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
seronx
cocobrais said:
Everyone gonna laugh after Intel become monopolist .... :mad:
x86 is controlled by Intel, it is a monopoly...the only company that prevented x86 becoming a monopoly controlled by Intel was Cyrix and guess how that worked out.... :shadedshu

AMD has been using Intel designs since after K6(and before but that isn't really important is it)

K7, K8, K10 -> Intel Alpha CPUs
K15 -> Intel Architect, Andy Glew

Pretty much everything AMD makes has an Intel stamp on it...if it is a CPU based architecture
Posted on Reply
#2
Edgarstrong
Is there any anti-monopoly law or some increased taxes for companies enjoying a monopolistic position? Or any other "punishment" for being a monopoly?

P.S. NWM, just looked up "Sherman Antitrust Act".
Posted on Reply
#3
Bundy
Poisonsnak said:
Come on guys, AMD has always known how many transistors are in the chip, it's just another mistake by their useless marketing team.
Did AMD outsource their marketing?
Posted on Reply
#4
NC37
Apparently Read didn't read the numbers right ;).

Gotta admit, AMD is getting a lot of PR for all this. Good or bad, their name is still getting out there. Perhaps there was more brilliance with removing the ATI name. Without Radeon I'm sure AMD's name would be even more mucked up right now. General consumers aren't smart enough to tell the difference. Course it can work the other way too, but the Radeon branding is likely the deciding factor which prevents that.
Posted on Reply
#5
pantherx12
seronx said:
x86 is controlled by Intel, it is a monopoly...the only company that prevented x86 becoming a monopoly controlled by Intel was Cyrix and guess how that worked out.... :shadedshu

AMD has been using Intel designs since after K6(and before but that isn't really important is it)

K7, K8, K10 -> Intel Alpha CPUs
K15 -> Intel Architect, Andy Glew

Pretty much everything AMD makes has an Intel stamp on it...if it is a CPU based architecture
Aye but AMD got x86-x64 out before intels dedicated 64bit code, so Intels cpus after the AMD 64 ones all have an AMD stamp on them :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#6
Valdez
seronx said:


AMD has been using Intel designs since after K6(and before but that isn't really important is it)

K7, K8, K10 -> Intel Alpha CPUs
K15 -> Intel Architect, Andy Glew
You mean DEC Alpha?
Anyway if someone worked at an another company and now he/she works at amd, it doesn't mean the company's new design will be that man's former company's design.
I hope you understand what i'm trying to say.
Posted on Reply
#7
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
pantherx12 said:
Aye but AMD got x86-x64 out before intels dedicated 64bit code, so Intels cpus after the AMD 64 ones all have an AMD stamp on them :laugh:
That's true. Wasn't Intel somewhat reluctant to use it, too? I remember that AMD had 64-bit processors a good year or more before Intel did. 64-bit XP was supposed to be released too, but if I remember correctly, the rumours were that Intel leaned on Microsoft to delay its release until they were ready, to deny AMD first-mover advantage.

This was a nasty underhand tactic, if ever I saw one and Intel rightly deserved to get nailed for this. I believe this may have been part of the now settled antitrust lawsuit that AMD filed against Intel.
Posted on Reply
#8
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
intels a bitchy little bitch. everyone knows thats. thats why will never buy an intel even if they outperform amd by a million times
Posted on Reply
#9
tigger
I'm the only one
I don't care if they are bitchy, naughty, nasty or whatever, I will buy the best performing chip. I really think its a bit daft to do otherwise, be it Amd or Intel that is the best.
Posted on Reply
#10
Super XP
tigger said:
I don't care if they are bitchy, naughty, nasty or whatever, I will buy the best performing chip. I really think its a bit daft to do otherwise, be it Amd or Intel that is the best.
Agreed, but at the same time these companies need to play nice and not try and corner the market in an illegal way. If you think about it, Intel screwed AMD big time. Companies such as DELL wanted to carry AMD chips but Intel's big money told them NO.... :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
de.das.dude said:
intels a bitchy little bitch. everyone knows thats. thats why will never buy an intel even if they outperform amd by a million times
Have fun being slow.

I'll stick to buying what performs best for the price I'm looking to pay.
Posted on Reply
#12
Xtro
AMD or Intel

Whatever you want, the thing is that the end customer is being beneficted with this struggle beacause if you note the prices was going down from some years ago, so we are winning at the end, because we can take good technologies at lower cost, that is the point, or you didnt note this on gamming video cards also, i think that the AMD is not working in order to make a big deal like INTEL, i would like to think that the AMD is working in order that all of us can approach technology to our self benefict, and say which is good or not good is not important, the main conclusion is what is what you want because if you note at the end both does the homework one some seconds before but that is not the thing is that both works well.

PS: People discuss abour which is better disregarding price i would discuss about cost/benefict because at the end every one of us has to work in order to pay for every chip maker.
Posted on Reply
#13
Breit
Who cares how many transistors a chip has? What counts is how it performs... And on that end AMD has failed (again). But for what its worth, the price is right and AMD is selling there Bulldozers like hotcakes. So it seems all is fine in the end?! :)
Posted on Reply
#14
v12dock
AMD can still lawl at Intel's efforts on making a GPU
Posted on Reply
#15
Poisonsnak
Bundy said:
So AMD only announced this after someone asked why the numbers didn't add up. Not very good AMD, it seems your PR people do not talk to the production or design people. How can we believe what you say in the future?
Are you agreeing with me

Bundy said:
Did AMD outsource their marketing?
or not?
Posted on Reply
#16
f22a4bandit
Bundy said:
Did AMD outsource their marketing?
It's not uncommon for corporations to outsource their PR department with a big time PR firm. They'll usually bring in an outside source to kick-start a new campaign so it's not the same stale stuff they've been using for years. Take a look at Burger King. They hired a more traditional firm to handle their public relations, hence why you're not seeing anymore commercials with "The King."

That being said, AMD runs their public relations and marketing teams in-house. This is a terrible error on their side, but not the only one that's happened in the world, and certainly not one as huge as others that have happened. Read up on Wal-Marting Across America, that's a real fun case study.
Posted on Reply
#17
Bundy
Poisonsnak said:
Are you agreeing with me



or not?
My second question was rhetorical. AMD have to accept responsibility for the actions of all their employees. It seems the this oversight was not properly executed in the PR section.

So I was not agreeing with the notion that this is "just another mistake by their useless marketing team", it is a major corporate blunder, along with much of the bulldozer launch.

I hope they get past this, because we all need to see good competition in the higher end CPU bracket.
Posted on Reply
#18
Prima.Vera
Actualy AMD is wrong. The actual transistor count is 1,193,673,452. Yeah, but who`s counting anyways...:rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#19
OOZMAN
Hahahaha, I am in the process of trolling my AMD fanboy friend about this as we speak.
Posted on Reply
#20
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
Wile E said:
Have fun being slow.

I'll stick to buying what performs best for the price I'm looking to pay.
Bahh your an idiot. You spend a grand on a cpu that you spend much of the time looking at girly postings in TGN section...Wow that takes Horse power for sure :laugh:. I never see anything you show what you do with your system or have I missed it while I been out working?
Like David (CP) says intel beats AMD in the numbers, but amd is way snappy. I agree. I played on an Intel monster as the local guy called it and to be honest I thought it was a tad on the slower side. But like I said its just numbers... Im sure code is and or written in software to favor one brand over another. Anyways just take what I said with a grain of salt :cool:

And I'll continue having fun being SLOW as you say hahahahah :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#21
nt300
fullinfusion said:
Bahh your an idiot. You spend a grand on a cpu that you spend much of the time looking at girly postings in TGN section...Wow that takes Horse power for sure :laugh:. I never see anything you show what you do with your system or have I missed it while I been out working?
Like David (CP) says intel beats AMD in the numbers, but amd is way snappy. I agree. I played on an Intel monster as the local guy called it and to be honest I thought it was a tad on the slower side. But like I said its just numbers... Im sure code is and or written in software to favor one brand over another. Anyways just take what I said with a grain of salt :cool:

And I'll continue having fun being SLOW as you say hahahahah :rockout:
Its been noted many times that Intel CPUs do much better in synthetic benchmarks and crapy in real world. AMD does just fine for a gaming system and costs a lot less. I do think Wile E uses the PC for more than just gaming to go and buy a $1000 CPU from a monopoly company :D
Posted on Reply
#22
ensabrenoir
I think Amd know everything there is to know about bd. Including how to get 100% performance out of the thing. But they won't ever let that happen because it'll be FLAME ON or crash and burn for your entire system. The released version of bd probually is its only stable viable form....neutured for our own good.
Posted on Reply
#23
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
nt300 said:
Its been noted many times that Intel CPUs do much better in synthetic benchmarks and crapy in real world. AMD does just fine for a gaming system and costs a lot less. I do think Wile E uses the PC for more than just gaming to go and buy a $1000 CPU from a monopoly company :D
Thanks nt300. Im just pissn on wiles posting about being slow..and when he reads it he'll just shake his head and say here we go again :shadedshu. Thats why I said TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT lol but really click for click there is no difference imo. I prefer amd just because the fact they try and use the same sockets... Unlike intel and there BS change every week it seems. I priced out a competitive system to change over to intel but after looking at the costs involved I think I'll keep what I got and hammer down...With my current hardware Im getting some sweet ass numbers *bang for my buck* I spend my money donating it to medical research then line Intels pockets.
Posted on Reply
#24
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
fullinfusion said:
Thanks nt300. Im just pissn on wiles posting about being slow..and when he reads it he'll just shake his head and say here we go again :shadedshu. Thats why I said TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT lol but really click for click there is no difference imo. I prefer amd just because the fact they try and use the same sockets... Unlike intel and there BS change every week it seems. I priced out a competitive system to change over to intel but after looking at the costs involved I think I'll keep what I got and hammer down...With my current hardware Im getting some sweet ass numbers *bang for my buck* I spend my money donating it to medical research then line Intels pockets.
This is so true! Intel has changed sockets quite a lot here lately! I am surprised that ivy bridge will be on 1155 and 2011 instead of new sockets for them.
Posted on Reply
#25
erocker
nt300 said:
Its been noted many times that Intel CPUs do much better in synthetic benchmarks and crapy in real world.
Somebody call the BS police. Sorry man, you're way out of touch with reality here. Show me these "notes". :slap: I can uderstand someone having an allegience to a company (I guess). I'm just going to say that AMD does just as bad in the "real world" than it does at synthetic benchmarks. Which is does.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment