# AMD Realizes That Bulldozer Has 800 Million LESS Transistors Than It Thought!



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

AMD's new flagship Bulldozer "FX" series of processors have turned out to be mediocre performers in almost every review and benchmark going, sometimes even getting bested by the existing Phenom II and certainly no match for their Intel competition. To add to this tale of fail, it now turns out that AMD didn't even know how many transistors they have! Anand Lal Shimpi of AnandTech received an email from AMD's PR department and this is the revelation he had to share with us:





> This is a bit unusual. I got an email from AMD PR this week asking me to correct the Bulldozer transistor count in our Sandy Bridge E review. The incorrect number, provided to me (and other reviewers) by AMD PR around 3 months ago was *2 billion* transistors. The actual transistor count for Bulldozer is apparently *1.2 billion* transistors. I don't have an explanation as to why the original number was wrong, just that the new number has been triple checked by my contact and is indeed right. The total die area for a 4-module/8-core Bulldozer remains correct at 315 mm².





 




Yes, something as basic as how many transistors are in their flagship product wasn't known about until _months_ after the launch! This kind of info would be common knowledge within the company by the time the first tape-out is ready during the design and testing phase, so surely this cannot be and there must be some other explanation? If this is an attempt to make the processor look better by showing it "doing more with less", then this PR stunt has backfired spectacularly and it would have been better to have left the "error" as it was. Paradoxically, FX processors are a sales success and are flying off the shelves as we just reported, here.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

Thanks to HalfAHertz for this super tip!


----------



## BlackOmega (Dec 3, 2011)

Perhaps this is why they're switching to TSMC.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2011)

Maybe those 800 Million transistors were where the performance was at...


----------



## Zubasa (Dec 3, 2011)

The fail is strong in this one....


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> http://mlblogskaybee.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/doublefacepalm.jpg
> 
> Maybe those 800 Million transistors were where the performance was at...



Yeah, they dropped the performance down the back of the sofa.


----------



## Zubasa (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yeah, they dropped the performance down the back of the sofa.


More like down the shitter and flushed away.


----------



## utengineer (Dec 3, 2011)

If I bought this processor thinking it had 2 billion transitors due to marketing material, can I sue AMD for the missing 800 million?  "Dear AMD, please exchange my processor for an Intel, Thanks!"


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2011)

Also, does anyone think this might have something to do with the rumor that AMD has stopped hand designing their chips, and have started letting computers design the processor for them?

I do. If you hand craft something, you know what is in it.  If you let a computer do it, then only the computer knows what is in it, and you either have to guess or hope that the computer is accurate when telling you the number you need to know.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2011)

I knew something didn't add up when I saw Zambezi's "2 billion" transistor count for the first time. Even 16 MB of total SRAM couldn't have pushed transistor counts up that much over Istanbul/Thuban's 900-odd million transistor count.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Dec 3, 2011)

GG amd GG:shadedshu


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> If this is an attempt to make the processor look better by showing it "doing more with less", then this PR stunt has backfired spectacularly and it would have been better to have left the "error" as it was.



I don't think so. I really don't pay attention to those numbers but if you go by Intel's numbers, you can see that SB-E clocks at 2.27B transistors and the die size is 435mm2. How could AMD pack a comparable 2B in a 315mm2 die?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 3, 2011)

I wonder who originally reported it had 2 billion in the first place.  Rumor mill?


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2011)

fordgt90concept said:


> i wonder who originally reported it had 2 billion in the first place.  Rumor mill?



AMD's PR.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Dec 3, 2011)

btarunr said:


> AMD's PR.



oh snap


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 3, 2011)

So is this a valid excuse to sue? Class action maybe? 

It is still more than previous generations correct? Not sure what Phenom II's count is.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> So is this a valid excuse to sue? Class action maybe?
> 
> It is still more than previous generations correct? Not sure what Phenom II's count is.



AMD dosn't sell processors on transistor counts, people don't buy it on that basis, either.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 3, 2011)

But it is false advertising--they lied about their product to make it look favorable to the competition.


Edit: Ha, my post count says BOOB! XD


Edit: Not anymore.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> But it is false advertising--they lied about their product to make it look favorable to the competition.



They never advertised transistor count. Only when curious people may have asked transistor count, they gave a number. Your AMD FX PIB package or AMD FX product page doesn't give you a transistor count so you could base your buying decision on that.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Dec 3, 2011)

btarunr said:


> They never advertised transistor count. Only when curious people may have asked transistor count, they gave a number. Your AMD FX PIB package or AMD FX product page doesn't give you a transistor count so you could base your buying decision on that.



Still that was shiesty on AMD's part


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 3, 2011)

Its called a typo. This is why AMD fired the entire PR department. They were incompetent. Thou I am surprised how long it too for someone else in the company to read one of the reviews that included the transistor count and realize the info. sent out in the PR pack was wrong.


----------



## AsRock (Dec 3, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Also, does anyone think this might have something to do with the rumor that AMD has stopped hand designing their chips, and have started letting computers design the processor for them?
> 
> I do. If you hand craft something, you know what is in it.  If you let a computer do it, then only the computer knows what is in it, and you either have to guess or hope that the computer is accurate when telling you the number you need to know.



I was thinking the same thing..


----------



## Delta6326 (Dec 3, 2011)

Holy crap Batman! How do you miss 800 Million Transistors? You would think they inspect them some how.:shadedshu


----------



## 1c3d0g (Dec 3, 2011)

Number of transistors ≠ performance. It's what you do with those transistors that counts.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Dec 3, 2011)

LOL, i think the other 1.2 bil died now when they read this.


----------



## seronx (Dec 3, 2011)

The 800 Million Transistors were abducted by pesky aliens


----------



## zx679 (Dec 3, 2011)

All I can say is "Wow".


----------



## SteelSix (Dec 3, 2011)

Poor performance one thing, to frack up on specificaitons? Damn, no wonder the axe fell swifty up top..


----------



## btarunr (Dec 3, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Still that was shiesty on AMD's part



Bloomfield has 732 million transistors, models upwards of i7-930 beat FX-8120, those upwards of i7-950 beat FX-8150. 

Insert Bill O'Reilly "you can't explain that" meme. 

The point is transistor count isn't something you can base your purchases on. No CPU maker writes that down in the specs sheet. Not even Intel ARK shows transistor counts of Intel CPUs. Only electronics enthusiasts (those studying ICs, VLSI design, etc.,) would find transistor counts interesting. 

"Performance per transistor" could be an interesting statistic though. The sudden drop in transistor count only goes on to improve that statistic.


----------



## micropage7 (Dec 3, 2011)

so its the explanation. bulldozer should have more power than this
right?


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 3, 2011)

So the power consumption turns out to be even worse then seeing as it has 800 million less transistors.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

no wonder why so many got fired. that is a pretty big oops


----------



## SK-1 (Dec 3, 2011)

^good observation. fail on many levels now...


----------



## gourygabriev (Dec 3, 2011)

Well it sure does suck electricity like a 2 Billion transistor CPU would.


----------



## Over_Lord (Dec 3, 2011)

I guess someone needs to do their maths HW... oops


----------



## GSquadron (Dec 3, 2011)

OMG these news lately are going nuts!
Doing the math they are right. But they knew all other cpus, except the most powerful one.
It was just selling out all the cpus and showing off as they got a bigger 2B cpu sitting in the bench.

EDIT: I did the math it shows 3.1 B lol

315x315 = 99225, 99225x0.000032 = 3.1752 LOL

maybe they were talking 1.2b for only 1 core xD


----------



## treboRR (Dec 3, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> maybe they were talking 1.2b for only 1 core xD



HAHAHA that would be cool I bet this is the next marketing info for selling Bulldozers


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 3, 2011)

Actually, and nobody is saying that, 1.2 billion vs 2billion transistor is an enormous difference!!! Guys we are talking about ~40% less transistors here!! I think this is the key to the performance gap over Intel. Think about it. The first Core I7 processors were having a transistor count of *731 million*, while a Core 2 Duo, only *300 million*. AMD is missing *800 million* out of it`s processor!!!


----------



## Dave65 (Dec 3, 2011)

How hard would this be to correct this problem?


----------



## reverze (Dec 3, 2011)

The PR guy who send around the wrong number is to blame, do we really need a newspost for this? you pretend like the guys who made the chip somehow didnt realize what they did.


----------



## wurschti (Dec 3, 2011)

*Obviously!*


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 3, 2011)

Here we go again....


----------



## _JP_ (Dec 3, 2011)

*Made my day*


----------



## GSquadron (Dec 3, 2011)

Doing the math 1.2B means 315mm2
What would it be for 2B?
2Bx315mm2 = 630Bmm2
630Bmm2 / 1.2B = 525mm2
For 2B the die size would be 525mm2 so stop acting like it is fantastic thing.
This kind of architecture means only that we need lower nm tech


----------



## RoutedScripter (Dec 3, 2011)

Bwhahahahaahahahahh

Oh maaaan!

double facepalm indeed , this whole bulldozer "Amd ex-employee" thing has to be one of the biggest lols in CPU history.






newtekie1 said:


> Also, does anyone think this might have something to do with the rumor that AMD has stopped hand designing their chips, and have started letting computers design the processor for them?
> 
> I do. If you hand craft something, you know what is in it.  If you let a computer do it, then only the computer knows what is in it, and you either have to guess or hope that the computer is accurate when telling you the number you need to know.



definitely , it's all about the automation tools that AMD used to create, all those good "Athlon64" devs left the company long ago


----------



## Mussels (Dec 3, 2011)

this is quite a crazy thing for them to screw up


----------



## Altered (Dec 3, 2011)

Hey this isnt AMD's fault. You know the PR folks responsible were probably taught the newest math skills using Mathland or Fuzzy Math. Hell our great government uses the same shit daily and look how well that works for them. Nothing has to add up precisely.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 3, 2011)

Altered said:


> Hey this isnt AMD's fault. You know the PR folks responsible were probably taught the newest math skills using Mathland or Fuzzy Math. Hell our great government uses the same shit daily and look how well that works for them. Nothing has to add up precisely.



it was probably written 1.2, and the 1 didnt copy out the fax machine right.


----------



## ironwolf (Dec 3, 2011)

I smell a sinister plot by Intel to steal 800 million transistors from these CPUs! 

All your transistors are belong to us!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 3, 2011)

does look to me like they got a politician doin pr for them , ah well hes gone now though eh


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> it was probably written 1.2, and the 1 didnt copy out the fax machine right.



People still use fax machines?


----------



## Solten (Dec 3, 2011)




----------



## simlariver (Dec 3, 2011)

This must have something to do with automated design.
 I wonder if there is still anyone at AMD that knows how to design a cpu.

Bad management decisions having large scale backfire.


----------



## Mistral (Dec 3, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> People still use fax machines?



You'd be surprised... 



simlariver said:


> This must have something to do with automated design.
> I wonder if there is still anyone at AMD that knows how to design a cpu.
> 
> Bad management decisions having large scale backfire.



That article you're linking to uses BD having 2 billion transistor as basis for its speculations. The 2 being a PR BS and BD actually having 1.2 would suggest to disprove it.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 3, 2011)

Does this alter any performance per watt figures? As i said earlier, the power consumption is worse.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 3, 2011)

No, performance per watt would be the same if it had 10B or 500 million transistors.


----------



## xBruce88x (Dec 3, 2011)

nah it'll be the same... regardless of how many transistors they say it has... we already know how much power it uses and how it performs...


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

tigger said:


> Does this alter any performance per watt figures? As i said earlier, the power consumption is worse.



That's true, but think about it: what if Bulldozer would have had 800M_ more_ transistors? Then the performance per watt would be improved, but overall the CPU would be using even more resources to achieve less. Poor AMD can't win either way!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 3, 2011)

not with you


----------



## reverze (Dec 3, 2011)

i think we need to have a word with wizard about these articles, TPU isnt worth the page visit anymore


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

reverze said:


> i think we need to have a word with wizard about these articles, TPU isnt worth the page visit anymore



Have you ever considered that I write these articles with his approval?  And have you considered that a lot of people actually enjoy them?

You're always free to look somewhere else. I have no problem with that at all. None.


----------



## trickson (Dec 3, 2011)

WOW any they hyped there CPU so well too . What with having the worlds record OC . But wait what they did not even KNOW how many transistors were even on there CPU ? What  ?


----------



## Eva01Master (Dec 3, 2011)

I like these articles qubit, keep up the good work, it's always nice to see polemic topics discussed by the community and not everyone following a chosen path like drones. Now regarding the body of the article itself, I do not think AMD didn't know how many transistors they had in their design but screwed badly when supplying the information out. How could you manage to work at PR of an electronics giant and know squat about the electronics they produce?


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

Eva01Master said:


> I like these articles qubit, keep up the good work, it's always nice to see polemic topics discussed by the community and not everyone following a chosen path like drones. Now regarding the body of the article itself, I do not think AMD didn't know how many transistors they had in their design but screwed badly when supplying the information out. How could you manage to work at PR of an electronics giant and know squat about the electronics they produce?



Yes, it's weird how one hand didn't know what the other was doing, isn't it? Especially over such a long time, where something this basic would become common knowledge throughout the company.

Now, with my tinfoil hat on, I reckon it was deliberate in some way. I just have no idea how, lol. Or if they were _really_ that disorganized, then AMD has some serious problems.

Thanks for the kind words.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 3, 2011)

so if i dont like what ya sayin i can ef off then right, good TPU frontin their man my issue isnt the news .more the woohoo slant you put on it


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> so if i dont like what ya sayin i can ef off then right, good TPU frontin their man my issue isnt the news .more the woohoo slant you put on it



People that take a pop at me with lame personal attacks can take a walk, yes. What's so wrong about that? Don't forget that personal attacks are expressly against the forum rules, too.

If you're not too happy about my writing style, then I'm always willing to listen to _constructive_ criticism and suggestions and debate them with you. 

Finally, these should be made in the comments section, or PM, not the news thread. If you want to make sure that I see your comment in that section, then feel free to PM me the link and I'll discuss things with you.


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Dec 3, 2011)

Bulldozer is the best architecture in the world. Bulldozer is better then any other processor on the market.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Dec 3, 2011)

No wonder they fired their PR. Why would you hype your product to be so much better than it is? Yes, having 2B transistors might close the performance gap, but the power consumption would of been off the charts. Bulldozer failed in both design and marketing. Kinda makes you think about, if there are any competent people working at AMD anymore.


----------



## FeuchterFutzi (Dec 3, 2011)

*OLD NEWS its from November 16th and german sorry*

http://www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi?id=1321455683

in googlish:

Wednesday 16 November 2011
16:01 - Author: Dr @
AMD Bulldozer Schrumpfkur missed - a virtual

Who now expected, it would be a new revision of the miracle bulldozer in the wings who will be disappointed. For the launch of the first "Bulldozer" processor-based desktop AMD FX (codenamed "Zambezi") had AMD communicated to the press through a die size of 315 mm ² and a transistor count of around 2 billion. As The Register then in the context of the launch of the new Opteron 6200 ("Interlagos") and 4200 ("Valencia") is only 2.4 billion transistors for the "Interlagos" spoke, asked some users cope in our forum, such as this number to the previous statement fits. After all, this figure is 40% below the original value of about 4 billion




Therefore we have asked AMD, after which it has been confirmed that the statement of The Register is accurate. Because all processors of the first "Bulldozer" generation on the same "Orochi" The building is for all versions 315 mm ² die size and 1.2 billion transistors to estimate. Since the Opteron 6200 is constructed from an MCM (Multi Chip Module) from each of two dies, each processor must here per the duplicate values ​​are estimated. The virtual downsizing in the number of transistors is built so simply due to a communication error. As it happened, you could not tell us yet.




Source: AMD


----------



## erocker (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> People that take a pop at me with lame personal attacks can take a walk, yes. What's so wrong about that? Don't forget that personal attacks are expressly against the forum rules, too.
> 
> If you're not too happy about my writing style, then I'm always willing to listen to _constructive_ criticism and suggestions and debate them with you.
> 
> Finally, these should be made in the comments section, or PM, not the news thread. If you want to make sure that I see your comment in that section, then feel free to PM me the link and I'll discuss things with you.



Please don't bother responding to it then. Show them where to post if anything. Remember, news articles are about the story, not you. Any problematic posts should be reported, not responded to as that creates more work for everyone. The topic is the news artice STAY ON TOPIC.

This whole news story has me scratching my head. Has it always been 800 million transistors less? Did AMD keep with the original number and not know about it? Did they disable the chip in a last minute attempt to bring it to market? Funky stuff...


----------



## hellrazor (Dec 3, 2011)

Can we get those 800 million and put them into FPUs so that we don't lose a core when each module is being used for floating-point ops?


----------



## v12dock (Dec 3, 2011)

So Bulldozer patch 1.1

Patch Notes:

Added 800 Million more transistors should see 40% performance increase.


----------



## B451L4TOR (Dec 3, 2011)




----------



## Crap Daddy (Dec 3, 2011)

Wait. Are there really 800 million missing? Were there 2 bill. in the first place? L.A. Noire


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

erocker said:


> Please don't bother responding to it then. Show them where to post if anything. Remember, news articles are about the story, not you. Any problematic posts should be reported, not responded to as that creates more work for everyone. The topic is the news artice STAY ON TOPIC.



I'm sorry, thanks for the good advice.  It's kinda hard not to say something sometimes... :shadedshu I'll try harder next time. 



erocker said:


> This whole news story has me scratching my head. Has it always been 800 million transistors less? Did AMD keep with the original number and not know about it? Did they disable the chip in a last minute attempt to bring it to market? Funky stuff...



It's downright weird, isn't it? It's a bit like a car manufacturer not realising the capacity of the engine on a new model, only to correct the official spec later. It'll be funny if it really _is_ 2bn transistors and they had to fuse off parts of the chip to bring it to market, perhaps due to a design issue, isn't it? That would imply extra performance is locked up in there...

To the best of my knowledge, a mistake like this has never been made before in the semiconductor industry.


----------



## DarkOCean (Dec 3, 2011)

This explains it somehow why it's so weak.


----------



## laszlo (Dec 3, 2011)

"Papermaster" what have u done?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Dec 3, 2011)

I think AMD suffers from a severe case of Communication Breakdown 



3volvedcombat said:


> Bulldozer is the best architecture in the world. Bulldozer is better then any other processor on the market.



Whatever you're smoking, I want some!


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> I'm sorry, thanks for the good advice.  It's kinda hard not to say something sometimes... :shadedshu I'll try harder next time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pester them for info !


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Pester them for info !



Pester AMD about the transistor count?


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> Pester AMD about the transistor count?



Yup, find out why the mix up happened and such. : ]


----------



## Steven B (Dec 3, 2011)

btarunr said:


> AMD dosn't sell processors on transistor counts, people don't buy it on that basis, either.



i do!


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Yup, find out why the mix up happened and such. : ]



Hmmm, maybe.



Steven B said:


> i do!



You're so hardcore.


----------



## Activeduke (Dec 3, 2011)

Maybe we will see an FX 8250 or 8170 with actually 2billion transistors in the future..?
Meh..


----------



## Bundy (Dec 3, 2011)

btarunr said:


> I knew something didn't add up when I saw Zambezi's "2 billion" transistor count for the first time. Even 16 MB of total SRAM couldn't have pushed transistor counts up that much over Istanbul/Thuban's 900-odd million transistor count.


It seems, so did someone else...


FeuchterFutzi said:


> http://www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi?id=1321455683
> 
> in googlish:
> 
> ...



So AMD only announced this after someone asked why the numbers didn't add up. Not very good AMD, it seems your PR people do not talk to the production or design people. How can we believe what you say in the future?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 3, 2011)

*really?*

So that's what the keystone cops are doing now.....building cpus.  
Bulldozer...the delorean of the cpu world.


----------



## trickson (Dec 3, 2011)

WOW the AMD fanboys must be prod of AMD right now . They just put out a CPU that can hardly compete with there current line . Now see I find that just too   !! 

What make this even more laughable is the fact that AMD did not even know how many transistors were on the CPU to start with . HEY AMD WAKE UP !!!


----------



## v12dock (Dec 4, 2011)

trickson said:


> WOW the AMD fanboys must be prod of AMD right now . They just put out a CPU that can hardly compete with there current line . Now see I find that just too   !!
> 
> What make this even more laughable is the fact that AMD did not even know how many transistors were on the CPU to start with . HEY AMD WAKE UP !!!



And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now

The fanboyism makes me laugh


----------



## semantics (Dec 4, 2011)

dat paper dragon


----------



## Thefumigator (Dec 4, 2011)

v12dock said:


> And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now
> 
> The fanboyism makes me laugh



Maybe intel has the best desktop processors in the high end, but that's all.
In the mid and low end AMD is quite competitive. Even with bulldozer based servers AMD is quite competitive.

Also intel has nothing to compete against llano, and barely can compete against zacate
I'm not even mentioning discrete GPUs... and of course, PRICE


----------



## trickson (Dec 4, 2011)

v12dock said:


> And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now
> 
> The fanboyism makes me laugh



You know it !  

All this time all this speculation all this anticipation and what did you get ?  That is what it would seem like NO ? .


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 4, 2011)

imho both big chip makers have their flaws at the min what with intels and amds socket frenzy plus intels sata 6 bs and amd;s hyperboled then underwhelming BD but its all relative but deff unusual both cos have dropped the ball lately and as i assume some of you are thinking , its quite possible they got to b3 due to hacking bits out and hence lost some of its performance after all bits get left out all the time by all chip cos in almost all scenarios they just dont normally fudge their specs like this


----------



## Mussels (Dec 4, 2011)

Thefumigator said:


> Maybe intel has the best desktop processors in the high end, but that's all.
> In the mid and low end AMD is quite competitive. Even with bulldozer based servers AMD is quite competitive.
> 
> Also intel has nothing to compete against llano, and barely can compete against zacate
> I'm not even mentioning discrete GPUs... and of course, PRICE



in the low to mid range, AMD whups intel to pieces. its only high end that intel have the advantage.


----------



## Poisonsnak (Dec 4, 2011)

Come on guys, AMD has always known how many transistors are in the chip, it's just another mistake by their useless marketing team.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 4, 2011)

*boy just being boys*



Poisonsnak said:


> Come on guys, AMD has always known how many transistors are in the chip, it's just another mistake by their useless marketing team.



Yeah we know.  Just like we know Amd apus are actually good and they're good at the low power low end stuff but man just like sports fans we like to rib the other team


----------



## bostonbuddy (Dec 4, 2011)

I wonder if AMD will give Intel a GG or rage quite.


----------



## Edgarstrong (Dec 4, 2011)

trickson said:


> WOW the AMD fanboys must be prod of AMD right now . They just put out a CPU that can hardly compete with there current line . Now see I find that just too   !!
> 
> What make this even more laughable is the fact that AMD did not even know how many transistors were on the CPU to start with . HEY AMD WAKE UP !!!



It's "their" and not "there", for god's sake...


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 4, 2011)

Edgarstrong said:


> It's "their" and not "there", for god's sake...



Why do you for gods sake?

It's a fairly common mix up when writing on the fly as often people "think" the words out loud rather than think through each letter that they are typing.

Or the user could be dyslexic and easily muddle up similar sounding words even though they understand the individual meanings of each.


Shouldn't be so quick to judge : ]


----------



## Edgarstrong (Dec 4, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Why do you for gods sake?
> 
> It's a fairly common mix up when writing on the fly as often people "think" the words out loud rather than think through each letter that they are typing.
> 
> ...



I didn't have any intention to offend anyone, and if I did - I apologize. It's just that it makes me sad seeing so many people today genuinely not knowing the difference between those two. And to make it worse, I don't remember when it was the last time I saw that mistake being made by a non mother tongue. Of course when it is just a mistype, that's another case.

Anyhow, this is not the best place to discuss this, so I shouldn't have started.


----------



## de.das.dude (Dec 4, 2011)

they took er tranzistrs!


----------



## cocobrais (Dec 4, 2011)

v12dock said:


> And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now
> 
> The fanboyism makes me laugh



 Everyone gonna laugh after Intel become monopolist ....


----------



## seronx (Dec 4, 2011)

cocobrais said:


> Everyone gonna laugh after Intel become monopolist ....



x86 is controlled by Intel, it is a monopoly...the only company that prevented x86 becoming a monopoly controlled by Intel was Cyrix and guess how that worked out.... :shadedshu

AMD has been using Intel designs since after K6(and before but that isn't really important is it)

K7, K8, K10 -> Intel Alpha CPUs
K15 -> Intel Architect, Andy Glew

Pretty much everything AMD makes has an Intel stamp on it...if it is a CPU based architecture


----------



## Edgarstrong (Dec 4, 2011)

Is there any anti-monopoly law or some increased taxes for companies enjoying a monopolistic position? Or any other "punishment" for being a monopoly?

P.S. NWM, just looked up "Sherman Antitrust Act".


----------



## Bundy (Dec 4, 2011)

Poisonsnak said:


> Come on guys, AMD has always known how many transistors are in the chip, it's just another mistake by their useless marketing team.



Did AMD outsource their marketing?


----------



## NC37 (Dec 4, 2011)

Apparently Read didn't read the numbers right .

Gotta admit, AMD is getting a lot of PR for all this. Good or bad, their name is still getting out there. Perhaps there was more brilliance with removing the ATI name. Without Radeon I'm sure AMD's name would be even more mucked up right now. General consumers aren't smart enough to tell the difference. Course it can work the other way too, but the Radeon branding is likely the deciding factor which prevents that.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 4, 2011)

seronx said:


> x86 is controlled by Intel, it is a monopoly...the only company that prevented x86 becoming a monopoly controlled by Intel was Cyrix and guess how that worked out.... :shadedshu
> 
> AMD has been using Intel designs since after K6(and before but that isn't really important is it)
> 
> ...



Aye but AMD got x86-x64 out before intels dedicated 64bit code, so Intels cpus after the AMD 64 ones all have an AMD stamp on them


----------



## Valdez (Dec 4, 2011)

seronx said:


> AMD has been using Intel designs since after K6(and before but that isn't really important is it)
> 
> K7, K8, K10 -> Intel Alpha CPUs
> K15 -> Intel Architect, Andy Glew



You mean DEC Alpha?
Anyway if someone worked at an another company and now he/she works at amd, it doesn't mean the company's new design will be that man's former company's design.
I hope you understand what i'm trying to say.


----------



## qubit (Dec 4, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Aye but AMD got x86-x64 out before intels dedicated 64bit code, so Intels cpus after the AMD 64 ones all have an AMD stamp on them



That's true. Wasn't Intel somewhat reluctant to use it, too? I remember that AMD had 64-bit processors a good year or more before Intel did. 64-bit XP was supposed to be released too, but if I remember correctly, the rumours were that Intel leaned on Microsoft to delay its release until they were ready, to deny AMD first-mover advantage.

This was a nasty underhand tactic, if ever I saw one and Intel rightly deserved to get nailed for this. I believe this may have been part of the now settled antitrust lawsuit that AMD filed against Intel.


----------



## de.das.dude (Dec 4, 2011)

intels a bitchy little bitch. everyone knows thats. thats why  will never buy an intel even if they outperform amd by a million times


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 4, 2011)

I don't care if they are bitchy, naughty, nasty or whatever, I will buy the best performing chip. I really think its a bit daft to do otherwise, be it Amd or Intel that is the best.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 4, 2011)

tigger said:


> I don't care if they are bitchy, naughty, nasty or whatever, I will buy the best performing chip. I really think its a bit daft to do otherwise, be it Amd or Intel that is the best.


Agreed, but at the same time these companies need to play nice and not try and corner the market in an illegal way. If you think about it, Intel screwed AMD big time. Companies such as DELL wanted to carry AMD chips but Intel's big money told them NO.... :shadedshu


----------



## Wile E (Dec 4, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> intels a bitchy little bitch. everyone knows thats. thats why  will never buy an intel even if they outperform amd by a million times



Have fun being slow.

I'll stick to buying what performs best for the price I'm looking to pay.


----------



## Xtro (Dec 4, 2011)

*AMD or Intel*

Whatever you want, the thing is that the end customer is being beneficted with this struggle beacause if you note the prices was going down from some years ago, so we are winning at the end, because we can take good technologies at lower cost, that is the point, or you didnt note this on gamming video cards also, i think that the AMD is not working in order to make a big deal like INTEL, i would like to think that the AMD is working in order that all of us can approach technology to our self benefict, and say which is good or not good is not important, the main  conclusion is what is what you want because if you note at the end both does the homework one some seconds before but that is not the thing is that both works well.

PS: People discuss abour which is better disregarding price i would discuss about cost/benefict because at the end every one of us has to work in order to pay for every chip maker.


----------



## Breit (Dec 4, 2011)

Who cares how many transistors a chip has? What counts is how it performs... And on that end AMD has failed (again). But for what its worth, the price is right and AMD is selling there Bulldozers like hotcakes. So it seems all is fine in the end?!


----------



## v12dock (Dec 4, 2011)

AMD can still lawl at Intel's efforts on making a GPU


----------



## Poisonsnak (Dec 5, 2011)

Bundy said:


> So AMD only announced this after someone asked why the numbers didn't add up. Not very good AMD, it seems your PR people do not talk to the production or design people. How can we believe what you say in the future?



Are you agreeing with me 



Bundy said:


> Did AMD outsource their marketing?



or not?


----------



## f22a4bandit (Dec 5, 2011)

Bundy said:


> Did AMD outsource their marketing?



It's not uncommon for corporations to outsource their PR department with a big time PR firm. They'll usually bring in an outside source to kick-start a new campaign so it's not the same stale stuff they've been using for years. Take a look at Burger King. They hired a more traditional firm to handle their public relations, hence why you're not seeing anymore commercials with "The King."

That being said, AMD runs their public relations and marketing teams in-house. This is a terrible error on their side, but not the only one that's happened in the world, and certainly not one as huge as others that have happened. Read up on Wal-Marting Across America, that's a real fun case study.


----------



## Bundy (Dec 5, 2011)

Poisonsnak said:


> Are you agreeing with me
> 
> 
> 
> or not?



My second question was rhetorical. AMD have to accept responsibility for the actions of all their employees. It seems the this oversight was not properly executed in the PR section.

So I was not agreeing with the notion that this is "just another mistake by their useless marketing team", it is a major corporate blunder, along with much of the bulldozer launch.

I hope they get past this, because we all need to see good competition in the higher end CPU bracket.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Dec 5, 2011)

Actualy AMD is wrong. The actual transistor count is 1,193,673,452. Yeah, but who`s counting anyways...


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 5, 2011)

Hahahaha, I am in the process of trolling my AMD fanboy friend about this as we speak.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Have fun being slow.
> 
> I'll stick to buying what performs best for the price I'm looking to pay.


Bahh your an idiot. You spend a grand on a cpu that you spend much of the time looking at girly postings in TGN section...Wow that takes Horse power for sure . I never see anything you show what you do with your system or have I missed it while I been out working?
Like David (CP) says intel beats AMD in the numbers, but amd is way snappy. I agree. I played on an Intel monster as the local guy called it and to be honest I thought it was a tad on the slower side. But like I said its just numbers... Im sure code is and or written in software to favor one brand over another. Anyways just take what I said with a grain of salt 

And I'll continue having fun being SLOW as you say hahahahah


----------



## nt300 (Dec 6, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> Bahh your an idiot. You spend a grand on a cpu that you spend much of the time looking at girly postings in TGN section...Wow that takes Horse power for sure . I never see anything you show what you do with your system or have I missed it while I been out working?
> Like David (CP) says intel beats AMD in the numbers, but amd is way snappy. I agree. I played on an Intel monster as the local guy called it and to be honest I thought it was a tad on the slower side. But like I said its just numbers... Im sure code is and or written in software to favor one brand over another. Anyways just take what I said with a grain of salt
> 
> And I'll continue having fun being SLOW as you say hahahahah


Its been noted many times that Intel CPUs do much better in synthetic benchmarks and crapy in real world. AMD does just fine for a gaming system and costs a lot less. I do think Wile E uses the PC for more than just gaming to go and buy a $1000 CPU from a monopoly company


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 6, 2011)

I think Amd know everything there is to know about bd.  Including how to get 100% performance out of the thing.  But they won't ever let that happen because it'll be FLAME ON or crash and burn for your entire system.  The released version of bd probually is its only stable viable form....neutured for our own good.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 6, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Its been noted many times that Intel CPUs do much better in synthetic benchmarks and crapy in real world. AMD does just fine for a gaming system and costs a lot less. I do think Wile E uses the PC for more than just gaming to go and buy a $1000 CPU from a monopoly company


Thanks nt300. Im just pissn on wiles posting about being slow..and when he reads it he'll just shake his head and say here we go again :shadedshu. Thats why I said TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT lol but really click for click there is no difference imo. I prefer amd just because the fact they try and use the same sockets... Unlike intel and there BS change every week it seems. I priced out a competitive system to change over to intel but after looking at the costs involved I think I'll keep what I got and hammer down...With my current hardware Im getting some sweet ass numbers *bang for my buck* I spend my money donating it to medical research then line Intels pockets.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 6, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> Thanks nt300. Im just pissn on wiles posting about being slow..and when he reads it he'll just shake his head and say here we go again :shadedshu. Thats why I said TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT lol but really click for click there is no difference imo. I prefer amd just because the fact they try and use the same sockets... Unlike intel and there BS change every week it seems. I priced out a competitive system to change over to intel but after looking at the costs involved I think I'll keep what I got and hammer down...With my current hardware Im getting some sweet ass numbers *bang for my buck* I spend my money donating it to medical research then line Intels pockets.



This is so true! Intel has changed sockets quite a lot here lately! I am surprised that ivy bridge will be on 1155 and 2011 instead of new sockets for them.


----------



## erocker (Dec 6, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Its been noted many times that Intel CPUs do much better in synthetic benchmarks and crapy in real world.



Somebody call the BS police. Sorry man, you're way out of touch with reality here. Show me these "notes".  I can uderstand someone having an allegience to a company (I guess). I'm just going to say that AMD does just as bad in the "real world" than it does at synthetic benchmarks. Which is does.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 6, 2011)

well the socket swaps were due to intels expertise at money grabbing, amds no slouch there either but are slightly better at backwards compatabillity im still unsure what ill end up with but with 430uk pounds max and a 3xpciex requirement its probly gona be amd ponderin that 960t or BD

was it that bad in everyday use and gamein Erocker?


----------



## erocker (Dec 6, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> was it that bad in everyday use and gamein Erocker?



No, just not as good as a cheaper 2500K. Plus it took me quite a long time to keep the system from BSOD'ing due to issues due to the CPU. A few fixes in Win 7 took care of it. I felt that my PII 1100T was snappier/faster/etc. than the BD chip.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 6, 2011)

i take it the PII 1100T is no match for the 2500K, thinkin bout that 960T possibly unlocked?

i apologise for topic wanderin

AMD better have got better QC recently


----------



## nt300 (Dec 7, 2011)

erocker said:


> Somebody call the BS police. Sorry man, you're way out of touch with reality here. Show me these "notes".  I can uderstand someone having an allegience to a company (I guess). I'm just going to say that AMD does just as bad in the "real world" than it does at synthetic benchmarks. Which is does.


To each his own, it an unwritten fact that Intel CPUs are top of the list for companies to ensure compatibility, everybody else comes in 2nd to last. This and the unwritten fact synthetic benchmark utilities are targeted for Intel CPUs. But I speak of the gen of the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4 era...

We will agree to disagree


----------



## erocker (Dec 7, 2011)

nt300 said:


> To each his own, it an unwritten fact that Intel CPUs are top of the list for companies to ensure compatibility, everybody else comes in 2nd to last. This and the unwritten fact synthetic benchmark utilities are targeted for Intel CPUs. But I speak of the gen of the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4 era...
> 
> We will agree to disagree



No, I'll just go with fact and the knowledge from personal experiences.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 7, 2011)

So you sold your BD chip e? LaughingMan seems to like his...


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 7, 2011)

Kinda related.

Want to see performance difference with newer code.

Can people with CPUS with AVX cpus run this and let me know what their minimum and maximum frame rates are?

Just for reference I've been running it 1680x988 
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/vcsource-samples-avx-cloth/


----------



## Wile E (Dec 8, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> Bahh your an idiot. You spend a grand on a cpu that you spend much of the time looking at girly postings in TGN section...Wow that takes Horse power for sure . I never see anything you show what you do with your system or have I missed it while I been out working?
> Like David (CP) says intel beats AMD in the numbers, but amd is way snappy. I agree. I played on an Intel monster as the local guy called it and to be honest I thought it was a tad on the slower side. But like I said its just numbers... Im sure code is and or written in software to favor one brand over another. Anyways just take what I said with a grain of salt
> 
> And I'll continue having fun being SLOW as you say hahahahah



I encode shitloads of BD and Anime rips. The time saved was worth every penny.

And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.


----------



## Frick (Dec 8, 2011)

Wile E said:


> And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.



That stuff is bullcrap anyway.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 8, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I encode shitloads of BD and Anime rips. The time saved was worth every penny.
> 
> And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.



 To be fair though, you've got a beast!


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 9, 2011)

erocker said:


> No, just not as good as a cheaper 2500K. Plus it took me quite a long time to keep the system from BSOD'ing due to issues due to the CPU. A few fixes in Win 7 took care of it. I felt that my PII 1100T was snappier/faster/etc. than the BD chip.


Big time snappier. I Have my 1090T back in and the BD up for sale... It was fun to play with and learned a fair bit about it but I lean a tad towards lower hydro bills. The BD is like a blood sucker! It'll suck as much as it can if you alow it.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 9, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I encode shitloads of BD and Anime rips. The time saved was worth every penny.
> 
> And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.


You assume it's not snappier you haven't been on mine to compare. And didn't a wise man ever tell ya to never assume? Besides willy dont get you undies ruffled, I told ya to take it with a grain of salt


----------



## erocker (Dec 9, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> You assume it's not snappier you haven't been on mine to compare. And didn't a wise man ever tell ya to never assume? Besides willy dont get you undies ruffled, I told ya to take it with a grain of salt



Idk. Mine wasn't  It may have been more than my 1100t, but my 2500k really puts both to shame. I was really surprised with this chip.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 9, 2011)

erocker said:


> Idk. Mine wasn't  It may have been more than my 1100t, but my 2500k really puts both to shame. I was really surprised with this chip.


mabey its my other hardware making it snappy. I did play around on a friends 2600k with my gpu installed and really I never noticed a difference but it just seemed a tad slower opening up programs and such. I guess if my system sells Im debating grabbing a 2011 mobo and a 6 core intel chip but.... im kinda tossing up what to get for future proofing for at least 2 yrs. 2011/1155?


----------



## erocker (Dec 9, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> mabey its my other hardware making it snappy. I did play around on a friends 2600k with my gpu installed and really I never noticed a difference but it just seemed a tad slower opening up programs and such. I guess if my system sells Im debating grabbing a 2011 mobo and a 6 core intel chip but.... im kinda tossing up what to get for future proofing for at least 2 yrs. 2011/1155?



I'm not going to even think about it until the 22nm chips are out for 1155. Skt2011 is just too pricey for my needs.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 10, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> You assume it's not snappier you haven't been on mine to compare. And didn't a wise man ever tell ya to never assume? Besides willy dont get you undies ruffled, I told ya to take it with a grain of salt



No, I have only built, installed and tested at least a dozen different AMD setups for people. I actually build more AMD based systems for people than Intel, because they usually just need the basics, and AMD has better low end pricing and bundles available most of the time. I have built and tested 2 6 core AMD setups for friends that stubbornly insisted on it for a gaming setup over Intel.

Not a single one of them was "snappier" than my Intel machine.


----------



## trickson (Dec 10, 2011)

So when did AMD realize there chip was slower than Intel's Ivy bridge and slower in some respect to there Phenoms ?


----------

