Friday, December 2nd 2011

AMD Realizes That Bulldozer Has 800 Million LESS Transistors Than It Thought!

AMD's new flagship Bulldozer "FX" series of processors have turned out to be mediocre performers in almost every review and benchmark going, sometimes even getting bested by the existing Phenom II and certainly no match for their Intel competition. To add to this tale of fail, it now turns out that AMD didn't even know how many transistors they have! Anand Lal Shimpi of AnandTech received an email from AMD's PR department and this is the revelation he had to share with us:
This is a bit unusual. I got an email from AMD PR this week asking me to correct the Bulldozer transistor count in our Sandy Bridge E review. The incorrect number, provided to me (and other reviewers) by AMD PR around 3 months ago was 2 billion transistors. The actual transistor count for Bulldozer is apparently 1.2 billion transistors. I don't have an explanation as to why the original number was wrong, just that the new number has been triple checked by my contact and is indeed right. The total die area for a 4-module/8-core Bulldozer remains correct at 315 mm².

Yes, something as basic as how many transistors are in their flagship product wasn't known about until months after the launch! This kind of info would be common knowledge within the company by the time the first tape-out is ready during the design and testing phase, so surely this cannot be and there must be some other explanation? If this is an attempt to make the processor look better by showing it "doing more with less", then this PR stunt has backfired spectacularly and it would have been better to have left the "error" as it was. Paradoxically, FX processors are a sales success and are flying off the shelves as we just reported, here.Source: AnandTech
Add your own comment

142 Comments on AMD Realizes That Bulldozer Has 800 Million LESS Transistors Than It Thought!

#1
laszlo
"Papermaster" what have u done?
Posted on Reply
#2
HalfAHertz
I think AMD suffers from a severe case of Communication Breakdown :rockout:

by: 3volvedcombat
Bulldozer is the best architecture in the world. Bulldozer is better then any other processor on the market.
Whatever you're smoking, I want some!
Posted on Reply
#3
pantherx12
by: qubit
I'm sorry, thanks for the good advice. :toast: It's kinda hard not to say something sometimes... :shadedshu I'll try harder next time. :)



It's downright weird, isn't it? It's a bit like a car manufacturer not realising the capacity of the engine on a new model, only to correct the official spec later. It'll be funny if it really is 2bn transistors and they had to fuse off parts of the chip to bring it to market, perhaps due to a design issue, isn't it? That would imply extra performance is locked up in there...

To the best of my knowledge, a mistake like this has never been made before in the semiconductor industry.
Pester them for info !
Posted on Reply
#4
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: pantherx12
Pester them for info !
Pester AMD about the transistor count? :confused:
Posted on Reply
#5
pantherx12
by: qubit
Pester AMD about the transistor count? :confused:
Yup, find out why the mix up happened and such. : ]
Posted on Reply
#6
Steven B
by: btarunr
AMD dosn't sell processors on transistor counts, people don't buy it on that basis, either.
i do!
Posted on Reply
#7
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: pantherx12
Yup, find out why the mix up happened and such. : ]
Hmmm, maybe.

by: Steven B
i do!
You're so hardcore. :respect:
Posted on Reply
#8
Activeduke
Maybe we will see an FX 8250 or 8170 with actually 2billion transistors in the future..?
Meh.. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#9
Bundy
by: btarunr
I knew something didn't add up when I saw Zambezi's "2 billion" transistor count for the first time. Even 16 MB of total SRAM couldn't have pushed transistor counts up that much over Istanbul/Thuban's 900-odd million transistor count.
It seems, so did someone else...
by: FeuchterFutzi
http://www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/newspub/viewnews.cgi?id=1321455683

in googlish:

Wednesday 16 November 2011
16:01 - Author: Dr @
AMD Bulldozer Schrumpfkur missed - a virtual

Who now expected, it would be a new revision of the miracle bulldozer in the wings who will be disappointed. For the launch of the first "Bulldozer" processor-based desktop AMD FX (codenamed "Zambezi") had AMD communicated to the press through a die size of 315 mm ² and a transistor count of around 2 billion. As The Register then in the context of the launch of the new Opteron 6200 ("Interlagos") and 4200 ("Valencia") is only 2.4 billion transistors for the "Interlagos" spoke, asked some users cope in our forum, such as this number to the previous statement fits. After all, this figure is 40% below the original value of about 4 billion




Therefore we have asked AMD, after which it has been confirmed that the statement of The Register is accurate. Because all processors of the first "Bulldozer" generation on the same "Orochi" The building is for all versions 315 mm ² die size and 1.2 billion transistors to estimate. Since the Opteron 6200 is constructed from an MCM (Multi Chip Module) from each of two dies, each processor must here per the duplicate values ​​are estimated. The virtual downsizing in the number of transistors is built so simply due to a communication error. As it happened, you could not tell us yet.




Source: AMD
So AMD only announced this after someone asked why the numbers didn't add up. Not very good AMD, it seems your PR people do not talk to the production or design people. How can we believe what you say in the future?
Posted on Reply
#10
ensabrenoir
really?

So that's what the keystone cops are doing now.....building cpus.
Bulldozer...the delorean of the cpu world.
Posted on Reply
#11
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
WOW the AMD fanboys must be prod of AMD right now . They just put out a CPU that can hardly compete with there current line . Now see I find that just too :roll::roll::roll::roll: !!

What make this even more laughable is the fact that AMD did not even know how many transistors were on the CPU to start with . HEY AMD WAKE UP !!! :twitch::twitch:
Posted on Reply
#12
v12dock
by: trickson
WOW the AMD fanboys must be prod of AMD right now . They just put out a CPU that can hardly compete with there current line . Now see I find that just too :roll::roll::roll::roll: !!

What make this even more laughable is the fact that AMD did not even know how many transistors were on the CPU to start with . HEY AMD WAKE UP !!! :twitch::twitch:
And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now

The fanboyism makes me laugh
Posted on Reply
#14
Thefumigator
by: v12dock
And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now

The fanboyism makes me laugh
Maybe intel has the best desktop processors in the high end, but that's all.
In the mid and low end AMD is quite competitive. Even with bulldozer based servers AMD is quite competitive.

Also intel has nothing to compete against llano, and barely can compete against zacate
I'm not even mentioning discrete GPUs... and of course, PRICE
Posted on Reply
#15
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: v12dock
And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now

The fanboyism makes me laugh
You know it ! :roll:

All this time all this speculation all this anticipation and what did you get ? :nutkick: That is what it would seem like NO ? .
Posted on Reply
#16
theoneandonlymrk
imho both big chip makers have their flaws at the min what with intels and amds socket frenzy plus intels sata 6 bs and amd;s hyperboled then underwhelming BD but its all relative but deff unusual both cos have dropped the ball lately and as i assume some of you are thinking , its quite possible they got to b3 due to hacking bits out and hence lost some of its performance after all bits get left out all the time by all chip cos in almost all scenarios they just dont normally fudge their specs like this
Posted on Reply
#17
Mussels
Moderprator
by: Thefumigator
Maybe intel has the best desktop processors in the high end, but that's all.
In the mid and low end AMD is quite competitive. Even with bulldozer based servers AMD is quite competitive.

Also intel has nothing to compete against llano, and barely can compete against zacate
I'm not even mentioning discrete GPUs... and of course, PRICE
in the low to mid range, AMD whups intel to pieces. its only high end that intel have the advantage.
Posted on Reply
#18
Poisonsnak
Come on guys, AMD has always known how many transistors are in the chip, it's just another mistake by their useless marketing team.
Posted on Reply
#19
ensabrenoir
boy just being boys

by: Poisonsnak
Come on guys, AMD has always known how many transistors are in the chip, it's just another mistake by their useless marketing team.
Yeah we know. Just like we know Amd apus are actually good and they're good at the low power low end stuff but man just like sports fans we like to rib the other team;)
Posted on Reply
#20
bostonbuddy
I wonder if AMD will give Intel a GG or rage quite.
Posted on Reply
#21
Edgarstrong
by: trickson
WOW the AMD fanboys must be prod of AMD right now . They just put out a CPU that can hardly compete with there current line . Now see I find that just too :roll::roll::roll::roll: !!

What make this even more laughable is the fact that AMD did not even know how many transistors were on the CPU to start with . HEY AMD WAKE UP !!! :twitch::twitch:
It's "their" and not "there", for god's sake...
Posted on Reply
#22
pantherx12
by: Edgarstrong
It's "their" and not "there", for god's sake...
Why do you for gods sake?

It's a fairly common mix up when writing on the fly as often people "think" the words out loud rather than think through each letter that they are typing.

Or the user could be dyslexic and easily muddle up similar sounding words even though they understand the individual meanings of each.


Shouldn't be so quick to judge : ]
Posted on Reply
#23
Edgarstrong
by: pantherx12
Why do you for gods sake?

It's a fairly common mix up when writing on the fly as often people "think" the words out loud rather than think through each letter that they are typing.

Or the user could be dyslexic and easily muddle up similar sounding words even though they understand the individual meanings of each.


Shouldn't be so quick to judge : ]
I didn't have any intention to offend anyone, and if I did - I apologize. It's just that it makes me sad seeing so many people today genuinely not knowing the difference between those two. And to make it worse, I don't remember when it was the last time I saw that mistake being made by a non mother tongue. Of course when it is just a mistype, that's another case.

Anyhow, this is not the best place to discuss this, so I shouldn't have started.
Posted on Reply
#24
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
they took er tranzistrs!
Posted on Reply
#25
cocobrais
by: v12dock
And Intel fan boys must be laughing right now

The fanboyism makes me laugh
Everyone gonna laugh after Intel become monopolist .... :mad:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment