What Were They Thinking

AntiSocialMunky said:
It costs 1000 USD and performs the same as a 2600k.
Click to expand...

i7 970's can be had for around $400 now, and beat the pants off of the BD. And will CRUSH either SB or BD in heavily multithreaded apps.

The point I was making though, was not 'buy an old cpu'. It was 'amd can't even match intel's last generation of processors'. I love AMD as a company, but they have really f'd up every single cpu since after the original AthlonXP.
 
If I had to wager a guess, this poor showing is primarily from trying to introduce a new architecture and a die shrink at the same time. This is usually not a good idea (and why Intel adopted their Tick-Tock strategy).

The longer pipeline used sacrifices IPC for the ability to increase clocks, but the new 32nm manufacturing process is in its infancy, and as such is not allowing the clocks to materialize.

I wouldn't be surprised to see BD be significantly better than it is now (at least overclocked) as GloFo's 32nm process matures.

In the mean time I'll likely get a FX8150, if for no other reason to support AMD and get a (minor) upgrade over my Thuban X6. Maybe I'll get another down the road whenthey can clock higher :p
 
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...

Nope, dude. I don't want a system with an Atom CPU and an HD6970 2GB. I don't care how much my Photoshop says it likes GPUs.

Zarathustra[H];1037872435 said:
If I had to wager a guess, this poor showing is primarily from trying to introduce a new architecture and a die shrink at the same time. This is usually not a good idea (and why Intel adopted their Tick-Tock strategy).

The longer pipeline used sacrifices IPC for the ability to increase clocks, but the new 32nm manufacturing process is in its infancy, and as such is not allowing the clocks to materialize.

I wouldn't be surprised to see BD be significantly better than it is now (at least overclocked) as GloFo's 32nm process matures.

In the mean time I'll likely get a FX8150, if for no other reason to support AMD and get a (minor) upgrade over my Thuban X6. Maybe I'll get another down the road whenthey can clock higher :p
Click to expand...

Support AMD? I didn't know they were a charity. Will you get a tax receipt? :)
 
Improved clocks never materialized for Netburst. I hope AMD can indeed crack that nut, but if Intel couldn't then I have significant doubts anyone can.
 
but they have really f'd up every single cpu since after the original AthlonXP.
Click to expand...

Opterons were great. I had quite a few of them in single and dual processor configurations. It wasn't until core2 came out and when they started having difficulties competing with Intel.
 
AntiSocialMunky said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/48?vs=434 :D

I can do the same thing too, Zoson!
Click to expand...

So yeah, AMD's finally caught up and fully surpassed C2 architecture... That's two architectures and a manufacturing process shrink in the past... Not sure what the point is you're trying to make other than the point I was just making... AMD rested on it's laurels after the AthlonXP and has failed to execute at all since.
 
Zoson said:
So yeah, AMD's finally caught up and fully surpassed C2 architecture... That's two architectures and a manufacturing process shrink in the past... Not sure what the point is you're trying to make other than the point I was just making... AMD rested on it's laurels after the AthlonXP and has failed to execute at all since.
Click to expand...

AMD can make it cheaper though.
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see BD be significantly better than it is now (at least overclocked) as GloFo's 32nm process matures.
Click to expand...

I expect this. However the competition will be very tough unless Intel is flat out lying about their 22nm process.
 
drescherjm said:
Opterons were great. I had quite a few of them in single and dual processor configurations. It wasn't until core2 came out and when they started having difficulties competing with Intel.
Click to expand...

Opterons sucked when they first came out because of the B2 TLB bug. I had one, but it failed to outperform my athlonxp clocked at 2.7ghz, so I dumped it and switched to intel.

Not to mention it could not even get CLOSE to a 2.7ghz overclock.
 
Zoson said:
i7 970's can be had for around $400 now, and beat the pants off of the BD. And will CRUSH either SB or BD in heavily multithreaded apps.

The point I was making though, was not 'buy an old cpu'. It was 'amd can't even match intel's last generation of processors'. I love AMD as a company, but they have really f'd up every single cpu since after the original AthlonXP.
Click to expand...

I thought they had a few hits in a row.

- Slot A Athlons were good. as were Socket A Athlons and Durons.
- Then Athlon XP's improved upon them and were even better.
- And then Athlon 64's improved even further and were a great design.

The problem was that After the Athlon64 launch, AMD kinda slowed down their product development, and not only let Intel catch up with the Core designs, but then own them with C2D, Nehalem and now Sandy Bridge.

Some blame this on their Acquisition of ATI taking resources away from CPU development, but the issue started way before that.

IMHO, it's just because AMD is too small to keep up with Intels development. AMD shouldnt even have had their successes with K7 and K8, and they wouldn't haveif Intel hadn't screwed up with P4. the success of the Athlon had less to do with AMD's brilliance, and more to do with Intel screwing up one generation of CPU designs.

It was only a matter of time for Intel to catch up and dominate AMD again, just like they did before Athlon.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872473 said:
IMHO, it's just because AMD is too small to keep up with Intels development. AMD shouldnt even have had their successes with K7 and K8, and they wouldn't haveif Intel hadn't screwed up with P4. the success of the Athlon had less to do with AMD's brilliance, and more to do with Intel screwing up one generation of CPU designs.
Click to expand...
I was just about to post the same thing. The K7 was a nice processor and a good launch from AMD, but I bet if Intel had of stuck with improving the P3 architecture instead of going off on their Netburst tangent, AMD would have had a lot more trouble making the case for the Athlons.
 
Weeth said:
Support AMD? I didn't know they were a charity. Will you get a tax receipt? :)
Click to expand...

I'd rather they have a reason to stay in the enthusiast CPU market and not drop out, or every future Intel CPU will only be a marginal improvement on what we currently have and cost $1000+...
 
drako said:
I was just about to post the same thing. The K7 was a nice processor and a good launch from AMD, but I bet if Intel had of stuck with improving the P3 architecture instead of going off on their Netburst tangent, AMD would have had a lot more trouble making the case for the Athlons.
Click to expand...

Well Core Duos and C2Ds were uber P3s and they pounded AMD into the ground especially with the Phenom TLB bug :p
 
I'm more disappointed that they brought back the FX moniker for a product like this. Leave that title for when you have something good.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872513 said:
I'd rather they have a reason to stay in the enthusiast CPU market and not drop out, or every future Intel CPU will only be a marginal improvement on what we currently have and cost $1000+...
Click to expand...

I do not dispute that FX's failure has given Intel an implicit License To Rape. "You want a high end CPU, little boy... drop your pants!" Again, thanks for NOTHING, AMD!
 
larkin said:
Tom's actually did a comparison of benchmarks in win7 vs win8 with it's better scheduler and there is improvement but only about 10% at best in the game example. Somehow, 2500K is still trouncing 8150 at SC2, WOW, CIV V and others. I'm really interested to know how it can be beat so astonishingly (20fps behind 2500K @ SC2).
Click to expand...

RTS game speed affect 3D framerates. My SB trounces a Phenom 2 in terms of maximum speed of the game. With 5,000 units in Supreme Commander (NOT Sup Com2, which is shit), I can run maximum game speed -1 or -2.

With a Phenom 2, it will lag to -4 -5. I don't see that changing with BD. The difference is obvious. Although SC and Starcraft can use more than one core, SB single core performance is twice that of Phenom/Bulldozer.

I knew it was going to suck..but man..BD is terrible.:confused:
 
Weeth said:
I do not dispute that FX's failure has given Intel an implicit License To Rape. "You want a high end CPU, little boy... drop your pants!" Again, thanks for NOTHING, AMD!
Click to expand...

Fusion APUs are set up to rape low-mid end gaming systems and laptops though if AMD plays its card right which IMO is much cooler. Hopefully they get all the bugs out of Bulldozer when they start making bulldozer based APUs.
 
Faethon said:
No wonder why AMD changed CEO recently... At least the new guy will be able to tell the share holders "it's not my fault, i just came here!"
Click to expand...

Meh,

I don't think they'd change CEO's just so that <1% of the CPU market (the people who might buy FX CPU's) would be happier.

AMD fired Meyer because he was resistant to fully embracing the mobile market, and thats the way the board thought the company should move.

What people keep forgetting is that Bulldozer is a server architecture. It's entire architecture is based on optimizing processing of large databases and serving content in a low clock farm environment. A consumer chip was never much more than afterthought.

1.) Server people designed a server chip without much regard for anything but server loads and server applications, and optimizing it as much for those loads as possible.

2.) Consumer division was allowed to take the design and adapt it for Deskstop use where it was never going to be an optimal design.

The truth is that as long as AMD's server customers (Opteron) and OEM customers (Llano and Zacate) they don't really care if they lose their entire enthusiast market. every sale counts, but if they can design a dedicated server design that can grow their share of that market by even a few percent, that - by far - would outweigh the loss of the enthusiast market.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872868 said:
2.) Consumer division was allowed to take the design and adapt it for Deskstop use
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, this was what brought us the i7 chip in the consumer market.
 
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...

But, but, but.....think of all the natural gas you won't be using heating your home this winter! :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872868 said:
What people keep forgetting is that Bulldozer is a server architecture. It's entire architecture is based on optimizing processing of large databases and serving content in a low clock farm environment. A consumer chip was never much more than afterthought.
Click to expand...

The competition there is pretty fierce too if you ask me. When your competition has 10C/20T models in a 130W package, I don't see how BD is going to compete there either.

There is no way in hell you will see a 20C/20T Interlagos part, that's for goddamn sure. Even a 10C part in 130W seems like a stretch looking at the numbers.
 
fatrat said:
But, but, but.....think of all the natural gas you won't be using heating your home this winter! :p
Click to expand...

Ah, I see - amd marketing needs to be targeting based on geography clearly. "BD is what we here at AMD like to call a chip for the everyday arctic."
 
Adam12176 said:
The competition there is pretty fierce too if you ask me. When your competition has 10C/20T models in a 130W package, I don't see how BD is going to compete there either.

There is no way in hell you will see a 20C/20T Interlagos part, that's for goddamn sure. Even a 10C part in 130W seems like a stretch looking at the numbers.
Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, AMD's stock is up 3% thus far today, so the market seems to agree with me.

The impact of their poor showing in high end consumer chips, which is a tiny minority of their sales really doesn't matter much. :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872868 said:
Meh,

I don't think they'd change CEO's just so that <1% of the CPU market (the people who might buy FX CPU's) would be happier.

...

The truth is that as long as AMD's server customers (Opteron) and OEM customers (Llano and Zacate) they don't really care if they lose their entire enthusiast market. every sale counts, but if they can design a dedicated server design that can grow their share of that market by even a few percent, that - by far - would outweigh the loss of the enthusiast market.
Click to expand...

Well, if the aim of AMD is servers, then ok i guess. I just think that they 're not just losing the enthusiast market. Many people in Europe wants the best bang for the buck. In italian fora, most people don't come and ask "what's the best CPU?". Most say "i have 120 euros and i usually do this and that with the PC. What's the best i can do with that money?" And at that price, i am afraid AMD will lose these people too.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037872937 said:
Well, for what it's worth, AMD's stock is up 3% thus far today, so the market seems to agree with me.

The impact of their poor showing in high end consumer chips, which is a tiny minority of their sales really doesn't matter much. :p
Click to expand...

This is goofy logic. I'm not arguing stocks, which I'm sure fluctuate 3% before lunch most every day, I'm arguing technical feasibility.

Yes, the impact of the FX brand tanking is minimal. So you move on - how is this going to work in servers, where power can be paramount? Can you even fathom trying to explain why solution Y is better than X at a much higher power draw/lower core and/or thread count?

I'll reserve judgment, but looking at it as is, I don't see how this will be competitive in a server environment either. You'll either end up with less cores or lower clocks - and neither of those are attractive.
 
AntiSocialMunky said:
Fusion APUs are set up to rape low-mid end gaming systems and laptops though if AMD plays its card right which IMO is much cooler. Hopefully they get all the bugs out of Bulldozer when they start making bulldozer based APUs.
Click to expand...

IMHO: The reason for BD sucking has nothing to do with bugs. Bad fab + bad uarch.
 
Adam12176 said:
I'll reserve judgment, but looking at it as is, I don't see how this will be competitive in a server environment either. You'll either end up with less cores or lower clocks - and neither of those are attractive.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unless they are harvesting the best cores for Opterons or something like that.

I wonder what the Bulldozer based Opteron figures look like.

Businesses are very serious about reducing the power usage in their server farms, as are those who build super computers, but as I understand sales have been great to both of these customer groups...
 
Athlon 64's run until C2D was AMD's hay day. I don't know where all this revisionist history comes from with AthlonXP and the P4. Athlon XP's were better than the original Willamette P4's, Northwood's eclipsed them. You'd think P4's sucked the whole time, and AMD dominated them for a bunch of time. That's why I used to buy my Athlon XP's for $50 right? AMD never reached the heights they did, for as long as they did, than with Athlon 64's. Selling large numbers of CPUs greater than $200, making unheard of for them headway in the server space. Stock price like $40.
 
Last edited:
Now that I say it out loud though, for small SMB's/Mid size businesses I'm wondering if an 8C 125W BD part would be competitive with something like an E7-2850 10C/20T at 2ghz. It's the same TDP, so I guess it all comes down to how well ESX/HyperV/Xen can use BD cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top