Discussion in 'News' started by qubit, Oct 14, 2011.
With the performance of BD compared to SB, Intel needs to give AMD time to catch up(again).
2 things, why don't AMD add a massive amount like 20MB of level 3 cache and up the curre4nt Level 1 and 2 cache on their processors, sure decrease some overclock head room and increase a little TDP but it would add a SNOT load of performance, i think AMD is too stuck in the low power usage analogy, also Intel in 2014 will run out their core i line and will need to release another CPU architecture, and it may be like P4 Fail, so there are 3 years of important architectural changes coming up.
its been said a million times how if AMD goes under then we as consumers are screwed but it is true. I still buy AMD to support the underdog but also because they are by far the closest in competition to Intel. then there is the fact that Intel used illegal practices to stifle them instead of just trying to bury them through innovation so it is pretty hard for me to embrace a company like that
all of that aside though... AMD takes care of everything I throw at it so I am content. I am a tech junkie and a gamer so I put my rigs through lots of rigorous use through various ways. I dont need 10-30% better performance to play all of my games on the highest settings, I dont need it to stream 1080p movies, I dont need it to play lossless music, and I dont need it to transfer, sync, torrent, encode and compress files
I dont need Intel but I do need AMD to bring those prices down a tad to be more aligned with their relational performance to Intel
Have you actually read the some of the benchmarks???
they use a SNOT more power then their own current processors and also intels. and it gets worse when it comes to overlcocking...
jokes are already out that you need to buy a nuclear powerplant to run one of these
Now you're thinking, I wouldn't be surprised if your statement is exactly how this came to be Good Job and hope you are right on
If you are Piledriver should become a CPU to recon with.
Yes, I'll bet this is absolutely true and with bad management as well, they released a rubbish product and are misleading customers into thinking it's an octa core CPU, when it's only a quad core with multi-threading. They're outright lying.
I'll bet if someone rich enough sued them over this, they'd win. :shadedshu
That doesn't make sense, Bulldozer is NOT a bad CPU its anew tech which is very hard to release, I think people had too much high hopes for it, if you didn't (like me) then its a good CPU, the price will drop and then they will sell but AMD will make a killing on these because thier channel partners will sell these and AMD will be laughing all the way to the bank, you wait and see, the core I line is almost at an end, whats Intel gonna do now, create another P4?
Are you prepared to pay $380 for this CPU with an additional 20mb of cache?
You know cache costs money, right?
I didn't have high hopes for it, I just expected it to be measurably better than the K10.5 line of CPUs it replaces.
You think the price will readily drop and AMD will make a "killing" on these? Do you have any idea how much these things cost to make? 2 billion transistors at 32nm node, is VERY expensive. MUCH more expensive than the superior Intel chips. I wonder if AMD will ever be competitive with these, which begs the question as to why they were ever released as desktop chips in the first place.
Intel is a few generations ahead of AMD, and given BD, just pulled even further ahead.
I love AMD at heart and write this from my fantastic Llano setup, but WTF. What happened to designing great chips?!? I'll keep my Llano, thanks.
I said before man, from a technical stand point* it is a 8 core chip as it can run two threads on a module at the same time.
Hyper threading CANNOT do this ( it essentially makes a nice orderly que)
Stop being so mad dude because you didn't understand or didn't read into what bulldozer is.
They're was slides about 1 year ago showing off the design and TPU had a news story every other week about it.
It's an 8 core chip with some scheduling problems at the moment.
*Go on wiki pedia and read the central processing unit page and the core page.
Hearing all this and talk reminds me of my amd CPUs....thorough rev A 2700, Barton 2500, Venice 3000, athlon x2 5200,x2 7700, p2 720be, p2 955be, n was hoping to put a bd system together but bd let me down not to mention my p2 955 system with dual 4850s is a mini space heater...really wanted to stay but couldn't wait anymore, maybe next build.
m o n e y
Inspite of what we tech types think.... do we have any sales data ? Launch day #s anything. Even if A md,can't fool a couple thousand learned men and women....there are billions of lemmings left
We also gotta remember that we are minority, as a previous poster amd probably gonna make a killing with OEM s
As others have said, these cpus will be great for servers.
1) Servers use slower memory and cache is like steroids for them - BD has metric tons of L2
2) Servers need lots of memory and memory bandwidth - BD has much better IMC performance coming close to 75% of SB's memory performance and nearly doubling PH II's
3) cores are like money in the server world, so the more you have of them, the more important you are and BD server chips come with 16 of those - that's the equivalent diamond bling teeth
4)AMD's stuff sells for less and they're much more willing to compromise compared to $ntel - all the MBA managers will drop to da floo' once they see those savings
Any server application benchmarks out there that would let us see how bulldozer performs in that environment?
Like an AMD Engineer once stated: "Cache is the Fat of the Processor"
Its pretty expensive, and a good Architecture is performant, even with small caches (they just have to be fast enough)
gigantic caches take a lot of die space,and cost a lot of watt (and logically, heat),
if im not wrong
Bigger Caches give a little speed, for a lot of Tradeoffs... i bet if AMD would have been able to design BD with smaller caches, but at the same performance level, cost,temperature and wattage would be MUCH better
Dont loose hope people, in a parallel Universe, BD earned a performance increase of several hundred percent, and was able to more than double the power of SB, at only 65w TDP, with 4.5ghz stock, 5ghz turboboost, 6ghz under air,7ghz under Water, 8 under DICE and Dual Stage, 12 under LN2, and 15ghz under He2. And that, for under 150$!
According to the multiversal theory, that really happened!
Just not here
Me and my 10 sexy wives all use BD in the 2nd Universe!
This slide is ludicrous,
Bulldozer- was not really what it was supposedly marketed in the first place, more like a fiat.
Piledriver- Only 10-15% boost, it will finally get up to the i72600-2500k reasonably well.. barly..
Steamroller- It will finally be the real marketed "bulldozer" we were all waiting for!!!!!!
Excavator- well I cant even predict how this will compete its only the future!!!!!
There going to make tons of money if they do it right, simply because of the number of releases in consecutive years!!!
Some people are shelling out 250$ fx8150's
It will probably be another 150-250$ for the Piledriver's
It will probably be another 100-250$ for the Steamroller's
It will probably be another 100-250$ for the Excavator's
Count in all the regular OEM sale's ect ect... And if they manufacture everything with reasonable stock management they will make bank
It is a real octal core chip. They are just using 8 weak cores with some shared resources. They payed the price for gambling on heavilly multithreaded apps in the consumer userspace. We are still in firmly last gen when it comes to multithreading. They were looking too far ahead.
If they and the major OS distributors can rework the scheduling, they may improve performance slighty. Not enough to call this chip a success, but enough to know what to adjust for piledriver.
They should have released the server chips first, delayed a few more months and tailored the desktop chips for todays software.
It would have been better to suffer a delay and more internet moaning than the huge negative hype of a botched release.
Hopefully they can actually hit their 50% target with their future revisions.
That's why I didn't go AMD last time around. When I had my 3800+ X2, and wanted to upgrade, Phenom I and a Q6600 were my options. If I had gone with AMD, I would have needed to upgrade twice just to get the same performance I had for 2 solid years with my Q6600. It would have been a cheaper initial investment, but in the long run, I find Intel CPU's to have a better shelf life.
Hope it turns out rock solid with them. Else theyre just digging their own coffin with those Excavators and Bulldozers and stuff
maybe intel buyed AMD and we do not know about! now intel rise the price of all products...
I don't see AMD as a company by 2014. I don't see how they will be able to stay afloat. That 50% is needed now in 2011.
they will;low cpu prices and good GPU's will solve the financial problems so they'll float not like Intel in a luxury yacht just in a small rubber salvage one...
another variant will be to sell gpu dept or to remain only with it;the shareholders and big "oil" rich investors will step in when shares will fall 2 high.... and we'll see maybe amd falling apart to smaller companies
? so you think a company that just got all 3 major console companies to use their chips in the nex gen consoles isn't going to be around?
ati was too much for amd to take on and it nearly killed them. But right now amd pretty much reaps the benefit of that decision and it's about to get far more lucritive. By 2014 they'll have plenty in the bank. (nowhere near intel, but far closer to nvidia's bankroll)
sure the processor deivision failed to impress, what's new? Amd's still around now and they'll continue to be around and thriving by 2014.
Separate names with a comma.