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
theoneandonlymrk
well the socket swaps were due to intels expertise at money grabbing, amds no slouch there either but are slightly better at backwards compatabillity im still unsure what ill end up with but with 430uk pounds max and a 3xpciex requirement its probly gona be amd ponderin that 960t or BD

was it that bad in everyday use and gamein Erocker?
Posted on Reply
#2
erocker
by: theoneandonlymrk
was it that bad in everyday use and gamein Erocker?
No, just not as good as a cheaper 2500K. Plus it took me quite a long time to keep the system from BSOD'ing due to issues due to the CPU. A few fixes in Win 7 took care of it. I felt that my PII 1100T was snappier/faster/etc. than the BD chip.
Posted on Reply
#3
theoneandonlymrk
i take it the PII 1100T is no match for the 2500K, thinkin bout that 960T possibly unlocked?

i apologise for topic wanderin

AMD better have got better QC recently
Posted on Reply
#4
nt300
by: erocker
Somebody call the BS police. Sorry man, you're way out of touch with reality here. Show me these "notes". :slap: I can uderstand someone having an allegience to a company (I guess). I'm just going to say that AMD does just as bad in the "real world" than it does at synthetic benchmarks. Which is does.
To each his own, it an unwritten fact that Intel CPUs are top of the list for companies to ensure compatibility, everybody else comes in 2nd to last. This and the unwritten fact synthetic benchmark utilities are targeted for Intel CPUs. But I speak of the gen of the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4 era...

We will agree to disagree :D
Posted on Reply
#5
erocker
by: nt300
To each his own, it an unwritten fact that Intel CPUs are top of the list for companies to ensure compatibility, everybody else comes in 2nd to last. This and the unwritten fact synthetic benchmark utilities are targeted for Intel CPUs. But I speak of the gen of the Athlon 64 and the Pentium 4 era...

We will agree to disagree :D
No, I'll just go with fact and the knowledge from personal experiences. :)
Posted on Reply
#6
Wrigleyvillain
PTFO or GTFO
So you sold your BD chip e? LaughingMan seems to like his...
Posted on Reply
#8
Wile E
Power User
by: fullinfusion
Bahh your an idiot. You spend a grand on a cpu that you spend much of the time looking at girly postings in TGN section...Wow that takes Horse power for sure :laugh:. I never see anything you show what you do with your system or have I missed it while I been out working?
Like David (CP) says intel beats AMD in the numbers, but amd is way snappy. I agree. I played on an Intel monster as the local guy called it and to be honest I thought it was a tad on the slower side. But like I said its just numbers... Im sure code is and or written in software to favor one brand over another. Anyways just take what I said with a grain of salt :cool:

And I'll continue having fun being SLOW as you say hahahahah :rockout:
I encode shitloads of BD and Anime rips. The time saved was worth every penny.

And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.
Posted on Reply
#9
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: Wile E

And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.
That stuff is bullcrap anyway.
Posted on Reply
#10
pantherx12
by: Wile E
I encode shitloads of BD and Anime rips. The time saved was worth every penny.

And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.
:laugh: To be fair though, you've got a beast! :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#11
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: erocker
No, just not as good as a cheaper 2500K. Plus it took me quite a long time to keep the system from BSOD'ing due to issues due to the CPU. A few fixes in Win 7 took care of it. I felt that my PII 1100T was snappier/faster/etc. than the BD chip.
Big time snappier. I Have my 1090T back in and the BD up for sale... It was fun to play with and learned a fair bit about it but I lean a tad towards lower hydro bills. The BD is like a blood sucker! It'll suck as much as it can if you alow it.
Posted on Reply
#12
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: Wile E
I encode shitloads of BD and Anime rips. The time saved was worth every penny.

And I don't find AMD systems any snappier than mine.
You assume it's not snappier:) you haven't been on mine to compare. And didn't a wise man ever tell ya to never assume? Besides willy dont get you undies ruffled, I told ya to take it with a grain of salt :toast:
Posted on Reply
#13
erocker
by: fullinfusion
You assume it's not snappier:) you haven't been on mine to compare. And didn't a wise man ever tell ya to never assume? Besides willy dont get you undies ruffled, I told ya to take it with a grain of salt :toast:
Idk. Mine wasn't :ohwell: It may have been more than my 1100t, but my 2500k really puts both to shame. I was really surprised with this chip.
Posted on Reply
#14
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: erocker
Idk. Mine wasn't :ohwell: It may have been more than my 1100t, but my 2500k really puts both to shame. I was really surprised with this chip.
mabey its my other hardware making it snappy. I did play around on a friends 2600k with my gpu installed and really I never noticed a difference but it just seemed a tad slower opening up programs and such. I guess if my system sells Im debating grabbing a 2011 mobo and a 6 core intel chip but.... im kinda tossing up what to get for future proofing for at least 2 yrs. 2011/1155?
Posted on Reply
#15
erocker
by: fullinfusion
mabey its my other hardware making it snappy. I did play around on a friends 2600k with my gpu installed and really I never noticed a difference but it just seemed a tad slower opening up programs and such. I guess if my system sells Im debating grabbing a 2011 mobo and a 6 core intel chip but.... im kinda tossing up what to get for future proofing for at least 2 yrs. 2011/1155?
I'm not going to even think about it until the 22nm chips are out for 1155. Skt2011 is just too pricey for my needs.
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
by: fullinfusion
You assume it's not snappier:) you haven't been on mine to compare. And didn't a wise man ever tell ya to never assume? Besides willy dont get you undies ruffled, I told ya to take it with a grain of salt :toast:
No, I have only built, installed and tested at least a dozen different AMD setups for people. I actually build more AMD based systems for people than Intel, because they usually just need the basics, and AMD has better low end pricing and bundles available most of the time. I have built and tested 2 6 core AMD setups for friends that stubbornly insisted on it for a gaming setup over Intel.

Not a single one of them was "snappier" than my Intel machine.
Posted on Reply
#17
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
So when did AMD realize there chip was slower than Intel's Ivy bridge and slower in some respect to there Phenoms ?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment