Why Amd's Bulldozer "should" be far behind

Status
Not open for further replies.

e-geek

Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
578
1) Amd's fastest current desktop processor (Phenom II) is based directly off around 10yr old single core athlon tech.

2) Amd's total R&D funding per year has been (averagely) only 1/6th of Intel's R&D costs.

3) After purchasing Ati graphics for an insane $5.4 billion in 2006, disappointing product releases and diminishing sales dropped the total estimated worth of Amd to $5 billion in 2007. Amd as a whole became worth significantly less than what they purchased the Ati graphics segment for.

4) In 2008 Amd were forced to sell off their fab plants so they could afford to cover normal operating costs and stay as the Amd we know today.

5) During periods of financial difficulty (purchase of Ati) the tech we know as Bulldozer today was given a lower internal priority which includes less money/man power/slower development cycle. Which no doubt delayed this unreleased tech, putting them further behind their $160+ billion rival Intel.

6) When Amd lead all cpu players with a faster, more efficient/attractive product, Intel paid many companies to not use Amd products.

Here's 6 pretty good reasons Amd shouldn't ever have rivaled intel and why if Bulldozer comes within 50% of SB it should be a miracle. We all know that's not how it works, but tbh Amd look like they've been unbelievably disadvantaged in almost every way since day 1.

I wonder if BD will come close to SB in the end?
 

novadaemon

Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
863
Well with your first argument, you could still say that all intel processors are based off of the pentium pro which is even older. Even so, the Athlon 64 and Clawhammer architecture that the phenom was based from isn't even 8 years old.

AMD lacks the applications to take advantage of its cores. It's main issue is IPC at this point. For your standard consumer Llano is more than enough. Even the Core i3 is overkill for your standard home user. Everything in the last few years has been overkill when it comes to e-mail and websurfing.

If anything, ATI is what is keeping AMD afloat. Their GPU segment is far more profitable than their CPU segment it seems.
 

e-geek

Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
578
...If anything, ATI is what is keeping AMD afloat. Their GPU segment is far more profitable than their CPU segment it seems.

Maybe Ati has become more profitable now, but they went through crazy bad times for the first few years after purchase as a direct result of the money lost/unavailable because of it.
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
23,836
Anyone who has paid attention at all to the CPU market the past couple years already knows this. This thread is a vain attempt to shut up fanboy trolls. But you can't shut up trolls, since they post shit to get a rise out of people, thus this thread is pointless just like the RE: Bulldozer Criticism Thread.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
1) Amd's fastest current desktop processor (Phenom II) is based directly off around 10yr old single core athlon tech.

2) Amd's total R&D funding per year has been (averagely) only 1/6th of Intel's R&D costs.

3) After purchasing Ati graphics for an insane $5.4 billion in 2006, disappointing product releases and diminishing sales dropped the total estimated worth of Amd to $5 billion in 2007. Amd as a whole became worth significantly less than what they purchased the Ati graphics segment for.

4) In 2008 Amd were forced to sell off their fab plants so they could afford to cover normal operating costs and stay as the Amd we know today.

5) During periods of financial difficulty (purchase of Ati) the tech we know as Bulldozer today was given a lower internal priority which includes less money/man power/slower development cycle. Which no doubt delayed this unreleased tech, putting them further behind their $160+ billion rival Intel.

6) When Amd lead all cpu players with a faster, more efficient/attractive product, Intel paid many companies to not use Amd products.

Here's 6 pretty good reasons Amd shouldn't ever have rivaled intel and why if Bulldozer comes within 50% of SB it should be a miracle. We all know that's not how it works, but tbh Amd look like they've been unbelievably disadvantaged in almost every way since day 1.

I wonder if BD will come close to SB in the end?

1) And it's still competitive. So your saying BD will last at least 10 years? :cool:

2) There's these things, called loans ;) and lawsuit compensations.

3) And now their powning Intels integrated graphics 2(x)+.

4) You win some you lose some it's life. Oh yeah, history repeats itself in strange ways.

5) That is because AMD knows what is better for them, than you. Lol.

6) AMD has honor, they don't get down and dirty like a sore loser. They just keep coming back for moar!

7) I buy AMD.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
Anyone who has paid attention at all to the CPU market the past couple years already knows this. This thread is a vain attempt to shut up fanboy trolls. But you can't shut up trolls, since they post shit to get a rise out of people, thus this thread is pointless just like the RE: Bulldozer Criticism Thread.

Without people posting there would be little use for the forums, nowhere does it say that the topic has to be true or make sense :) .

What he lists is true tho.
 

iconiK

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
701
1) And it's still competitive. So your saying BD will last at least 10 years? :cool:

2) There's these things, called loans ;) and lawsuit compensations.

3) And now their powning Intels integrated graphics 2(x)+.

4) You win some you lose some it's life. Oh yeah, history repeats itself in strange ways.

5) That is because AMD knows what is better for them, than you. Lol.

6) AMD has honor, they don't get down and dirty like a sore loser. They just keep coming back for moar!

7) I buy AMD.

1) Very competitive when Nehalem mops the floor with 66% of the core count at the same clock speed. Sandy Bridge's lowly i3 2100 gives their Thuban a run for it's money, any quad core bulldozes it. I won't even mention power usage.

2) Not enough to keep AMD very competitive. They need income from their own products, lots of it and fast. They fired the CEO that finally got Bulldozer close to reality so they could sell the fab plants, stick out a half-baked Llano so the big bosses get more cash now, at the risk of the whole company; typical corporate greed.

3) Graphics ain't gonna do much when the CPU is lagging behind. A graphics core equivalent to 6550 will let you play... eh, maybe SC at 1600x900, but you'll quickly become CPU bound on that game, probably many others. It is fine for an upgrade from value LGA 775 though, but can't quite compete with Sandy.

4) Too bad AMD has been losing since Conroe came out. In a massive way. The K8 (Athlon 64) core received decorations since 2003, like L3 cache, integrated memory controller, HyperTransport; the core is still exactly the same, at a higher clock on a smaller process, it's only competitive versus Penryn (second gen. Core 2).

5) It's not a good idea to get a few billion dollars, dump half of that (or whatever) to the executives (as usually happens), then pay a LOT more for making your own chips. That's hardly good for AMD when even their excellent value chips will get costlier, hence less profits or higher prices.



Now, I'm not an Intel fanboy, or NVIDIA, or anything else, I take what gives me the best value for my money. For example, dual Opteron 6128 in an SSI EEB ASUS motherboard (can't recall which one right now) is excellent value if you load it with a lot of RAM and run VMs. Also, AMD's GPUs are excellent to run several monitors off a single one, for work - you can use the other expansion slots for things like SAS controllers, NICs, etc, and lower power usage.
 
Last edited:

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Now, I'm not an Intel fanboy, or NVIDIA, or anything else, I take what gives me the best value for my money. For example, dual Opteron 6128 in an SSI EEB ASUS motherboard (can't recall which one right now) is excellent value if you load it with a lot of RAM and run VMs. Also, AMD's GPUs are excellent to run several monitors off a single one, for work - you can use the other expansion slots for things like SAS controllers, NICs, etc, and lower power usage.

You must game at 640x480p or another low res eh? Intel has like zero performance @ 2560x1600 res and up 5Kx1080p Eyefinity / Nvidia surrond etc.

Or do you use a stop watch when you open up a spreadsheet or web browser betty crocker recipe on your Intel CPU against an AMD CPU to make sure your e-peen is in check?
 
Last edited:

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
1) Very competitive when Nehalem mops the floor with 66% of the core count at the same clock speed. Sandy Bridge's lowly i3 2100 gives their Thuban a run for it's money, any quad core bulldozes it. I won't even mention power usage.

2) Not enough to keep AMD very competitive. They need income from their own products, lots of it and fast. They fired the CEO that finally got Bulldozer close to reality so they could sell the fab plants, stick out a half-baked Llano so the big bosses get more cash now, at the risk of the whole company; typical corporate greed.

3) Graphics ain't gonna do much when the CPU is lagging behind. A graphics core equivalent to 6550 will let you play... eh, maybe SC at 1600x900, but you'll quickly become CPU bound on that game, probably many others. It is fine for an upgrade from value LGA 775 though, but can't quite compete with Sandy.

4) Too bad AMD has been losing since Conroe came out. In a massive way. The K8 (Athlon 64) core received decorations since 2003, like L3 cache, integrated memory controller, HyperTransport; the core is still exactly the same, at a higher clock on a smaller process, it's only competitive versus Penryn (second gen. Core 2).

5) It's not a good idea to get a few billion dollars, dump half of that (or whatever) to the executives (as usually happens), then pay a LOT more for making your own chips. That's hardly good for AMD when even their excellent value chips will get costlier, hence less profits or higher prices.



Now, I'm not an Intel fanboy, or NVIDIA, or anything else, I take what gives me the best value for my money. For example, dual Opteron 6128 in an SSI EEB ASUS motherboard (can't recall which one right now) is excellent value if you load it with a lot of RAM and run VMs. Also, AMD's GPUs are excellent to run several monitors off a single one, for work - you can use the other expansion slots for things like SAS controllers, NICs, etc, and lower power usage.


1. you are thinking like an enthusiast and not a consumer. we account for 1% of all cpu purchases.

2. meh 1 pretty much answers all of them.


AMD doesn't need to beat Intel in anyway, all they need to do is come up with something that is affordable and fits within the performance that the average consumer is looking for while throwing out a toy for the enthusiasts. for the average consumer COST means everything and performance means absolutely dick. all they care is that they can open their emails and watch some flash video's and play their stupid facebook games. thats the thing people seem to keep missing.. Us enthusiast's don't matter in the big picture, we could sit here and argue all day about how i7 has this and how bulldozer doesn't have this and vice versa, neither company cares. all they care about is their majority customer base, why do you think its taken so long for Intel to get LGA-2011 out after they claimed it would be available in Q2 of 2011, because lga-1155 is where the volume sale and profit is. its just plain common sense that we all tend to ignore living in our own enthusiast world.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
You must game at 640x480p or another low res eh? Intel has like zero performance @ 2560x1600 res and up 5Kx1080p Eyefinity / Nvidia surrond etc.

Or do you use a stop watch when you open up a spreadsheet or web browser betty crocker recipe on your Intel CPU against an AMD CPU to make sure your e-peen is in check?

Most people game @ 1080P(1920x1080) or 1920x1200. A lot of people on this forum use eyefinity/surround and 2560x1600, but not most of the general public. At 1920x1200 there is an 11 FPS difference, pretty big. But yes, the CPU is not as important at higher resolutions in modern games. But Sandybridge performs better in every other task that you can do.

Also with Tri-Sli and above you need more power in your CPU/higher clock speeds so the CPU does matter with SLI. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/05/03/nvidia_3way_sli_amd_trifire_redux
 

TheToE!

[H] Brewmaster
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
8,549
1) And it's still competitive. So your saying BD will last at least 10 years? :cool:

2) There's these things, called loans ;) and lawsuit compensations.

3) And now their powning Intels integrated graphics 2(x)+.

4) You win some you lose some it's life. Oh yeah, history repeats itself in strange ways.

5) That is because AMD knows what is better for them, than you. Lol.

6) AMD has honor, they don't get down and dirty like a sore loser. They just keep coming back for moar!

7) I buy AMD.

You sir have got to be the most legendary AMD fanboy ever. I salute you!
 

sirmo

Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
516
1) Amd's fastest current desktop processor (Phenom II) is based directly off around 10yr old single core athlon tech.

Sandy and Nehalem is based on Pentium Pro

2) Amd's total R&D funding per year has been (averagely) only 1/6th of Intel's R&D costs.

That means that proportionally speaking AMD actually spends more money on R&D than Intel. As they are 10 times the size of AMD but spend only 6 times more on R&D costs.

Also don't forget AMD's strategic partnership with IBM. IBM spends a lot of money on R&D as well.

3) After purchasing Ati graphics for an insane $5.4 billion in 2006, disappointing product releases and diminishing sales dropped the total estimated worth of Amd to $5 billion in 2007. Amd as a whole became worth significantly less than what they purchased the Ati graphics segment for.

Actually AMD spent 2 billion and the rest came in a form of 56 million shares of stock. Intel on the other hand spent $2 billion on Larabee which was a complete waste. I'd say ATI was a much better purchase for AMD than Larabee was for Intel. In fact this is not even arguable.

You also conveniently forgot to mention that ATI side of things has never been this competitive. It's been 3-4 years of pure victories for them.

In fact I even see ATI's influence in the BD design. And I think Trinity will have no competition from Intel for a long time.

4) In 2008 Amd were forced to sell off their fab plants so they could afford to cover normal operating costs and stay as the Amd we know today.

nVidia is fabless, it's not a huge deal. This lets AMD concentrate efforts on designing chips and not running a fab also.

5) During periods of financial difficulty (purchase of Ati) the tech we know as Bulldozer today was given a lower internal priority which includes less money/man power/slower development cycle. Which no doubt delayed this unreleased tech, putting them further behind their $160+ billion rival Intel.
[citation needed]

6) When Amd lead all cpu players with a faster, more efficient/attractive product, Intel paid many companies to not use Amd products.
They also got convicted of it on multiple continents and they had to pay billions in damages.

Here's 6 pretty good reasons Amd shouldn't ever have rivaled intel and why if Bulldozer comes within 50% of SB it should be a miracle. We all know that's not how it works, but tbh Amd look like they've been unbelievably disadvantaged in almost every way since day 1.

I wonder if BD will come close to SB in the end?

I doubted AMD recently as well, but so far everything AMD has done has been very good. Video cards are top notch, Zacate and Llano are great. They are bringing FX back, there is no doubt in my mind BD is not here to whoop Intel around.
 

drescherjm

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
14,938
Bulldozer will be competitive across the board with Intel's current generation i3, i5, and i7 products. It will not be far ahead or far behind.
 

Dulak

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
316
for the average consumer COST means everything and performance means absolutely dick. all they care is that they can open their emails and watch some flash video's and play their stupid facebook games. thats the thing people seem to keep missing..

I agree ...its computer sellers at best buy ... or dell or where-ever that will sell amd chips the most. They will sell em to moms and pops and dumb college kids that dont know jack ...
in their prepackaged systems all across america (and the world).

The way most companies have stayed in competition with the big dog is to offer a product that is as good or just a little better at a cheaper price ... plain and simple ... and this has been done for a long time with chips cpu/gpus etc ...

When it comes to buying the family computer or kids college laptop its the cheaper one that often wins out ... the cheaper one that does the job.

And this is what has made AMD successful ... and now ATI ...

I for one like to support the 'little guy' especially if they offer a product that is 'as good' but cheaper.

I look forward to owning a amd chip again ... hope they created something special
 

iconiK

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
701
You must game at 640x480p or another low res eh? Intel has like zero performance @ 2560x1600 res and up 5Kx1080p Eyefinity / Nvidia surrond etc.

Or do you use a stop watch when you open up a spreadsheet or web browser betty crocker recipe on your Intel CPU against an AMD CPU to make sure your e-peen is in check?

For a spreadsheet / web browser, Intel is still slightly better, as it has less power usage; this is only relevant in notebooks, on the desktops, go ahead. Pentium G620 or Athlon II or Llano will do FINE.

As for gaming, up to 1280x1028 is fine, most people who would game on integrated are using old/cheap monitors. What the fuck would you expect, a 15W GPU able to game decently at 2560x1600, or do multiple monitors? YOU go try do that on a 6550, you'll fail, as you will on HD 2000/3000. These are meant for occasional gaming at low resolutions, mostly there to do GPU acceleration.

Sandy and Nehalem is based on Pentium Pro

But Intel has evolved those, AMD has not. Strip L3 cache, drop the clock to Athlon 64 levels, go and run a single threaded benchmark, and you'll have similar performance to CPUs in 2003. Do the same with Nehalem or Sandy and they'll mop the floor with SEVERAL of those Pentium Pro cores.

But Nehalem ain't based on Pentium Pro, that's Core 2. Nehalem is a spin off Netburst, as is Sandy indirectly. Nehalem is what Netburst should have been, minus the 45nm process.

[citation needed]

Bulldozer has been delayed for a long time. There's your citation.

I doubted AMD recently as well, but so far everything AMD has done has been very good. Video cards are top notch, Zacate and Llano are great. They are bringing FX back, there is no doubt in my mind BD is not here to whoop Intel around.

We are talking about CPUs here. AMD has aquired a big GPU company, Intel has not. AMD GPUs compete with NVIDIA, not Intel; the low-end segment ain't much competition, so don't mention the whole GPU line to defend AMD. That's another business segment.
 
Last edited:

JMccovery

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,208
Anyone who has paid attention at all to the CPU market the past couple years already knows this. This thread is a vain attempt to shut up fanboy trolls. But you can't shut up trolls, since they post shit to get a rise out of people, thus this thread is pointless just like the RE: Bulldozer Criticism Thread.

OP, below is what CaptNumbNutz is talking about:

1) And it's still competitive. So your saying BD will last at least 10 years? :cool:

2) There's these things, called loans ;) and lawsuit compensations.

3) And now their powning Intels integrated graphics 2(x)+.

4) You win some you lose some it's life. Oh yeah, history repeats itself in strange ways.

5) That is because AMD knows what is better for them, than you. Lol.

6) AMD has honor, they don't get down and dirty like a sore loser. They just keep coming back for moar!

7) I buy AMD.

1) Very competitive when Nehalem mops the floor with 66% of the core count at the same clock speed. Sandy Bridge's lowly i3 2100 gives their Thuban a run for it's money, any quad core bulldozes it. I won't even mention power usage.

2) Not enough to keep AMD very competitive. They need income from their own products, lots of it and fast. They fired the CEO that finally got Bulldozer close to reality so they could sell the fab plants, stick out a half-baked Llano so the big bosses get more cash now, at the risk of the whole company; typical corporate greed.

3) Graphics ain't gonna do much when the CPU is lagging behind. A graphics core equivalent to 6550 will let you play... eh, maybe SC at 1600x900, but you'll quickly become CPU bound on that game, probably many others. It is fine for an upgrade from value LGA 775 though, but can't quite compete with Sandy.

4) Too bad AMD has been losing since Conroe came out. In a massive way. The K8 (Athlon 64) core received decorations since 2003, like L3 cache, integrated memory controller, HyperTransport; the core is still exactly the same, at a higher clock on a smaller process, it's only competitive versus Penryn (second gen. Core 2).

5) It's not a good idea to get a few billion dollars, dump half of that (or whatever) to the executives (as usually happens), then pay a LOT more for making your own chips. That's hardly good for AMD when even their excellent value chips will get costlier, hence less profits or higher prices.

Now, I'm not an Intel fanboy, or NVIDIA, or anything else, I take what gives me the best value for my money. For example, dual Opteron 6128 in an SSI EEB ASUS motherboard (can't recall which one right now) is excellent value if you load it with a lot of RAM and run VMs. Also, AMD's GPUs are excellent to run several monitors off a single one, for work - you can use the other expansion slots for things like SAS controllers, NICs, etc, and lower power usage.

Can this thread be locked? It WILL get too far out of hand. No offense e-geek, but threads like this are major flame/trollbait for BOTH sides.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
518
1) Amd's fastest current desktop processor (Phenom II) is based directly off around 10yr old single core athlon tech.
And the Intel Core line is based on the Pentium M/Pentium III Tualitin, which is based on the Pentium Pro from 1995; who cares.
 
Last edited:

OFaceSIG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,518
Gawd these Bulldozer threads are becoming ridiculous.

Kyle can we just freeze all of them till it comes out? I like personally like AMD but this is just becoming stupid.
 

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,515
4) Too bad AMD has been losing since Conroe came out. In a massive way. The K8 (Athlon 64) core received decorations since 2003, like L3 cache, integrated memory controller, HyperTransport; the core is still exactly the same, at a higher clock on a smaller process, it's only competitive versus Penryn (second gen. Core 2).

what k8 had l3 cache?

we need some [H]ard benches to end these pointless threads!!!
 

Devilpup

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
2,047
Some of these threads are starting to look like they were written by Brick from Anchorman.

Freedom of speech is good and all but there is something to be said for shutting people up sometimes.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abe Lincoln
 

mannyman

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,854
All i have to say to this thread is... Make war not peace or something like that.
 

kirtar

Gawd
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
575
ok yes, based on status quo, you might expect it to be behind. However, BD is not status quo. It's not just some minor revision of K*, but a fairly unique idea. Like any new product or new business, status quo does not really tell you everything. It'd be like saying that because a company is not large now it will never be large.
 

octoberasian

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
4,082
Some of these threads are starting to look like they were written by Brick from Anchorman.

Freedom of speech is good and all but there is something to be said for shutting people up sometimes.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abe Lincoln

Majority of the threads and complaints from what I've seen and read lately stem from the fact that many people-- whether they're a fanboy or not-- are still disappointed by AMD since the Phenom I days. They are already expecting to be disappointed by Bulldozer's release because it may not even match or beat a "mid-range" Core i7 2500/2600K (from the looks of the posts as of late). And, they're basing this on the fact that AMD has been way behind Intel since Phenom I's release.

They want a processor or product from AMD to beat or match an Intel processor "Model x" but are already setting their expectations very low. As such, they're voicing their criticism and opinion about a product that hasn't even been released yet. They're even basing it on leaked slides and leaked reviews that purport Bulldozer's performance.

Even myself has been privvy to make a thread here but my only intention was to find an answer to "Why?" to all these criticisms. I wanted to know why people are expecting "this" when in reality they don't realize AMD has lower resources and funding compared to the [seemingly monopolistic] giant that is Intel. Some of my questions were answered but not entirely.

Just because an AMD processor won't meet your expectations isn't a reason to make a dozen or threads about the same thing.

In my opinion, if one continues to strive for perfection or very high expections of themselves or others, they will eventually hit a dead end because it's impossible to reach; impossible to be perfect.

AMD is one such example. Intel has, as one person mentioned before, six times the resources and funding to build and produce the processors it has. AMD has no such luxury. Expecting them to match the IPC [per core] and performance of an Intel X-processor is impossible to ask unless someone is willing to donate to AMD tens of millions of dollars, the brightest engineers, the best processor designers, then maybe AMD may have a fighting chance.

This is how I see the "camps" so far:
AMD is aiming, from what I see, to beat Intel at mid-range pricing even if the processor doesn't beat a mid-range Intel CPU (i.e.- Core i7 2500/2600k).

Other people here are expecting AMD to aim higher performance with a better price or will be completely disappointed entirely if it doesn't meet that absurdly high expectation. (Again, AMD != Intel.)

Others are just going to wait and see what happens if and when it gets reviewed by a site like [H].

And, in my opinion, many others are just going to stick with Intel knowing AMD can't even beat any of Intel's processors in the mid- to high-end range.
These are the kind of people I see on these forums.
 

Poisoner

Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
835
Oh yeah, a long time ago AMD revered engineered Intel processors to create their own. Nehalem could of easily been copied and improved upon. AMD has had the time and money.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
Oh yeah, a long time ago AMD revered engineered Intel processors to create their own. Nehalem could of easily been copied and improved upon. AMD has had the time and money.

Wtf_is_this_shit.jpg
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
Get some links then instead of just stating something.
 

Poisoner

Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
835
It's common knowledge, read Wikipedia or Google it. AMD has been further behind technically and caught up or surpassed Intel.

Whether or not bulldozer turns out good, AMD has been in worse situations.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
It's common knowledge, read Wikipedia or Google it. AMD has been further behind technically and caught up or surpassed Intel.

Whether or not bulldozer turns out good, AMD has been in worse situations.

Get a link since all google is showing is that Intel reverse engineered AMD.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
That is because they were allowed to use Intels Microcode. They are not allowed to use Nehalems microcode. :rolleyes:
 

iconiK

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
701
Can this thread be locked? It WILL get too far out of hand. No offense e-geek, but threads like this are major flame/trollbait for BOTH sides.

Fair enough.

I'm not flaming/trolling, I haven't insulted anyone and I'm not talking shit. Of course, my messages are a bit subjective, as we're all humans. What you agree with is up to you, not going to kill anyone for having a different point of view.

what k8 had l3 cache?

No, but K10 is essentially K8 with L3 and IMC.

Oh yeah, a long time ago AMD revered engineered Intel processors to create their own. Nehalem could of easily been copied and improved upon. AMD has had the time and money.

Right, they could have! Oh wait, Nehalem is several orders of magnitude more complicated than 386. Intel spent billions of dollars to research Nehalem, AMD would have needed to spend at least double that to reverse engineer it, as that's a heck of a lot harder on something this complicated. Last time I looked, AMD doesn't have that kind of money.

Get a link since all google is showing is that Intel reverse engineered AMD.

The Am386 CPU was released by AMD in 1991. A 100%-compatible clone of the Intel 80386 design, it sold millions of units and positioned AMD as a legitimate competitor to Intel, rather than just a second source for x86 CPUs (then termed 8086-family).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am386"]Am386 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Am386DX-40.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Am386DX-40.jpg/150px-Am386DX-40.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/74/Am386DX-40.jpg/150px-Am386DX-40.jpg[/ame]
 

griff30

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
6,940
What about AMD's instruction sets that are included in the Bulldozer? I haven't heard anyone talk about them.
 

iconiK

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
701
What about AMD's instruction sets that are included in the Bulldozer? I haven't heard anyone talk about them.

Fused multiply-add? That's nothing really spectacular. Only a specific operation can get faster. Advanced Vector Extensions was introduced by Sandy Bridge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top