards. Running Win7 is quite acceptable on it and Aero runs smoothly (GF6200 plugged in) while Vista is noticeably sluggish, with every window opening after a noticeable delay.



As I recall the majority of vista BSODs were at the hands of nvidia's drivers.


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> As I recall the majority of vista BSODs were at the hands of nvidia's drivers.



Oh, they were notorious, I'll give you that but not the only cause of it - it managed to fall over quite happily all on its own (I was running an AMD card back then) until it was patched.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

Mindweaver said:


> Hey NEWS guy.. Each Bulldozer core has 2 threads... This has been know for quite some time now...  I don't see what all the fuss is over? Nobody in this thread has a BD.. Wait till the actual chip gets released, before passing judgment.. Use common sense.. if the best BD Stock chip only performs on par with a 2500k... Then they would not set the price higher than a stock 2500k. There is a lot more people that buy pc's and leave them stock then OCing them. Those people will buy a faster AMD pc.. What ground will amd lose by staying where people expect them to be? None... Does everyone in here think that the few OCer's in these forums keep AMD alive? Well no.. they do not pay there bills..



Ohhhh be careful what you say. You might get infracted.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> I wouldn't say wrong as such. Bad, yes.
> 
> But again, in some heavily multithreaded apps it is on par with SB. I do not know why people ignore this. BD is slower overall and in singlethreaded it's awful though, there is no denying that, but credit where credit is due.



People do not ignore that, but they do not ignore that this is a 2 billion transistor and 315 mm^2 chip. Such a behemoth can only match or sometimes slightly exceed a chip that is half the size, half the power consumption and has an integrated GPU. Without the GPU SB 4C would be a 750 million transistor and 180 mm^2 chip. You just cannot ignore that. How many real cores with HT could Intel put into a 2 billion transistor and 315mm^2 behemoth? While simple math cannot give an accurate answer to that, more or less: 2000/750 = 2.66 (times SB) -->> 4 cores * 2.66 ~= 10 Sandy Bridge cores. About the same amount of Thuban cores would fit too. Now tell me that BD architecture has any credit. Tell me that their multithreading method is more efficient than Hyperthreading, and where because I just simply fail to see how and where that happens.

And that's not the worst part anyway, the worst part is that BD is not coming even close to Thuban in terms of perf/area and it's not better in perf/watt either despite being made on a smaller node. Those two things are where BD was supposed to improve over the previous gen and instead of that it's atrocious, no matter how you look at it. A true 8 or 10 core 32 nm Thuban would probably do much much better than BD in every front.

Sure, for customers, Zambezi products are not that bad, because of the low price, but that doesn't change the fact that the technology is simply not even close to what it was claimed.

How many times has Fermi been ridiculed for being 40% bigger (and power hungry) than Cypress for only 20% performance improvement? Where does that leave Zambezi? Being almost *3x !!!!* times bigger than SB's CPU part while only being able to match its performance in a few scenarios. It's simply worng, it's pathetic. We need a much better AMD or we are all doomed.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> People do not ignore that, but they do not ignore that this is a 2 billion transistor and 315 mm^2 chip. Such a behemoth can only match or sometimes slightly exceed a chip that is half the size, half the power consumption and has an integrated GPU. Without the GPU SB 4C would be a 750 million transistor and 180 mm^2 chip. You just cannot ignore that. How many real cores with HT could Intel put into a 2 billion transistor and 315mm^2 behemoth? While simple math cannot give an accurate answer to that, more or less: 2000/750 = 2.66 (times SB) -->> 4 cores * 2.66 ~= 10 Sandy Bridge cores. About the same amount of Thuban cores would fit too. Now tell me that BD architecture has any credit. Tell me that their multithreading method is more efficient than Hyperthreading, and where because I just simply fail to see how and where that happens.
> 
> And that's not the worst part anyway, the worst part is that BD is not coming even close to Thuban in terms of perf/area and it's not better in perf/watt either despite being made on a smaller node. Those two things are where BD was supposed to improve over the previous gen and instead of that it's atrocious, no matter how you look at it. A true 8 or 10 core 32 nm Thuban would probably do much much better than BD in every front.
> 
> ...



No what we need are more cores! MOAR CORES!


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ohhhh be careful what you say. You might get infracted.



Hey, what's with you and all the snidey comments to me lately? How about you start a thread in GN and PM me the link? Let's see if you've got the balls for that.  Now stop crapping threads on TPU.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> Hey, what's with you and all the snidey comments to me lately? How about you start a thread in GN and PM me the link? Let's see if you've got the balls for that.  Now stop crapping threads on TPU.



Who said it was to you? It was a warning to Mindweaver. He better watch what he says because some people without a backbone might take what he says the wrong way and report his post. I'm just tryin to help.


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who said it was to you? It was a warning to Mindweaver. He better watch what he says because some people without a backbone might take what he says the wrong way and report his post.



It seemed like it - you have made some dodgy posts to me lately. But ok, no problem.


----------



## Kantastic (Oct 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Who said it was to you? It was a warning to Mindweaver. He better watch what he says because some people without a backbone might take what he says the wrong way and report his post. I'm just tryin to help.



Who you sayin' got no backbone?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> It seemed like it - you have made some dodgy posts to me lately. But ok, no problem.



Oh no not you. You're doin a GREAT job with the news. Super duper even!


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh no not you. You're doin a GREAT job with the news. Super duper even!



This is what I mean. Ok, no more off topic - PMs or GN please.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> This is what I mean. Ok, no more off topic - PMs or GN please.



Jeez can't even complement a guy. How you quote other forums is like apple pie to my eyes!


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 13, 2011)

lol does anyone remember "real men use real cores"? 

anyhow, i think bulldozer will deliver in a couple of years but amd missed the target with it for now (unless they were aiming at the server market as their primary goal)


----------



## qubit (Oct 13, 2011)

D4S4 said:


> lol does anyone remember "real men use real cores"?



Yes, I do. That's marketing for you, lol. How times change.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 13, 2011)

How 'bout "Real men own fabs"?


----------



## D007 (Oct 13, 2011)

Just when I was starting to let AMD/ATI into my home.. ; ;


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

FX 8150 does quite well against the i7 2600k with 3 x HD 6000 series graphics cards. The key here is the i7 was 430MHz faster. The 8150 did underperform in a few games but most of the games it stood it's ground. Interesting indead....

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4353/amd_fx_8150_vs_intel_i7_2600k_crossfirex_hd_6970_x3_head_to_head/index1.html


----------



## Horrux (Oct 13, 2011)

Super XP said:


> FX 8150 does quite well against the i7 2600k with 3 x HD 6000 series graphics cards. The key here is the i7 was 430MHz faster. The 8150 did underperform in a few games but most of the games it stood it's ground. Interesting indead....
> 
> http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4353/amd_fx_8150_vs_intel_i7_2600k_crossfirex_hd_6970_x3_head_to_head/index1.html



Yeah but that introduces too many variables and limiting factors. I think in this case the memory bandwidth or PCI-E bandwidth becomes much more a limiting factor than the CPU.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 13, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Yeah but that introduces too many variables and limiting factors. I think in this case the memory bandwidth or PCI-E bandwidth becomes much more a limiting factor than the CPU.


Good point, never thought about that. Though it still gives you some sort of impression on performance and how it may perform for your gaming needs.


----------



## Frick (Oct 13, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> People do not ignore that, but they do not ignore that this is a 2 billion transistor and 315 mm^2 chip. Such a behemoth can only match or sometimes slightly exceed a chip that is half the size, half the power consumption and has an integrated GPU. Without the GPU SB 4C would be a 750 million transistor and 180 mm^2 chip. You just cannot ignore that. How many real cores with HT could Intel put into a 2 billion transistor and 315mm^2 behemoth? While simple math cannot give an accurate answer to that, more or less: 2000/750 = 2.66 (times SB) -->> 4 cores * 2.66 ~= 10 Sandy Bridge cores. About the same amount of Thuban cores would fit too. Now tell me that BD architecture has any credit. Tell me that their multithreading method is more efficient than Hyperthreading, and where because I just simply fail to see how and where that happens.



You are entirely correct.

BTW at that teaktown thingy:







Interesting, seeing how everyone is bashing DB for power consumption.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 14, 2011)

Frick said:


> You are entirely correct.
> 
> BTW at that teaktown thingy:
> 
> ...


AMD took a design chance with Bulldozer, you need balls of iron to do what AMD did, to completely build something from the ground up, have your computers telling you it will perform and all of a sudden its not what was originally written on paper. 

Bulldozer may very well be something of the future per say. Hopefully with enough Windows tweaks along with a few others will help boost its performance.

Though I do blame AMD for not sharing ths design with software developers years before. But then again, maybe AMD did this already, and the software developers said the hell with it. Who really knows...


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 14, 2011)

> “Please explain why having two separate integer cores is better than one fat one. For example, if each core has two ALUs and two AGUs and 16 KB of L1 cache, what if it was one integer core with 4 ALUs and 4 AGUs and 32KB cache? Theoretically, you’d get about the same performance for multi-threaded programs and better single threaded performance.” – Ryan
> 
> We get asked that a lot.  The key is that a single core that would be able to compete with the throughput of two smaller cores would consume a disproportionate amount of die space and consume more power.  Taking Bulldozer and turning each module into one “big core” instead of two cores with some shared resources would net you a disproportionately higher price and disproportionately higher power consumption.
> 
> ...



Taken from here. They sure did a dandy job there! Well ok they were talking about the server chips, but still... 


btw TPU needs a facepalm smiley
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And those 3x CFx tests look pathetic.



> “How much extra performance will we see when running two-threaded applications on one Bulldozer Module compared to two cores in different modules?” – Simon
> 
> Without getting too specific around actual scaling across cores on the processor, let me share with you what was in the Hot Chips presentation.  *Compared to CMP (chip multiprocessing – which is, in simplistic terms building a multicore chip with each core having its own dedicated resources) two integer cores in a Bulldozer module would deliver roughly 80% of the throughput.  But, because they have shared resources, they deliver that throughput at low power and low cost.*  Using CMP has some drawbacks, including more heat and more die space. The heat can limit performance in addition to consuming more power. Ask yourself, would you rather have a 4-cylinder engine that delivered 300HP or a 6-cylinder engine that delivered 360HP and consumed less gas?  The cylinder to horsepower ratio for 4-cylinder is obviously higher (75HP/cylinder vs. the V6’s 60HP/cylinder), meaning that each cylinder can give you more performance.  However, looking at the overall enginge, you are getting less total output; and you are getting that lower output at a higher cost (higher gas consumption).



Ok we get it. So you promise stronger single-threaded performance when only one core of the module is loaded compared to a Thuban core and a 20% perf drop when both cores of a module are loaded. Ok that means that if an 8 core BD was made on 45nm, it would deliver more performance than a 6 core Thuban at less heat and power - yey! So we were supposed to get better performance in both instances.  Yet neither of those are the case because BD is a 32nm chip, not a 45nm one! So you failed thrice! Your single threaded performance is poo, your multi-threaded performance fails to deliver and on top of that you're using what is suppposed to be a more advanced manufacturing process meaning even greater performance/power saving...Triple fail AMD!!!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Why did you release your product when you could clearly see it wasn't covering any of your promises - the ones you gave in public!

/trolling


----------



## Robert-The-Rambler (Oct 14, 2011)

*Real men don't say things with real men in them*



D4S4 said:


> lol does anyone remember "real men use real cores"?
> 
> anyhow, i think bulldozer will deliver in a couple of years but amd missed the target with it for now (unless they were aiming at the server market as their primary goal)



You only sound like an ass and that is what AMD looks like now. I've been such a supporter of AMD for years but the Bulldozer fiasco is like having a sledgehammer and trying to break down the Great Wall of China. I have motherboards that can easily be upgraded to 6 core Phenom IIs and it seems like that is a much better idea than switching to a new platform. I have I7s so I won't need that anyway but it clearly seems a really bad idea to go Bulldozer now. AMD has really been in a strange place lately. They release video cards that are basically the same as the generation before in 5850, 6850 for example and they also release CPUs that are having trouble keeping up with the last generation chip. What the hell is the policy over there? Lets sacrifice today for a possible tommorrow? Good luck with that one.


----------



## Frick (Oct 14, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> And those 3x CFx tests look pathetic.



Why?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 14, 2011)

Guys, guys i got it! I was so wrong! See all along I've been trying to stack BD with Thuban, but instead we should have compared it to the original Phenom! 
It's coz work on BD started in 2007 and it was intended to be Phenom's replacement and and and it totally rocks compared to Phenom! See all those articles above were talking about K10 and not k10,5! And we should all stfu and instead be amazed and blown away by AMD's progress!  



Frick said:


> Why?




Well, gee I don't know...maybe because half the time BD fails to even come close to SB's performance. And please do bear in mind that AMD's mobo is supposed to deliver more PCI-E lanes and what not...And that would be ok if $ntel's solution was a 1000$ extreme edition CPU, but it's not :/


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 14, 2011)

sounding like an intel fanboy thread this, bulldozer certainly isnt win at the min but its not as bad in its price point as some are making out imho, sure no ones going to be swapping from intel sandys for it but if your on a core 2 with ddr2 it dosnt look to bad if you drag mobo costs into the fray and for me at least with AMD you will have an upgrade path with intel it will be new socket time everytime apparently. just an opinion


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 14, 2011)

Frick said:


> You are entirely correct.
> 
> BTW at that teaktown thingy:
> 
> ...



It is interesting indeed, but of very little consequence really. Keep in mind:

- 2600k is running 500 Mhz higher while its stock clock is 200 Mhz lower. 700 Mhz more clock from stock to max OC is A LOT and surely puts the SB chip farther along the power curve, where diminishing returns kick off badly.

- Load consumption which is what most people are complaining about IS 20w higher in the BD setup.

- We would need to know exactly what both setups were doing at the time that power consumption was measured:






As stated in the power consumption pic they were benching 3dMark11, but the performance preset or the extreme one? Either way the Intel setup is producing more frames, which means higher GPU load. In the case they used the performance preset... well it would look really bad for BD. If the CPU was holding back the 3 cards like that, it was holding them back indeed, so their power consumption must of been way lower. This is why it's of critical importance the way power is measured here in TPU, not from the wall.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 14, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Guys, guys i got it! I was so wrong! See all along I've been trying to stack BD with Thuban, but instead we should have compared it to the original Phenom!
> It's coz work on BD started in 2007 and it was intended to be Phenom's replacement and and and it totally rocks compared to Phenom! See all those articles above were talking about K10 and not k10,5! And we should all stfu and instead be amazed and blown away by AMD's progress!
> 
> Well, gee I don't know...maybe because half the time BD fails to even come close to SB's performance. And please do bear in mind that AMD's mobo is supposed to deliver more PCI-E lanes and what not...And that would be ok if $ntel's solution was a 1000$ extreme edition CPU, but it's not :/


If this is how you feel about the test then the SB also sucks balls. Think about it, Bulldozer needs to get tweaked. Hell I am glad the thing works first of all. It was in the design face for more than 4 years. Give AMD some slack  They tried something very different with Bulldozer. Intel can afford to have multiple projects running at the same time due to the massive R&D funds they have, AMD only has enough for 2 MAX.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Good point, never thought about that. Though it still gives you some sort of impression on performance and how it may perform for your gaming needs.



Yes, that's true as well, if you game with multiple graphics cards, that shows you it performs competitively.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Oct 14, 2011)

Time for a reality check, because this is obviously devolving into hate from both sides.

The thread is entitled "Why BD failed? AMD Ex-Employee speaks out!"  Said title implies that the originator has a definite opinion, and thus sets the tone for the rest of the thread.

Those who love AMD, no matter what they put out, need not apply here.  Poking at rabid fanboys from the other side, and then expecting anyone to listen to even reasonable statements, is like eating fast food at the zoo.  It's acceptable from behind the glass, but you know that what you're doing is going to get you killed if that 800 pound gorilla decides to break the glass and steal your lunch.


Insane metaphor aside, know who you are trying to defend against.  This is not the thread for people to defend AMD, this is the thread for people to bitch and moan about how AMD isn't Intel.  

From the hardware agnostic, this is a thread that exists so hate doesn't spill into other threads.  Please continue...


----------



## erocker (Oct 14, 2011)

I have a 8150 right now. It's super fun to play with but aside from that it's a horrible chip. I noticed some people saying it is AMD's "Fermi". That is incorrect, it is worse. Take Fermi and decrease the performace to a HD 4870 while keeping the power usage of Fermi. That is Bulldozer. Still, like I said, it's fun to play with.


----------



## qubit (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> I have a 8150 right now. It's super fun to play with but aside from that it's a horrible chip. I noticed some people saying it is AMD's "Fermi". That is incorrect, it is worse. Take Fermi and decrease the performace to a HD 4870 while keeping the power usage of Fermi. That is Bulldozer. Still, like I said, it's fun to play with.



So, you know it's severe limitations, but you just _had_ to have one to play with? That's the mark of a True PC Enthusiast.

Respect.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 14, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> sounding like an intel fanboy thread this, bulldozer certainly isnt win at the min but its not as bad in its price point as some are making out imho, sure no ones going to be swapping from intel sandys for it but if your on a core 2 with ddr2 it dosnt look to bad if you drag mobo costs into the fray and for me at least with AMD you will have *an upgrade path with intel it will be new socket time everytime *apparently. just an opinion



Socket 1155 (SB) is _meant to be_ Ivybridge compatible.


----------



## laszlo (Oct 14, 2011)

erocker said:


> I have a 8150 right now. It's super fun to play with but aside from that it's a horrible chip. I noticed some people saying it is AMD's "Fermi". That is incorrect, it is worse. Take Fermi and decrease the performace to a HD 4870 while keeping the power usage of Fermi. That is Bulldozer. Still, like I said, it's fun to play with.



can you share a few opinion about how is working in games and multitasking? have you managed to load all cores at 100 %?


----------



## bucketface (Oct 14, 2011)

why BD faild? this is why:
BD die shot should look very much like this
http://cache.futurelooks.com/wordpr...1/10/AMD_Bulldozer_Review_FX-8000-500x201.png
but instead it looks like this
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2011-10/amd_bulldozer_orochi_die_floorplan.jpg

they've got 800 million transistors for in/out, logic, NB, wasted space, etc. so some how the have managed to waste a whole phenom 2 x4's worth of transistors on what should really take about, what, 150mill tansistors? also why is the "unified" L3 cache separated into 4 sections with such massive gaps?
maybe it was a learning curve using mostly software to design the chips, who knows? what is clearly evident is that they are not using the space available to them efficiently. 

quoting some estimations on die area by X-bit:
"AMD publicly said that each Bulldozer dual-core CPU module with 2MB unified L2 cache contains 213 million transistors and is 30.9mm2 large. By contrast, die size of one processing engine of Llano processor (11-layer 32nm SOI, K10.5+ micro-architecture) is 9.69mm2 (without L2 cache), which indicates that AMD has succeeded in minimizing elements of its new micro-architecture so to maintain small size and production cost of the novelty.

As a result, all four CPU modules with L2 cache within Zambezi/Orochi processor consist of 852 million of transistors and take 123.6mm2 of die space. Assuming that 8MB of L3 cache (6 bits per cell) consist of 405 million of transistors, it leaves around whopping 800 million of transistors to various input/output interfaces, dual-channel DDR3 memory controller as well as various logic and routing inside the chip.

800 million of transistors - which take up a lot of die space - in an incredibly high number for various I/O, memory, logic, etc. For example, Intel's Core i-series "Sandy Bridge" quad-core chip with integrated graphics consists of 995 million."


----------



## laszlo (Oct 14, 2011)

bucketface said:


> why BD faild? this is why:
> BD die shot should look very much like this
> http://cache.futurelooks.com/wordpr...1/10/AMD_Bulldozer_Review_FX-8000-500x201.png
> but instead it looks like this
> ...



you can't compare a diagram from a slide shot with a real core print....

spaces all are used as somehow magically all cores must communicate with each other and the other components so i don't know what's your point...

no cpu/gpu producer will leave 1 sqnm unused from a chip...


----------



## Horrux (Oct 14, 2011)

bucketface said:


> why BD faild? this is why:
> BD die shot should look very much like this
> http://cache.futurelooks.com/wordpr...1/10/AMD_Bulldozer_Review_FX-8000-500x201.png
> but instead it looks like this
> ...



This horror of truth gives me hope for piledriver. Even AMD should be able to fix that some, and increase performance, or decrease its size, or increase cache, or put a quad-channel DDR3 controller on there without increasing its size... SOMETHING DAMMIT. Or is it DAAMIT?


----------



## bucketface (Oct 14, 2011)

laszlo said:


> you can't compare a diagram from a slide shot with a real core print....



ok well is this good enough... 
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/sandybridge/review/die.jpg
almost no wasted space, seriously AMD could take some pointers from just analysing this image. 
i'm not hating, just dissapointed and would like to see AMD actually bring something competitive to the game.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 14, 2011)

^^^
Wow. That's beautiful. And this is coming from not so much an AMD fan as an Intel-hater.


----------



## laszlo (Oct 14, 2011)

bucketface said:


> ok well is this good enough...
> http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cpu/intel/sandybridge/review/die.jpg
> almost no wasted space, seriously AMD could take some pointers from just analysing this image.
> i'm not hating, just dissapointed and would like to see AMD actually bring something competitive to the game.



i really don't know why is that space named "wasted" as no reviewer got the dye schematics in detail from AMD; can you point one? as i i think is still under NDA or unknown...


----------



## bucketface (Oct 14, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Wow. That's beautiful. And this is coming from not so much an AMD fan as an Intel-hater.


I'm not a fan of any company, i do however like and try to support the underdog... unfortunately AMD is making it rather hard to do so at the moment. I really do hope that they manage to iron out the problems by the time Steamroller comes because thats when i'm looking to make my next big upgrade. until then i think i'll just get a 1055t.



laszlo said:


> i really don't know why is that space named "wasted" as no reviewer got the dye schematics in detail from AMD; can you point one? as i i think is still under NDA or unknown...


i wouldn't know i'm no expert after all, I am making some assumptions based off a limited knowledge of these things. That "wasted" space just looks like it's just being used to link bits up, maybe it's doing more though.... I think only some AMD engineers would know exactly what it's for, thing is SB has almost none of it and seems the better for it, saving a considerable amount of diespace.

Edit* 
actually theres alot of die area used for  the hypertransport bus, NB, misc I/O and mem controller,  i guess about 400mill transistors. compared to SB's IO, etc which looks to be maybe 150mill transistors?.
i'm thinking it's all for compatability with AM3(+) socket. 
Anyway this is all just my wild speculations.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 17, 2011)

qubit said:


> This is what I mean. Ok, no more off topic - PMs or GN please.



Maybe you should take comments better? He wasn't trying to troll you.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Oct 17, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Maybe you should take comments better? He wasn't trying to troll you.



He blatantly was for 3-4 of his last post and i'm not the only one who thinks so by the looks of things, however I am sure that  qubit will gladly listen to what you have to say in PM/GN instead of bringing the thread off topic yet again.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Oct 17, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> He blatantly was for 3-4 of his last post and i'm not the only one who thinks so by the looks of things, however I am sure that  qubit will gladly listen to what you have to say in PM/GN instead of bringing the thread off topic yet again.



I was just stating the obvious. 

Back on track then... Bulldozer will need to go through drastic changes on die to combat the effects it is getting publicly. As another member has mentioned before is that AMD had plenty of time to benchmark bulldozer to intel SB chips for a while now.


----------



## alexsubri (Oct 18, 2011)

Why can't we all just get along? 










anyways, I am more anxious to see AMD FX-8170 come out, I doubt it will consume less power, but I want to see it's performance against the FX-8150. Wasn't it stated that FX-8150 was more of a server and desktop CPU? I don't know if I am saying this correctly.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 18, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> anyways, I am more anxious to see AMD FX-8170 come out, I doubt it will consume less power, but I want to see it's performance against the FX-8150. Wasn't it stated that FX-8150 was more of a server and desktop CPU? I don't know if I am saying this correctly.



Yes, it looks like AMD pulled the design directly from server parts. Always a bad move, but AMD is on a budget.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 19, 2011)

The best thing AMD could do is to pull out 2/3 of their cache and put in a logic co-processor to do more branch prediction and thread handling at the hardware layer, run it 2X the core speed and love the results.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

Steevo said:


> The best thing AMD could do is to pull out 2/3 of their cache and put in a logic co-processor to do more branch prediction and thread handling at the hardware layer, run it 2X the core speed and love the results.


Does this require a complete design overhaul? If not perhaps they may do something with Piledriver to change the playing field.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Does this require a complete design overhaul? If not perhaps they may do something with Piledriver to change the playing field.



Design? Perhaps, depends on the hardware already in place and if they have room to add extra traces to interface between parts. If not does it really matter? The chip sucks at hardware level now, what could possibly make it worse? 

They could have just added two more cores to the X6 and been better off with the die shrink.


There comes a point in time where you just have to call a turd a turd, and no amount of polishing will make it a gold nugget.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 19, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Yes, it looks like AMD pulled the design directly from server parts. Always a bad move, but AMD is on a budget.









See those 4 HT links? They're used for inter-socket communication in 2 and 4 socket server configs. So yes it is safe to say that BD was a purely server centric design from the get go.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 19, 2011)

> The reason DEC Alphas were always much faster than anything else is they designed each transistor by hand.



Good luck doing that with 2 billion transistors.



HalfAHertz said:


> See those 4 HT links? They're used for inter-socket communication in 2 and 4 socket server configs. So yes it is safe to say that BD was a purely server centric design from the get go.



See these two QPI links?






They are for daisy-chaining two/multiple LGA1366 sockets, when this silicon is used in Xeon 3000 or 5000 series. In 1P/Core i7 series, Link 1 is rudimentary. 

Just like AMD's silicon. Both AMD and Intel design common silicon for their enterprise and client products.


----------



## qubit (Oct 19, 2011)

*Why did Bulldozer underwhelm?*

Here's a couple of articles from Charlie Demerjian with a technical breakdown as to why Bulldozer is so "meh", as he puts it.



> Bulldozer is finally here, and the numbers all show that it isn’t going to to be taking any performance crowns. That said, in a few areas it closes the performance gap with Intel’s CPUs, but is lagging in quite a few others.
> 
> The story of Bulldozer and why it does what it does, both good and bad, can be summed up as death by 1000 cuts. There isn’t really any high point to the architecture, nor are there any really low points. To make matters worse, there isn’t any obvious smoking gun as to why things ended up so, well, meh. What you can get now, what you should have been able to get, and what you will be able to get from this new architecture is a long and complex story. Lets get started.



Part 1

Part 2

Reading both parts makes for depressing reading. The last paragraph of part 2 especially so:



> With luck, those rough spots will be polished away with the coming of Piledriver, and the intended performance will shine through. If not, the next three generations are toast too, and we doubt AMD can survive that long without a competitive core. Will AMD bleed out from the 1000 cuts, or will the bandaids be applied in time? Ask me again after CES


----------



## nt300 (Oct 19, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Design? Perhaps, depends on the hardware already in place and if they have room to add extra traces to interface between parts. If not does it really matter? The chip sucks at hardware level now, what could possibly make it worse?
> 
> They could have just added two more cores to the X6 and been better off with the die shrink.
> 
> There comes a point in time where you just have to call a turd a turd, and no amount of polishing will make it a gold nugget.


I've been away too long. When people plug in there FX 8150 or any Bulldozer CPU it does what it was meant to do right. I don't see calling something that is factually innovative a turd. Yes Bulldozer definitely needs some fine tuning and polishing, which is why we all hope Piledriver offers the performance Bulldozer was suppose to offer. 

AMD's previous design is old and needs to be dumped into the garbage. What they need to do now is focus on making Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator the design it was meant to be for high performance desktop chips.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 19, 2011)

nt300 said:


> I've been away too long. When people plug in there FX 8150 or any Bulldozer CPU it does what it was meant to do right. I don't see calling something that is factually innovative a turd. Yes Bulldozer definitely needs some fine tuning and polishing, which is why we all hope Piledriver offers the performance Bulldozer was suppose to offer.
> 
> AMD's previous design is old and needs to be dumped into the garbage. What they need to do now is focus on making Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator the design it was meant to be for high performance desktop chips.



But aren't Intel's i7 direct descendants of the original Pentium Pro of 12 years ago?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 19, 2011)

nt300 said:


> I've been away too long. When people plug in there FX 8150 or any Bulldozer CPU it does what it was meant to do right. I don't see calling something that is factually innovative a turd. Yes Bulldozer definitely needs some fine tuning and polishing, which is why we all hope Piledriver offers the performance Bulldozer was suppose to offer.
> 
> AMD's previous design is old and needs to be dumped into the garbage. What they need to do now is focus on making Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator the design it was meant to be for high performance desktop chips.



Well it's not really ''factually innovative'', if it was innovative it wouldn't be as crappy as it is. Granted, i do commend them on trying a new design, i'm glad they tried something different instead of tweaking the K10 design over and over.

I just hope they improve BD soon.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Well it's not really ''factually innovative'', if it was innovative it wouldn't be as crappy as it is. Granted, i do commend them on trying a new design, i'm glad they tried something different instead of tweaking the K10 design over and over.
> 
> I just hope they improve BD soon.



You and me both man. I don't mind skipping BD, but I hope something comes out that runs on AM3+ and is decent. ASAP.


----------



## erocker (Oct 19, 2011)

nt300 said:


> I've been away too long. When people plug in there FX 8150 or any Bulldozer CPU it does what it was meant to do right. I don't see calling something that is factually innovative a turd. Yes Bulldozer definitely needs some fine tuning and polishing, which is why we all hope Piledriver offers the performance Bulldozer was suppose to offer.
> 
> AMD's previous design is old and needs to be dumped into the garbage. What they need to do now is focus on making Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller/Excavator the design it was meant to be for high performance desktop chips.



Yes, let's build an awesome innovative car of the future and sell it. It's slow and can't really drive on many roads but let's sell it anyways. People will buy it right up, they love our cars.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 19, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I just hope they improve BD soon.



meh. if they could up clocks to 4.6 GHz, 5.0GHz turbo on air..that'd be good eonugh, no? That seems realisitic with process refinements, anyway. PhenomII 955 to 980 went about that far, but did take quite some time.


----------



## Frick (Oct 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> Yes, let's build an awesome innovative car of the future and sell it. It's slow and can't really drive on many roads but let's sell it anyways. People will buy it right up, they love our cars.



Like Citroën..


----------



## Steevo (Oct 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> Yes, let's build an awesome innovative car of the future and sell it. It's slow and can't really drive on many roads but let's sell it anyways. People will buy it right up, they love our cars.



You Fanboi !!!!!!

Wait, what?....


Intel did jump back 4 YEARS in CPU design to what they were doing with Pentium 3 to make the leap forward to "Core". AMD had a good design with 5-7% slower IPC with K8, then they fucked it up with Phenom, and not just refining the existing design. 


The best car analogy to the new "FX" is the old 4-6-8 GM engines, they were never quite sure which cylinder to fire, so either they fired them all, or none. Good idea, but one about 20 years too soon for the actual production. Same way here, lets step back and make a bold statement. 

90% of users would rather have a 6Ghz high performance dual core. 


Wait, what....... most software is only written for 1-2 threads? Well, we are onto something here. By dammed, instead of changing the reads for the cars, lets change the cars for the road.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

Horrux said:


> But aren't Intel's i7 direct descendants of the original Pentium Pro of 12 years ago?


You mean from the Pentium 3. Don't know why Intel released the crapy Pentium 4 when the Pentium 3 was 100x much better. Then Intel finally scrapped the P4, took the P3 and with innovation created the Conroe, and now we have the i7's


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 19, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You mean from the Pentium 3. Don't know why Intel released the crapy Pentium 4 when the Pentium 3 was 100x much better. Then Intel finally scrapped the P4, took the P3 and with innovation created the Conroe, and now we have the i7's



Oh, because Netburst architecture was going to hit 10 Ghz, didn't you know that? Intel engineers knew that (or the marketing department that ruled the company back then anyway), but those f***ing spoiled children never really went past 3.5 Ghz without overheating.

As I see it the same happened with BD. There were probably various prototypes or paths they could follow for the next architecture, and the conversation was like: 

Enginner: Well we have this one, really high IPC and very efficient with a small cache, that can pwn Stars architecture even at 1 Ghz but it will not go much higher than 3 Ghz, ever OR we have this one, a speed demon, massive cache sizes and the opportunity to claim twice as many cores, by slightly bending the truth...
Management: Are you kidding me? 8 cores? 16 MB cache? 4 Ghz++? That's going to look so leet on the white papers and on the back of the box _(drooling)_
E: But there's some drawbacks...
M: _(drooling)_
E: Sir, there's some drawbacks we need to discuss...
E: no... we lost him... no one's there anymore
M:


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 19, 2011)

seems to be a new trend of own spec hiding whilst trolling goin on.

 whats that about,    get over your bias people or you may get what you wish one cpu co from the ashes of many, and Revolutionary leaps like the early intel years lmao 33Mhz improvement year on year all people are doing with their AMD hateing is sullying the opinions of no nowts who look at this thread and turn to intel when all theyd have done is word processing and a bit of COD on their pc anyways hence dearer chill time for all,  plus its effin borein  old news thats turned round a bit anyways.  

as any educated person would know it would, updates / bioses / drivers ahem they all get better


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 19, 2011)

I am one of the biggest AMD fanboys here, but I will not sugarcoat this. They fucked up big with BD. I wanted a reasonable upgrade to Phenom II and I didn't get close to that.

I don't see the architecture as a total loss and I think Piledriver could turn out ok, but everyone involved with releasing this beta to the public should be fired.

I won't be running to Intel until after IB and PD are both released, but if they fuck up PD as bad as BD, I'm out. There is no sense in supporting a company that has no interest in catering to the market that I'm a part of. Comic books and pretty slides don't make a good chip.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 19, 2011)

thats your opinion and your entitled , mine is that if you have the best of last gen, the next gen is normally going to net you 20-30% better performance and BD does in multithreaded apps, do this imho, also single threaded matters not to me whilst i watch telly game and download on this pc all the time and all at once, the speed gpuz runs in the background is ok as is.

fair enough it isnt for you but if i were you id have not deluded myself that much in the first place thats why i allways skip gens, so i do get double the performance with a purchase youd be wise to do similar


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 19, 2011)

I don't think I really deluded myself at all by expecting some increase in game performance instead of a decrease, but what do I know. Obviously not much, I bought in to the bullshit that AMD wouldn't release something worse than they already had.

I still have hope for their future, but somebody in charge over there needs to pull their head out of their ass.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 19, 2011)

I use almost all AMD product, but after they years of waiting to see this thing flop this hard. Its too much to bear, I have a 24MBps camcorder that cripples my system and are they really going to expect me to buy another "Stream" lie, or "real core" piece of crap?


Their own advertisements and slides show how much better it was going to be, well if they were fucking not lazy, and got off their asses to write the damn software to make good on their promises I woudn't have to care about mediocre CPU performance, I would be using my GPU instead, but its vaporware. So now, do I continue to suffer through with a two stage edit of high def video that takes between two and three times as long as to process as it does to shoot, or do I move ahead and get a new Intel, and all the beautiful RAM it can support without causing issues that AMD has had? Or do I suffer with another underperforming lie?


Love their GPU's, love their current lineup of CPU's, actually a X6 overclocked like a mother will come closer to Intel performance than a bulldozer. I have one showing up tomorrow. Only so next year I can buy a whole complete system again and go Intel if AMD doesn't get in the game.


----------



## erixx (Oct 19, 2011)

Intel rules because they set the standards, comply with'em, and deliver, also thanks to their chipsets not to forget. I never saw an alternative that delivered 100% (i mean every advertised functionality): VIA, AMD, nForce... never going to repeat. 

If you look at ROI and hasslefree functioning, go Intel, period. No freak 'review' with fancy benchmarks (the contrary to real world) will change that.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 19, 2011)

Don't Worry, 

They Brought the Papermaster(Mark Papermaster) over to get things straitened out!!!   

(Still using SoC......) 

Don't Worry is the best I can say...


----------



## nt300 (Oct 19, 2011)

We need to see Piledriver in action. If AMD needs Socket FM2 to make things right, then I may skip AM3+, but it depends on the price of the whole AM3+ platform. 
I will never go Intel, no way I will buy into market manipulation and bullying.


----------



## erixx (Oct 19, 2011)

I always felt manipulated by AMD, never getting a finished and stable product, this includes ATI. Sorry man.

Ah, bullied? You should go to the court and file them, then.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 19, 2011)

erixx said:


> Intel rules because they set the standards, comply with'em, and deliver, also thanks to their chipsets not to forget. I never saw an alternative that delivered 100% (i mean every advertised functionality): VIA, AMD, nForce... never going to repeat.
> 
> If you look at ROI and hasslefree functioning, go Intel, period. No freak 'review' with fancy benchmarks (the contrary to real world) will change that.



Actually they don't. Intel has had to lease X64 from AMD, GPU technology to make their chipsets not suck, and SSE instructions. AMD gets some of the same in return.

ROI of a X6 1100 rapes Intel today, as it did yesterday, and will still for another few months at least, and AMD makes the beautiful APU's. Actually I have a brand new laptop with on in it right here next to me.

AMD needs to either focus on what they are proving to be good at and make money at that, or get ready to take losses that might sink them.


----------



## erixx (Oct 19, 2011)

I mean... I don't want to loose time when my pc just doesn't enter suspension correctly, or any other energy state, or can't use certain PCI slots with certain hardware due to whatever. I don't want to have to switch drivers in order to play a game. etc. That is ROI for me. Not the adquisition price. 100 euros or dollars are so easily lost during a night of getting your pc sorted.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 19, 2011)

erixx said:


> I mean... I don't want to loose time when my pc just doesn't enter suspension correctly, or any other energy state, or can't use certain PCI slots with certain hardware due to whatever. I don't want to have to switch drivers in order to play a game. etc. That is ROI for me. Not the adquisition price. 100 euros or dollars are so easily lost during a night of getting your pc sorted.



If you have those issues you are most definitely doing it wrong. Anyway, Who's the princess peach in your sig? Again.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 19, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Actually they don't. Intel has had to lease X64 from AMD, GPU technology to make their chipsets not suck, and SSE instructions. AMD gets some of the same in return.
> 
> ROI of a X6 1100 rapes Intel today, as it did yesterday, and will still for another few months at least, and AMD makes the beautiful APU's. Actually I have a brand new laptop with on in it right here next to me.
> 
> AMD needs to either focus on what they are proving to be good at and make money at that, or get ready to take losses that might sink them.


In the last 5 years AMD had a lot of upper management changes. This may be the reason why they went this route. To think AMD fired the guys that created the Athlon and Athlon 64 

Bulldozer II's new upcoming name.
AMD Turbo Core 3 Athlon 64 FX 9500+


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 20, 2011)

Steevo said:


> There comes a point in time where you just have to call a turd a turd, and no amount of polishing will make it a gold nugget.



http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html 

just had to post that


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2011)

erixx said:


> I mean... I don't want to loose time when my pc just doesn't enter suspension correctly, or any other energy state, or can't use certain PCI slots with certain hardware due to whatever. I don't want to have to switch drivers in order to play a game. etc. That is ROI for me. Not the adquisition price. 100 euros or dollars are so easily lost during a night of getting your pc sorted.



ROI stands for Return On Investment. I have never had a issue with a computer entering suspension correctly other than when a driver causes it. And the only drivers that I have found are Sabrient, Socket IO, and cheap shit hardware drivers like cheap USB keypads, etc...

None of that has anything to do with the CPU, GPU, or other mainstream hardware. 



Super XP said:


> In the last 5 years AMD had a lot of upper management changes. This may be the reason why they went this route. To think AMD fired the guys that created the Athlon and Athlon 64
> 
> Bulldozer II's new upcoming name.
> AMD Turbo Core 3 Athlon 64 FX 9500+



Athlon 64 with all the new memory interfaces, microcode update, the die shrinks, HT links.....basicly everything AMD should have learned so far would have the possibility of running much higher IPC, and much faster cores. 



D4S4 said:


> http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html
> 
> just had to post that



I saw that too. LOL, its still not something I would wear around.......


----------



## erocker (Oct 20, 2011)

Looks like this chip is flawed in other ways. I've experienced this BSOD myself. http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/amd-bulldozer-can-it-get-even-worse/


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> Looks like this chip is flawed in other ways. I've experienced this BSOD myself. http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/amd-bulldozer-can-it-get-even-worse/



My 9850 when overclocked too high gave me that error also.


----------



## erocker (Oct 20, 2011)

Steevo said:


> My 9850 when overclocked too high gave me that error also.



Nice chip, mine does it at stock from time to time.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2011)

My 9850 overclocked like shit, so might as well say stock.

I just want a chip that overclocked like the two C2D's I built a few years ago for work. 2.4Ghz to 3.4Ghz with no voltage increase, Oh, you want another 600Mhz, how about we trade for a extra .2 vcore, then its fine.


----------



## seronx (Oct 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> Nice chip, mine does it at stock from time to time.



The conclusions from some people I know is...

No more 3dnow!

AuthenticAMD tags biting back


----------



## Horrux (Oct 20, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You mean from the Pentium 3. Don't know why Intel released the crapy Pentium 4 when the Pentium 3 was 100x much better. Then Intel finally scrapped the P4, took the P3 and with innovation created the Conroe, and now we have the i7's



Yeah but the P3 core was itself based on the Pentium Pro core, with no major changes, only re-tweaking.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 20, 2011)

nt300 said:


> We need to see Piledriver in action. If AMD needs Socket FM2 to make things right, then I may skip AM3+, but it depends on the price of the whole AM3+ platform.
> I will never go Intel, no way I will buy into market manipulation and bullying.


That's exactly how I feel. See my sig. Intel is in its dominant position largely because of the many underhanded AND ILLEGAL tactics it used against AMD. 

The Intel fanbois are kind of people as those who would applaud a racing team who would buy the mechanics from the other teams to sabotage the cars. After a number of seasons, they don't need to buy the mechanics anymore, given that the "winning" team has all the money and has superior cars. Yay. Victory. Ha.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 20, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Intel is in its dominant position largely because of the many underhanded AND ILLEGAL tactics it used against AMD.



Or because they make better performing CPU's that are used in a lot more machines.

If i buy an Intel chip, it's because of performance, not what the company does against the competition.


----------



## scooper22 (Oct 20, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Or because they make better performing CPU's that are used in a lot more machines.
> 
> If i buy an Intel chip, it's because of performance, not what the company does against the competition.



The performance is because they brake the others.
So this is not an "Intel is better so they are top" but an "Intel made the others worse so they remain top". Practice till at *least* 2009, meager two years ago.
Read it up e.g. here.
So the pure processor power can't be compared because the software running on them is tampered with to favorize one of the competitors.


----------



## Steevo (Oct 20, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Or because they make better performing CPU's that are used in a lot more machines.
> 
> If i buy an Intel chip, it's because of performance, not what the company does against the competition.



Actually they were paying companies under the table not to use AMD, and that is illegal as hell when you are basically forcing a monopoly. Intel had nothing else to do battle with for a couple periods in their history when AMD outperformed them, so they used their financial might to make sure they would stay top dog, even when that wasn't best for the consumer.


----------



## erixx (Oct 20, 2011)

David versus Goliat. Great story. Sounds always new, but isn't.
Convert hardware into religious items, Great news. Apple fanboism was not enough.
Adhere to a company based on emotions. Regardless of post after post in forums about doesn't work, go back to older driver, go forward to hotfix this or that. Great... failure ... at this time.

It are just fuckin' components. Quality rises and falls. Free yourself.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 20, 2011)

Anyone read this review on newegg?

"Other Thoughts: Our company makes cellular image analysis instrumentation and software that takes advantage of the multi-threading capabilities of multi-core CPUs. Since our analysis software runs hundreds of parallel image analysis algorithms that are heavily multi-threaded the CPU is generally maxed out. We’ve been looking for a low cost alternative solution for our customers to replace their current expensive dual-slot Xeon CPU workstations. In early testing with our software my current configuration of a single non-overclocked FX-8150 (ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 motherboard) running Windows 7 64-bit is outperforming our dual-quad core Xeon E5600 workstations by as much as 27%. What makes this even more impressive is that our software code is optimized to use the Intel performance primitives. The results are encouraging considering the BIOS, C++ compilers and Windows scheduler haven’t yet been optimized for the Bulldozer architecture. Once the software catches up this chip should be even more amazing"


Shows potential at-least : ]


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Anyone read this review on newegg?
> 
> "Other Thoughts: Our company makes cellular image analysis instrumentation and software that takes advantage of the multi-threading capabilities of multi-core CPUs. Since our analysis software runs hundreds of parallel image analysis algorithms that are heavily multi-threaded the CPU is generally maxed out. We’ve been looking for a low cost alternative solution for our customers to replace their current expensive dual-slot Xeon CPU workstations. In early testing with our software my current configuration of a single non-overclocked FX-8150 (ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 motherboard) running Windows 7 64-bit is outperforming our dual-quad core Xeon E5600 workstations by as much as 27%. What makes this even more impressive is that our software code is optimized to use the Intel performance primitives. The results are encouraging considering the BIOS, C++ compilers and Windows scheduler haven’t yet been optimized for the Bulldozer architecture. Once the software catches up this chip should be even more amazing"
> 
> ...



I probably shouldn't say this, but that review seems fake and seems to have the AMD(fanboi) stamp all over it. There's not a single pro-bulldozer argument left out from the review. Intel optimized software, BIOS, Windows, compilers... I say meh. I'll believe something when a respectable site post a review showing clear advantages.

EDIT: Also beating two 6 core "Nehalems" by 27% Suuuuure.


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 20, 2011)

Steevo said:


> Actually they were paying companies under the table not to use AMD, and that is illegal as hell when you are basically forcing a monopoly. Intel had nothing else to do battle with for a couple periods in their history when AMD outperformed them, so they used their financial might to make sure they would stay top dog, even when that wasn't best for the consumer.



This is true.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I probably shouldn't say this, but that review seems fake and seems to have the AMD(fanboi) stamp all over it. There's not a single pro-bulldozer argument left out from the review. Intel optimized software, BIOS, Windows, compilers... I say meh. I'll believe something when a respectable site post a review showing clear advantages.



Do we even know of any review sites that do server reviews?


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Do we even know of any review sites that do server reviews?



Anand does some from time to time. Anyway, beating 2 six core Gulftowns by 27% is simply beyond unrealistic, considering the hardware capabilities (as in the performance of 8 full cores is the max you can expect). At the very least the one thing I can say about his software is: optimized for Intel, my ass.


----------



## ivicagmc (Oct 20, 2011)

I don't know if this is already known, but here it is. BD is going blue screen of death, even without overclock. Bad gone to worse...
http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/amd-bulldozer-can-it-get-even-worse/


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 20, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> I don't know if this is already known, but here it is. BD is going blue screen of death, even without overclock. Bad gone to worse...
> http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/amd-bulldozer-can-it-get-even-worse/



Well, if you're going to fuck something up, you might as well do it right. Way to go AMD, EPIC FUCKUP!!!


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Anand does some from time to time. Anyway, beating 2 six core Gulftowns by 27% is simply beyond unrealistic, considering the hardware capabilities (as in the performance of 8 full cores is the max you can expect). At the very least the one thing I can say about his software is: optimized for Intel, my ass.



Could of been e5606 which are 4 core 4 thread.


----------



## v12dock (Oct 20, 2011)

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1

Updated guru3d review, performance improvements already?


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> Yes, let's build an awesome innovative car of the future and sell it. It's slow and can't really drive on many roads but let's sell it anyways. People will buy it right up, they love our cars.



Well, the hydro and electric cars were at one point called "innovative" and "futuristic".   Those hydro and electric cars were initially slow and were far from practical for the road.

One negative rule for AMD, another positive rule for someone else.



v12dock said:


> http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1
> 
> Updated guru3d review, performance improvements already?



I'm confused, appears the AMD FX 8150 is almost just as fast as the 2500K and 2600K. Has this review been amended recently? where is the conclusion page?


----------



## cheesy999 (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Those hydro and electric cars were initially slow



most still are, a lot of people buy them because they're a fan of the technology used


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> ...
> 
> I'm confused, appears the AMD FX 8150 is almost just as fast as the 2500K and 2600K. Has this review been amended recently? where is the conclusion page?



Those aren't new just makeshift(they disabled some of the cores in an 8 core BD) 4 and 6 core BD reviews. Tho I usually don't like Guru's CPU reviews. They focus a bit too much on synthetic tests and not enough on real-life ones imo.


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 20, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Could of been e5606 which are 4 core 4 thread.



Yeah, the review even states two quad core 5600s.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Could of been e5606 which are 4 core 4 thread.





Neuromancer said:


> Yeah, the review even states two quad core 5600s.



Yeah I missed that part. I just read E5600 and I knew that series of chips are Gulftown, so I assumed 6 core 12 thread CPU. So now I looked up in the wiki to see specific models and yeah, there's some really slow 4C/4T models in the series. The E5603 runs as low as 1.6 Ghz, so now the claim doesn't seem unfeasible, instead it looks potentially unimpressive.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah I missed that part. I just read E5600 and I knew that series of chips are Gulftown, so I assumed 6 core 12 thread CPU. So now I looked up in the wiki to see specific models and yeah, there's some really slow 4C/4T models in the series. The E5603 runs as low as 1.6 Ghz, so now the claim doesn't seem unfeasible, instead it looks potentially unimpressive.



 Fair point.

Perhaps I'm unwilling to believe sucha  big company can balls up so bad


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

Who the hell buys an expensive dual socket system to waste it using 2x 1.6 Ghz quads anyway.


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Well, the hydro and electric cars were at one point called "innovative" and "futuristic".   Those hydro and electric cars were initially slow and were far from practical for the road.
> 
> One negative rule for AMD, another positive rule for someone else.
> 
> ...



The inital reviews of the 8 core BD showed it be above the 2500K and below the 2600K in most multithreaded tasks.

It was the poor low threaded and power consumption tests that have people complaining (although 90% of people complaining are just jumping on the bandwagon but thats true with everything look at MS Vista, it was a massive improvement over Xp but poor pirated versions performance (dud to driver diagnostic mode running) and nVidia not being able to make a reliable 8800 series driver had people trashing it from the start)


----------



## v12dock (Oct 20, 2011)

Like I said with the initial launch, wait another month then retest. BIOS tweaks plus processor tweaks.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Oct 20, 2011)

nt300 said:


> We need to see Piledriver in action. If AMD needs Socket FM2 to make things right, then I may skip AM3+, but it depends on the price of the whole AM3+ platform.
> I will never go Intel, no way I will buy into market manipulation and bullying.



There is no MARKET MANIPULATION

IF THE COMPETITION RIGHT NOW HAS THE BEST PRODUCT BY FAR.

They have the better product, they have the DICK to show, I respect that. So I will not be snobby and support Intel.

what do you want next.

BOTH companies doing paper launches and both companies ending up failing 30-50% of there expected performance numbers from those paper launches? 

just saying....


----------



## Horrux (Oct 20, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Or because they make better performing CPU's that are used in a lot more machines.
> 
> If i buy an Intel chip, it's because of performance, not what the company does against the competition.


History of microprocessors must be your weak point. Intel bribed OEMs and distributors to the tune of billions so that they would exclude AMD, Cyrix and other (now defunct) makers of x86 CPUs, over a number of years. How does that compute in your previous post?



scooper22 said:


> The performance is because they brake the others.
> So this is not an "Intel is better so they are top" but an "Intel made the others worse so they remain top". Practice till at *least* 2009, meager two years ago.
> Read it up e.g. here.
> So the pure processor power can't be compared because the software running on them is tampered with to favorize one of the competitors.


Indeed, it is linked in my signature. And the compiler has mysteriously not been updated since Intel was court-ordered that its next version must be more equitable. Strange?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 20, 2011)

3volvedcombat said:


> There is no MARKET MANIPULATION
> 
> IF THE COMPETITION RIGHT NOW HAS THE BEST PRODUCT BY FAR.
> 
> ...



Paper launch means releasing a product without availability. Releasing something that performs nothing like what you marketed it as is blatant lying and false advertising. AMD should lynch their marketing team out all the way through the street...


----------



## Horrux (Oct 20, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> Paper launch means releasing a product without availability. Releasing something that performs nothing like what you marketed it as is blatant lying and false advertising. AMD should lynch their marketing team out all the way through the street...



VP marketing probably wanted to sell some stock before launching BD...


----------



## Super XP (Oct 20, 2011)

v12dock said:


> http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1
> 
> Updated guru3d review, performance improvements already?


I read that, the 8150 blows away the x6 1100T out of the water in that review, but its still dated at Oct 13, 2011. So what original review was done on Oct 12, 2011, so it took them one day for the updates?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 20, 2011)

Horrux said:


> History of microprocessors must be your weak point. Intel bribed OEMs and distributors to the tune of billions so that they would exclude AMD, Cyrix and other (now defunct) makers of x86 CPUs, over a number of years. How does that compute in your previous post??



Already said that was true. I'm not an Intel fanboy just to let you know, my system is all AMD.

History also shows that AMD owns a lot to Intel for copying their designs up until the 90's. They needed Intel.

But the bigger the corporation the bigger the frauds.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I read that, the 8150 blows away the x6 1100T out of the water in that review, but its still dated at Oct 13, 2011. So what original review was done on Oct 12, 2011, so it took them one day for the updates?



I'd like to know what "blow out of the water" means to you. I've not seen a single app in that review where the 8150 is even 15% faster than 1100T and it loses in many tests. Most of the times they are about equal.


----------



## erocker (Oct 20, 2011)

I think some folks need to realize that the FX series consists of more than just an 8 core CPU.

Here's a FX 4 core vs. a PII 955: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?276124-FX4100-gt-lt-955Be-Battle-of-the-X4’s

Any way you look at it, it's a failure here.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I'd like to know what "blow out of the water" means to you. I've not seen a single app in that review where the 8150 is even 15% faster than 1100T and it loses in many tests. Most of the times they are about equal.



I agree the 8150 doesnt blow the 1100T out the water, but neither does the i5 and i7.

To be honest the 1100T does a good job at beating out the i5 2500K and i7 2600K in a few tests too, so get off your high horse about the AMD 8150 losing to the 1100T the odd time.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> I agree the 8150 doesnt blow the 1100T out the water, but neither does the i5 and i7.
> 
> To be honest the 1100T does a good job at beating out the i5 2500K and i7 2600K in a few tests too, so get off your high horse about the AMD 8150 losing to the 1100T the odd time.
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1



Actually the 2500K and 2600K really do blow the 1100T out of the water. What does that have anything to do with this thread though?

Deja vu vu vu vu vu


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> I agree the 8150 doesnt blow the 1100T out the water, but neither does the i5 and i7.
> 
> To be honest the 1100T does a good job at beating out the i5 2500K and i7 2600K in a few tests too, so get off your high horse about the AMD 8150 losing to the 1100T the odd time.
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1



I fail to see how the 1100T beating out SB in a few tests makes Bulldozer less of a failure??

SB vs. Thuban, that's two ~900 billion transistor CPU battling each other.

*Bulldozer is a bloody 2 billion transistor CPU!!* When are any of you going to open the eyes and see the failure that that is? And the blatant lie? 25% more transistors for doubling the cores and 80% performance increase? If Deneb had 750 million + 25% that makes 1 billion, not 2 billion unless I'm using math from this galaxy and I should be using math from Andromeda or something. It get worse if I do the math using Thuban cores, 900/6= 150, 150*4= 600, +25% =750. IF BD was a 750 million transistor CPU no one would be complaining, but it is again, 2 bloody billion transistors of pure fail.

2000 million / 150 million =  13.33, hello Phenom II X12??


----------



## Super XP (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I'd like to know what "blow out of the water" means to you. I've not seen a single app in that review where the 8150 is even 15% faster than 1100T and it loses in many tests. Most of the times they are about equal.


"Blow out of the water" to me means about 5% to 10%. Perhaps Blow out of the water is a little strong, how about FX 8150 blows smoke in the face of the PII x6 1100T 

On a side note, screw how many transistors Bulldozer has, that is a none issue. For being quite new in design, and nothing we've seen before, it does O.K. we only need to now hope AMD learns from it and releases a better version aka Piledriver.

Anyhow in regards to that 10% performance increase for Piledriver over Bulldozer, I now realize, that is full of shit. That so called AMD slide was created at the same time Bulldozer's slide was created. Those slides were all based on Bulldozer's estimated speeds via paper and/or the ES stepping. It was after the B0 stepping when AMD must have realized they were in deep shit. So right now it's all speculation as to how much juice AMD can squeeze out of Bulldozer to justify calling it Piledriver. I think they can squeeze out a lot of power out of Bulldozer, they just have to iron out some stuff first.

I don't know right now, but I plan on finding out with my old ATI contacs.


----------



## Neuromancer (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> If Deneb had 750 million + 25% that makes 1 billion, not 2 billion unless I'm using math from this galaxy and I should be using math from Andromeda or something.



Actually not sure what math you are using.  750 million + 33% would be 1 billion.  + 25% is less than 940 million






Super XP said:


> "Blow out of the water" to me means about 5% to 10%. Perhaps Blow out of the water is a little strong, how about FX 8150 blows smoke in the face of the PII x6 1100T



Please do not mention smoke around the FX-8150 crowd lol

How about non-sensationalist descriptors, like improved or increased, not dominates, slaughters, murders, kills, slaps it around and calls it betty. etc 

It is a good idea to use normal descriptors as it prevents the rabid posters from getting bent out of shape  (Something I need to work on myself, not calling you out )


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

Super XP said:


> On a side note, screw how many transistors Bulldozer has, that is a none issue. For being quite new in design, and nothing we've seen before, it does O.K. we only need to now hope AMD learns from it and releases a better version aka Piledriver.



Of course it is an issue. A big one. There's no way they can ever dream of really competing in price. It also means that they just cannot add more logic in order to fix things unless they really do fix things. No "trying" allowed, only success is allowed.

And new design or not, the design was suposed to reduce the transistors required per-core or per-performance unit, but it has made it skyrocket instead. Such a huge difference from what it was claimed to be (+25% aka 750 million) to what it really is, just cannot come from bad execution alone. The concept is flawed from the beginning.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I fail to see how the 1100T beating out SB in a few tests makes Bulldozer less of a failure??
> 
> SB vs. Thuban, that's two ~900 billion transistor CPU battling each other.
> 
> ...



I'm not implying that bulldozer is any less of a failure. I'm saying that your argument isn’t logical or objective if you're have one rule for the SB and another rule for the Bulldozer when the 1100T outruns both in the odd test. 

Seems convenient that when I point out the 1100T beating out the 2500/2600k you start changing the discussion or flipping the script to transistor counts to justify your argument. I'm not talking about transistors here I’m talking objective performance based on Guru of 3D results regardless of the manufacturing process.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> I'm not implying that bulldozer is any less of a failure. I'm saying that your argument isn’t logical or objective if you're have one rule for the SB and another rule for the Bulldozer when the 1100T outruns both in the odd test.
> 
> Seems convenient that when I point out the 1100T beating out the 2500/2600k you start changing the discussion or flipping the script to transistor counts to justify your argument. I'm not talking about transistors here I’m talking objective performance based on Guru of 3D results regardless of the manufacturing process.



Now you are grasping at straws arent' you? The X6 is a native 6 core CPU, top of the AMD line when released, SB is a 4 core *mainstream* CPU, even though everyone sees convenient to forget that. BD is supposed to be an 8 core CPU and it sure is a top of the line CPU with its 2 billion transistors unless AMD pretends to release a 4 billion one. A 6 core CPU beating a 4 core CPU in multi-threaded apps is not news, it should happen 100% of the times, a 900 million transistor 6 core CPU (or even a 4 core CPU) beating a 2 f billion transistor CPU IS news, bad news, very very bad news, it'0s a pathetic joke. Usually the tests where 1100T is faster than SB and BD the 980X from Intel smokes em all. 

(and I did say smoke to piss neuromancer off )


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> I think some folks need to realize that the FX series consists of more than just an 8 core CPU.
> 
> Here's a FX 4 core vs. a PII 955: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?276124-FX4100-gt-lt-955Be-Battle-of-the-X4’s
> 
> Any way you look at it, it's a failure here.



I've seen that and it's bad. I wondered from the start, apart from the dissapointment of the top dog, the 8150, what will AMD do with the lower end. I can't see how they can sell this line of FX if there's still Phenom stock.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 20, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Already said that was true. I'm not an Intel fanboy just to let you know, my system is all AMD.
> 
> History also shows that AMD owns a lot to Intel for copying their designs up until the 90's. They needed Intel.
> 
> But the bigger the corporation the bigger the frauds.



My apologies, I posted before being finished with all the existing posts.


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 20, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Now you are grasping at straws arent' you? The X6 is a native 6 core CPU, top of the AMD line when released, SB is a 4 core *mainstream* CPU, even though everyone sees convenient to forget that. BD is supposed to be an 8 core CPU and it sure is a top of the line CPU with its 2 billion transistors unless AMD pretends to release a 4 billion one. A 6 core CPU beating a 4 core CPU in multi-threaded apps is not news, it should happen 100% of the times, a 900 million transistor 6 core CPU (or even a 4 core CPU) beating a 2 f billion transistor CPU IS news, bad news, very very bad news, it'0s a pathetic joke
> 
> (and I did say smoke to piss neuromancer off )



Again with the transistor talk when we are talking about performance based on the results of Guru of 3D, not performance based on the metallic  apparatus used.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/1



Benetanegia said:


> Usually the tests where 1100T is faster than SB and BD the 980X from Intel smokes em all.



The 980X should smoke them all since it bears a $800-100 price tag. 

But price and transistor count aside, the 1100T beats out the 2500K/2600K in certain tests. Hence the 2500K/2600K  should also be criticised for being unable to outrun the K10 as much as the Bulldozer are being criticised for being unable to do so.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 20, 2011)

I can link you to this comaprison from anand. If I'm not mistaken the 1100 beats the 2600 only in power consumption:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287

And the transistor count comparison counts also the IGP on Sandy?


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> Again with the transistor talk when we are talking about performance based on the results of Guru of 3D, not performance based on the matalic  aparatus used.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry but no. Sandy was never designed to win those benches. It's a mainstream CPU where the effort was put into making single threaded or light threaded apps runs faster and damn sure it does, smoking both BD and 1100T on those tasks.

Now, both Thuban and BD were designed for multi-threaded apps, 1100T succeeds, bravo, but bulldozer is fail. Both in multi-threaded (many not all) and single threaded tasks.

980X should not smoke them all, price tag is irrelevant and only a consequence of lack of competition. It's a 1.1 billion transistor chip, so much smaller than Bulldozer and a lot cheaper to produce. Don't blame Intel for charging what they do, blame capitalism if that makes you feel better, or pray to some saints for some competition in the future. Either way Bulldozer sucks.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 20, 2011)

The 980X is discontinued as far as I know, so it's over. SB-E wil have, starting next month a six-core CPU i7-3930K rumoured to be around 500$-600$. Now that's "smoking"


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 20, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> But price and transistor count aside, the 1100T beats out the 2500K/2600K in certain tests. Hence the 2500K/2600K should also be criticised for being unable to outrun the K10 as much as the Bulldozer are being criticised for being unable to do so



Your posts are highly illogical.

First off you are way off topic, and so is the guy you are arguing with.

Secondly, the 2x00K SB chips should not be criticized in the same fashion BD is. They far surpassed their expectations as mainstream chip(s). In chips of this fashion compromises must be made. The 6 core 1100T should be expected to win a few multi threaded tasks that the SB chips are not suited for.

You seem to be just making any excuse possible at this point to justify your arguments. Perhaps you should try opening your mind a bit and letting go of your biased mentality. You will then be able to see BD for what it is, from an honest perspective 

Just my opinions though, take them however you'd like.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 20, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> The 980X is discontinued as far as I know, so it's over. SB-E wil have, starting next month a six-core CPU i7-3930K rumoured to be around 500$-600$. Now that's "smoking"



Yeah I wonder if they will still defend BD when SB-E smokes it in EVERY posible way...
Because as I'm seing right now, these people are deluded in thinking that BD is and always has been competition for SB. As if transistor budget didn't matter or wasn't a clear (as water) indicative of what market segment the resulting chip was suposed to belong to.

In retrospective I don't know why Fermi suffered such a bad reputation, I mean it smoked the HD5770 right?


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 20, 2011)

No. Fermi at least held the crown of the fastest GPU on the planet although huge, hot and power hungry-


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah I wonder if they will still defend BD when SB-E smokes it in EVERY posible way...
> Because as I'm seing right now, these people are deluded in thinking that BD is and always has been competition



I see very few people defending Bulldozer. Me myself is defending the Phenom II X6 1100T which appears to be holding its own against Bulldozer and SB at times. Fvck Bulldozer.


----------



## fullinfusion (Oct 21, 2011)

God I feel like im in a room full of toddlers! mines bigger then yours, this is that!!! really who cares? Anyways let AMD iron out there flaws and lets close these usless BD threads and actually make some useful HELPFULL posts! 

I cant believe I allow my mail server to update me on such childishness commented threads! *unsubscribed* 

Oh and to the upper intel fan kids on this page... the 1100T and 1090T does give the 25-26**K's a good run for its money in some marks.. Some of ya need to read and view the comparisons many of us have posted to compare such benchmarks and the actual score..

Thats all


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 21, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> A 6 core CPU beating a 4 core CPU in multi-threaded apps is not news, it should happen 100% of the times, a 900 million transistor 6 core CPU (or even a 4 core CPU) beating a 2 f billion transistor CPU IS news, bad news, very very bad news, it'0s a pathetic joke.



then what would you call intel's itanium fiasco? it's a fucking ginormous chunk of silicon yet it sucks. true that it's based on a different architecture but like bulldozer, the software simply isn't optimized for it. ain't no way in hell those 2 billion transistors are there just to generate heat.


----------



## Benetanegia (Oct 21, 2011)

D4S4 said:


> then what would you call intel's itanium fiasco? it's a fucking ginormous chunk of silicon yet it sucks. true that it's based on a different architecture but like bulldozer, the software simply isn't optimized for it. ain't no way in hell those 2 billion transistors are there just to generate heat.



Didn't you already said it all in 2 words? Itanium (1) fiasco (2).

What else is there to say? Previous and future failures do not mitigate the failure that Bulldozer is right now plain and simple.


----------



## qubit (Oct 21, 2011)

D4S4 said:


> then what would you call intel's itanium fiasco? it's a fucking ginormous chunk of silicon yet it sucks. true that it's based on a different architecture but like bulldozer, the software simply isn't optimized for it. *ain't no way in hell those 2 billion transistors are there just to generate heat.*



Unfortunately, it looks like they are.  Take a look at these two articles I posted about some way back in this thread.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2430034#post2430034

AMD royally screwed up with this launch and their future as an x86 CPU manufacturer doesn't look too rosy right now.


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 21, 2011)

qubit said:


> Unfortunately, it looks like they are.  Take a look at these two articles I posted about some way back in this thread.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2430034#post2430034
> 
> AMD royally screwed up with this launch and their future as an x86 CPU manufacturer doesn't look too rosy right now.





Benetanegia said:


> Didn't you already said it all in 2 words? Itanium (1) fiasco (2).
> 
> What else is there to say? Previous and future failures do not mitigate the failure that Bulldozer is right now plain and simple.


my bad, i should've written then "what do you make of..."

i better start reading though i doubt anyone would make a design with so much useless transistors.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2011)

Dent1 said:


> I see very few people defending Bulldozer. Me myself is defending the Phenom II X6 1100T which appears to be holding its own against Bulldozer and SB at times. Fvck Bulldozer.


It may hold on it's own and don't get me wrong, the PII x6 is a fantastic CPU, but Bulldozer is still the faster CPU and the better buy IMO. Just check out the review sites. The PII x6 1100T only win a few of them. Here is an example of one site:
The FX 8150 (13 WIN) beat out the x6 1100T (6 WIN) in 13 out of 19 Benchmarks
The FX 8120 (11 WIN) beat out the x6 1100T (8 WIN)  in 11 out of 19 Benchmarks

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150--8120-6100-and-4100-performance-review/3



Benetanegia said:


> Of course it is an issue. A big one. There's no way they can ever dream of really competing in price. It also means that they just cannot add more logic in order to fix things unless they really do fix things. No "trying" allowed, only success is allowed.
> 
> And new design or not, the design was suposed to reduce the transistors required per-core or per-performance unit, but it has made it skyrocket instead. Such a huge difference from what it was claimed to be (+25% aka 750 million) to what it really is, just cannot come from bad execution alone. The concept is flawed from the beginning.


AMD Working on *Bulldozer B3 Stepping* (It's coming, and I assume it will be Piledriver in Q1 2011)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4997/amd-working-on-bulldozer-b3-stepping


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 21, 2011)

damn did they f up! :shadedshu i had no idea that their architecture is so full of holes, so to speak. thanks for the links qubit!


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2011)

The same thing was said about the Phenom I, where AMD scewed up. Hopefully this B3 stepping will do the trick. Also I made an error, Piledriver is not coming until Q3 2012, though I believe the B3 revision should be within our grasp in Q1 2012.


----------



## seronx (Oct 21, 2011)

Super XP said:


> The same thing was said about the Phenom I, where AMD scewed up. Hopefully this B3 stepping will do the trick. Also I made an error, Piledriver is not coming until Q3 2012, though I believe the B3 revision should be within our grasp in Q1 2012.



We will see Piledriver earlier than Q3 2012







Vishera Piledriver... is unknown but more likely Q3 2012

If the Trinity Quad-core beats or loses to the Llano/Zambezi Quad-core we will know the answer if Piledriver fixes anything


----------



## nt300 (Oct 21, 2011)

I though Piledriver was on schedule for Q1 2012? 
I think we should let Bulldozer slide, give AMD a break, but no break for Piledrive that CPU line better perform much better. 
I don't care about trying to beat Intel's top $1000 beasts, as long as AMD keeps strong pressure on the mid range while still staying strong and competitive with the high end.
Am I going to buy a Bulldozer, maybe because I don't use my PC for gaming only, I think the FX 8150 and FX 8120 do good enough in gaming.
What I am dissatisfied with is the new quad and 6 core Bulldozers. Dam AMD, screw servers/workstations, concentrate Bulldozer's update to run much better for desktop and it's apps.


----------



## Horrux (Oct 21, 2011)

nt300 said:


> I though Piledriver was on schedule for Q1 2012?
> I think we should let Bulldozer slide, give AMD a break, but no break for Piledrive that CPU line better perform much better.
> I don't care about trying to beat Intel's top $1000 beasts, as long as AMD keeps strong pressure on the mid range while still staying strong and competitive with the high end.
> Am I going to buy a Bulldozer, maybe because I don't use my PC for gaming only, I think the FX 8150 and FX 8120 do good enough in gaming.
> What I am dissatisfied with is the new quad and 6 core Bulldozers. Dam AMD, screw servers/workstations, concentrate Bulldozer's update to run much better for desktop and it's apps.



I remain pretty sure PileDriver is scheduled for Q1 2012. It was, and I haven't seen anything that indicates otherwise, except rumors.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2011)

Well I hope so, I wonder if the FX 8170 will be the Piledriver or the Bulldozer based CPU. It can very well be called something like FX2 8170 or something. But if AMD calls the new CPU's FX Next, then somebody really needs a bitch slap upside there head


----------



## bucketface (Oct 21, 2011)

piledriver is supposed to be released in q1 2012 with the trinity APU, there are only rumours stating the release of the piledriver fx series and they state late q2 or q3.


----------



## seronx (Oct 21, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Well I hope so, I wonder if the FX 8170 will be the Piledriver or the Bulldozer based CPU. It can very well be called something like FX2 8170 or something. But if AMD calls the new CPU's FX Next, then somebody really needs a bitch slap upside there head



I think it is going to follow the Intel model numbers this time

FX-8210/8250/8270


----------



## Super XP (Oct 21, 2011)

seronx said:


> I think it is going to follow the Intel model numbers this time
> 
> FX-8210/8250/8270


Yes that makes a lot  more sense. Once agian thank you for your informative posts.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 21, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Well I hope so, I wonder if the FX 8170 will be the Piledriver or the Bulldozer based CPU. It can very well be called something like FX2 8170 or something. But if AMD calls the new CPU's FX Next, then somebody really needs a bitch slap upside there head



Somebody already needs a bitch slap upside their head for releasing the beta.


----------



## erocker (Oct 21, 2011)

Since this thread is turning into the same discussion as any other "Bulldozer" thread it is closed due to redundancy.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 21, 2011)

erocker said:


> Since this thread is turning into the same discussion as any other "Bulldozer" thread it is closed due to redundancy.



Seconded!


----------

