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
zx679
All I can say is "Wow".
Posted on Reply
#2
SteelSix
Poor performance one thing, to frack up on specificaitons? Damn, no wonder the axe fell swifty up top..
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
Still that was shiesty on AMD's part
Bloomfield has 732 million transistors, models upwards of i7-930 beat FX-8120, those upwards of i7-950 beat FX-8150.

Insert Bill O'Reilly "you can't explain that" meme.

The point is transistor count isn't something you can base your purchases on. No CPU maker writes that down in the specs sheet. Not even Intel ARK shows transistor counts of Intel CPUs. Only electronics enthusiasts (those studying ICs, VLSI design, etc.,) would find transistor counts interesting.

"Performance per transistor" could be an interesting statistic though. The sudden drop in transistor count only goes on to improve that statistic.
Posted on Reply
#4
micropage7
so its the explanation. bulldozer should have more power than this
right?
Posted on Reply
#5
tigger
I'm the only one
So the power consumption turns out to be even worse then seeing as it has 800 million less transistors.
Posted on Reply
#6
Fx
no wonder why so many got fired. that is a pretty big oops
Posted on Reply
#7
SK-1
^good observation. fail on many levels now...
Posted on Reply
#8
gourygabriev
Well it sure does suck electricity like a 2 Billion transistor CPU would.
Posted on Reply
#9
Over_Lord
News Editor
I guess someone needs to do their maths HW... oops
Posted on Reply
#10
GSquadron
OMG these news lately are going nuts!
Doing the math they are right. But they knew all other cpus, except the most powerful one.
It was just selling out all the cpus and showing off as they got a bigger 2B cpu sitting in the bench.

EDIT: I did the math it shows 3.1 B lol

315x315 = 99225, 99225x0.000032 = 3.1752 LOL

maybe they were talking 1.2b for only 1 core xD
Posted on Reply
#11
treboRR
Aleksander Dishnica said:
maybe they were talking 1.2b for only 1 core xD
HAHAHA that would be cool:D:D I bet this is the next marketing info for selling Bulldozers:D
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
Actually, and nobody is saying that, 1.2 billion vs 2billion transistor is an enormous difference!!! Guys we are talking about ~40% less transistors here!! I think this is the key to the performance gap over Intel. Think about it. The first Core I7 processors were having a transistor count of 731 million, while a Core 2 Duo, only 300 million. AMD is missing 800 million out of it`s processor!!!
Posted on Reply
#13
Dave65
How hard would this be to correct this problem?
Posted on Reply
#14
reverze
The PR guy who send around the wrong number is to blame, do we really need a newspost for this? you pretend like the guys who made the chip somehow didnt realize what they did.
Posted on Reply
#18
GSquadron
Doing the math 1.2B means 315mm2
What would it be for 2B?
2Bx315mm2 = 630Bmm2
630Bmm2 / 1.2B = 525mm2
For 2B the die size would be 525mm2 so stop acting like it is fantastic thing.
This kind of architecture means only that we need lower nm tech
Posted on Reply
#19
RuskiSnajper
Bwhahahahaahahahahh

Oh maaaan!

double facepalm indeed , this whole bulldozer "Amd ex-employee" thing has to be one of the biggest lols in CPU history.




newtekie1 said:
Also, does anyone think this might have something to do with the rumor that AMD has stopped hand designing their chips, and have started letting computers design the processor for them?

I do. If you hand craft something, you know what is in it. If you let a computer do it, then only the computer knows what is in it, and you either have to guess or hope that the computer is accurate when telling you the number you need to know.
definitely , it's all about the automation tools that AMD used to create, all those good "Athlon64" devs left the company long ago
Posted on Reply
#20
Mussels
Moderprator
this is quite a crazy thing for them to screw up
Posted on Reply
#21
Altered
Hey this isnt AMD's fault. You know the PR folks responsible were probably taught the newest math skills using Mathland or Fuzzy Math. Hell our great government uses the same shit daily and look how well that works for them. Nothing has to add up precisely. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#22
Mussels
Moderprator
Altered said:
Hey this isnt AMD's fault. You know the PR folks responsible were probably taught the newest math skills using Mathland or Fuzzy Math. Hell our great government uses the same shit daily and look how well that works for them. Nothing has to add up precisely. :banghead:
it was probably written 1.2, and the 1 didnt copy out the fax machine right.
Posted on Reply
#23
ironwolf
I smell a sinister plot by Intel to steal 800 million transistors from these CPUs! :nutkick:

All your transistors are belong to us!
Posted on Reply
#24
theoneandonlymrk
does look to me like they got a politician doin pr for them , ah well hes gone now though eh
Posted on Reply
#25
TheLaughingMan
Mussels said:
it was probably written 1.2, and the 1 didnt copy out the fax machine right.
People still use fax machines?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment