AMD Bulldozer Thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-12-2011, 04:19 PM
Brice MJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

So they switch from 980x to 2600K to 2500K comparisons whenever they see they would get hammered ? Way to go AMD...
Slide in 1100T in those benchmarks and see Zambezi being massive 10% faster with 33% more "cores" ,15% more clockspeed and 8MB more cache. They failed with Bulldozer on desktop,period. They enter year 2012 with Bobcat level of IPC,going backwards in time instead jumping over K10. Llano's core is a speed train compared to chariot of bulldozer :)

I really hope after this fail you finally learn a lesson: Dont overhype AMD products before launch anymore. Barcelona wasnt 20-30% faster than Intel CPC, neither Zambezi does 11 pts in Cinebench 11.5, but AMD never said that. :up:
10-12-2011, 04:22 PM
trans am

gimme a current intel tech with no cold bug and ill be glad to buy it.
10-12-2011, 04:24 PM
G0ldBr1ck

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brice MJ

I really hope after this fail you finally learn a lesson: Dont overhype AMD products before launch anymore. Barcelona wasnt 20-30% faster than Intel CPC, neither Zambezi does 11 pts in Cinebench 11.5, but AMD never said that. :up:

Ive not seen him over hype. I recall his posts being more conservative. I know its hard for some folks to not to do the "I told you so" thing but trust me, It don't make a person look smarter pointing out when somebody else is wrong. ;)
10-12-2011, 04:26 PM
god_43

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliG

lol why not just get 2 2600ks? Wouldn't that seem to be the logical thing to do after seeing the performance numbers?

....not unless i live in bazaro world.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx...ssor-review/14
10-12-2011, 04:33 PM
freeloader

I wonder how BD would do on Intel's FAB process? Just curious...:)
10-12-2011, 04:33 PM
JAWS

I will admit, AMD really fooled me big time. I can't tell you how excited I was for this launch. For the last couple of months I couldn't wait to check XS news for any bulldozer updates.

I always pull for the underdog and I'm very much an AMD fanboy, but I almost feel betrayed. I know it's foolish to think this way but it's true. Honest to god I wish they would've been upfront with the details and maybe released benchmarks here and there.

AMD I'm not sure how much more disappointment I can take.
10-12-2011, 04:40 PM
[XC] gomeler

Quote:

Originally Posted by god_43

....not unless i live in bazaro world.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx...ssor-review/14

For video encoding and I imagine for HPC applications I think Bulldozer could be a decent win if they can pull in the power consumption. For the desktop however I'd have rather seen a 32nm K10 with some improvements to boost IPC a little.
10-12-2011, 04:45 PM
G0ldBr1ck

I have owned AMD stock for a long time and have allot invested, more than a years salary anyway. And therefore have always felt obligated to support them by always buying AMD. I have thought long and hard about this and I have decided that I will be using Intel CPU's in my next round of builds for the first time since 2001. I also like JAWS said feel betrayed as wrong as that is. It just makes me sick. It was hard enough sticking with them during the Barcelona era.
10-12-2011, 04:59 PM
Sparky

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamtan2

yeah, you are. you missed it being delayed 10+ times over 4 years. you missed the GF foundry being the worst at every measure. you missed the CEO getting fired. you missed every leaked benchmark that showed bulldozer sucking.

yes, people missed a lot. maybe this is what you should read next: "in the face of clear evidence to suggest to the contrary, why do some people remain so optimistic about the future?" http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-1...c-reality.html

1) I didn't miss anything of what you're going on about.
2) We had a crapload of rumors flying on both sides of the spectrum for a long time. I wouldn't call any of the stuff we had up until recently "clear evidence."

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamtan2

it cannot. they cannot produce enough llano, their new server chips suck, and their new enthusiast chips suck. they are not a rich company, and their sales will continue to falter all next year. this has happened before to tech companies. there is a limit to how many times a company can screw up their sales for a given amount of debt / cash on hand. they cannot run on fumes much longer. I will not be surprised if AMD does not exist in 2013.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kromosto

Bulldozer is the confession of AMD being out of the competition.

lol you two, please. They aren't going to disappear :rolleyes: Yeah, BD kinda sucks. As much of a letdown that is, this isn't the first time we've heard ridiculous doomsday "the end of AMD!!!1" predictions. Besides, if AMD disappeared, what next? I'm sure some people might think they want AMD gone, but such a desire would be totally retarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamtan2

no. what matters most in servers is performance per watt! bulldozer loses to intel at this. I don't see why OEMs will build many bulldozer servers at all.

OEMs used a buttload of Netburst-based Xeons years ago, even though they sucked compared to the Opterons. Although, maybe it had to do with the shady business dealings that were going on at that time as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Can't they be sued for such a clear case of deceptive marketing/lies?

Oh please :shakes:
10-12-2011, 05:27 PM
mattkosem

It's decent/good at some things, definitely not the all round performer everyone was hoping for though. It'll probably improve a bit over time as applications and OSs are recompiled and/or optimized, but it seems like it would take some sort of a miracle to close the gap in the places where it's really falling behind...probably not gonna happpen. Guess the thuban in my gaming rig will be around a bit longer.

--Matt
10-12-2011, 05:31 PM
AliG

Quote:

Originally Posted by god_43

....not unless i live in bazaro world.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx...ssor-review/14

right, you proved my point. 2600k@3.8ghz = 8150@4.2ghz with far less power consumption/heat. It seems that most of the BD chips aren't ~5ghz stable on decent air yet, where as we know the 2600k will reach those speeds with just a 212+. So unless if your "bazaro" world doesn't believe in overclocking intel chips, it would make far more sense to get the 2600k across the board
10-12-2011, 05:36 PM
To(V)bo Co(V)bo

This chip is god awful, I thought fermi was bad. At least when Fermi dropped it had the performance to back up its TDP. This just looks hopeless. Maybe if AMD squeezed 16 cores on this chip it would be EPIC or even 12. This uArch is way to ambitious at this node, and how was this planned for 45nm. The FX "WAS" suppose to be a 8 core chip for the size and power draw of 4 cores, NOT the power draw of 8 with speed of 4 cores.

Big question on how this will pan out in the mobile laptop market.

Hell AMD should Invested everything into llano from the start. Llano looks to be AMDs best thing going for them as of now. AMD needs to just give up on high end desktop BD(it may have hope in servers) and focus on making a killer llano that fits into about 90% of all PC purchases. Just 1 blazing fast flawless APU with extremely low power would steal a lot of intels thunder. The people who will save AMD from bankruptcy are the everyday users, not "us" the enthusiasts.

Isnt FUSION the future? Where the GPU does all the heavy work with opencl. DONT WASTE TIME AND MONEY IN A DEAD END MARKET.
10-12-2011, 05:52 PM
Buckeye

Quote:

Originally Posted by trans am

gimme a current intel tech with no cold bug and ill be glad to buy it.

Had a few 980x's here that ran at full LN2 temps.

Looks like I need to give the same warning here as I did in the other thread.

Lets stop all the flaming please.
10-12-2011, 06:00 PM
tbone8ty

$279 at newegg hahaha

i thought it was supposed to be $245?
10-12-2011, 06:03 PM
Buckeye

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

$279 at newegg hahaha

i thought it was supposed to be $245?

I don't think AMD has anything to do with the prices of these, newegg usually marks new products up a bit.
10-12-2011, 06:06 PM
BababooeyHTJ

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I saw the bit-tech power consumption page. With an overclock it was 586w. I didn't even see that with 6950 crossfire and an i5 760 at 4ghz when running three threads of Linx and furmark at the same time.
10-12-2011, 06:58 PM
breakfromyou

The X4 looks pretty interesting...I wonder how it compares to current tech. High clocks, probably pretty good performance. I found a review that benched the FX-4170 (4.2 Ghz Quad Core), and it did pretty well. I want to see how the FX-4100 and the FX-6100. It'd be a more fair competition vs. current AMD 4 and 6 core chips.

Anybody remember the "multithreading" tests that seemed to only live on certain sites around the time that dual cores came around? Running several big apps at the same time, timing which finished first? The A64's were strong with it, and AMD eventually started marketing the A64 for multitasking performance--since you couldn't slow those things down by doing too much. I wonder how a test like this would work out with tech from today...
10-12-2011, 07:00 PM
god_43

Quote:

Originally Posted by AliG

right, you proved my point. 2600k@3.8ghz = 8150@4.2ghz with far less power consumption/heat. It seems that most of the BD chips aren't ~5ghz stable on decent air yet, where as we know the 2600k will reach those speeds with just a 212+. So unless if your "bazaro" world doesn't believe in overclocking intel chips, it would make far more sense to get the 2600k across the board

.....if i have amd systems already built and i can just drop bd in, then no it does not make more sense.
10-12-2011, 07:03 PM
stangracin3

so far the best review ive seen is in the amd section go check it out mainly because he actually tried something the others hadn't

name is "single thread...."
10-12-2011, 07:08 PM
Sgt.McRuff

To me ipc or clock per clock wasn't a let down, neither was single threaded performance. The let down for me was overall clockspeed/overclocks and most importantly power usage. If power usage was sb levels the overclocks reviewer's got with bulldozer would be okay with me. If overclocks on bulldozer was 5.2ghz on air, power usage would be bearable.
10-12-2011, 07:11 PM
stangracin3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt.McRuff

To me ipc or clock per clock wasn't a let down, neither was single threaded performance. The let down for me was overall clockspeed/overclocks and most importantly power usage. If power usage was sb levels the overclocks reviewer's got with bulldozer would be okay with me. If overclocks on bulldozer was 5.2ghz on air, power usage would be bearable.

let me get this right your partly pissed of because it is able to OC 600 to 800 MHz more than any amd chip previously and be stable. wow, you need some anger management lol.

the power consumption part is understandable though.
10-12-2011, 07:32 PM
Manicdan

the power consumption part i find to be a little odd

power consumption increase as temps are higher, even at the same voltage and clocks (this is expected)
BD seems to be able to survive stable conditions 20-30c higher than thuban could
combine those 2 things with reviewers OCing on the stock heatsink, and i bet the overclocked power consumption is beyond what we expect

i had a hard time finding OC results on a strong heatsink and where they didnt just max out voltages as if they were going to see SPi world records.
give me results of 1.375-1.425v on a heatsink that didnt come out of a cereal box, then lets see if BD is so horrible. sacrifice 100mhz, and shave off 30% of the power consumption with it too i bet.
10-12-2011, 07:49 PM
Ice009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

the power consumption part i find to be a little odd

power consumption increase as temps are higher, even at the same voltage and clocks (this is expected)
BD seems to be able to survive stable conditions 20-30c higher than thuban could
combine those 2 things with reviewers OCing on the stock heatsink, and i bet the overclocked power consumption is beyond what we expect

i had a hard time finding OC results on a strong heatsink and where they didnt just max out voltages as if they were going to see SPi world records.
give me results of 1.375-1.425v on a heatsink that didnt come out of a cereal box, then lets see if BD is so horrible. sacrifice 100mhz, and shave off 30% of the power consumption with it too i bet.

So you think the power consumption numbers are higher because people used the stock coolers and more voltage than they could have? How much power usage would you expect to shave off with the ideal scenario?
10-12-2011, 07:50 PM
Sgt.McRuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by stangracin3

let me get this right your partly pissed of because it is able to OC 600 to 800 MHz more than any amd chip previously and be stable. wow, you need some anger management lol.

the power consumption part is understandable though.

Its not exactly that. It was design to be high clocked part, and expected clock speeds in general to be several hundred mhz higher in stock form, turbo and overclocked. Not really angry just more surprised.

That said, once paycheck arrives getting a BD to put in main system to play around with and tweak under water cooling :D.
10-12-2011, 10:27 PM
Syn.

I have been waiting for XS to get back online just so i can post this. Found it on hardocp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxc...layer_embedded

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page