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

Why BD failed? AMD Ex-Employee speaks out!

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Kantastic, Oct 13, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,004 (7.87/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,550
    Jeez can't even complement a guy. How you quote other forums is like apple pie to my eyes!
     
  2. D4S4

    D4S4

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    697 (0.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    75
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    lol does anyone remember "real men use real cores"? :nutkick:

    anyhow, i think bulldozer will deliver in a couple of years but amd missed the target with it for now (unless they were aiming at the server market as their primary goal)
     
    Robert-The-Rambler says thanks.
  3. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,822 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,481
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    Yes, I do. That's marketing for you, lol. How times change.
     
  4. Horrux

    Horrux

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    735 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    How 'bout "Real men own fabs"?
     
  5. D007

    D007

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,133 (1.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    398
    Location:
    Pompano beach, Florida
    Just when I was starting to let AMD/ATI into my home.. ; ;
     
  6. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,754 (0.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
  7. Horrux

    Horrux

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    735 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Yeah but that introduces too many variables and limiting factors. I think in this case the memory bandwidth or PCI-E bandwidth becomes much more a limiting factor than the CPU.
     
  8. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,754 (0.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    Good point, never thought about that. Though it still gives you some sort of impression on performance and how it may perform for your gaming needs.
     
  9. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,614 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,230
    You are entirely correct.

    BTW at that teaktown thingy:

    [​IMG]

    Interesting, seeing how everyone is bashing DB for power consumption.
     
  10. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,754 (0.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    538
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    AMD took a design chance with Bulldozer, you need balls of iron to do what AMD did, to completely build something from the ground up, have your computers telling you it will perform and all of a sudden its not what was originally written on paper.

    Bulldozer may very well be something of the future per say. Hopefully with enough Windows tweaks along with a few others will help boost its performance.

    Though I do blame AMD for not sharing ths design with software developers years before. But then again, maybe AMD did this already, and the software developers said the hell with it. Who really knows... :confused: :D
     
  11. HalfAHertz

    HalfAHertz

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,890 (0.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Location:
    Singapore
    Taken from here. They sure did a dandy job there! Well ok they were talking about the server chips, but still...


    btw TPU needs a facepalm smiley[​IMG] And those 3x CFx tests look pathetic.

    Ok we get it. So you promise stronger single-threaded performance when only one core of the module is loaded compared to a Thuban core and a 20% perf drop when both cores of a module are loaded. Ok that means that if an 8 core BD was made on 45nm, it would deliver more performance than a 6 core Thuban at less heat and power - yey! So we were supposed to get better performance in both instances. Yet neither of those are the case because BD is a 32nm chip, not a 45nm one! So you failed thrice! Your single threaded performance is poo, your multi-threaded performance fails to deliver and on top of that you're using what is suppposed to be a more advanced manufacturing process meaning even greater performance/power saving...Triple fail AMD!!![​IMG]

    Why did you release your product when you could clearly see it wasn't covering any of your promises - the ones you gave in public!

    /trolling
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  12. Robert-The-Rambler

    Robert-The-Rambler

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    646 (0.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    119
    Location:
    Bay Shore NY
    Real men don't say things with real men in them

    You only sound like an ass and that is what AMD looks like now. I've been such a supporter of AMD for years but the Bulldozer fiasco is like having a sledgehammer and trying to break down the Great Wall of China. I have motherboards that can easily be upgraded to 6 core Phenom IIs and it seems like that is a much better idea than switching to a new platform. I have I7s so I won't need that anyway but it clearly seems a really bad idea to go Bulldozer now. AMD has really been in a strange place lately. They release video cards that are basically the same as the generation before in 5850, 6850 for example and they also release CPUs that are having trouble keeping up with the last generation chip. What the hell is the policy over there? Lets sacrifice today for a possible tommorrow? Good luck with that one. :banghead:
     
  13. Frick

    Frick Fishfaced Nincompoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    10,614 (3.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,230
    Why?
     
  14. HalfAHertz

    HalfAHertz

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,890 (0.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Location:
    Singapore
    Guys, guys i got it! I was so wrong! See all along I've been trying to stack BD with Thuban, but instead we should have compared it to the original Phenom! :eek:
    It's coz work on BD started in 2007 and it was intended to be Phenom's replacement and and and it totally rocks compared to Phenom! See all those articles above were talking about K10 and not k10,5! And we should all stfu and instead be amazed and blown away by AMD's progress! :) :toast:


    Well, gee I don't know...maybe because half the time BD fails to even come close to SB's performance. And please do bear in mind that AMD's mobo is supposed to deliver more PCI-E lanes and what not...And that would be ok if $ntel's solution was a 1000$ extreme edition CPU, but it's not :/
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2011
  15. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,390 (2.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    566
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    :)sounding like an intel fanboy thread this, bulldozer certainly isnt win at the min but its not as bad in its price point as some are making out imho, sure no ones going to be swapping from intel sandys for it but if your on a core 2 with ddr2 it dosnt look to bad if you drag mobo costs into the fray and for me at least with AMD you will have an upgrade path with intel it will be new socket time everytime apparently.:D just an opinion
     
  16. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    It is interesting indeed, but of very little consequence really. Keep in mind:

    - 2600k is running 500 Mhz higher while its stock clock is 200 Mhz lower. 700 Mhz more clock from stock to max OC is A LOT and surely puts the SB chip farther along the power curve, where diminishing returns kick off badly.

    - Load consumption which is what most people are complaining about IS 20w higher in the BD setup.

    - We would need to know exactly what both setups were doing at the time that power consumption was measured:

    [​IMG]

    As stated in the power consumption pic they were benching 3dMark11, but the performance preset or the extreme one? Either way the Intel setup is producing more frames, which means higher GPU load. In the case they used the performance preset... well it would look really bad for BD. If the CPU was holding back the 3 cards like that, it was holding them back indeed, so their power consumption must of been way lower. This is why it's of critical importance the way power is measured here in TPU, not from the wall.
     
    cadaveca says thanks.
  17. nt300

    nt300

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    868 (0.51/day)
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Location:
    Toronto, ON. Canada
    If this is how you feel about the test then the SB also sucks balls. Think about it, Bulldozer needs to get tweaked. Hell I am glad the thing works first of all. It was in the design face for more than 4 years. Give AMD some slack ;) They tried something very different with Bulldozer. Intel can afford to have multiple projects running at the same time due to the massive R&D funds they have, AMD only has enough for 2 MAX.
     
  18. Horrux

    Horrux

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    735 (0.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Yes, that's true as well, if you game with multiple graphics cards, that shows you it performs competitively. :)
     
    Super XP says thanks.
  19. lilhasselhoffer

    lilhasselhoffer

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,617 (1.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    969
    Location:
    East Coast, USA
    Time for a reality check, because this is obviously devolving into hate from both sides.

    The thread is entitled "Why BD failed? AMD Ex-Employee speaks out!" Said title implies that the originator has a definite opinion, and thus sets the tone for the rest of the thread.

    Those who love AMD, no matter what they put out, need not apply here. Poking at rabid fanboys from the other side, and then expecting anyone to listen to even reasonable statements, is like eating fast food at the zoo. It's acceptable from behind the glass, but you know that what you're doing is going to get you killed if that 800 pound gorilla decides to break the glass and steal your lunch.


    Insane metaphor aside, know who you are trying to defend against. This is not the thread for people to defend AMD, this is the thread for people to bitch and moan about how AMD isn't Intel.

    From the hardware agnostic, this is a thread that exists so hate doesn't spill into other threads. Please continue...
     
  20. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,666 (13.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    14,059
    I have a 8150 right now. It's super fun to play with but aside from that it's a horrible chip. I noticed some people saying it is AMD's "Fermi". That is incorrect, it is worse. Take Fermi and decrease the performace to a HD 4870 while keeping the power usage of Fermi. That is Bulldozer. Still, like I said, it's fun to play with.
     
    MxPhenom 216 says thanks.
  21. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,822 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,481
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    So, you know it's severe limitations, but you just had to have one to play with? That's the mark of a True PC Enthusiast.

    Respect. :respect: :rockout:
     
  22. the54thvoid

    the54thvoid

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,305 (1.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,528
    Location:
    Glasgow - home of formal profanity
    Socket 1155 (SB) is meant to be Ivybridge compatible.
     
  23. laszlo

    laszlo

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    891 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Location:
    66 feet from the ground
    can you share a few opinion about how is working in games and multitasking? have you managed to load all cores at 100 %?
     
  24. bucketface

    bucketface New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    142 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    why BD faild? this is why:
    BD die shot should look very much like this
    http://cache.futurelooks.com/wordpr...1/10/AMD_Bulldozer_Review_FX-8000-500x201.png
    but instead it looks like this
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2011-10/amd_bulldozer_orochi_die_floorplan.jpg

    they've got 800 million transistors for in/out, logic, NB, wasted space, etc. so some how the have managed to waste a whole phenom 2 x4's worth of transistors on what should really take about, what, 150mill tansistors? also why is the "unified" L3 cache separated into 4 sections with such massive gaps?
    maybe it was a learning curve using mostly software to design the chips, who knows? what is clearly evident is that they are not using the space available to them efficiently.

    quoting some estimations on die area by X-bit:
    "AMD publicly said that each Bulldozer dual-core CPU module with 2MB unified L2 cache contains 213 million transistors and is 30.9mm2 large. By contrast, die size of one processing engine of Llano processor (11-layer 32nm SOI, K10.5+ micro-architecture) is 9.69mm2 (without L2 cache), which indicates that AMD has succeeded in minimizing elements of its new micro-architecture so to maintain small size and production cost of the novelty.

    As a result, all four CPU modules with L2 cache within Zambezi/Orochi processor consist of 852 million of transistors and take 123.6mm2 of die space. Assuming that 8MB of L3 cache (6 bits per cell) consist of 405 million of transistors, it leaves around whopping 800 million of transistors to various input/output interfaces, dual-channel DDR3 memory controller as well as various logic and routing inside the chip.

    800 million of transistors - which take up a lot of die space - in an incredibly high number for various I/O, memory, logic, etc. For example, Intel's Core i-series "Sandy Bridge" quad-core chip with integrated graphics consists of 995 million."
     
    HalfAHertz and Horrux say thanks.
  25. laszlo

    laszlo

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    891 (0.25/day)
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Location:
    66 feet from the ground
    you can't compare a diagram from a slide shot with a real core print....

    spaces all are used as somehow magically all cores must communicate with each other and the other components so i don't know what's your point...

    no cpu/gpu producer will leave 1 sqnm unused from a chip...
     

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page