1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD realizes that Bulldozer has 800 million LESS transistors than it thought!

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by qubit, Dec 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    THIS THREAD HAS NOW BEEN SUPERCEDED BY THIS NEWS ARTICLE. PLEASE COMMENT THERE.


    So, not only have AMD produced a mediocre processor, it turns out they didn't even know how many transistors it has!

    This is another one to file in the "you couldn't make this stuff up category", lol. :)

    [​IMG]

    AnandTech
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
    theJesus, Super XP and kid41212003 say thanks.
  2. kid41212003

    kid41212003

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Location:
    California
    Fhat the wuck?
     
    xvi, D4S4, AlienIsGOD and 3 others say thanks.
  3. Jizzler

    Jizzler

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,454 (1.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    645
    Location:
    Geneva, FL, USA
    856,482
    856,483
    856,484
    856,485

    Hey Bob! You wanna get lunch?

    Oh damn, you made me lose count. Oh well, it looks like 2 billion. I'm done.
     
    de.das.dude, xvi, Proph3t and 2 others say thanks.
  4. Vincy Boy

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    182 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    55
    Location:
    St. Vincent and the Grenadines
    My thoughts EXACTLY

    :shadedshu
     
  5. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,773 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    539
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    Oh boy, looks like AMD fired all the good guys :cry:
     
  6. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,129 (6.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,192
    [​IMG]
     
    xvi, D4S4, Super XP and 2 others say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU 50 Million points folded for TPU
  7. kid41212003

    kid41212003

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584 (1.53/day)
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Location:
    California
    Will their stock drop because of this?
     
  8. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Hmm I'm sorry but I call BS. Damage control. My internal logic tells me that despite being different architectures, there's no way there's such a big difference between Llano transistor density and BD transistor density (66% difference!!). Specially since BD was designed specifically to improve in this metric.

    1.2 billion + 60% == we are back to around 2 billion.

    I'm skeptic by nature, and considering AMD's track record at blatantly lying about Bulldozer, there's no way in hell I'll believe this change.

    Also it's so convenient. Hmm let's see... the (old) PR guy screwed up and provided a number that was wrong and no one noticed it. But ey! No problem because we just fired the PR department. In the several weeks between when this number was first mentioned in previews and the launch/first reviews, no one noticed it was wrong. On the several weeks AFTER the launch no one noticed it was wrong either... As if launch information and PR weren't carefully planned for weeks... NO WAY I can believe this, sorry.
     
  9. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    @Benetanegia

    Yeah, good point. That's what makes it all the more fail isn't it?

    Now just imagine if there were actually 800 million more transistors than they realized. It would be doing less while using even more resources...
     
  10. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,251 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    208
    Yeep .......Its a Delorean

    ....and start this changes everything about Bd/ true performance/once fixed rant..........NOW!:banghead:



    TOLD YOU SO SEE
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
  11. unsmart

    unsmart New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    480 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    34
    The PR guy,s where right it's the fab that screwed up and forgot the other 800million:slap: AMD's just saving face. Once they figure where they go BD[netburstII] will live up to the hype.
     
  12. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,773 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    539
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    Well I can see AMD turning this around for the betterment of the company and hopefully fixing then releasing Bulldozer II or should I say Piledriver.
     
  13. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,814 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    I wish I could share the "glass half full" attitude, but I just fail to see how this mistake could be used for any good and/or affect the performance of AMD future processor offerings...
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  14. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,098 (4.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,282
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    And people are complaining about AMD firing people? :roll:
     
    scaminatrix says thanks.
  15. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Indeed, it's an unmitigated embarrassment. I think they should have left the "error" in, rather than try to make their processor look better.
     
  16. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,773 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    539
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    You know why? Because AMD has no choice but to make many years of R&D work the way it was meant to.

    PI was a bad chip, but PII turned out to be really good. Now they need to repeat this with Bulldozer but with more aggressive improvements. With Bulldozer this is achievable, but with PII it was not. This old K10 is just that, too old and needs to be put to rest.
     
  17. bencrutz

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    175 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    34
    Llano have a GPU in it while BD don't? :rolleyes:
     
  18. 15th Warlock

    15th Warlock

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,814 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Visalia, CA
    Yes, AMD better step up to the plate and starts delivering, I don't want a monopoly that will do nothing but harm the PC industry, I agree with you on that; however, I still fail to see how the mistake reported in this thread will make AMD better or even affect the design of their future processors, these CPUs are designed by multi-national teams of some of the most brilliant engineers in the world, and quite frankly a stupid PR mistake like this has nothing to do with whether their processors deliver or not, unless so said PR mistake is so big as to affect the financials of AMD to the point where they can no longer invest as much on R&D.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  19. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    So? SB has a GPU in it while SB-E doesn't and that does not prevent the bigger chip from having a higher density. GPUs may have higher density, but they do not make up for a 66% difference period. And definitely not when the GPU only ocupies 1/3rd of the die.

    A 25% difference, I would have bought that. 66% no way. Especially since 16 MB of cache, with 6T/bit SRAM would already take around 900 million transistors. Add IMC, add hypertransport and other I/O logic. Add the cores! 1200 NO WAY.

    Plus the justification holds no water. Oh it's Interlagos that is 2.4 billion and Valencia/Zambezi is 1.2 billion. PR staff told the numbers for Interlagos and 2.4 suddenly became 2. Also 8C part having exactly half the transistor amount as the 16C part, that alone already stinks as a lie. As does the fact that they are giving rounded up numbers when in the past they never did. Thuban 904 million. Deneb 758 million.

    They will never convince me that such a mistake could have been made in a PR world that is so carefully planned these days and they will never convince me of a transistor amount that is unrealistic.
     
  20. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,889 (4.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,112
    maybe this is why it has such crapy performance.
     
  21. Zen_

    Zen_

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Messages:
    494 (0.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    No. The reason has been right in front of us the whole time from the Real World Tech article...inefficient branch prediction logic that has difficultly keeping the pipelines full, and hardware prefetchers that are next to useless.
     
  22. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,873 (3.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,503
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    THIS THREAD HAS NOW BEEN SUPERCEDED BY THIS NEWS ARTICLE. PLEASE COMMENT THERE.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page