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
The other reason of course, is that today's low end chips can do just about any desktop task very well, including playing 3D games. You only really need the extra horses for specialised tasks and hardcore gamers.
-end rant-
Where's the new poll?
Intel OWNS x86, and THAT is why they are so successful. Intel has graciously SHARED the x86 market with AMD, granting AMD a LISCENCE to incorporate x86 designs in their own products.
At the same time, AMD OWNS x64, and grants Intel a liscence to use thier designs in Intel products.
That's a PARTNERSHIP, not competition. It's marketing that would have you chose one over the other that obfuscates the fact that AMD and Intel work together in a partnership on a daily basis.contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/operations/ip/802.html
AMD is even PAYING Intel for the right to share part of the market.
X86 isn't a market...it's a technology. Like RISC, PowerPC, ARM, and Cell, x86 is part of a much larger market, but marketing would have you beleive it's a market all on it's own, so that the numbers appear better.
Intel OWNS and CONTROLS alot of what AMD does.
Intel bends AMD under their weight whenever they chose to:www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2009/20090316corp.htm
To think that Intel and AMD are in competition directly doesn't makes any sense, except by marketing terms. It's funny, jsut becuase the two have the biggest sales numbers, that other x86 producers, like Transmeta, don't even get mentioned when x86 is considered.
Intel even admits that their control of x86 patents and technology is why they are the giant they are today::rockout:
Or the guy in the mailroom getting labels mixed up
If DNF was released with the kind of gameplay (even if not the same graphics), in say 2004, it would have gone on to become a GOTY. The standards for games were different then. Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 ruled, not Battlefield 3 and Call of Babby Modern Nappy 3.
Likewise, if Bulldozer released in just early 2010 instead of now, it would have been a hornet vs. bee contest. FX-8150 would have beaten Lynnfield and most Bloomfield parts under $583 to pulp.
If, at any point, AMD threatened Intel's market share, I'm sure that AMD would have to pay a penalty to Intel. It only makes sense in liscencing agreements like this, that if you grant a "competitor" access to your technology, you protect your profits in some way...and not just give it up freely for a fee.
At the same time, AMD lacks the fab capacity to threaten Intel in any reasonable way. Intel will ALWAYS own the market, as AMD has no way to increase their capacity due to the cost of owning foundries.
Because of this, AMD is not, and never will be, a threat to Intel's market share. Maybe by a few percentage points, but the fact of the matter is that no matter what happens, AMD's market share can only reach so high, and cannot increase in any reasonable amount.
As such, they are not directly competing with each other, except for marketing purposes. Intel needs AMD due to the x64 liscencing, and monopoly laws, so AMD isn't going anywhere either. For AMD to be a success, all they need to do is continually make products, and fill their limited capacity, which they seem to have no problems doing currently. That doesn't change the fact that Intel owns the market though.
So, AMD are very much far from failing...
Bulldozer is a fail in the desktop space, but wins out in multi-threaded workloads, which is where BD was targeted for, anyway. Fortunately for AMD, the desktop space is but a small part of the market, and the server market itself is where AMD is focused primarily.
Intel, on the other hand, is releasing broken product after broken product. P67, X79, and SB-E are all parts within the past 24 months that are not fully functional, and have shipped with parts disabled, or require a revision for proper functionality. IN this way, Intel is a fail...at least AMD can bring 100% working chips, which Intel cannot claim...yet.
But, I don't think they need to, either.
AMD buying ATi is irrelevant. AMD was bleeding funds long before then, going from profit to loss quarter on quarter...long before buying ATi.