# AMD Bulldozer A Surprisingly Sell-Out Sales Success. Victims: Phenom II & Athlon II



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

AMD's new Bulldozer "FX" series of processors may be very lacklustre performers in reviewer's benchmarks and have garnered considerable scorn in enthusiast circles, but they're a very good performer for AMD's bottom line. Incredibly, they are selling out as soon as shops get them in stock - and they are not even priced very competitively against Intel's offerings, so perhaps the "It's an 8 core CPU!!" marketing is working well on the uninformed "enthusiast" after all? Mind you, what enthusiast, however uninformed, wouldn't know exactly how these products perform? Every tech website and computer magazine has covered these chips by now. The mind boggles.






Unfortunately, the victims of this unwarranted success are the decent Phenom II & Athlon II processors, which have always been priced very well, giving good value for money and are good sellers. The reason is that the manufacturing plants share equipment between these old 45 nm products and the new 32 nm ones, creating a conflict between them, so one must go. It therefore makes sound business sense for AMD to discontinue selling the old product in favour of the new, expensive one which is flying off the shelves. AMD will stop shipping all Athlon II's and Phenom II's to distributors, but with one exception. The "Zosma" 6 core Phenom II X4 960T will continue to be available until stocks run dry. This has two cores disabled, making it a "quad" core CPU, but with luck they might be unlockable. To state the obvious, if one is considering buying one of these discontinued chips, then they'd better not wait long.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## xtremesv (Dec 3, 2011)

Sometimes it's a matter of brand loyalty or novelty curiosity. I value the performance of Intel's CPUs but I keep my sympathy to AMD (it was my first CPU).


----------



## Super XP (Dec 3, 2011)

It took me a while to pick up a FX-8120 at a great price. Anywhere you look, these things are selling out fast. They are not bad chips, just mis-understood 
Good move for AMD and consumers.


----------



## naoan (Dec 3, 2011)

Whatever the reason for this peculiarity, I hope this make Intel feels threatened.


----------



## JustaTinkerer (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> AMD's new Bulldozer "FX" series of processors may be very lacklustre performers in reviewer's benchmarks and have garnered considerable scorn in enthusiast circles, but they're a very good performer for AMD's bottom line




Hmmm




qubit said:


> It looks like the Bulldozer disaster might have been too much of a setback for AMD to recover from. After 30 years of competing with Intel in the x86 processor market, AMD is about to give up,




More Hmmm

Note: nothing to do with qubit posting both hes just copying news.
just incase I get flamed


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Dec 3, 2011)

Intel doesnt give a shit about what AMD does


----------



## D4S4 (Dec 3, 2011)

bulldozer lives!!!1!



i just had to.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 3, 2011)

The FX CPUs managed to beat even the i7-2600K in some benchmarks so I'm pretty sure that for some people the FX are a better buy. Heck, their gaming and general performance isn't bad. 

I don't get where all this disdain comes from. AMD always said that BD was aimed at Core i5 performance, they NEVER said that BD was going to tear Intel a new one but everyone and their mother assumed that when they branded the new CPUs as FX.

As I've stated in other threads about this, AMD's marketing is the weak link. They must have anticipated that by going by the FX name everyone's expectations would get up considerably, way waaaaaaaayyyy above reality,even if AMD ALWAYS stated that it wasn't the case.

And this is coming from an ATintel fanboy.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 3, 2011)

The AMD hate is strong with this news poster.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 3, 2011)

My FX-8150 runs great. I don't know what the issue was. The chip may benchmark like crap, but the only real issue is the latest BIOS broke my older Valve games. Lucky for me I gots the Skyrim and BF3 which run like butter baby.


----------



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

It could just mean supplies are limited, not that people are buying them at record levels, as their performance is crap.


----------



## GLD (Dec 3, 2011)

My first few rigs were Intel's, long ago. Then I built a oc'ed Barton 2500+ rig and there is no going back for me. AMD is my only choice.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 3, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> My FX-8150 runs great. I don't know what the issue was. The chip may benchmark like crap, but the only real issue is the latest BIOS broke my older Valve games. Lucky for me I gots the Skyrim and BF3 which like like butter baby.



That's what I mean. The suckers work, not as fine as people liked to imagine that they would, though, but  they don't have show stopping bugs or anything and their performance is good for most tasks. It isn't like your PC is being thrown back a decade or anything.


----------



## Kantastic (Dec 3, 2011)

AthlonX2 said:


> Intel doesnt give a shit about what AMD does



Wasn't the case back in the Athlon 64 days.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

ofcourse they are selling well. we the enthusiasts are the minority. too many people forget this


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> Unfortunately, the victims of this unwarranted success are the decent Phenom II & Athlon II processors, which have always been priced very well, giving good value for money and are good sellers.



AMD announced the discontinuation about a month before BD shipped, if I recall correctly. This decision has no direct correlation to their current status.


----------



## PaNiC (Dec 3, 2011)

fanboys are retards, they buy a bad product just because they don't like other company. The bulldozer will make more AMD fanboys then ever be for cause that's how fanboys starts, they buy a bad product, defend it and hate the other company for releasing something better.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 3, 2011)

limited supplies = easier to sell out & Hey I got an 8 core 
Still ...the bottom line is its your money, buy what ever makes you happy.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> As I've stated in other threads about this, AMD's marketing is the weak link. They must have anticipated that by going by the FX name everyone's expectations would get up considerably, way waaaaaaaayyyy above reality,even if AMD ALWAYS stated that it wasn't the case.



I think their weak link was letting a computer design a new processor from the ground up for them instead of just taking what they already had(Phenom II) and shrinking it to 32nm and adding 2 more cores.  They would have save themselves huge amounts of R+D money, and huge amounts of time that they could have used to get the processor out at least close to the launch of SandyBridge(or even earlier).  They might have even been able to get a processor out that competed with Sandybridge before Sandybridge was even out...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 3, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> My FX-8150 runs great. I don't know what the issue was. The chip may benchmark like crap, but the only real issue is the latest BIOS broke my older Valve games.* Lucky for me I gots the Skyrim and BF3 which like like butter baby*.


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> The AMD hate is strong with this news poster.



I don't actually hate AMD or any other company for that matter...  Except Rambus. Those f* patent trolls can crash and burn.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

PaNiC said:


> fanboys are retards, they buy a bad product just because they don't like other company. The bulldozer will make more AMD fanboys then ever be for cause that's how fanboys starts, they buy a bad product, defend it and hate the other company for releasing something better.



does being a loyal fan to AMD because Intel uses shady practices make me a fanboy? if so, I guess I can live with that. but if that is so then I can think of lots of names to call Intel fanboys...

I guess having morals costs me to miss out on some performance- I can live with that just fine. furthermore, it is because of AMD fanboys that AMD has stayed afloat all of these years which has influenced your precious Intel to keep it's ASPs much lower for the majority of their chips

I get disgusted with people with no backbone


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> does being a loyal fan to AMD because Intel uses shady practices make me a fanboy? if so, I guess I can live with that. but if that is so then I can think of lots of names to call Intel fanboys...
> 
> I guess having morals costs me to miss out on some performance- I can live with that just fine
> 
> I get disgusted with people with no backbone



It's my belief that AMD are no better than Intel ethically. They simply have either not been caught or didn't have the opportunity. In short, in Intel's shoes I think they'd be just as ruthless and underhanded, maybe even worse.

My suggestion is not to let these moral issues get in the way of you buying an Intel CPU to get better performance.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> It's my belief that AMD are no better than Intel ethically. They simply have either not been caught or didn't have the opportunity. In short, in Intel's shoes I think they'd be just as ruthless and underhanded, maybe even worse.
> 
> My suggestion is not to let these moral issues get in the way of you buying an Intel CPU to get better performance.



I tend to go with my gut especially upon seeing hard evidence laid bare

I also tend to go for the underdogs. besides if we were all Intel fans then all of our wallets would probably be fucked


----------



## PaNiC (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> does being a loyal fan to AMD because Intel uses shady practices make me a fanboy? if so, I guess I can live with that. but if that is so then I can think of lots of names to call Intel fanboys...
> 
> I guess having morals costs me to miss out on some performance- I can live with that just fine. furthermore, it is because of AMD fanboys that AMD has stayed afloat all of these years which has influenced your precious Intel to keep it's ASPs much lower for the majority of their chips
> 
> I get disgusted with people with no backbone



It takes bigger man to say he got ripped off then to defend it his whole life


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

PaNiC said:


> It takes bigger man to say he got ripped off then to defend it his whole life



nah, you are just short-sighted. refer to my last post

I live life with a backbone. screw anyone that pisses me off- they dont get my cash


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 3, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> That's what I mean. The suckers work, not as fine as people liked to imagine that they would, though, but  they don't have show stopping bugs or anything and their performance is good for most tasks. It isn't like your PC is being thrown back a decade or anything.



Yes, you're correct sir .

But

It's slower than even Phenom II in some or most tasks...


----------



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

ensabrenoir said:


> limited supplies = easier to sell out & Hey I got an 8 core
> Still ...the bottom line is its your money, buy what ever makes you happy.



exactly


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> In short, in Intel's shoes I think they'd be just as ruthless and underhanded, maybe even worse.



Well seeing as how they all exist to make a profit in the first place I don't see why this should be any surprise. Honestly, I may be overlooking some smaller, more-niched players but I think Steve Jobs is the only tech exec of late who truly gave a shit about something deeper and cooler than just the bottom line. Maybe Gabe Newell too...


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Well seeing as how they all exist to make a profit in the first place I don't see why this should be any surprise. Honestly, I may be overlooking some smaller, more-niched players but I think Steve Jobs is the only tech exec of late who truly gave a shit about something deeper than just the bottom line...



and that is exactly why Apple has always been so innovative. Steve would ask himself, what would I want as a consumer? more CEOs need to ask themselves the same question instead of being 'me toos'

a current example is the upcoming iPad. it will bring higher resolution to the masses cause no other company has the balls to do it. its too much about the bottom line to them. Apple will still prove that the bottom line can benefit from it though even with higher production costs


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2011)

qubit said:


> It's my belief that AMD are no better than Intel ethically. They simply have either not been caught or didn't have the opportunity. In short, in Intel's shoes I think they'd be just as ruthless and underhanded, maybe even worse.
> 
> My suggestion is not to let these moral issues get in the way of you buying an Intel CPU to get better performance.



I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.

They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.
> 
> They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.



sure they had $1k cpus. it was their top of the line product... they also had lower prices for other tiers. I recall that I didnt buy it at the time

but this is besides the point. Intel has been found guilty of illegal business practices internationally. AMD has always been guilty of trying to out-innovate


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> *and that is exactly why Apple has always been so innovative. *Steve would ask himself, what would I want as a consumer? more CEOs need to ask themselves the same question instead of being 'me toos'
> 
> a current example is the upcoming iPad. it will bring higher resolution to the masses cause no other company has the balls to do it. its too much about the bottom line to them. Apple will still prove that the bottom line can benefit from it though even with higher production costs



:shadedshu

I'm sorry, but you have just lost your credibility after saying that.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> :shadedshu
> 
> I'm sorry, but you have just lost your credibility after saying that.



I hate Apple and I have never owned any product made by Apple but at least I recognize their ability to make some good products


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> I hate Apple but at least I recognize their ability to make some good-looking products



Fixed.

Their only "innovations" would be these:
1) Aesthetics is now the most important aspect to consider
2) Macs are not PCs even though they are
3) Apple is always right, and you're wrong, so buy our products
4) Stiff competition? Sue competitors


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Fixed.
> 
> Their only "innovations" would be these:
> 1) Aesthetics is now the most important aspect to consider
> ...



they are mostly good at doing just that- I agree

but in this case they are pushing the 1080p boundary... the rest of the market is going to follow suit. how can you hate them for that?

I am only going to disagree with 1)

they do focus on aesthetics and in doing so have some credit for raising the standard of appearance in PCs


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 3, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


>



ummm, its called a typo. the first "like" should have been a "runs". Use your context clues like you were taught in the 3rd grade.



newtekie1 said:


> I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.
> 
> They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.



I don't remember an shady business practices? Being quick to charge $1k for a processor is business. If you didn't like the price, don't buy the chip. And I don't recall any under the table OEM deals what so ever.

I am not saying AMD is run by saints, I am just saying I don't remember any underhanded deals like Intel and the kick backs.


----------



## bulldozer (Dec 3, 2011)

i think that people need to not pay so much attention to synthetic benchmarks and the like. i guess if you want to pay the sort of money where you can squeeze three more fps than the guy that spent $300-$500 less than you because you like to brag about having the best rig that is one thing. in these days the thing that matters the most at least for gaming is the gpu. i have an average cpu from amd but a nice gpu from amd and can play everything pretty comfortably and the games look better than on consoles. that is enough for me. i guess if you are doing video encoding or something along those lines for a living or on more than a regular basis you would prefer intel and there is nothing wrong with that. but for most things i do the cpu isn't that relevant as long as it doesn't bottlekneck rest of my system and as long as you have a half decent cpu then you will be ok but unless you are spending $350 or more on your gpu i don't really see that most modern multi core systems can't do what most people want. 

proof is in the pudding amd sells crap loads of cpu's because of value. intel sells crap loads of i3's not because they are the best available but because they do what most people want without  breaking the bank. simple as that.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Dec 3, 2011)

bulldozer said:


> i think that people need to not pay so much attention to synthetic benchmarks and the like. i guess if you want to pay the sort of money where you can squeeze three more fps than the guy that spent $300-$500 less than you because you like to brag about having the best rig that is one thing. in these days the thing that matters the most at least for gaming is the gpu. i have an average cpu from amd but a nice gpu from amd and can play everything pretty comfortably and the games look better than on consoles. that is enough for me. i guess if you are doing video encoding or something along those lines for a living or on more than a regular basis you would prefer intel and there is nothing wrong with that. but for most things i do the cpu isn't that relevant as long as it doesn't bottlekneck rest of my system and as long as you have a half decent cpu then you will be ok but unless you are spending $350 or more on your gpu i don't really see that most modern multi core systems can't do what most people want.
> 
> proof is in the pudding amd sells crap loads of cpu's because of value. intel sells crap loads of i3's not because they are the best available but because they do what most people want without  breaking the bank. simple as that.



While I will agree people need to ignore synthetic benchmarks and what not, I can't discount some of the strange behavior BD has displayed. None of my Valve games work with the latest BIOS from GIGABYTE and I have heard the same from ASUS users. That simply should not happen. And the single threaded performance drop, while not noticeable in 99% of applications should not have happened either. The integer core itself seems to be the weakness in the design. While other things about the chip and its layout were drastically changed, the integer core itself was just shrank in size or at least that is all that should have happened. I am not sure what is different there, though I heard the rumors about the move away from hand crafting the chip transistor layout, so I can't say for sure.

In then end, my FX-8150 is overall better than my AMD PII 1100T. I think there is a lot to sort out in the BIOS/software and I think there is a lot of tweaking to be done with the chip itself especially inter-core communication. Design is solid, execution could use a lot of work and I don't think AMD's latest business moves were good ideas. I want to keep this short so I will stop there.


----------



## lashton (Dec 3, 2011)

These BD kill Xeons in data mining!


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> sure they had $1k cpus. it was their top of the line product... they also had lower prices for other tiers. I recall that I didnt buy it at the time
> 
> but this is besides the point. Intel has been found guilty of illegal business practices internationally. AMD has always been guilty of trying to out-innovate



Of course they had lower prices for other tiers, but  their processors were still overpriced.  Even in the areas that Intel was able to compete at, AMD was overpricing their processors because they had the lead.

And Intel might have been found guilty, but AMD did the same when they were in the lead.  They just didn't get called out on it because they were only in the lead for like 6-months.  But in that time, there was a huge shift in the OEMs towards AMD, ever wonder how that happened?  Once AMD had the money flow by being able to sell a high margins with higher volume thanks to being in the performance lead, they started throwing that money around to try and oust Intel the same way Intel was.  Shady deals with OEMs to exclude Intel from their products and all.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Of course they had lower prices for other tiers, but  their processors were still overpriced.  Even in the areas that Intel was able to compete at, AMD was overpricing their processors because they had the lead.
> 
> And Intel might have been found guilty, but AMD did the same when they were in the lead.  They just didn't get called out on it because they were only in the lead for like 6-months.  But in that time, there was a huge shift in the OEMs towards AMD, ever wonder how that happened?  Once AMD had the money flow by being able to sell a high margins with higher volume thanks to being in the performance lead, they started throwing that money around to try and oust Intel the same way Intel was.  Shady deals with OEMs to exclude Intel from their products and all.



they have never been found guilty of that in court so I will deduce that to a theory 

no I didnt wonder. it was because OEMs were impressed with AMD's performance. vendors want to offer their customers the best performance and value


----------



## clothoBuerocracy (Dec 3, 2011)

I love how in synthetic benchmarks the Bulldozer chips are falling behind but according to everyone I know that has a machine built around an FX Processor is absolutely in love with it. They are loving everything from more FPS in games to faster startup times. "No bad, just misunderstood" is definitely a good way to put it. I would love an 8150 in my machine. Not because of "8-CORE OMG" or "ENTHUSIAST-LEVEL PERFORMANCE" but because it is AMD's top of the line, and the most advanced technology they have put out in a while. Of course I'm loyal to AMD. I'm stuck with them. I spent 180 bucks on an AM3+ Motherboard. Might as well keep up with the times.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 3, 2011)

You pays yer money, you makes yer choice. 

Personally I buy the best bang for my buck, be it Intel or Amd. If Amd released a chip that is imo the best performance for my money at the time, i will buy that.

It is a bit anal to stick to one manufacturer, surely it is better to buy the best performance chip for your money, even if it means switching camps.


----------



## Baam (Dec 3, 2011)

PaNiC said:


> fanboys are retards, they buy a bad product just because they don't like other company. The bulldozer will make more AMD fanboys then ever be for cause that's how fanboys starts, they buy a bad product, defend it and hate the other company for releasing something better.



Just like all the people that bought the Pentium chips even though they performed like crap compared to AMD's chips.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

tigger said:


> It is a bit anal to stick to one manufacturer, surely it is better to buy the best performance chip for your money, even if it means switching camps.



I do venture to other companies that happen to one-up my favorites for pc components but when it comes to the cpu market we really dont have many options... Intel lost my mindshare due to their tactics so that kind of leaves me with AMD

many of us that support AMD are doing just fine with AMD's cpus. please answer me this: 
why would we have a reason to leave AMD if they can meet our needs and do so with good pricing?

I game on ultra settings with every game I play so I am not anywhere close to painting myself in a corner now am I?


----------



## clothoBuerocracy (Dec 3, 2011)

clothoBuerocracy said:


> _I love how in synthetic benchmarks the Bulldozer chips are falling behind but according to everyone I know that has a machine built around an FX Processor is absolutely in love with it. They are loving everything from more FPS in games to faster startup times. "No bad, just misunderstood" is definitely a good way to put it. I would love an 8150 in my machine. Not because of "8-CORE OMG" or "ENTHUSIAST-LEVEL PERFORMANCE" but because it is AMD's top of the line, and the most advanced technology they have put out in a while. Of course I'm loyal to AMD. I'm stuck with them. I spent 180 bucks on an AM3+ Motherboard. Might as well keep up with the times._



Screw that. Anyone wanna buy a nice AM3+ motherboard off of me?


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 3, 2011)

Well, in the end, we don't buy "better" cars just because they have the most horsepower or the most torque. Or the fastest acceleration. We also buy cars based on brand itself, even though they may be worse than competition. Me for example, i'm a loyal Hyundai user. It was the first car that i bought and now the second new one as well and i somehow feel attached to it. It doesn't have the most advanced engine, it doesn't have the most gadgets inside and there are other better looking cars. But i just somehow like it. It's the same with PC hardware really. You don't need some logical reason for the buy decision. What difference does it make 5 frames per second worse framerate in a game because of the "crappy CPU" like Bulldozer when you are already getting well over 60fps anyway with that spaking new Radeon card? But you do have the CPU that has 8 physical cores and maybe that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Or because of the AMD brand. We don't need any special reason to like one brand over another. So again why not? Honestly, if i was changing my system, i'd probably think about it. Sure Core i5 2500k is good but Bulldozer is not that bad, it's slightly cheaper and well, it's AMD. The first CPU that i bought with my own money. And it was the one that first reached 1GHz threshold. The rather famous AMD Athlon 1GHz aka Thunderbird. And that kinda leaves a mark. Also after reading how dirty Intel business practices were and still are, you just want to go rebel and support the other part, even though it's maybe not perfect in every way. I mean, look the other way around when Intel made the god awful Preshott CPU's. ppl were still buying them like crazy just because it was "Intel". It was hot and not particularly fast and they were still selling. Why!? Well, for the same reason AMD is selling Bulldozers despite not so stellar performance in synthetic benchmarks.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> they have never been found guilty of that in court so I will deduce that to a theory
> no I didnt wonder. it was because OEMs were impressed with AMD's performance. vendors want to offer their customers the best performance and value..[]...I tend to go with my gut especially upon seeing hard evidence laid bare


Yeah, me too. But then again my hard evidence is either before some peoples time, or not readily apparent due to blinkers.
Remember Randy Allen? Mr "40% better" 
or maybe showing around benchmarks of non-existant products ?
Surely you must remember Mr Fruehe's forum based viral marketing campaign over the last couple of years ? 


> Yes, we have said in public that IPC would be higher and single threaded performance will be higher. Anyone saying otherwise is either uninformed, or has a specific agenda.


Could pay to ditch the rose coloured glasses- they're bad for eyesight


Fx said:


> I also tend to go for the underdogs


You drive a Saturn and your FX sits in an ECS motherboard perhaps?


----------



## Vancha (Dec 3, 2011)

If Bulldozer's so commercially successful, what prompted them to move out of the x86 market?

It's certainly no bad thing that Bulldozer's selling. AMD and Intel fans alike should be happy about that.



entropy13 said:


> Their only "innovations" would be these:
> 1) Aesthetics is now the most important aspect to consider
> 2) Macs are not PCs even though they are
> 3) Apple is always right, and you're wrong, so buy our products
> 4) Stiff competition? Sue competitors



I feel wary saying anything on a tech forum, but just going from memory...

5) MP3 players were niche prior to the iPod.
6) Smartphones were...where? prior to the iPhone.
7) Tablets were the butt of jokes prior to the iPad.
8) The first decent touchscreens in wide use to my memory?
9) Apps. Hadn't been done as well before.
10) And in response to your no. 1...Have you seen Thermaltake's cases?!

/neverownedanappleproduct


----------



## Melvis (Dec 3, 2011)

This sounds like the P4, worst CPU ever made, but sold better then any CPU ever made LOL (in its time) if you get what i mean?


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

Vancha said:


> I feel wary saying anything on a tech forum, but just going from memory...
> 
> 5) MP3 players were niche prior to the iPod.
> 6) Smartphones were...where? prior to the iPhone.
> ...



excellent summary Vancha- that list looks pretty accurate to me. I was hoping I wasnt the only PC user that at least gives credit where it is due


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 3, 2011)

So what do AMD's sales of BD have to do with Apple? Nothing? I thought so. I won't bother going back to see what started that then.


----------



## Vancha (Dec 3, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> So what do AMD's sales of BD have to do with Apple? Nothing? I thought so. I won't bother going back to see what started that then.



This is why people shouldn't answer their own questions.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

HumanSmoke said:


> Yeah, me too. But then again my hard evidence is either before some peoples time, or not readily apparent due to blinkers.
> 
> Surely you must remember Mr Fruehe's forum based viral marketing campaign over the last couple of years ?
> 
> ...



I admit that I was among many people that got burned when I bought the PI X4 9500 with the TLB bug but I rode that one out until the PII X4 955. was I irrated, yes. was I mad? no, I was still able to game on ultra settings with no problems. what matters to you doesnt to others. I personally dont take marketing all that serious cause well, they are marketing... 

anyways, false marketing is no where near as bad as what Intel has done to their competition. I would have no problems with Intel if they practiced putting their competition into the dirt by sheer innovation

so cling to your 'hard evidence'. you have your reasons and I have mine. btw, your assumed stereotype is wrong. I dont drive saturns nor do I build with ECS. I drive a G37 and I prefer to build with Gigabyte and ASUS. I do not own an FX chip since I was waiting for a higher bin. now it looks like I am going to wait for PD



Damn_Smooth said:


> So what do AMD's sales of BD have to do with Apple? Nothing? I thought so. I won't bother going back to see what started that then.



perhaps you should start reading entire threads. yes, it got off topic for a second but it also got back on. it started from my response to statement that Steve Jobs gave a damn about his company's bottom line


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 3, 2011)

The reason is simple:

All the hype 6 months ago let OEM designers to design PCs for the Xmas season to be based on these chips. Prepurchase orders and production lines set up for these CPUs.

The question is whether the PCs themselves will actually sell, or stockpile on retailers shelves.

You bet AMD is discounting heavily in the OEM so that they dont switch mid production to an Intel product.

AMD are very lucky today they have their own socket... otherwise switching to Intel would be so much easier for the OEM.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 3, 2011)

Vancha said:


> 5) MP3 players were niche prior to the iPod.



They weren't niche. I doubt the DMCA would have been conceived, and the pioneering mp3 player company be forced to bankruptcy by the RIAA if they were. Even the group that created the mp3 format was threatened by them.



Vancha said:


> 6) Smartphones were...where? prior to the iPhone.



Used by people that needed their additional functions, usually executives or business owners. All Apple did was give the general public a phone with a lot of features they don't need. Hardly innovative there. Smartphones essentially became "fashion statements" rather than a useful application of technology.



Vancha said:


> 7) Tablets were the butt of jokes prior to the iPad.



Actually, no. There were more jokes made after the iPad came about.



Vancha said:


> 8) The first decent touchscreens in wide use to my memory?



Manufactured by LG! 



Vancha said:


> 9) Apps. Hadn't been done as well before.



Yes, they were called "programs" then, or even more simply, "software."



Vancha said:


> 10) And in response to your no. 1...Have you seen Thermaltake's cases?!



I owned two, although only one of them remains. What's your point here though? A lot of people bash Thermaltake for going with something "too extravagant", or in the words of Jeremy Clarkson, it's the "LOOK AT ME I'M SO FABULOUS" look. Which isn't exactly how Apple emphasizes their aesthetics in their products. Unless "sleek aluminum" can now be considered as such?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 3, 2011)

Vancha said:


> This is why people shouldn't answer their own questions.



I figured it would be better than sitting around waiting for you to tell me that this has nothing to do with Apple. 



Fx said:


> perhaps you should start reading the whole thread. yes, it got off topic for a second but it got back on. it started from my response to statement that Steve Jobs gave a damn about his companie's bottom line



I would have if I cared enough about Apple to do so. I don't though.

OT: Good for AMD. Maybe they can take this and invest the money in those new low end chips they're planning to produce. I wish them nothing but the best for their future.


----------



## Widjaja (Dec 3, 2011)

It's good to hear such a thing happening but.....

It's possibly the average consumer being conned into thinking 8 cores is better than 6 and the price you are paying for 8 initially is a steal.

The average consumer doesn't know squat about PCs and believes more is better.

Just like, say a late model V6 which puts out more power than a late model V8.
There is just a ring to having that higher number amongst people who do not know any better especially when there is a lack of knowledge about the actual performance output.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 3, 2011)

Widjaja said:


> It's good to hear such a thing happening but.....
> 
> It's possibly the average consumer being conned into thinking 8 cores is better than 6 and the price you are paying for 8 initially is a steal.
> 
> ...



We can't really do much about them though. I try my best though in a local site. It's one of the biggest places you can buy hardware, and they also have forums, so there's a "Help Me Build My Rig" thread there. Currently we try our best to help the "newcomers" avoid the OMFG 8 CORES ARE BETTER THAN 4 CORES!!! AMD R0X0RS!!! trap. The only times we recommend AMD are usually only in two situations: 1) needs are satisfied by a Llano setup; the integrated GPU can handle the games/reso the user wants to play. 2) look to upgrade a preexisting AMD platform, usually from (older) Athlons, to either the newer gen Athlons or Phenoms, or from an Ahtlon to a Phenom. But very rarely a Bulldozer (someone who got a 990FX board, for example, opted to go with a 6-core Thuban from his 4-core rather than get a Bulldozer CPU). The only time that someone would recommend a newcomer to get a Bulldozer is if they asked in the AMD section.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> They weren't niche. I doubt the DMCA would have been conceived, and the pioneering mp3 player company be forced to bankruptcy by the RIAA if they were. Even the group that created the mp3 format was threatened by them.
> 
> Used by people that needed their additional functions, usually executives or business owners. All Apple did was give the general public a phone with a lot of features they don't need. Hardly innovative there. Smartphones essentially became "fashion statements" rather than a useful application of technology.
> 
> ...



this post is thick with spin. I dont care to discuss why though



Damn_Smooth said:


> I would have if I cared enough about Apple to do so. I don't though.



nor do I, but when discussing a tech company it is easy to bring up another since after all... we are discussing technology...

I gotta admit though- I wish I hadnt replied cause this wasnt my intention


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 3, 2011)

Warning, Apple fanboys ahead!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> nor do I, but when discussing a tech company it is easy to bring up another since after all... we are discussing technology...



I guess the only parallel that I can draw between Apple and AMD is that they both overprice their under performing hardware. Even then, AMD is so far behind Apple in that aspect that I find it hard to compare them.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> this post is thick with spin. I dont care to discuss why though
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Don't care to discuss why"?

It's like changing your relationship status in facebook from "in a relationship" to "single" and when someone asks why, you'll reply "I don't want to talk about it." 

"I wish I hadnt replied cause this wasnt my intention"?

But you did reply. So you did change your intention, by replying. 

EDIT: Oh shucks, sorry about that. It wasn't my intention really to call you out about that. Oh wait.


----------



## Widjaja (Dec 3, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I guess the only parallel that I can draw between Apple and AMD is that they both overprice their under performing hardware. Even then, AMD is so far behind Apple in that aspect that I find it hard to compare them.



That's true.
With AMD, it's like, the performance isn't really that great but it's a bargain I suppose since I can't afford a decent Intel CPU.....

While with Apple, it's like WHOA that's expensive....I'm sure there is a good reason for it.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 3, 2011)

Widjaja said:


> That's true.
> With AMD, it's like, the performance isn't really that great but it's a bargain I suppose since I can't afford a decent Intel CPU.....
> 
> While with Apple, it's like WHOA that's expensive....I'm sure there is a good reason for it.



AMD fanboys are firm believers of this and for a short time (during their "dominant" period) they were also guilty of this. While Apple fanboys are guilty of this and this. Especially when Apple v. Microsoft comparisons crop up.


----------



## Vancha (Dec 3, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> "Don't care to discuss why"?
> 
> It's like changing your relationship status in facebook from "in a relationship" to "single" and when someone asks why, you'll reply "I don't want to talk about it."
> 
> ...


I think it's more a case that no one here should need the flaws in what you said pointed out (apart from possibly the point about Mp3 players, which I don't know enough about to evaluate).

I had a long post replying to every one of your points, but as Damn Smooth pointed out this is getting rather off-topic, and it'd have been a redundant response for most of the people who read it.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I guess the only parallel that I can draw between Apple and AMD is that they both overprice their under performing hardware. Even then, AMD is so far behind Apple in that aspect that I find it hard to compare them.



ahh, well I wasnt comparing them



entropy13 said:


> "Don't care to discuss why"?
> 
> It's like changing your relationship status in facebook from "in a relationship" to "single" and when someone asks why, you'll reply "I don't want to talk about it."



I had to laugh at this notion cause that would be really jacked up lol



entropy13 said:


> "I wish I hadnt replied cause this wasnt my intention"?



I was talking about my first initial reply to WrigleyVillain's statement about Steve Jobs. my reply kicked it off


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 3, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> AMD fanboys are firm believers of this and for a short time (during their "dominant" period) they were also guilty of this. While Apple fanboys are guilty of this and this. Especially when Apple v. Microsoft comparisons crop up.



I fit that mold nicely a couple months ago. Something occurred to wake me up. For the life of me I can't remember what it was though.


----------



## Vancha (Dec 3, 2011)

So again, any thoughts on why AMD are dropping x86 considering their products are supposedly flying off the shelves?

Edit: Sorry, not dropping..."Avoiding the high end", rather.


----------



## Widjaja (Dec 3, 2011)

Vancha said:


> So again, any thoughts on why AMD are dropping x86 considering their products are supposedly flying off the shelves?



From what I gather, AMD have been pushing for x64 for ages.
Since 939skt.
Hence their AMD64  badges.


----------



## Enmity (Dec 3, 2011)

I think one of the main reasons why the bulldozer cpus are selling so well is simply because so many people already have am3+ motherboards with the need for a reasonably priced cpu upgrade and can't be arsed selling everything to start fresh on an intel board, cpu and ram when they know intel is just going to scrap the cpu sockets and you'll have to start fresh again for the next upgrade.

On the flip side of this, this is why intels offerings are the more powerful solution, because they do keep changing sockets, not limiting themselves.

But back on topic..

I feel majority of people are aware of how bulldozer performs, but for those that already have a bulldozer ready set up it is the latest, best and most futureproof upgrade within their budget.

My budget right now is $0 lol, but if i was in a position to be getting a new cpu - since I am an enthusiast (a minority, like already mentioned in this thread) I would still sell up and start fresh with an i5/7 build though...oh to be part of the 5% who care about the nitty gritty huh?


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

Vancha said:


> So again, any thoughts on why AMD are dropping x86 considering their products are supposedly flying off the shelves?
> 
> Edit: Sorry, not dropping..."Avoiding the high end", rather.



I speculate that it is AMD's move to get some heat off of them

this way they will be able to continue building a high-end cpu if they want to and just say that they changed their mind upon an announcement of a new high-end cpu. they would have plenty of time to work on it cause no one would be expecting it from them

it seems they are focusing on the larger more profitable markets and APUs to me


----------



## NC37 (Dec 3, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> So what do AMD's sales of BD have to do with Apple? Nothing? I thought so. I won't bother going back to see what started that then.



Rumors are Apple almost went Llano for the last MacBook refresh. Strong chance they'll be considering Trinity (Bulldozer based) next year on account of Intel's lackluster graphics performance. 

You can only shove crap in consumer's faces so long till they realize faster crap, is still crap. Apple found out the hard way after the initial x86 switch. Consumers complained for GPU performance and they brought in NV low end chips. 

Just a cold hard fact, Intel cannot make GPUs right. They fail on hardware, and they fail on drivers. The difference between a Mac user and a PC user is about ~$500-$1000. For that extra cost, they have the right to be upset when their Mac can't run anything. It'll only take so long till it happens again and Apple is forced to reintroduce discrete in lowends. By then, the price ratio with AMD APUs will look mighty tempting.


----------



## de.das.dude (Dec 3, 2011)

PaNiC said:


> fanboys are retards, they buy a bad product just because they don't like other company. The bulldozer will make more AMD fanboys then ever be for cause that's how fanboys starts, they buy a bad product, defend it and hate the other company for releasing something better.



hey, you sound like one too you know?



qubit said:


> I don't actually hate AMD or any other company for that matter...  Except Rambus. Those f* patent trolls can crash and burn.


ORLY?...



qubit said:


> It's my belief that AMD are no better than Intel ethically. They simply have either not been caught or didn't have the opportunity. In short, in Intel's shoes I think they'd be just as ruthless and underhanded, maybe even worse.
> My suggestion is not to let these moral issues get in the way of you buying an Intel CPU to get better performance.


..haha qubit hates AMD LOL.



newtekie1 said:


> I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.
> They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.


back in those days, with high manufacturing costs, 1000$ isnt a shady for something that is kick ass.



Fx said:


> sure they had $1k cpus. it was their top of the line product... they also had lower prices for other tiers. I recall that I didnt buy it at the time
> 
> but this is besides the point. Intel has been found guilty of illegal business practices internationally.* AMD has always been guilty of trying to out-innovate*


so true. somehow i feel that intel closely observes AMD's mistakes and hence thats how they improve. i bet if AMD stayed shut for a couple of years, intel would be poop.



lashton said:


> These BD kill Xeons in data mining!






Fx said:


> I speculate that is was AMD's move to get some heat off of them
> 
> this way they will be able to continue building a high-end cpu if they want to and just say that they changed their mind upon an announcement of a new high-end cpu. they would have plenty of time to work on it cause no one would be expecting it from them
> 
> it seems they are focusing on the larger more profitable markets and APUs to me


this might be true. i dont think they will stop at AM3+. there will at least be an AM4.

they might go over completely to FM sockets and make more kick ass APUs there.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Dec 3, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Rumors are Apple almost went Llano for the last MacBook refresh. Strong chance they'll be considering Trinity (Bulldozer based) next year on account of Intel's lackluster graphics performance.


Strong graphics performance is a prerequisite that potential MacBook owners look for? When did this happen? 

Mac gaming must have come a long way lately -both in game selection and acceptance in polite Mac society.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 3, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Rumors are Apple almost went Llano for the last MacBook refresh. Strong chance they'll be considering Trinity (Bulldozer based) next year on account of Intel's lackluster graphics performance.
> 
> You can only shove crap in consumer's faces so long till they realize faster crap, is still crap. Apple found out the hard way after the initial x86 switch. Consumers complained for GPU performance and they brought in NV low end chips.
> 
> Just a cold hard fact, Intel cannot make GPUs right. They fail on hardware, and they fail on drivers. The difference between a Mac user and a PC user is about ~$500-$1000. For that extra cost, they have the right to be upset when their Mac can't run anything. It'll only take so long till it happens again and Apple is forced to reintroduce discrete in lowends. By then, the price ratio with AMD APUs will look mighty tempting.



And that makes Apple relevant to the sales of the FX series? And now Intel has something to do with it too?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 3, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> It could just mean supplies are limited, not that people are buying them at record levels, as their performance is crap.




Performance isn't crap, performance just isn't better than Intel's offerings. This isn't like when netburst came out and performance was physically worse than P3's



PaNiC said:


> fanboys are retards, they buy a bad product just because they don't like other company. The bulldozer will make more AMD fanboys then ever be for cause that's how fanboys starts, they buy a bad product, defend it and hate the other company for releasing something better.



So thats why Intel is so popular so many people bought P4's! I understand now  

To reiterate what do you classify as a bad product? Does bulldozer not accomplish the task that a computer is designed for? Does it fail in droves? Is it overly expensive? In all reality you could consider it a stepping stone. Phenom II's were still outperformed by Intel yet they were considered a "good" product, what makes Bulldozer different? It clocks well, power consumption is high, but I feel that is a first gen bug and will get worked out with new steppings, just like Phenom I and II. When someone points out a legitimate reason that Bulldozer is a "bad" product I will retract what I said, but until that point whats actually wrong with BD? 


Just to throw it out there Intel has had plenty of other "bad" products other than P4. They had there own TLB bug with i7, the 6 series chipsets, socket 423, the list goes on. Every company has fuck ups and in all honesty less the spectacular performance doesn't make a bad product in my book.


----------



## Vancha (Dec 3, 2011)

I think the problem is more that BD wasn't what AMD said it'd be, so people consider it a failure because it didn't accomplish what it was "supposed to" (or at least, what people were lead to believe it was supposed to).


----------



## Enmity (Dec 3, 2011)

Vancha said:


> I think the problem is more that BD wasn't what AMD said it'd be, so people consider it a failure because it didn't accomplish what it was "supposed to" (or at least, what people were lead to believe it was supposed to).



AMD might be just 800 million transistors short of their original performance expectations perhaps?  could have made a decent difference if they really did have the full count quoted originally - but then again, power consumption is already through the roof at 1.2 Billion.


----------



## PaNiC (Dec 3, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> hey, you sound like one too you know?


just say it. I GOT RIPPED OFF, you'll fell better and you wont be stuck buying under preforming trash. I'm currently running an AMD. So how am I a fanboy?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 3, 2011)

PaNiC said:


> just say it. I GOT RIPPED OFF, you'll fell better and you wont be stuck buying under preforming trash. I'm currently running an AMD. So how am I a fanboy?



How so? I have owned chips from everything except 1155 and for the lift of me could not tell you the difference in everyday life from a Phenom 910@3.8ghz to a Xeon X3440@4.2ghz. I have run most different K10h based chips and never had an underperformance issue nor did I have an issues with my post C2D Intel parts. Maybe you should leave benchmarks to the big kids and enjoy what you have.


----------



## lukcic (Dec 3, 2011)

With this article I got a suspicion that somebody wants to make this site to get more visits (with pissing off AMD or Intel fanboys and neutral people)....that's all


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 3, 2011)

PaNiC said:


> just say it. I GOT RIPPED OFF, you'll fell better and you wont be stuck buying under preforming trash. I'm currently running an AMD. So how am I a fanboy?



I don't feel ripped off ( cept a bsod I'm having but seems it's bios causing the issue)

An fx8120 is £25 more or so than a 1100t, sure the 1100t is 10% faster clock for clock but bulldozer overclocks 10% further even if you don't try hard, if you're patient you can get 20% higher clock speed than 1100t max overclock at a lower voltage.


So if you're an over clocker you're just paying for 2 extra cores really and the pricing is reasonable in that regard.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> this might be true. i dont think they will stop at AM3+. there will at least be an AM4.
> 
> they might go over completely to FM sockets and make more kick ass APUs there.



I really love what they are doing with APUs. I almost just bought a mini-ITX mobo to build an XBMC box but the software support isnt quite there yet but it is getting close since openELEC has stepped up to the plate. they are doing a lot of good things for the HTPC audience

the FM1 socket has plenty of power in it for the average joe that uses it for school, general usage. AMD is smart for putting more focus into these markets- it is already paying off and demand is only going to grow


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 3, 2011)

pile on the dirt why dont ya, i got qubits cards maked as a fanboy these days simples and im startin to think TPU is gettin a bias to its news, sort it out mods, you cant just constantly berate a company on here, unless its rambus that is

to me with my recent loss of my quad and mobo to disease( ok 1.55 volts on cpu might a killed it eventually) 476english pounds would buy me a crosshair v fx8150 and mem with enough slots for xfire a pcie ssd and the bonus gt240 for physx in one pc that should rock (needs 4xpciex though) if i go intel id have to spend a lot more just for enough pciex slots and marginal game bench increases


----------



## Magnum° (Dec 3, 2011)

For some people, a bulldozer CPU might be an excellent upgrade coming from a phenom triple or quadcore?

In the beginning of the year, I was in doubt : AMD/Intel. I finally bit the bullet and bought a core i2600K system. I haven't regretted it, my system hardly lost any value: it would cost you almost the same to buy a similar PC now, 9 months later. That's exceptional I think ;-)


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 3, 2011)

Magnum° said:


> For some people, a bulldozer CPU might be an excellent upgrade coming from a phenom triple or quadcore?
> 
> In the beginning of the year, I was in doubt : AMD/Intel. I finally bit the bullet and bought a core i2600K system. I haven't regretted it, my system hardly lost any value: it would cost you almost the same to buy a similar PC now, 9 months later. That's exceptional I think ;-)



Came from a 1055t and it's an upgrade for me, only bad thing is power consumption IMO.

Yeah it could be better but it's not shite.


----------



## Frick (Dec 3, 2011)

lukcic said:


> With this article I got a suspicion that somebody wants to make this site to get more visits (with pissing off AMD or Intel fanboys and neutral people)....that's all



Yes well it's qubit. Most of his "news" posts does that.


----------



## mik95xp (Dec 3, 2011)

"AMD's new Bulldozer "FX" series of processors may be very lacklustre performers in reviewer's benchmarks "

its not a lacklustre performer, as other people have noticed, it was able to beat intel's 2600k in some benchies, am i not right? you can only justify that it as a bad CPU if in every benchmark it performs under intel's 2600k, but to tell you, no they dont.... and those benchmarks are only in the reviewers point of view..

and another thing, why you seem so sad dear author?? why you not like it bro?? do you like amd to sink and be bankrupt?? to tell you if that will happen, all hell will break lose.... be happy with it, it should result positively for amd.. more R&D budget=more competetion, dont you like it???

peace out!


----------



## mik95xp (Dec 3, 2011)

> To reiterate what do you classify as a bad product? Does bulldozer not accomplish the task that a computer is designed for? Does it fail in droves? Is it overly expensive? In all reality you could consider it a stepping stone. Phenom II's were still outperformed by Intel yet they were considered a "good" product, what makes Bulldozer different? It clocks well, power consumption is high, but I feel that is a first gen bug and will get worked out with new steppings, just like Phenom I and II. When someone points out a legitimate reason that Bulldozer is a "bad" product I will retract what I said, but until that point whats actually wrong with BD?
> 
> 
> Just to throw it out there Intel has had plenty of other "bad" products other than P4. They had there own TLB bug with i7, the 6 series chipsets, socket 423, the list goes on. Every company has fuck ups and in all honesty less the spectacular performance doesn't make a bad product in my book.



you nailed it sir... i bet those guys that reacts with BD being sold out are hmm.. can i say fanboys?? BD buyers are also for their good, if it doesn't sell out, what will happen to amd?? less R&D budget, they can drop client products if it wont sell out right and may result in to an intel monopoly, and its a bad thing for everyone... so i dont get it why people are over reacting... T_T


----------



## de.das.dude (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> I really love what they are doing with APUs. I almost just bought a mini-ITX mobo to build an XBMC box but the software support isnt quite there yet but it is getting close since openELEC has stepped up to the plate. they are doing a lot of good things for the HTPC audience
> 
> the FM1 socket has plenty of power in it for the average joe that uses it for school, general usage. AMD is smart for putting more focus into these markets- it is already paying off and demand is only going to grow


what i thin AMD wants is, to take part in these growing markets, reap profits, and invest that in R&D for the mainstream. atleast that is what i would have done if i were the CEO.

APUs have literally no competition in the market.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 3, 2011)

imho BD is only weak on single threaded apps and i just went from 4 to 2 cores for my main rig and my god single threaded performance matters not i got 2 threads of slow hell runnin its poo ,i want more cores simples. and now , I hope the intel bummers out there donnt succeed in gettin PD scrapped as BD is flyin off shelves and PD can only be better


----------



## arthurs (Dec 3, 2011)

I am thinking about upgrading to Fx 8120-8150 too.

I have fx 6100@4,6 (H2O) in Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 with crossfireX4@HIS HD5750.

AMD rules my rig


----------



## qubit (Dec 3, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I think the fact that for the short time that AMD was in the lead, they resorted to all the "shady" business practices that Intel did is kind of proof of that.
> 
> They were just as quick to charge $1000 for their processors, and make shady under the table deals with OEMs.



Indeed. Give or take a bit, most companies are all as bad as each other. 




de.das.dude said:


> ORLY?...



Oh yeah, I really hate Rambus. You betcha!



arthurs said:


> I am thinking about upgrading to Fx 8120-8150 too.
> 
> I have fx 6100@4,6 (H2O) in Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 with crossfireX4@HIS HD5750.
> 
> AMD rules my rig


Dude, fill out your system specs! It's cool to share on TPU... and welcome to TPU!


----------



## bpgt64 (Dec 3, 2011)

I think AMD realizes that the average user, and gamer isn't going to notice any difference.   Some games are more CPU limited, but even then, the difference is marginal.  It's a sizable margin by the standards of this board.  But we tend to forget that AMD probably cares more about making there chips more profitable, than any performance crown.  

I mean really, there's about 1% of the CPU buying population that gives two shits that Intel has a super high end 1k dollar chip that's faster than everything else out there.  Which makes a difference...never in the average users life.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> they have never been found guilty of that in court so I will deduce that to a theory
> 
> no I didnt wonder. it was because OEMs were impressed with AMD's performance. vendors want to offer their customers the best performance and value



Ah, I see.  So when Intel was in the lead and all the OEMs were using them, it was all down to shady business practices, but when AMD is in the lead the OEMs were just using them because AMD was in the lead?  Makes sense...


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 3, 2011)

This is just a PR stunt. AMD fanboys are like Apple fanboys... tell them "less is more" (ie 600 million fewer transistors) and tell them it is selling out (ie buy now before queues get really long)... and sheeple will buy it like a Barista buys his iPad.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Ah, I see.  So when Intel was in the lead and all the OEMs were using them, it was all down to shady business practices, but when AMD is in the lead the OEMs were just using them because AMD was in the lead?  Makes sense...



holy shit man! are you so quick to forget what Intel  has been charged with and some cases found guilty of? selective memory maybe? here is some links that I pulled up on the first google pages since you are too lazy to investigate- take your pick:

*European Union*
http://www.economist.com/node/13649063
http://seethirty.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/intel-found-guilty-of-criminal-sales-tactics-against-amd/
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1280059/microsoft-and-intel-fight-eu-lawsuits-just-as-antitrust-policies-in-the-us-get-tougher
http://www.osnews.com/story/21468

*New York Attorney General*
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/04/technology/cuomo_sues_intel_antitrust/index.htm
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/new-york-ag-files-antitrust-charges-against-intel-alleges-bribery-coercion/26903

*South Korea*
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-09-11-270351916_x.htm
http://www.telecomseurope.net/content/regulators-charge-intel-antitrust-violation-south-korea

that is probably about half of it but it is a good start... you need to learn to look up some facts before going all out with assumptions...


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 3, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> This is just a PR stunt. AMD fanboys are like Apple fanboys... tell them "less is more" (ie 600 million fewer transistors)





You realise that it is actually a good thing right?

2 billion transistor bulldozer = epic fail.

1.2 billion transistor bulldozer = only slightly under performing.

Pretty much puts it precisely in line with phenom architecture ( I.E phenomx6 + two more cores is 1.26 billion)


The main problem is the IPC loss and crazy power draw. Hopefully both if which get fixed further down the line.


----------



## Fx (Dec 3, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> You realise that it is actually a good thing right?
> 
> 2 billion transistor bulldozer = epic fail.
> 
> 1.2 billion transistor bulldozer = only slightly under performing.



yep, simple math


----------



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

Kind of boggles my mind, that people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars, even though they don't know how it performs against it's competition. I think most people that bought it are people who had an AMD-motherboard, and didn't feel like swapping both CPU and motherboard.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 3, 2011)

Super XP said:


> It took me a while to pick up a FX-8120 at a great price. Anywhere you look, these things are selling out fast. They are not bad chips, just mis-understood
> Good move for AMD and consumers.



You would pick up an AMD chip giving how sucky they are compared to the i7 chips. And no, they arent misunderstood, just you.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Dec 3, 2011)

Exactly the 1,2 bil figure is much more in line with the current performance. I was shocked when I first heard the 2 bil figure and saw the performance...


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 3, 2011)

Fx said:


> does being a loyal fan to AMD because Intel uses shady practices make me a fanboy? if so, I guess I can live with that. but if that is so then I can think of lots of names to call Intel fanboys...
> 
> I guess having morals costs me to miss out on some performance- I can live with that just fine. furthermore, it is because of AMD fanboys that AMD has stayed afloat all of these years which has influenced your precious Intel to keep it's ASPs much lower for the majority of their chips
> 
> I get disgusted with people with no backbone



Shady business practices by intel? How about AMD? What about calling their first quad cores "true" quad cores yet it still couldnt beat intels quad cores in performance. Thats shady. 

I also dont believe the fact that because of AMD fanboys that AMD is still afloat. The only reason they are still afloat is because they bought out ATI so they have some money to fall back on. Their CPU's become worse and worse and i dont see a fix with that anytime soon. They keep making CPU's because thats what they do and will continue to do so until they are bankrupt and I honestly think that if it wasnt because of the buyout of ATI a few years back, they would be filing Chapter 11 pretty soon.

Im not Intel fanboy because Ive owned both sides of the fence. I just go were the performance is better.


----------



## Disruptor4 (Dec 3, 2011)

I remember reading somewhere that the majority of the reviews were using an old BIOS revision or something that was hampering performance a little bit.
The person was showing examples of bulldozer on different mobo's and they were performing a hell of a lot better than the supplied review hardware or something.
If I can find the link I'll post it.


----------



## Thefumigator (Dec 4, 2011)

Disruptor4 said:


> I remember reading somewhere that the majority of the reviews were using an old BIOS revision or something that was hampering performance a little bit.
> The person was showing examples of bulldozer on different mobo's and they were performing a hell of a lot better than the supplied review hardware or something.
> If I can find the link I'll post it.



I think one good read to consider about "strange things about bulldozer" is the one in techreport, where they test the scheduling thing, and what it shows is quite interesting. In theory if the OS fixes scheduling the thing may go better in double, triple, and quad threaded tasks.


----------



## trickson (Dec 4, 2011)

Well you can polish a turd all you like , In the end all you have is a shinny piece of shit .


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 4, 2011)

You know 2 b honest .....I might get 1..... when the price drops under $200.   It will go nicely along with my minidisc recorder/player & laser disc player.  Great conversation pieces....... and 6 years from now when its fully optimized...


----------



## PaNiC (Dec 4, 2011)

http://lenzfire.com/2011/12/amd-bul...-but-released-at-an-inappropriate-time-88199/
here is something for the AMD fanboys


----------



## cdawall (Dec 4, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Ah, I see.  So when Intel was in the lead and all the OEMs were using them, it was all down to shady business practices, but when AMD is in the lead the OEMs were just using them because AMD was in the lead?  Makes sense...



Well I feel like they both have some shady business practices. Intel however still rules the pc market the only class AMD owns is sub $400 and even then its not by much. 



trickson said:


> Well you can polish a turd all you like , In the end all you have is a shinny piece of shit .



What's the turd? If the performance does go up substantially due to bugs and multithreading it will be no difference from P4 HT sucking and i7 HT being good.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Dec 4, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> You know 2 b honest .....I might get 1..... when the price drops under $200.   It will go nicely along with my minidisc recorder/player & laser disc player.  Great conversation pieces....... and 6 years from now when its fully optimized...



zing


----------



## MarcusTaz (Dec 4, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I think their weak link was letting a computer design a new processor from the ground up for them instead of just taking what they already had(Phenom II) and shrinking it to 32nm and adding 2 more cores.  They would have save themselves huge amounts of R+D money, and huge amounts of time that they could have used to get the processor out at least close to the launch of SandyBridge(or even earlier).  They might have even been able to get a processor out that competed with Sandybridge before Sandybridge was even out...




rock on dude!


----------



## Edgarstrong (Dec 4, 2011)

I have just ordered a 960T for my GF's new PC. Seems to offer an incredible price/performance ratio at only €95. Low TDP as well.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 4, 2011)

Edgarstrong said:


> I have just ordered a 960T for my GF's new PC. Seems to offer an incredible price/performance ratio at only €95. Low TDP as well.




Yeah I was tempted to get one instead of my fx cpu, some of them do 4ghz on stock voltage : ]

Also some of them unlock the two additional cores, definitely a bargain!


----------



## MikeMurphy (Dec 4, 2011)

Not optimized?

Don't build something that doesn't perform properly out of the box, then point fingers at others as to causes for the lackluster performance.

NOBODY at AMD laised with Microsoft on this issue before BD was released??!?  This should have been solved on launch day.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 4, 2011)

MikeMurphy said:


> Not optimized?
> 
> Don't build something that doesn't perform properly out of the box, then point fingers at others as to causes for the lackluster performance.
> 
> NOBODY at AMD laised with Microsoft on this issue before BD was released??!?  This should have been solved on launch day.



Should have been solved before launch day. Lackluster BIOS performance is common on all chips. The Windows issue is as it has always been Windows is Intel/NV optimized as it has been for like ever. Those two hold the majority of sales hence more performance tweaks are done in their favor. AMD does not have the R&D nor the insiders to compete like that.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 4, 2011)

Disruptor4 said:


> I remember reading somewhere that the majority of the reviews were using an old BIOS revision or something that was hampering performance a little bit.
> The person was showing examples of bulldozer on different mobo's and they were performing a hell of a lot better than the supplied review hardware or something.
> If I can find the link I'll post it.



No need having BD my self I can tell you with my current bios version it down-clocks whilst under-load, so whilst I've set my cpu to 4.4 it bounces between that and 3ghz.

That could affect bench mark performance quite the fair bit I imagine!


By the way if anyone wants any specific bench marks done ( including disabling one module per core and doing benchmarks) send me a message, I'm unemployed so have the time.

I won't go over 1.4v though other wise my psu will probably kill me.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 4, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> You would pick up an AMD chip giving how sucky they are compared to the i7 chips. And no, they arent misunderstood, just you.


I already purchased a Crosshair V Formula, there was no way I was going to sell that mobo, lose on it and pick up a more expensive Intel Platform. get my drift


----------



## qubit (Dec 4, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I already purchased a Crosshair V Formula, there was no way I was going to sell that mobo, lose on it and pick up a more expensive Intel Platform. get my drift



That's a big investment, I'm not surprised you didn't want to lose on it.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 4, 2011)

Same here, pre-emptively bought a 990fx board, sure an intel rig could potentially smash mine into the ground at single threaded tasks but bulldozer is still an upgrade over my 1055t.


----------



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

there should be a poll about are you satisfied with your bulldozer setup.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 4, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> there should be a poll about are you satisfied with your bulldozer setup.



TBH aside from bios bugs I'm happy.

It's not a huge upgrade but it definitely is an upgrade.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 4, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I already purchased a Crosshair V Formula, there was no way I was going to sell that mobo, lose on it and pick up a more expensive Intel Platform. get my drift




To be completely honest if anyone from Amd surfs these forums, they should personally see to it you get a chip for the way you tirelessly defend the brand.   Your doing a better job than they are.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 4, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> To be completely honest if anyone from Amd surfs these forums, they should personally see to it you get a chip for the way you tirelessly defend the brand.   Your doing a better job than they are.


What can I say I like the underdog. I also like fair competition and we all know without competition the CPU industry will go the way of the dodo bird


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 4, 2011)

theirs plenty of fanboys about well noted mr intel lol jk

as ive said before if you upgrade less often and skip generations etc and are not a yearly spec jumper the leaps in performance actually happen, neither companys making it very easy these days for me to favour in either performance or value as my q6600 once did but ill get the best i can with my meager resources and its going to be AMD if i had 1500-2000 id go intel but ive not ,many havent and hence AMD will do well with its FX chips i cant wait for the retrospective reviews in 2 years sayin they wernt as bad as all that when optimised for tho


----------



## Super XP (Dec 4, 2011)

Here is my upgrade path. This is my gaming PC where as for my notebooks I always bought Intel CPU's.

Socket A - Athlon XP
Socket 754 - Skipped
Socket 939 - Athlon 64 
Socket 940 - Skipped
Socket AM2 - Skipped
Socket F - Skipped
Socket AM2+ - Phenom II x4
Socket AM3 - Skipped
Socket AM3+ - AMD FX-8120
Socket FM2 - Future Piledriver?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 4, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Here is my upgrade path. This is my gaming PC where as for my notebooks I always bought Intel CPU's.
> 
> Socket A - Athlon XP
> Socket 754 - Skipped
> ...



Gotta mix it up. I am just listing all if i had one of each type of chip.

Socket A - Athlon XP
Socket 478 - ALL
Socket 754 - ALL
Socket 939 - ALL
LGA 775 - ALL
Socket 940 - FX51
Socket AM2 - ALL
Socket F - Opteron X2/X4
Socket AM2+ - ALL
Socket AM3 - ALL
LGA 1366 - several i7 920
LGA 1156 - Xeon X3440, ES chips
Socket AM3+ - waiting
Socket FM2 - waiting

I might have missed some. I want to see something happen with these new chips before I snag one. I am tired of guinea pigging BIOS's. I had my foot in with Asus on the Crosshair II, III, IV boards and major BIOS fuck ups not doing that again someone else can figure out all the mess ups.


----------



## Initialised (Dec 4, 2011)

Intel has the same problem as AMD with SB-E. LinX performance (not HT/AVC optimised) 5GHz i7 2600K = 60GFLOPS vs 5GHz 7i 3930K ~100GFLOPS so there's 40% extra available from an extra pair of CPU cores with almost double the power dray btw. But outside of HPC and enthusiast benchmarking/stress testing/number-crunching applications there's very little gain to be had in going beyond a non HT quad core until developers learn how to exploit parallelism this wont change. So the final reason for getting an 8-Core is that when software catches up it will perform better than it does now.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 4, 2011)

Super XP said:


> I already purchased a Crosshair V Formula, there was no way I was going to sell that mobo, lose on it and pick up a more expensive Intel Platform. get my drift



That is why you dont preemptively buy computer parts without first knowing how something performs. Then you dont get stuck in a position like that.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 4, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> That is why you dont preemptively buy computer parts without first knowing how something performs. Then you dont get stuck in a position like that.


True, but I always knew deep down inside that I had the PII x6 to fall back on if anything. Plus at the time the Crosshair V was on sale for super cheap, it was something I couldn't refuse. But that said, I believe I made the right choice, seeing how much I enjoy the FX-8120 and it's performance over my previous PII x4 setup.


----------



## qubit (Dec 4, 2011)

Super XP said:


> True, but I always knew deep down inside that I had the PII x6 to fall back on if anything. Plus at the time the Crosshair V was on sale for super cheap, it was something I couldn't refuse. But that said, I believe I made the right choice, seeing how much I enjoy the FX-8120 and it's performance over my previous PII x4 setup.



I think seeing 8 hardware threads in Task Manager is enough to give most enthusiasts a nerdgasm. 

Ultimately, if the product makes you happy, that's much more important than whether it wins benchmarks or is "rated" by the world at large.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 4, 2011)

qubit said:


> I think seeing 8 hardware threads in Task Manager is enough to give most enthusiasts a nerdgasm.
> 
> Ultimately, if the product makes you happy, that's much more important than whether it wins benchmarks or is "rated" by the world at large.



Id rather have it make me happy and win in the benchmarks.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 4, 2011)

qubit said:


> I think seeing 8 hardware threads in Task Manager is enough to give most enthusiasts a nerdgasm.



Imagine.....8 core intel with ht....id have my task manager spread across 3 monitors......


----------



## xenocide (Dec 4, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Id rather have it make me happy and win in the benchmarks.



I think most people would.  Bulldozer's "8-Core" design is misleading on so many levels.  For me it comes down to when I can get the best performance for a decent price the earliest.  I had a Q6600, and almost upgraded to either a Phenom II X4 or X6, but decided to wait for SB.  I paid slightly more for a significantly better setup back in March.  Fast forward to October when BD launches, and it's sometimes better than SB, but mostly worse, and costs about the same unless you already had a 990 mobo.

So what's more worth it, having something that costs about the same and usually performs better 6+ months earlier, or supporting the underdog who refused to release any benchmarks before launch and used misleading marketing tactics?  I know I won't be able to convince people who are devout AMD fans that BD isn't that great, but as someone who has used products from both companies and spend a lot of time researching my purchases, BD was a disappointment.


----------



## Thefumigator (Dec 5, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Imagine.....8 core intel with ht....id have my task manager spread across 3 monitors......



Imagine a quad G34 with 16 core-opterons on each socket.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 5, 2011)

Thefumigator said:


> Imagine a quad G34 with 16 core-opterons on each socket.



I was impressed by my 4x4 socket F server a quad G34 would be crazy.


----------



## kyussgr (Dec 5, 2011)

Come on guys... Whether you are an Intel funboy or not it doesn't matter..... EVERYBODY should be happy that AMD is doing well.... MONOPOLY is bad for us consumers. It doesn't matter if AMD's revenues come out of the uninformed or the misinformed its in our interest that AMD survives.

And I don't want to hear the same silly things that I read in the forums 'that competition doesn't drive Intel's effort' of course it does..... What do you think that Intel is a charitable institute??? Intel has learned its lesson with the previous AMD FX range. They now know that the game can change overnight in the next quarter or within the next year that's why it is trying so hard.... 

It has not been such a successful year for Intel either - don't forget the 6-series motherboard disaster early this year - it cost them over a billion.....

....and they see that the industry is slowly pulling away from them. Windows for ARM, Apple is rumored that will switch to ARM for laptops.... etc

Lastly this is for the gamers.... whether you have an i5 an i7 an 8120 or an 8150 most of the games today are console ports.. The processor doesn't matter. High end PC games like BF3 rely almost solely on the graphics cards.... So don't go mad about the people that choose AMD.... in any case the overall windows experience will be pretty much the same....

PS....I have an Intel CPU


----------



## werez (Dec 5, 2011)

Now there`s your problem !


----------



## trickson (Dec 5, 2011)

The reason they are selling so well is because they are being sold so cheep . You can bet your bottom dollar that if AMD had a CPU that killed Intel's line AMD would have the price as high as Intel's . It really is a matter of performance . They are under performers , Less than Intel's offering so the price has to be lower ! I can tell you this is NOT about performance at all . It is about PRICE and since the price is right who could pass it up ? The home user could care less about how well it performs just so long as the price is right ! For most of the people after the high end market the BD will not do ! So Intel will win that segment .


----------



## nt300 (Dec 5, 2011)

Your logic makes sense. AMD would sell Bulldozer within the right price/performance ratio. If say Bulldozer blew awway Intel's current offerings then Bulldozer would still sell very well.


----------



## xkche (Dec 5, 2011)

Time ago, ask in the store for a processor, and the only recomendation are a INTEL. No matter if it was a (hot) P4... INTEL are better!!. Even my uncle, seller of PC's, only recomended me INTEL.

Now... the retailers have the image created for AMD about "Bulldozer", and the best recomendation that they give are the Buldozer (i guess).

But, in the end, if you want/need a FX, buy it. If you want/need a Intel.. buy it!.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 6, 2011)

xkche said:


> Time ago, ask in the store for a processor, and the only recomendation are a INTEL. No matter if it was a (hot) P4... INTEL are better!!. Even my uncle, seller of PC's, only recomended me INTEL.
> 
> Now... the retailers have the image created for AMD about "Bulldozer", and the best recomendation that they give are the Buldozer (i guess).
> 
> But, in the end, if you want/need a FX, buy it. If you want/need a Intel.. buy it!.


It all comes down to Price/Performance, and your wallet, and how much are you willing to spend on a CPU. Personally I rather pay less for a CPU and use that extra savings toward a high end Graphics Card  CPU's make almost little difference in real world gaming. And synthetic gaming benchmarks are completely useless.


----------



## xkche (Dec 6, 2011)

super xp said:


> ...and synthetic gaming benchmarks are completely useless. :d



+1


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 6, 2011)

Im glad to see the bulldozer is such a hit with the ppl. I was skeptic after reading the reviews but waited till the price dropped a tad before jumping on-board. It has been alot of fun toying with the 8150. The ppl are seeing that the reviews are nothing but bullshit in most cases. Sure its a wattage hog but who cares, get water to keep cool. My opinion... I still have my 1090T in the closet and cant see it seeing the light of day till and or if this thing blows up 

Clock it up ppl and enjoy


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 6, 2011)

yeh but they visualize a new purchases worth init, theirs nowt like doubling fps in 3dmark11 for example


----------



## kyussgr (Dec 6, 2011)

fullinfusion said:


> Im glad to see the bulldozer is such a hit with the ppl. I was skeptic after reading the reviews but waited till the price dropped a tad before jumping on-board. It has been alot of fun toying with the 8150. The ppl are seeing that the reviews are nothing but bullshit in most cases. Sure its a wattage hog but who cares, get water to keep cool. My opinion... I still have my 1090T in the closet and cant see it seeing the light of day till and or if this thing blows up
> 
> Clock it up ppl and enjoy



I must admit that I am a sucker for multicore cpus, there is something very compelling about them. Somehow nowadays 4 cores sound.... few....

But the power consumption of this stepping is 'socket melting', especially under load. I leave my system ON 24/7 and this simply won't do. Also after an accident with watercooling in the past, I can't see myself having a system on water 24/7 without developing an obsessive compulsion to constantly check if anything is leaking  

Maybe the next stepping will be more efficient, and hopefully it will support PCIe 3.0..... 
Then I might reconsider


----------



## nt300 (Dec 6, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> yeh but they visualize a new purchases worth init, theirs nowt like doubling fps in 3dmark11 for example


No, you get what you pay for an right now these FXs are selling for good price. AMD must be making huge profits by selling quantity.

Ask youselfs this, if Phenom didn't exist, would Bulldozer have been a success? For me I wait for Piledriver, my current PII is clocking away just fine at the moment.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 6, 2011)

nt300 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by theoneandonlymrk
> yeh but they visualize a new purchases worth init, theirs nowt like doubling fps in 3dmark11 for example
> 
> ...



maybe i wasnt clear i was talking about benches and benchmarking

but besides that id agree with you if i got what you mean"if phenom didnt exist,would,ve bulldozer have been a success" ,yes as amd seems to price their skus accordingly at all times to keep them selling well as would i but i agree you get what you pay for except when your swapping with each next step up as then the 10-20% performance increase cant offset the cost relative to value(use made theroff) imho irregular step ups net smiles is my experience


----------



## nt300 (Dec 6, 2011)

In the AMD FX OC'ers thread its been concluded that Bulldozer underclocks itself when under load due to AMD's application management thingy. Check it out in that thread, this could also be another issue with Bulldozer's performance.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2011)

nt300 said:


> In the AMD FX OC'ers thread its been concluded that Bulldozer underclocks itself when under load due to AMD's application management thingy. Check it out in that thread, this could also be another issue with Bulldozer's performance.



Just imagine if all those poor benchmarks turn out to be due to a little software bug like this - it would be a sensation. Unfortunately, while there might be some truth to it, the problem would have been discovered and fixed by now, as AMD having to reduce the price on it is costing them millions.


----------



## erocker (Dec 6, 2011)

qubit said:


> Just imagine if all those poor benchmarks turn out to be due to a little software bug like this



It's not. On many motherboards APM can be disabled. There's no magical software fix for BD and there won't be.


----------



## qubit (Dec 6, 2011)

erocker said:


> It's not. On many motherboards APM can be disabled. There's no magical software fix for BD and there won't be.



I know, as I explained in the rest of my post.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 6, 2011)

erocker said:


> It's not. On many motherboards APM can be disabled. There's no magical software fix for BD and there won't be.



Move over fountain of youth , atlantis. And. Shangerla(no spell check on not so smart phone)
There is a new quest emerging.....

THE FIX...... FOR BULLDOZER!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 6, 2011)

ever the pessimists i thought a win7 patch was due im not thinking it a holy grail patch or nowt but thatll net 1-2%improvement


----------



## nt300 (Dec 7, 2011)

erocker said:


> It's not. On many motherboards APM can be disabled. There's no magical software fix for BD and there won't be.


I am not blaming this as being the culprit with how it performs but it is something to consider because it happening right now with many users. Some motherboards you can disable this feature and others you cannot. 
And yes I believe there is a fix for Bulldozer and it called Piledriver that it said to be about 20% to 30% improvement over the current FX. 

Software fix? Yes the fix is when the software catches up with the hardware.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111026223104_AMD_Expects_Trinity_tffer_20_30_Performance_Increase.html


> AMD projects Trinity's Piledriver x86 cores to offer up to 20% higher performance compared to Husky x86 cores inside Llano.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 7, 2011)

nt300 said:


> I am not blaming this as being the culprit with how it performs but it is something to consider because it happening right now with many users. Some motherboards you can disable this feature and others you cannot.
> And yes I believe there is a fix for Bulldozer and it called Piledriver that it said to be about 20% to 30% improvement over the current FX.
> 
> Software fix? Yes the fix is when the software catches up with the hardware.
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111026223104_AMD_Expects_Trinity_tffer_20_30_Performance_Increase.html




Said to be 20 to 30% improvement..... amd the source.......yep totally believeble....the main question is will tjey mailing out those missing transistor to everyone who bought bd and will.Pd have ...


Not hating..... it is what it is.  Its yours....enjoy it. Nothing to prove to anyone


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 7, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Said to be 20 to 30% improvement..... amd the source.......yep totally believeble....the main question is will tjey mailing out those missing transistor to everyone who bought bd and will.Pd have ...
> 
> 
> Not hating..... it is what it is.  Its yours....enjoy it. Nothing to prove to anyone



Aren't they the ones that said we'd get up to 50% more performance over the i7s...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> aren't they the ones that said we'd get up to 50% more performance over the i7s...


. 

Maybe


----------



## xenocide (Dec 7, 2011)

nt300 said:


> And yes I believe there is a fix for Bulldozer and it called Piledriver that it said to be about 20% to 30% improvement over the current FX.
> 
> Software fix? Yes the fix is when the software catches up with the hardware.
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111026223104_AMD_Expects_Trinity_tffer_20_30_Performance_Increase.html



Unless I'm reading something wrong isn't that talking about the successor to Llano?  NOT the successor to the FX line.  That article is talking about switching Llano from K10-based architecture to Bulldozer-based architecture.  Basically going from Phenom II -> FX with APU's.  Going from a Phenom II X6 to an FX-6100 for example did not yield a 20% performance gain, so I wouldn't expect that to be the case for the APU's.

Your statements were rather misleading


----------



## cdawall (Dec 7, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Aren't they the ones that said we'd get up to 50% more performance over the i7s...



In very very specific situations it does. Such as when the reviewer is drunk and underclocks the i7!


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 7, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Unless I'm reading something wrong isn't that talking about the successor to Llano?  NOT the successor to the FX line.  That article is talking about switching Llano from K10-based architecture to Bulldozer-based architecture.  Basically going from Phenom II -> FX with APU's.  Going from a Phenom II X6 to an FX-6100 for example did not yield a 20% performance gain, so I wouldn't expect that to be the case for the APU's.
> 
> Your statements were rather misleading



Didn't read the article but Trinity is Piledriver based. There is no Bulldozer APU.


----------



## xenocide (Dec 7, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Didn't read the article but Trinity is Piledriver based. There is no Bulldozer APU.



Piledriver is based off of Enhanced Bulldozer, I was talking about the basic designs (Llano being derived from K10 and Trinity basically being derived from Bulldozer).  I was even more addressing the fact that he quoted an article talking about AMD's Fusion lineup as though it were talking about their Desktop lineup.  He quoted alleged performance gains out of context from a completely different platform.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 7, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Didn't read the article but Trinity is Piledriver based. There is no Bulldozer APU.



Zambezi = current FX core
Piledriver = future FX core
Trinity = Piledriver APU

All of the above are based on the Bulldozer *microarchitecture*.


----------



## nt300 (Dec 7, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Unless I'm reading something wrong isn't that talking about the successor to Llano?  NOT the successor to the FX line.  That article is talking about switching Llano from K10-based architecture to Bulldozer-based architecture.  Basically going from Phenom II -> FX with APU's.  Going from a Phenom II X6 to an FX-6100 for example did not yield a 20% performance gain, so I wouldn't expect that to be the case for the APU's.
> 
> Your statements were rather misleading


After reading the information it states a 20% performance improvement with Piledriver over the current K10 being used and 30% improvement in graphics. At this point anything can happen. And ya we are talking about the Piledrive based on the desktop replacement for the current Bulldozers.



newtekie1 said:


> Aren't they the ones that said we'd get up to 50% more performance over the i7s...


I think Super XP started that rumor


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 7, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Piledriver is based off of Enhanced Bulldozer, I was talking about the basic designs (Llano being derived from K10 and Trinity basically being derived from Bulldozer).  I was even more addressing the fact that he quoted an article talking about AMD's Fusion lineup as though it were talking about their Desktop lineup.  He quoted alleged performance gains out of context from a completely different platform.



I see. I thought you meant 1st gen.



TRWOV said:


> Zambezi = current FX core
> Piledriver = future FX core
> Trinity = Piledriver APU
> 
> All of the above are based on the Bulldozer *microarchitecture*.



Yes, I know. Gave up caring a while ago though.


----------



## MasterCATZ (Feb 1, 2012)

I just had to post in this 

I was an AMD Fan and been trying  to get back from Evil intel 
hell AMD are who made it possible for me to be able to afford to upgrade 

( pretty much I jumped off the boat when Intel did their first Great CPU I bought 16x Intel® Core™2 Duo packages for my Internet Gaming Cafe and after what must now be  4~5 yrs they still run everything ) I used to upgrade at least 1/4 ly only upgrades have been  yearly V cards ( until the Nvidia 260's they still run everything )

also been holding back because I never liked Nvidia always  was a Voodoo person  


with my personal PC's every Intel after my p100 was a fail and the AMD's rocked until I got my hands on the Intel® Core™2 Duo's 

hoping this upgrades going to be like when I left k6-500 for a Duron 600 .. God that thing hammered for its 100 mhz Difference  

I have been holding back for these bulldozers as long as I can as much as the i5's keep tempting me , 
I no longer play many games any more and really wanting a Trinity as much as I want 8x cores for my Video encoding / Trans-coding
 I am wanting to use as little power as possible for my Final All In One rig 

Currently switched 99% from M$ Windows and Using FreeBSD that  does Every Thing I need ( ZFS Raidz for file server , Virtual Box Server and media player with wine running all my windows apps flawlessly )

plus it actually gets better FPS then any Game I had installed via Windows ... ( BETTER MEMORY MANAGEMENT ?? )


I know  the Bulldozer cores use around 80 watts idle vs intel 50 watts idle but I am hoping the AMD 4 core Trinity will be around the 50 watt mark as well 
( making up in the power loss with integrated  GPU vs using up another PCI-e slot for a video card that could be hosting another HBA Raid Controller   

Really Sucked how the 4 and 8 core Bulldozers had the same idle power usage 

however it looks like my AIO upgrades going to be rushed now with all the 10-bit multimedia coming out ( my little ATOM ION media player can not do them so time to use it as a carputer has finally came , File server can not Transcode 1080p 10-bit Live )


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 1, 2012)

PaNiC said:


> fanboys are retards, they buy a bad product just because they don't like other company. The bulldozer will make more AMD fanboys then ever be for cause that's how fanboys starts, they buy a bad product, defend it and hate the other company for releasing something better.



+1



Fx said:


> does being a loyal fan to AMD because Intel uses shady practices make me a fanboy? if so, I guess I can live with that. but if that is so then I can think of lots of names to call Intel fanboys...
> 
> I guess having morals costs me to miss out on some performance- I can live with that just fine. furthermore, it is because of AMD fanboys that AMD has stayed afloat all of these years which has influenced your precious Intel to keep it's ASPs much lower for the majority of their chips
> 
> I get disgusted with people with no backbone



There's plenty of 'shady' companies we still transact with, ever used a bank? A lawyer? YOU THEREFORE DON'T HAVE MORALS! Apparently.

Truth is your teeny-weeny $200 purchase from the other company won't do jack shit to either company. Only loser there is you. I'll buy whatever has the greatest performance per dollar and right now it's intel. Rational thinking FTW.


----------



## edgedemon (Feb 1, 2012)

MasterCATZ said:


> I just had to post in this
> 
> I was an AMD Fan and been trying  to get back from Evil intel
> hell AMD are who made it possible for me to be able to afford to upgrade



I have always bought AMD as they offered a half decent price vs performance point, my first cpu was the K6-2 series. I have now switched to X79 i7 3930K, as I was waiting for bulldozer and decided that I couldn't wait for piledriver to hopefully improve things.

Bulldozers failure is bad for all of us, as Intel can keep prices high and release crippled chips as top end as there is no competition. If bulldozer had been competitive, we would be seeing 8 core chips in SB-E.
So I decided to spend lots of cash on a PC that will hopefully last me 5 yrs and by then Im hoping that we have some competition again


----------



## Super XP (Feb 8, 2012)

Bulldozer is not a failure. They are selling like hot cakes. The only problem was retailers were selling them for a lot more than AMD's recommended price.

Bulldozer was super hyped by AMD and people. So long as the price is right, it's a winner for now. After most of the fixes, we all hope the Piledriver will indeed be approx: 25% to 30% faster than the current Phenom II's.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 8, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Bulldozer is not a failure. They are selling like hot cakes. The only problem was retailers were selling them for a lot more than AMD's recommended price.
> 
> Bulldozer was super hyped by AMD and people. So long as the price is right, it's a winner for now. After most of the fixes, we all hope the Piledriver will indeed be approx: 25% to 30% faster than the current Phenom II's.



Pentium 4's sold great, must have been a tremendous product.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Bulldozer is not a failure. They are selling like hot cakes. The only problem was retailers were selling them for a lot more than AMD's recommended price.
> 
> Bulldozer was super hyped by AMD and people. So long as the price is right, it's a winner for now. After most of the fixes, we all hope the Piledriver will indeed be approx: 25% to 30% faster than the current Phenom II's.



I couldn't agree more. The only thing that defines a product as a success or failure is how well it sells, not its technical merits. Seems a shame, but that's the way it is.


----------



## xenocide (Feb 8, 2012)

qubit said:


> I couldn't agree more. The only thing that defines a product as a success or failure is how well it sells, not its technical merits. Seems a shame, but that's the way it is.



And Bulldozer is selling for the same reason Pentium 4 did.  People look at it and go "HOLY CRAP 8 CORES!?!?" and are willing to throw money down, when P4 was around people were blown away by 3Ghz clock speeds and just assumed it was so much faster.  Keep in mind yield was also a huge reason why Bulldozer (just like Llano) seemed to be in such short supply.


----------



## MarcusTaz (Feb 8, 2012)

Anyone hear about the new BD going up for sale? 

http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2012/2012020101_Pre-order_prices_for_upcoming_AMD_FX_CPUs.html

Are they refreshes or just new skus


----------



## TRWOV (Feb 8, 2012)

I'd say they are higher binned CPUs, not sure about new stepping. The 8150WOX it's just the water cooling version.


----------



## qubit (Feb 8, 2012)

xenocide said:


> And Bulldozer is selling for the same reason Pentium 4 did.  People look at it and go "HOLY CRAP 8 CORES!?!?" and are willing to throw money down, when P4 was around people were blown away by 3Ghz clock speeds and just assumed it was so much faster.  Keep in mind yield was also a huge reason why Bulldozer (just like Llano) seemed to be in such short supply.



You're getting at that it's the perception that sells the chip. True, image can count massively when selling something and is the whole point of slick advertising.


----------

