Bulldozer Information Thread.

[Dent1]

II remember a time ( The Athlon days ) When AMD was calling Intel out . But now ? The silence is deafening !

Calling out Intel does not generate revenue streams for AMD. All that will do is irritate Intel whom has the resources to shut down AMD by squeezing them out the market place by cockblocking vendors from selecting AMD through propaganda marketing.

Do you really want Intel to spread malicious marketing campaigns (like in the past) stating how awful AMD's products are.

Do you really want Intel to sell their processors $40 for a few weeks until AMD fold and shut up shop.

Because that is what will happen if AMD constantly "call Intel out".

 

[trickson]

Calling out Intel does not generate revenue streams for AMD. All that will do is irritate Intel whom has the resources to shut down AMD by squeezing them out the market place by cockblocking vendors from selecting AMD through propaganda marketing.

Do you really want Intel to spread malicious marketing campaigns (like in the past) stating how awful AMD's products are.

Do you really want Intel to sell their processors $40 for a few weeks until AMD fold and shut up shop.

Because that is what will happen if AMD constantly "call Intel out".

I do not think that this will happen . But by stating "AMD still say they expect the FX series is the world's fastest consumer processor " . They are in fact calling Intel out any way .

 

[trickson]

http://www.megagames.com/news/amd-benchmarks-bulldozer-against-intel%E2%80%99s-core-i5-and-i7

Not sure what this means but take a look at this .

 

[de.das.dude]

you must be high. this was already posted long time ago, in this thread.

 

[Goodman]

Are you Psychic or something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlsJ0B04Ndo

You know I am pulling your chain right My

I was just teasing you don't worry about it

It happen to all/most of us posting link that was already posted or say something that is already been said... there is so many pages sometimes that not all of us want to go true reading all of it , that's understandable

If you're not sure if something have been posted or said before , you could always do as i usually do & write something like that-> ; 'Not sure if this been posted before , i didn't read all the pages but... blah! blah!'

Just a thought...

 

[Dent1]

. But by stating "AMD still say they expect the FX series is the world's fastest consumer processor " . They are in fact calling Intel out any way .

Key word is expect. That is not calling out, that is making an presumption based on opinion. In no way are they stating it as absolute fact.

For AMD to genuinely call out Intel there would have to be a persistent highly competitive and angry undertone to their marketing to bait Intel to respond. Such a response will probably be received negatively and with AMD being forced unwillingly out of the market place. And then we all lose.

 

[repman244]

On the day that FX CPU's are released (or at least the numbers are shown) is the day I will stay away from any forum, it will be an absolute shitstorm (even if it matches 2500k/2600k in terms of performance).
I can already expect comments like: it takes them 8 cores to match....
/off-topic rant

Carry on now.

 

[trickson]

On the day that FX CPU's are released (or at least the numbers are shown) is the day I will stay away from any forum, it will be an absolute shitstorm (even if it matches 2500k/2600k in terms of performance).
I can already expect comments like: it takes them 8 cores to match....
/off-topic rant

Carry on now.

This will be for sure . As 8 cores is more than 4 . So yes if it does this there will be a shitstorm of people ( including me ) saying this . It better BLOW away the comp with 8 cores not just match !

 

[heky]

Exactly, becouse AMD are already lagging behind for years, and with so many years of development and so many postpones and all this world record crap, they better bring it!

 

[Dent1]

I can already expect comments like: it takes them 8 cores to match....
/off-topic rant

Carry on now.

I can see it already. Sigh

This will be for sure . As 8 cores is more than 4 . So yes if it does this there will be a shitstorm of people ( including me ) saying this . It better BLOW away the comp with 8 cores not just match !

But why would you care? If its cheaper than a Intel 4 core thats all that matters.

Like I don't care if AMD release a 1,000 core CPU if it performs on par with a Intel 4 core, as long as its cheaper who cares?

 

[happita]

Like I don't care if AMD release a 1,000 core CPU if it performs on par with a Intel 4 core, as long as its cheaper who cares?

^
This. Agreed.

 

[trickson]

But why would you care? If its cheaper than a Intel 4 core thats all that matters.

Like I don't care if AMD release a 1,000 core CPU if it performs on par with a Intel 4 core, as long as its cheaper who cares?

Because I would . Right now as it is there are very few programs that even come close to using 4 cores let alone 8 cores . The core war is on but there is nothing that can even come close to using all 8 cores on a CPU . It is ( to me any way ) over kill and a waste really . So what if you have 8 cores ? If it can not compete with a CPU that has only 4 cores well that tells me a lot about the product .
I look at it like this . I have a motor home 35 footer and it has a 454 in it this same RV comes with a V10 by ford as well . But the 454 performs better than the V10 and gets better gas mileage as well . So what is the need for the extra 2 cylinders ? To me NONE at all . They just make it sound like it has more power is all . When in reality it has no more power than mine .
So even if you keep piling on core after core , If it fails to do the job of a quad then why bother ? :shadedshu

 

[ensabrenoir]

off topic

^
This. Agreed.

Hey..... is all this db talk finally made me loose it or did this avatar belongs to someone else. And everytime trickson post, when I read it, I hear carls voice

 

[trickson]

Hey..... is all this db talk finally made me loose it or did this avatar belongs to someone else. And everytime trickson post, when I read it, I hear carls voice

LOL Thanks I love Carl ! He

 

[repman244]

Because I would . Right now as it is there are very few programs that even come close to using 4 cores let alone 8 cores

You actually missed the point...if it's priced the same/lower and has the SAME/SIMILAR performance, no one cares how many cores it has.

 

[Dent1]

Can somebody check the validity of this source:

Benchmarks : High-End Desktop Performance: AMD "Bulldozer" CPU/APU



http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...zer&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a

 

[repman244]

Can somebody check the validity of this source:

Benchmarks : High-End Desktop Performance: AMD "Bulldozer" CPU/APU



http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...zer&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a

AFAIK it was debated on many forums, and the conclusion was that you simply do not know if you can trust those numbers (like JF stated several times, numbers prior to launch may not representative of the final product...).
We really can't believe any benchmarks before we get official numbers.

 

[trickson]

You actually missed the point...if it's priced the same/lower and has the SAME/SIMILAR performance, no one cares how many cores it has.

No , No I did not miss the point . I know what I said . The price is not what matters to me as much as just how well some thing performs . So you would buy a crap AMD CPU before buying a Intel CPU ? Thing is once a Fanboy always a Fanboy .

 

[repman244]

No , No I did not miss the point . I know what I said . The price is not what matters to me as much as just how well some thing performs . So you would buy a crap AMD CPU before buying a Intel CPU ? Thing is once a Fanboy always a Fanboy .

Soooo, you would buy something that costs let's say $4000 rather than something that costs $400 and gives ~5% less performance?
And you were talking about cores (comparing 8 to 4), I only said that it does not matter if the performance is the same for the same money.
Unless you run some mission critical applications which demand the best of the best regardless of the cost.
And please refrain from using the term fanboy.

 

[trickson]

Soooo, you would buy something that costs let's say $4000 rather than something that costs $400 and gives ~5% less performance?
And you were talking about cores (comparing 8 to 4), I only said that it does not matter if the performance is the same for the same money.
Unless you run some mission critical applications which demand the best of the best regardless of the cost.
And please refrain from using the term fanboy.

You are being a tad over the top .

I guess I think the performance should be far better ( At least twice as good since you have 8 cores ) than a CPU that has only 4 cores . If AMD fails to produce a CPU that can beat a Quad core with 8 cores ( Or just manages to hang head to head ) To me that is a HUGE waste !
And 8 core CPU ( This BD ) should be 2 times as fast , Perform twice as fast at benchmarks as a Quad . If not then I see nothing more than adding more to gain in performance and for me that is like I said a waste ! AMD better bring it time is now and people are getting more discouraged as time goes by . The PR stunts and just general BS is not doing them any good at this time . :shadedshu

 

[Covert_Death]

but your saying twice as good at the same price.... how in the world does that make sense...????? thats like buying a Ferrari for the price of a Camaro, that just isn't going to happen. walk away from la-la land

 

[trickson]

but your saying twice as good at the same price.... how in the world does that make sense...????? thats like buying a Ferrari for the price of a Camaro, that just isn't going to happen. walk away from la-la land

If they are going to be priced the same then one would extrapolate that they will be no better . If you can get a 8 core CPU for the price of say $350 bucks then yeah I would go for it . But it still makes one think why would a CPU with more cores be less powerful than one with only 4 cores . I could care less about the price right now as there is no information at all on any thing from AMD coming out . Lots of fluff and PR nothing at all that matters .

I would have to say that if I can get a Quad core SB-s or Ivy bridge for $100 dollars more and have then stomp a mud hole in a 8 core CPU that in it's self would be a WIN !

 

[erocker]

You are being a tad over the top .

I guess I think the performance should be far better ( At least twice as good since you have 8 cores ) than a CPU that has only 4 cores . If AMD fails to produce a CPU that can beat a Quad core with 8 cores ( Or just manages to hang head to head ) To me that is a HUGE waste !
And 8 core CPU ( This BD ) should be 2 times as fast , Perform twice as fast at benchmarks as a Quad . If not then I see nothing more than adding more to gain in performance and for me that is like I said a waste ! AMD better bring it time is now and people are getting more discouraged as time goes by . The PR stunts and just general BS is not doing them any good at this time . :shadedshu

What does it matter when it comes to an end result? A CPU just sits in a machine under a CPU cooler. It could have 100 miniature ponies in it and if the end result is the same, it doesn't matter. What matters is performance and how much that performance costs. You are thinking with a paradigm that more cores should mean more performance. There are internal combustion engines that some with four cylinders and some with 8 cylinders that produce the same amount of power. They can suck as much gas as one another be as fast as one another, etc. All that matters is the end result. As for the "PR stunts" it doesn't work for you.. Okay. It's nothing more than a way for AMD to boost awareness for their product. This is done by everyone who makes anything and tries to sell it. No there are no concrete numbers for this new chip, but that isn't the point. Those will be out when they are out and then people can pass judgement.

 

[mastrdrver]

Right now as it is there are very few programs that even come close to using 4 cores let alone 8 cores.

Are we talking single player or online?

Online, I'll whole heartily disagree.

 

[repman244]

You are being a tad over the top .

I guess I think the performance should be far better ( At least twice as good since you have 8 cores ) than a CPU that has only 4 cores . If AMD fails to produce a CPU that can beat a Quad core with 8 cores ( Or just manages to hang head to head ) To me that is a HUGE waste !
And 8 core CPU ( This BD ) should be 2 times as fast , Perform twice as fast at benchmarks as a Quad . If not then I see nothing more than adding more to gain in performance and for me that is like I said a waste ! AMD better bring it time is now and people are getting more discouraged as time goes by . The PR stunts and just general BS is not doing them any good at this time . :shadedshu

Over the top in what?

Well I agree that it would be a waste, and like chew* said, it is closer to a 4C/8T CPU than to a true 8 core and that we should not expect it to behave like a true 8 core (that's only his opinion but he has a point). I don't mind AMD adding more cores if the overall performance is good, and if the price is good.
The 8 core name could easily backfire if it doesn't have a decent multithread performance but I guess it's marketing>design.

The price that is rumored can also be a bit misleading since it may not really represent the BD's performance, AFAIK AMD is paying GF only for good dies and not the whole wafer.

See here: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2040223/amd-pay-global-foundries-32nm-chips

This is something that people often forget about when comparing the rumored prices to some previous prices.