What Were They Thinking

Weeth said:
JF-AMD has nothing to worry about. His job is secure since BD Opterons will likely do mildly well in the server space and that's his dept. AMD sold the enthusiast-gamer market down the tubes but server guys care more about the color of their rackmount rails than they do about all the enthusiast-gamers on the planet put together. However, that's where FX belongs... in the trash compactor.
Click to expand...

I dont want him to lose his job, I just want him to either
a) Say "whoops"
b) See what new levels of marketing BS magic he can cast

For entertainment purposes of course.
 
About the only thing I can figure is AMD is getting ready to invade the home heating business.

Price/performance vs a furnace? AMD wins hands down. :p
 
Monkey God said:
I dont want him to lose his job, I just want him to either
a) Say "whoops"
b) See what new levels of marketing BS magic he can cast

For entertainment purposes of course.
Click to expand...

I think he's been covering his bases for a few months now as he could see the writing on the enthusiast-gamer walls. BD Opterons should be fine so no skin off his butt. If you want entertainment, let's go over to AMD Zone and dig up a few of the more optimistic deluded dorks like Baron Matrix and have a whizzing session.
 
And thats the thing, why bother drumming up so much marketing/hype in the enthusiast arena? They had to know it was a limp dick...so why bother? Maybe they failed to realize so many of us enthusiasts also work in IT professionally, and while the server space (BD Opties) may perform fine, it still leaves a bad taste in our mouth about AMD and the BD architecture in general.

I cant stand hype that cant be backed up. Yesterday I was sad when I recently heard we were moving to Intel based virtual servers, now, I am not.
 
A part of me thinks (and hopes..) that this was a server part that got stuffed into the consumer space. But even then I don't know how you could expect to win the 'many cores' battle when you are sitting on 8 and ring in at 125W.

I can't make heads or tails of this. You can argue higher core count desktop wise, but unless they pull off a miracle, a theoretical 10C BD will be over 125W, and do less work than the current 10C E7 Xeon. (130W)

You know, given the current market, all this makes me think about is what would happen if they stuck to winning the IPC battle, and put out a monolithic, no hold barred 4C part on the desktop. Preferably not 125W, but whatever. It couldn't of been any worse than this.
 
Its literally the pentium 4 again. HUGE power draw, need for high clock speeds, process limitations, and the competitor destroying you with higher IPC. Except the competitor can also have higher clocks.....
 
Zarathustra[H];1037871320 said:
I;'m still getting one. I refuse to buy from the Evil Empire (Intel).
Click to expand...

This made my day (forum wise) , waiting till next round :)
 
Pieter3dnow said:
This made my day (forum wise) , waiting till next round :)
Click to expand...

Really poor 5 minute photoshop :p

6237945182_d69c402ed1_o.jpg


Someone else can probably do a better job. I'm at work and don't have time :p
 
larkin said:
I don't know if I would use this CPU if it were free.
Click to expand...

come on, is hyperbole really necessary? Everyone saw this coming, that statement is ridiculous. It's like the people who said they wouldn't play Duke Forever if someone paid them.

We get it, you are disappointed but going over board isn't really productive.
 
stealthy123 said:
come on, is hyperbole really necessary? Everyone saw this coming, that statement is ridiculous. It's like the people who said they wouldn't play Duke Forever if someone paid them.

We get it, you are disappointed but going over board isn't really productive.
Click to expand...

While I want to agree with you, there's actually some truth to what larkin said. Say you want to be an amd fanboy regardless of any of this. You want to go out and pick up an FX chip and pop it up to a smoking 4.6 OC, and build an amazing system out of it. Maybe a tri- or even quad-sli rig to drive a surround gaming or the equivalent eyefinity rig, or maybe just an all eyecandy 1600p rig.

And then you look at the actual power consumption and thermal issues of BD. The fact that the cooling issues will pose roadblocks to even what are normally considered high end solutions. Add to that the fact that a gold rated ~1200W psu now might not (won't) cut it. You're suddenly in the position that all of the enthusiast level modifications and adaptations people make for high-end rigs have to be taken at least 1-2 large steps further just to account for using BD over SB. And to what end?
 
they thought we needed extra useless cores instead of faster clock performance.
 
Tiporaro said:
While I want to agree with you, there's actually some truth to what larkin said. Say you want to be an amd fanboy regardless of any of this. You want to go out and pick up an FX chip and pop it up to a smoking 4.6 OC, and build an amazing system out of it. Maybe a tri- or even quad-sli rig to drive a surround gaming or the equivalent eyefinity rig, or maybe just an all eyecandy 1600p rig.

And then you look at the actual power consumption and thermal issues of BD. The fact that the cooling issues will pose roadblocks to even what are normally considered high end solutions. Add to that the fact that a gold rated ~1200W psu now might not (won't) cut it. You're suddenly in the position that all of the enthusiast level modifications and adaptations people make for high-end rigs have to be taken at least 1-2 large steps further just to account for using BD over SB. And to what end?
Click to expand...

Being a fanboi means choosing an F150 over a Silverado, not choosing a Tonka toy over a pickup truck. There is no justification for FX to exist in its current iteration, especially since it needs... what... a 1.5 kW PSU in such a "green" age? AMD should just dig a hole and crawl in. Total loss of "face." If they were Japanese, it would be time to commit seppuku.
 
Tiporaro said:
While I want to agree with you, there's actually some truth to what larkin said. Say you want to be an amd fanboy regardless of any of this. You want to go out and pick up an FX chip and pop it up to a smoking 4.6 OC, and build an amazing system out of it. Maybe a tri- or even quad-sli rig to drive a surround gaming or the equivalent eyefinity rig, or maybe just an all eyecandy 1600p rig.

And then you look at the actual power consumption and thermal issues of BD. The fact that the cooling issues will pose roadblocks to even what are normally considered high end solutions. Add to that the fact that a gold rated ~1200W psu now might not (won't) cut it. You're suddenly in the position that all of the enthusiast level modifications and adaptations people make for high-end rigs have to be taken at least 1-2 large steps further just to account for using BD over SB. And to what end?
Click to expand...

A small portion of the market needs the power that their cpu can provide, the rest of us don't.

I saw nothing in the reviews that made the chip worthless, it just isn't better than a 2500k and could be arguably worse. So what?

if you ran AMD rigs before, you probably will now, and vice versa with intel.

there was no betrayal at the hands of AMD, it's all manufactured nonsense. Is an fx 8150 fast enough for just about anyone? probably, does it's power consumption suck balls,yup.

All this butt hurt nonsense is tiresome.
 
Tiporaro said:
And then you look at the actual power consumption and thermal issues of BD. The fact that the cooling issues will pose roadblocks to even what are normally considered high end solutions. Add to that the fact that a gold rated ~1200W psu now might not (won't) cut it. You're suddenly in the position that all of the enthusiast level modifications and adaptations people make for high-end rigs have to be taken at least 1-2 large steps further just to account for using BD over SB. And to what end?
Click to expand...


This may be just a little bit exaggerated.

Power consumption overclocked is worse than Sandy Bridge, yes. a 177W difference at load is nothing to scoff at, but its unlikely to make your choice of power supply a problem if you are using a 1200+W unit.

Now compare it to the overclocked i7-920 and it actually fares 53W better and only 27W worse than Gulftown...

Mole hill, meet mountain.

Add to that the fact that systems rarely (never?) see full load on the GPU's and on the CPU at the same time, unless in artificial testing (like running furmark and Intel Burn test at the same time)

Games just don't heat up the CPU to its limits.
 
aintz said:
they thought we needed extra useless cores instead of faster clock performance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, that didn't work very well either.

24943447.png


x264 in Phenom II was scaling linearly. Hypotherical example: 2 cores= 4 fps, 4 cores= 8 fps, 6 cores= 12 fps.

In the above benchmark for the 1100T we have 31,5 fps/6= 5,25 fps PER CORE
The Bulldozer SHOULD be at 5,25x8= 42 fps if it was an old Thuban x8. Instead, it gets 35.8

It's more like a Thuban x 6,5 at higher clock.
 
stealthy123 said:
A small portion of the market needs the power that their cpu can provide, the rest of us don't.

I saw nothing in the reviews that made the chip worthless, it just isn't better than a 2500k and could be arguably worse. So what?

if you ran AMD rigs before, you probably will now, and vice versa with intel.

there was no betrayal at the hands of AMD, it's all manufactured nonsense. Is an fx 8150 fast enough for just about anyone? probably, does it's power consumption suck balls,yup.

All this butt hurt nonsense is tiresome.
Click to expand...

The point is that AMD and its coked-up fanbois have been bustin' balls for years about how devastating BD was going to be to Intel. There were threads on a bunch of forums about BD beating IB for cryin' out loud. The fact that FX competes in the midrange is irrelevant. If it had been touted as a good midrange CPU all this hell wouldn't have broken out. But it's like as if the Tampa Bay Bucs had boasted that they were going to stuff the 49ers and then got whacked 48-3. You talk trash and can't back it up, then you suck bigtime.
 
dude, no one has been talking trash, if you like intel and an amd guy stands up for his cpu it's not trash talking.

Only fools with zero credibility have been spouting off nonsense about it wiping the floor with intel.

Glad that you lump all AMD users in with them.
 
Is it even possible that future versions of this thing gets better?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe so. Power usage should go down considerably when the 32nm process matures. Also IPC should be able to be improved. And clocks should be able to increased when the power usage is fixed.
 
mgulbran said:
Where does it go from here? Is it even possible that future versions of this thing gets better?
Click to expand...

Probably but with even more power comsumption.

Sorry, I don't a have a free electrical tap-in to a nuclear plant.:p:D
 
ndt said:
Probably but with even more power comsumption.

Sorry, I don't a have a free electrical tap-in to a nuclear plant.:p:D
Click to expand...

Yep, because better power consumption at load when overclocked to 4.6Ghz than an i7-920@4ghz, and only slightly worse than a overclocked Gulftown...

You guys need to put this stuff in perspective.

It's not as great as I would have liked, but its certainly not bad, and while IPC may have gone down a little bit from Thuban, the highest I've ever gotten a Thuban rock stable is 4ghz, so the clock advantage helps it beat it.

It's better than what I have now, and that's all that really matters.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872115 said:
This may be just a little bit exaggerated.

Power consumption overclocked is worse than Sandy Bridge, yes. a 177W difference at load is nothing to scoff at, but its unlikely to make your choice of power supply a problem if you are using a 1200+W unit.

Now compare it to the overclocked i7-920 and it actually fares 53W better and only 27W worse than Gulftown...

Mole hill, meet mountain.

Add to that the fact that systems rarely (never?) see full load on the GPU's and on the CPU at the same time, unless in artificial testing (like running furmark and Intel Burn test at the same time)

Games just don't heat up the CPU to its limits.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to find it now, but I know I saw one of the reviews last night showing power consumption of SB being just over 300w oc'd vs BD pushing almost 600W oc'd. To me, a cpu drawing near 600W is just...unfathomable in a build that doesn't perform better. Throw in a few top end gpu's, especially overvolted/oc'd, and that 600W cpu is definitely a factor on your psu draw.

And no offense, but comparing it to 3 year old 1st gen i7 just seems apologetic.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872228 said:
Yep, because better power consumption at load when overclocked to 4.6Ghz than an i7-920@4ghz, and only slightly worse than a overclocked Gulftown...

You guys need to put this stuff in perspective.

It's not as great as I would have liked, but its certainly not bad, and while IPC may have gone down a little bit from Thuban, the highest I've ever gotten a Thuban rock stable is 4ghz, so the clock advantage helps it beat it.

It's better than what I have now, and that's all that really matters.
Click to expand...

:) IMHO: The perspective is that we now pretty much live in a "green world" so therefore that oughta be the thinking and development of such hardware even overclocked. I'll pick on BD because it's fresh and new that AMD definitely has done wrong in performance and power consumption again IMHO.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872228 said:
Yep, because better power consumption at load when overclocked to 4.6Ghz than an i7-920@4ghz, and only slightly worse than a overclocked Gulftown...

You guys need to put this stuff in perspective.

It's not as great as I would have liked, but its certainly not bad, and while IPC may have gone down a little bit from Thuban, the highest I've ever gotten a Thuban rock stable is 4ghz, so the clock advantage helps it beat it.

It's better than what I have now, and that's all that really matters.
Click to expand...

That perspective is vs a faster... note... FASTER i7 45nm quad of the last generation. Just like how an almost faster 45nm AMD Hex core keeps on... vexxing it in performance.

Besides, [H] review includes decent OC.
 
Tiporaro said:
And no offense, but comparing it to 3 year old 1st gen i7 just seems apologetic.
Click to expand...

The only people who ever expected it to be significantly better than first gen i7's were the deluded fanboys. This is pretty much what I expected. It's a step in the right direction. it would have been nice if they could have caught up with Intel, but that was never really feasible.

If you expected AMD to catch up with Intel after being 2-3 generations behind in one leap with a severely delayed replacement, you must have been on crack. This is as good as BD should ever have been expected to be. If you frame your expectations right, you will never be disappointed :D

Tiporaro said:
I'm trying to find it now, but I know I saw one of the reviews last night showing power consumption of SB being just over 300w oc'd vs BD pushing almost 600W oc'd.
Click to expand...

Well, the numbers at load in the [H]'s test are 452 for BD@4.6 vs 275 for SB@4.8.

The SB crushes the BD at that speed, but only the deluded expected anything else.

My expectations prior to launch were for a BD OC:ed to its limits to just about keep up with a SB 2600K at stock speeds on average across the benchmarks, and that's pretty much what we got.

For me its worth it at that price, because I like supporting the underdog, and refuse to buy anything from Intel (I even stay away from their SSD's, NIC's and other peripherals.

So, since I've taken Intel off the table, this is still the best CPU I can get, and I plan on going with it.

I couldn't live with myself if I gave my money ti a company like Intel with its egregious corruption and anti-competitive practices.
 
Well, they keep doing that, they'll lose the consumer market like IBM did. I swear, they should of dropped the useless AMD branding, not ATi branding, two years ago.
 
If any of you are leaving the AMD camp, I have a 980x for sale. :)
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872302 said:
It's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Is it though? To most here, it isn't... certainly not to me. The higher power draw and poor single threaded performance of Bulldozer would have me picking the Thuban X6 over these BD procs if I wanted to buy a new AMD proc at the moment.
 
ndt said:
:) IMHO: The perspective is that we now pretty much live in a "green world" so therefore that oughta be the thinking and development of such hardware even overclocked. I'll pick on BD because it's fresh and new that AMD definitely has done wrong in performance and power consumption again IMHO.
Click to expand...

True, but the vast majority of computers spend an overwhelming majority of their time at idle.

When BD is at stock speeds, it's idle power usage only very slightly trails SB <10W

When it is overclocked, BD uses LESS POWER than SB, by ~20W.

I'd be willing to bet that between idle (95% of most computers existence) and moderate loads (the other 4.9% of the average computers time) BD is roughly equivalent to SB.

The only people who really need to be worried about BD's power usage while overclocked are those who Fold/Bitcoin mine/etc. 24/7, and these apps focus more on GPU than CPU these days anyway, don't they?
 
Maybe this is like the HD2900 and they will at least some what recover over the next few generations.
 
drako said:
Is it though? To most here, it isn't... certainly not to me. The higher power draw and poor single threaded performance of Bulldozer would have me picking the Thuban X6 over these BD procs if I wanted to buy a new AMD proc at the moment.
Click to expand...

Single threaded performance IS better than Thuban.

Not at the same clock, but considering BD can clock higher

I don't know how the [H] got their Thuban to 4.2Ghz, Mine only ever was able to hit 4.0, even with some rather extreme cooling and super low room temps.

BD on the other hand seems to more or less guarantee 4.5-4.6.

In a 4.0 vs 4.6 comparison (which is how I would run them) BD has the better single threaded performance (or at least ties Thuban), and this will probably only improve with time as software and BIOS optimizations mature.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872342 said:
True, but the vast majority of computers spend an overwhelming majority of their time at idle.

When BD is at stock speeds, it's idle power usage only very slightly trails SB <10W

When it is overclocked, BD uses LESS POWER than SB, by ~20W.

I'd be willing to bet that between idle (95% of most computers existence) and moderate loads (the other 4.9% of the average computers time) BD is roughly equivalent to SB.

The only people who really need to be worried about BD's power usage while overclocked are those who Fold/Bitcoin mine/etc. 24/7, and these apps focus more on GPU than CPU these days anyway, don't they?
Click to expand...

You bring up a good point and another piece of hardware needing refinements in power consumption IMHO.
 
stealthy123 said:
dude, no one has been talking trash, if you like intel and an amd guy stands up for his cpu it's not trash talking.

Only fools with zero credibility have been spouting off nonsense about it wiping the floor with intel.

Glad that you lump all AMD users in with them.
Click to expand...

I held off buying my 2600K for months waiting for BD because I believed a big portion of the crap that was being bandied around. So I'm not addressing all AMD users as I was more than happy to be one (and had been one for many years in the past). I'm directing my vitriol at the deluded boneheads who were trumpeting BD as the second coming and now have to dine on their own turds.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872342 said:
True, but the vast majority of computers spend an overwhelming majority of their time at idle.

When BD is at stock speeds, it's idle power usage only very slightly trails SB <10W

When it is overclocked, BD uses LESS POWER than SB, by ~20W.

I'd be willing to bet that between idle (95% of most computers existence) and moderate loads (the other 4.9% of the average computers time) BD is roughly equivalent to SB.

The only people who really need to be worried about BD's power usage while overclocked are those who Fold/Bitcoin mine/etc. 24/7, and these apps focus more on GPU than CPU these days anyway, don't they?
Click to expand...

I respect your right to pick whichever product you want as a consumer, and to vote as you see fit. But I just feel you're stretching at this point to justify BD. Its ok that BD competes at a level that is vastly outdated because no one should have expected more? Its ok that its power draw is terrible even though its performance is years behind because people's rigs are idling a lot of the time, and its idle draw isn't that bad? I just am not seeing it.

I have built phenom II rigs for people, I have a secondary amd rig, so its not like I'm some intel-only fanboy here. But I still expect real upside from my purchases, and I just don't see that with this release.

And as far as the earlier power draw, here's the chart that was linked yesterday.

ocpower.png


Seems that they were able to get a 4.8 OC out of it, although i haven't checked into their review much, so no guarantee on it. But given the increased draw [H] saw at 4.6, the power consumption at 4.8 doesn't seem impossible at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top