Sunday, November 27th 2011
Bulldozer Beats Politicians As The Biggest Fail
On our front page, we placed a poll in mid-September, ahead of AMD FX Processor family launch (based on the "Bulldozer" architecture). Based on the most plausible specifications and the hype surrounding the products at the time, we had a hunch that neither Bulldozer nor Sandy Bridge-E will meet our readers' expectations. AMD FX Processor family turned out to be a Duke Nukem Forever, clogged in the pipeline for too long (since 2007, as a matter of fact), when it came out, it made a mockery of itself. It's barely faster than its previous generation.
Sandy Bridge-E promised to be a pin-up processor platform that's eons faster than its predecessor, its specs-sheets warranted its hype. As it turns out, although they're the fastest processors, they aren't much faster than previous-generation Westmere six-core chips at multi-threaded applications, and aren't much faster than Sandy Bridge LGA1155 Core i7 processors at gaming and serial loads. We set out to find out which would turn out to be a bigger "fail" (failure, in internet jargon). To stuff the poll up with more options, we experimented with the idea of placing a seemingly-unbeatable poll option "Our Politicians", just to see if either of the two could fail so hard, that politicians end up better. The myth that politicians always win at a failing contest is busted, at least in this case.
At the time of counting today, "Bulldozer" edged past "Our Politicians". The graph above shows the trend of voting chronologically. At the start of polling, people were evenly optimistic about both Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge-E. Politicians were off to a flying start, and although there were a few spikes, their votes per day figure was decreasing. Then by the 7th of October, votes began to increase for Bulldozer (around the time when unofficial benchmark results were doing rounds, reviewers had samples at hand). On 12th October (AMD FX launch day), Bulldozer got a Noah's flood of fail votes. People weren't expecting Bulldozer to be a Sandy Bridge-E killer, but they were at least expecting it to outperform Intel's LGA1155 platform. That was not to be. Despite not really bringing shock and awe to the table that its specifications Sandy Bridge-E managed to be the fastest processors money can buy. This ensured that Sandy Bridge-E didn't fare badly in our poll, few thought it was a fail. Sarah Michelle Gellar? Well, apparently people tolerate her provided they mute their TVs.
In before dragons and grammar tutors.
Sandy Bridge-E promised to be a pin-up processor platform that's eons faster than its predecessor, its specs-sheets warranted its hype. As it turns out, although they're the fastest processors, they aren't much faster than previous-generation Westmere six-core chips at multi-threaded applications, and aren't much faster than Sandy Bridge LGA1155 Core i7 processors at gaming and serial loads. We set out to find out which would turn out to be a bigger "fail" (failure, in internet jargon). To stuff the poll up with more options, we experimented with the idea of placing a seemingly-unbeatable poll option "Our Politicians", just to see if either of the two could fail so hard, that politicians end up better. The myth that politicians always win at a failing contest is busted, at least in this case.
In before dragons and grammar tutors.
93 Comments on Bulldozer Beats Politicians As The Biggest Fail
Also I think they do this crap on purpose. Probably get more sales.
I mean Phenom first had the TLB Bug (which I bought) and they later released phenoms that fixed that (so then I bought that) and now I buy the first iteration of Bulldozer (FX6100) mild improvement over my 965 but will of course be forced to buy their better performing version of FX (piledriver).
I guess I'm the sucker they are trying to suck in with this crap.
In my defense the 6100 was only $100 bucks I figure I'll keep it and sell my 965 for about the same and make my money back :/
:p
:nutkick:
It's interesting to see the numbers, any way.
There is only one thing that hasn't saturated yet: performance/power consumption. So let's see some big steps in this direction.
What a conundrum Intel must face: you know, the 5-10 year strategy. x86 cannot get better per core. Should they ditch x86 in the long term? That is an ugly question. Better get the punters to buy into n-core n>100 processors and design software and compilers to optimise across multiply cores etc. They must be lobbying Microsoft very hard that Windows 9 is "best" on 16 cores or something.
That's all that Intel (or x86) has got left. Increase cores and reduce power consumption.
Leaving a niche for ARM and a possible different strategy.
I couldn't call Intel the best option either, as all their current high-end products are broken. Both X79 chipsets and CPUs are not fully functional.
How is it Intel is winning? Performance? OK, I'll give you that, but again, they are asking $650 and $1250 for broken CPUs, and boards for those broken CPUs are $300+. That's winning?
:laugh:Buying ATI is the one thing keeping AMD afloat these days. With that post, it's clear you are just trolling. :shadedshu Thank you, come agian?
GG AMD... :laugh:
And I still think AMD systems are worth it if you're on a tight budget and is a fairly uncomplicated user. My system was dirt cheap and is almost overkill for me.
And while it's true they have not competed directly with Intel for some while, their chips have not been garbage either. Tons of people here have had AMD setups because the price/performance was good.
AMD is like Ford was...Not the best, but cheap enough that everyone can afford them. And they are by far, very successful at that, in such a way that their current products are even hard to come by in some instances. I still today, 6 weeks after the launch, cannot get an FX-8150 locally...not because they haven't arrived, but becuase they are in such high demand.:D That's the epitome of success.AMD is NOT in ruins. They are in the situation they are today, in a large way, because of Hector Ruiz. Sure, stock value is nto what it used to be, but such is the price of success...sometimes you need to make sacrifices to get that success. AMD either had to invest in ATI, or R&D for GPUS. choice was pretty easy, IMHO.
I have 6 cores at 4.5Ghz with 1.45 volts.
Compared to my Phenom 965 which was quad core at 4.0ghz with 1.475 volts maxed out.
Not the greatest improvement and not worthy of a medal but with headroom for higher clocks I am satisfied. Oh and 95 Watt Max TDP
AMD bought ATi, as the integration of CPU and GPU into the same silicon was inevitable. If they had not made the move when they did, current FM1 chips wouldn't be as good as they are now. Those chips...are fantastic. But there's no real marketing of the FM1 platform, because board partner profits seem low within that platform.
The "percieved" failure of AMD isn't a failure at all..but merely the tough time between transitioning the company's focus from being a CPU-focused brand, to a homogenous computing brand. Of course the CPU side of things is going to suffer...that's what needs to make the greatest changes. That fact that this is ignored quite often is shocking, to say the least.
Although BD in the desktop space seem like a bad product, it's actually far more exciting than most think; it only seems bad because consumers(enthusiast sites) perceive AMD as a CPU company..which they are not.
I mean, I've said time and agian that nVidia is NOT a hardware comany...that they are a software company, that just happens to make some hardware too. Of course, I got that from nVidia's CEO making a speech...
Likewise, AMD is not a CPU company. AMD's only failure is educating their consumers on that change, as nVidia has failed to distingish themselves as a software-focused company.
I don't see why that's a big deal...or why it makes Intel better than AMD. They aren't even in direct competition with each other. Marketing would like you to think so, but truly, each has their own separate markets, and each excels in meeting that markets needs.