WHY did AMD decide to kill the FX branding with bulldozer?

V

Valset

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
6,533
title say it all really

I can see not having a choice and putting your crappy product on the market but really, who decided it was in the companies best interest to tarnish (hell vandalize would be a better description) on of their few remaining brand strengths? someone had to think this was a good idea. but lets face it, while worstbuy will be full of these (look folks!! twice as many as Intel!!!) most of us will be avoiding this like the plague. FX really did mean something at one time and they should have left it at that. man up and don't over polish a dud. :mad:

and yes I know that BD does very well in certain areas and will do much better in widows 8. but nothing I do or most of us do will see that and 8 is still a couple of years off. :(

OK, its out of my system now. moving on :cool:
 
Valset said:
title say it all really

I can see not having a choice and putting your crappy product on the market but really, who decided it was in the companies best interest to tarnish (hell vandalize would be a better description) on of their few remaining brand strengths? someone had to think this was a good idea. but lets face it, while worstbuy will be full of these (look folks!! twice as many as Intel!!!) most of us will be avoiding this like the plague. FX really did mean something at one time and they should have left it at that. man up and don't over polish a dud. :mad:

and yes I know that BD does very well in certain areas and will do much better in widows 8. but nothing I do or most of us do will see that and 8 is still a couple of years off. :(

OK, its out of my system now. moving on :cool:
Click to expand...

anand , toms , hardocp , legit reviews , pcper all shows the fx 8150 trading blows with the i5 2500k

i think the over reacting on the internet is a bit much. AMD went from trailing sandy bridge with the x6 cpus to parity with sandy bridge.

They also went from a 346mm2 die size to a 315mm2 die size when doing it. Its still not as good as sandy bridges 216mm2 but it is an improvement.

The main screw up is the power usage but this should be fixed in time for trinity and piledriver next year as its not bulldozer at fault but GF
 
eastmen said:
anand , toms , hardocp , legit reviews , pcper all shows the fx 8150 trading blows with the i5 2500k

i think the over reacting on the internet is a bit much. AMD went from trailing sandy bridge with the x6 cpus to parity with sandy bridge.

They also went from a 346mm2 die size to a 315mm2 die size when doing it. Its still not as good as sandy bridges 216mm2 but it is an improvement.

The main screw up is the power usage but this should be fixed in time for trinity and piledriver next year as its not bulldozer at fault but GF
Click to expand...

We are assuming the power problem is with GloFo. Its entirely possible AMD just messed up the gating horribly too.
 
eastmen said:
They also went from a 346mm2 die size to a 315mm2 die size when doing it. Its still not as good as sandy bridges 216mm2 but it is an improvement.
Click to expand...

That's because 346mm2 was on a 45nm process. Had AMD just die shrunk Thuban to 32nm, FX would be a better CPU.

When overclocking to 4.8Ghz (which is not even that great considering it was supposed to hit well above 5Ghz, to begin to keep up) BD uses 300 more watts than 2600k.. nuff said. Complete and utter failure.
 
nicfolder and eastmen you guys seem to be the ones trolling this forum trying to justify AMD's new crappy cpu's. The cost/performance/power do not justify spending consumer $$ on them when Intel cpu's are pretty much better at everything. Are you guys paid by AMD?

I'm serious, both of you have been hard at work most of the day spamming the forum...seems really fishy to me?
 
eastmen said:
anand , toms , hardocp , legit reviews , pcper all shows the fx 8150 trading blows with the i5 2500k

i think the over reacting on the internet is a bit much. AMD went from trailing sandy bridge with the x6 cpus to parity with sandy bridge.

They also went from a 346mm2 die size to a 315mm2 die size when doing it. Its still not as good as sandy bridges 216mm2 but it is an improvement.

The main screw up is the power usage but this should be fixed in time for trinity and piledriver next year as its not bulldozer at fault but GF
Click to expand...

even if that was true and from what I am reading it isn't really (esp in single threaded apps) it needed to be on fully par or better. FX really wasn't meant to be "on par" that was for the top line. BD is already in the mid range out the gate. in other words what I was getting at was there was little point to assigning a mid-range processor with the FX branding. it does in fact ruin it. I am not going to say its worthless or anything like that but it sure as hell wasn't what "FX" was suppose to be
 
not really, FX was a suffix, not a line,

EG

AMD Athlon 64 FX

Now it's FX-8150,
I'm assuming their new cpus will continue using FX-xxxx

so pile-driver could be FX 8220,8250,8270 etc.

During the Athlon 64 days, FX meant the highest clocked and multiplier unlocked Athlon 64 chips you could get, I Think they had added cache as well.
 
Last edited:
The FX-60 was the last FX chip worthy of the name, unless I'm missing something by not mentioning the FX-62
 
Valset said:
even if that was true and from what I am reading it isn't really (esp in single threaded apps) it needed to be on fully par or better. FX really wasn't meant to be "on par" that was for the top line. BD is already in the mid range out the gate. in other words what I was getting at was there was little point to assigning a mid-range processor with the FX branding. it does in fact ruin it. I am not going to say its worthless or anything like that but it sure as hell wasn't what "FX" was suppose to be
Click to expand...

what are you talking about. We've know the price of the cpu for months. Hardocp has it beating the 2500k in 6 of 11 benchmarks.

its not trying to compete with $1,000 processors.

amd hasn't been competetive since the core 2 tech released. This is the first chip jn a while where amd competes
 
eastmen said:
its not trying to compete with $1,000 processors.
Click to expand...

That's his entire point: the FX processor line, at one time in history, DID compete with $1,000 processors. If I'm remembering correctly, the FX-60 went for around $800-$900 when it was first released.
 
eastmen said:
what are you talking about. We've know the price of the cpu for months. Hardocp has it beating the 2500k in 6 of 11 benchmarks.

its not trying to compete with $1,000 processors.

amd hasn't been competetive since the core 2 tech released. This is the first chip jn a while where amd competes
Click to expand...
It should beat it soundly, considering it goes for $60 more. What it shouldn't do is lose in those other 5 benchmarks, considering that same $60 price difference.

Factor in the huge difference in power consumption, as well as the price and so far the FX-8150 is not competitive.
 
eastmen said:
what are you talking about. We've know the price of the cpu for months. Hardocp has it beating the 2500k in 6 of 11 benchmarks.

its not trying to compete with $1,000 processors.

amd hasn't been competetive since the core 2 tech released. This is the first chip jn a while where amd competes
Click to expand...

but it lost in the most important benchmarks the way i see it.
 
pojut said:
That's his entire point: the FX processor line, at one time in history, DID compete with $1,000 processors. If I'm remembering correctly, the FX-60 went for around $800-$900 when it was first released.
Click to expand...

this. in its day the FX-60 was bad ass and even Intel knew it. and if they had put this up a couple gens ago it would be. this was in fact the reason they dropped the line during the phenom flop. it was to preserve the marketing value of FX. and now they sort of just threw it away.
 
Fail said:
The FX-60 was the last FX chip worthy of the name, unless I'm missing something by not mentioning the FX-62
Click to expand...

it was X14 so 2.8mhz and true 800mhz DDR2 so technically yes but I don't believe it ever made much difference.
 
pojut said:
That's his entire point: the FX processor line, at one time in history, DID compete with $1,000 processors. If I'm remembering correctly, the FX-60 went for around $800-$900 when it was first released.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, it retailed for $1031 at launch.

How do I know? I paid that price to Newegg
 
pojut said:
That's his entire point: the FX processor line, at one time in history, DID compete with $1,000 processors. If I'm remembering correctly, the FX-60 went for around $800-$900 when it was first released.
Click to expand...

thst was over half a decade ago. Times change
 
eastmen said:
thst was over half a decade ago. Times change
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point.

We're not saying that Bulldozer was supposed to compete with $1,000 CPUs, we're saying that the FX name is supposed to be.
 
pojut said:
I think you're missing the point.

We're not saying that Bulldozer was supposed to compete with $1,000 CPUs, we're saying that the FX name is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

its what you guys believe . Its obviously not true.

Aside from that there has never been a chip named FX from amd. There have been chips called something else with fx at the end.

Its a diffrent naming scheme preying on people who don't know any better.
 
eastmen said:
its what you guys believe . Its obviously not true.

Aside from that there has never been a chip named FX from amd. There have been chips called something else with fx at the end.

Its a diffrent naming scheme preying on people who don't know any better.
Click to expand...

Uhhh

My FX-60 definitely did exist, I know cause I installed it in the motherboard myself.

Why are you spreading such misinformation?
 
As the OP said I think AMD was in trouble with this chip and looking for something to sell it. It really makes sense from a marketing perspective. More cores, most ignorant consumers think that matters. Just like they also list most CPUs by clock speed still. So you are going to sell lots of chips to people based on a fancy FX name and more cores.

People who know that this is just marketing will not be fooled, but then again those people would never be fooled and they would always check benchmarks and never care what the name of a CPU is when buying it. So it does not matter.

To me I don't care if it keeps AMD floating longer so they can invest more and try again with piledriver at the expense of the ignorant I am all for it. Lots of companies like Apple build their entire business model off those ideals. In the mean time I sold my FX 55 CPU last month I shed a tear or two but moved on there is no AMD system left in my house with 8 computers at this point.
 
Fail said:
Uhhh

My FX-60 definitely did exist, I know cause I installed it in the motherboard myself.

Why are you spreading such misinformation?
Click to expand...

The name of your cpu is the athlon 64 fx-60 . The name of this chip is the FX-8150 . There is no other name. The fx on your chip was to discribe its class which was higher than other athlon 64s .

There is a diffrence between how the FX is used . This isn't a phenom II FX 8150 or a Bulldozer FX 8150 . Its simply an FX 8150 .

just like with the geforce 3 ti product. If nvidia comes out with the ti 500 that doesn't mean its a performance part like the geforce ti line. Its just a name for a new line of chips.
 
RamonGTP said:
9 victories for FX 8150 vs 18 for 2500k on anandtech. You must teach me this new math.
Click to expand...

I don't count synthetic benchmarks or gaming.

I don't count gaming because they weren't tested in a resolution anyone plays with.

I also don't count cinebench 1 thread tests. It serves no purpose because no one is going to run a single thread in the benchmark.
 
eastmen said:
I don't count synthetic benchmarks or gaming.

I don't count gaming because they weren't tested in a resolution anyone plays with.

I also don't count cinebench 1 thread tests. It serves no purpose because no one is going to run a single thread in the benchmark.
Click to expand...

Except out of 12 gaming tests 3 were done at 1024x768 and the rest were done at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 which are respectable resolutions that many people play at. In fact, I'd say the majority of gamers play at resolutions within that range.

Again, you must teach me this new math. Or, try actually reading the reviews isntead of taking wild guesses as to what they contain.

BD is a flop, unless you're looking to build a dedicated 7-zip compression box.
 
RamonGTP said:
Except out of 12 gaming tests 3 were done at 1024x768 and the rest were done at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 which are respectable resolutions that many people play at. In fact, I'd say the majority of gamers play at resolutions within that range.

Again, you must teach me this new math. Or, try actually reading the reviews isntead of taking wild guesses as to what they contain.

BD is a flop, unless you're looking to build a dedicated 7-zip compression box.
Click to expand...

look at the games tested

You got civ 5 where bulldozer wins 1 of the tests and looses the other. The fx is still posting over 70 fps which is more than playable and if you go higher in res your going to start to become gpu bound.

He tests dawn of war II at 1680x1050 and we see the first failing of the fx by not being able to post 60fps

testing dirt 3 the 768 res at low quality clearly shows bulldozer lacking , however at 1920x1200 high quality the fx is giving 100fps performance only 4 frames from the 2500k

Dragon age at 1050 its getting almost 120 fps . If you actually increase the res your going to start to become gpu bound its obvoius that the cpus are all capable of running this game fine

metro 2033 at 768 dx 11 high quality its .5fps behind the 2500k and at 1920x1200 its at 2.5fps behind

Rage , it beats the 2500k in this test

starcraft 2 does really poorly again

world of warcraft , its putting up almost 78 frames at some resultion and settings that we aren't told .


The gaming benchmarks hardly matter your going to get a playable experiance with all these chips.
 
eastman so you are saying you do not count benchmarks where AMD loses? It is game over man, I love AMD too but this reminds me of Phenom they just screwed up bad.
 
rudy said:
eastman so you are saying you do not count benchmarks where AMD loses? It is game over man, I love AMD too but this reminds me of Phenom they just screwed up bad.
Click to expand...

no i count benchmarks where amd looses. Read what i write.

I don't count gaming benchmarks that don't tell anyone how the chip will actually perform.

Playing a game at 1024x768 isn't representative of a real world test. Anyone buying a $280 cpu is going to be pairing it up with at least a $200 gpu and all gpus gpus at that price will run a game at much higher resolutions and it will be the gpu that limits what you can turn on in games. results for old games like dragon age 1 or wow don't matter much either.
 
Face it, Bulldozer is like the original Phenom and both of them sucked really badly. The poor performance and power consumption of this CPU is so bad its not even worth purchasing. I doubt that Piledriver or whatever its called will even save AMD as well, they have not been competitive in the high end for years now and its sad.
 
eastmen said:
no i count benchmarks where amd looses. Read what i write.

I don't count gaming benchmarks that don't tell anyone how the chip will actually perform.

Playing a game at 1024x768 isn't representative of a real world test. Anyone buying a $280 cpu is going to be pairing it up with at least a $200 gpu and all gpus gpus at that price will run a game at much higher resolutions and it will be the gpu that limits what you can turn on in games. results for old games like dragon age 1 or wow don't matter much either.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't. No matter how many times you want to say it, the fact is that only 3 out of 12 benchmarks were at 1024x768. It absolutely tells you how a processor performs as do the other tests that BD fell short on. Against a 2500k no less, half the cores and no HT either. BD is a shit processor that's outperformed by even Phenom II way more often than it should be (which should be never)
 
why are we even arguing about how many benchmarks one or the other won.. bulldozer got its ass kicked end of story. i'm still buying one but this whole "it did better in X test versus intel" who the hell cares. yes it lost to the 2600k, get over it. if it fits within what you want performance wise good, if it doesn't then move on already.
 
2600K? it got bested by the 2500k way more often than not.

And as far as why we're discussing it... You do realize what forum this is right? It's what we do here.
 
RamonGTP said:
2600K? it got bested by the 2500k way more often than not.

And as far as why we're discussing it... You do realize what forum this is right? It's what we do here.
Click to expand...

yes i know, problem is the same stupid argument is spread across 7 different threads. it gets annoying seeing people bring up the same crap that was discussed already in a thread before it that was already discussed in another thread before that.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
yes i know, problem is the same stupid argument is spread across 7 different threads. it gets annoying seeing people bring up the same crap that was discussed already in a thread before it that was already discussed in another thread before that.
Click to expand...

probably just venting after all the silly delays, lol.
 
Maybe the FX FX 8150 will own.

Seriously though, perhaps the reason for the hype from AMD is that they were just as optimistic about them selves as their supporters. In 2004 they figured that by 2011 we'd all be driving around in our hover cars and all computation would be insanely multi-threaded. They figured they'd be johnny on the spot with their thread rampaging bulldozer and win the day. Of course it's not all that great even at multi-threaded so they came up short. Still no idea what they were thinking with the power draw. Maybe people are right, AMD is just no good at first run architectures.
 
Four or so years ago AMD R&D most likely predicted that everything would be entirely multithreaded by now. As the future approached they found that the CPU environment was not changing as quickly as they anticipated and single thread performance still matters a lot.

That coupled with obvious manufacturing issues, and design issues results in a sub par offering.

Some one in marketing decided to throw a FX label on it. That asshole should be fired.

Who knows they could sort out issues, Windows 7 performance could see a patch and a bump like BD has in Win 8, and we could get a FX 2 that has a bunch of issues fixed and be able to get to 6ghz on air and be more competitive.

FX is not THAT bad, it is sad to see such poor performance. If BD had come out sooner before SB I think AMD would have had a winner.
 
Maybe they do want to kill the FX brand especially with the next release of AM3+ processor which will be the last of AMD CPU lines, at least for desktop, because they will pursue the APU lines for desktop after that, and may not want to use the FX brand any longer.

/half-sarcasm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top