Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Starts Shipping "Bulldozer" CPUs

Last response: in News comments
Share
September 8, 2011 9:15:04 AM

Yay! It has arrived!
Score
21
September 8, 2011 9:15:39 AM

they exist :o 
Score
39
Related resources
September 8, 2011 9:15:58 AM

o.O
Score
19
September 8, 2011 9:17:54 AM

Yay its alive, can we get some benchmarks.

Still waiting eagerly for the Zambezi, AMD please release the i7 exterminators.
Score
32
September 8, 2011 9:22:34 AM

... the desktop version is not far away...
Score
15
September 8, 2011 9:23:44 AM

and, halfway there...
Score
15
September 8, 2011 9:32:00 AM

still waiting for the desktop version.......
Score
24
September 8, 2011 9:36:37 AM

DjEaZy... the desktop version is not far away...


It will be good if they are at least able to compete with SNBs, but unfortunately Q1-12 will also see the launch of IVBs which would mean that AMD will again be behind Intel by at least a one full cycle.
Score
11
September 8, 2011 9:37:20 AM

do we really expect this to be competitive with IvyBridge or SandyBridge-E?

I really hope so, but I have my doubts..
Score
25
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 9:41:17 AM

Time will tell... Sooner or later, time will tell.
Score
19
September 8, 2011 9:43:19 AM

wait....what about x64 processors??
Score
-20
September 8, 2011 9:43:59 AM

highly doubt this will be competitive, since it's quite a large change, but the iterations of this design that follow should be awesome.
Score
1
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2011 9:44:09 AM

i've heard this before, a few times, i'll believe it when i see a legit benchmark and a cpu on someones price list. This is crap, i just want to see a full review of a desktop bulldozer processor, is it too much to ask AMD??? its my birthday in a couple weeks, your too slow amd, i just found this neat z68 PCIE-3 Asrock motherboard that im going to get with an INTEL processor http://pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&... you are losing customers to intel and they are people that would have been happy to own an AMD setup and may have waited for it if there was proof that it was any good.....
Score
-9
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 9:52:35 AM

el33t said:
wait....what about x64 processors??


All processors are in fact still built on the x86 architecture, so in reality, there is no such thing as x64, although it's a widely used term.

The correct way to write it would be x86-32 and x86-64.
Score
22
September 8, 2011 10:07:16 AM

Zambezi is going to be a disappointment, not because AMD sucks but because Intel is so good. In two years time ARM will be their only competitor.
Score
-3
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 10:13:29 AM

fffffffffffBD delayed againhttp://www.insideris.com/amd-bulld [...] l-q4-2011/

Most people already knew that. BD is suspected to launch in at least October. If you guys really want to keep track and stay up-to-date on BD, you should head over to the CPU & Components forum (sub-forum CPU) and check out the BD rumors thread. There's some pretty useful info there.
Score
5
September 8, 2011 11:11:49 AM

ArcheanIt will be good if they are at least able to compete with SNBs, but unfortunately Q1-12 will also see the launch of IVBs which would mean that AMD will again be behind Intel by at least a one full cycle.

This seems to come up with every CPU article. AMD uses a completely different release cycle from Intel. For AMD to be "at least one full cycle" behind Intel, they would have to be attempting to use the same or similar release schedule.
Score
1
September 8, 2011 11:18:30 AM

@sykozis
Well let me allow to clarify what I was saying, "AMD is just getting to 32nm process tech. and Intel is already preparing to launch 22nm processors, hence AMD is full 'process cycle' behind Intel (discounting all other architectural differences etc.)".
Score
8
September 8, 2011 11:20:55 AM

Ironically, the very reason people choose AMD (choice)is being undermined by the guys at AMD themselves by delaying this thing since time immemorial.

Having said that though, I'd rather they bring out a perfect product from the get-go rather than a half baked one which will actually do them more harm than good especially at this stage.

Nobody buys AMD to compete with Intel. They buy it for...

1. Value for money.

2. Principle- Anti-monopoly.

Of course, the unlocked cores never hurt. But of course now, even that is a non-issue.
Score
19
September 8, 2011 11:21:45 AM

I wish AMD well but this seems to have dragged on for far too long now that I have my doubts about how competitive it will actually be against Intel's chips. If Bulldozer finally turns up on the desktop front (as Zambezi) and is mid range at best, it may not be the final nail in the coffin but it will be a MASSIVE stake through the undying heart of AMD-racula.
Score
-1
September 8, 2011 11:21:52 AM

calguyhunkIronically, the very reason people choose AMD (choice) is being undermined by the guys at AMD themselves by delaying this thing since time immemorial.Having said that though, I'd rather they bring out a perfect product from the get-go rather than a half baked one which will actually do them more harm than good especially at this stage.Nobody buys AMD to compete with Intel. They buy it for...1. Value for money.2. Principle- Anti-monopoly.Of course, the unlocked cores never hurt. But of course now, even that is a non-issue.

Score
-10
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 11:38:38 AM

@ calguyhunk, I choose the CPU that I want and suits my needs, and most importantly is available to buy in the shops.

Value for Money ?? really ?? even ther lowest Pentium G series chip beats most of the current AMD range and isnt that expensive.

Principle ?? are you an enthusiast or a fan boy ? I personally got for the best chip available in my price range - most of the time that turns out to be Intel.
Score
-9
September 8, 2011 11:40:24 AM

BENCHMARKS
ENCHMARKS
NCHMARKS
CHMARKS
HMARKS
MARKS
ARKS
RKS
KS
S
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Score
25
September 8, 2011 12:15:08 PM

totalgeniusYay its alive, can we get some benchmarks.Still waiting eagerly for the Zambezi, AMD please release the i7 exterminators.


Hmmm, guess WHY there aren't any benchmarks??

Because they don't touch Sandy Bridge..
Score
-6
September 8, 2011 12:27:48 PM

we can benchmark the opeteron and see how they do right?
Score
11
September 8, 2011 12:29:24 PM

This has got to be one of the lengthiest births - ever.
Hope the kid is worth the labor.
Score
12
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2011 12:40:22 PM

I personally think the delay in Bulldozer (remember when it was due in April 2011?) is a nail in the coffin of AMD.
Score
-3
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 12:47:23 PM

BSMonitor said:
Hmmm, guess WHY there aren't any benchmarks??

Because they don't touch Sandy Bridge..



Read your own personal quote lately?
Score
8
September 8, 2011 12:53:24 PM

Oh how I long for the days of the Athlons. Anyone remember when an AMD core running at 1.25Ghz could kick a 2Ghz intel core to the kerb without even trying?
Score
21
September 8, 2011 12:54:46 PM

No info on clock rates?
Score
0
September 8, 2011 1:04:32 PM

archangeThis has got to be one of the lengthiest births - ever.Hope the kid is worth the labor.


In parallelism? Surely.

In performance vs SB? Dont hold your breath.
Score
2
September 8, 2011 1:11:40 PM

ScrewySqrlI personally think the delay in Bulldozer (remember when it was due in April 2011?) is a nail in the coffin of AMD.

Yeah, maybe not last nail, but another nail for sure :( 

They aren't saying why the delay yet again: is it production issues, engineering issues, performance issues, secret deal with Intel back when they gave AMD 1.25B or what??
Score
5
September 8, 2011 1:23:40 PM

ChewieOh how I long for the days of the Athlons. Anyone remember when an AMD core running at 1.25Ghz could kick a 2Ghz intel core to the kerb without even trying?

N0. Was the internet invented yet?
Score
-8
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 1:26:07 PM

I really don't care how fast it is compared to Intel just so the prices are decent for the bang they deliver.
Score
-1
September 8, 2011 1:45:47 PM

should be half way till zambezi...
fingers crossed!
Score
1
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 1:52:08 PM

Quad Channel DDR3 and 16 cores. MMMMMMmmmm...
Score
6
September 8, 2011 1:56:33 PM

why they dont show benchmark like they proudly did with apu one wich is beating the hd graphic, well if they dont its because they cant beat a year old processor, if they beat it, it will be on high end production application because it have 16 core but a single core benchmark they will lose. amd is getting out of the market, maybe they dont know that most app is limited to dual, 4 core..
Score
1
September 8, 2011 1:58:09 PM

Seems like Newegg is down. I bet this headline sent a wave of people to their site. I can just imagine the wave of ravenous shoppers scraping at the doors for particulate matter that might have fallen off of Bulldozer packaging.

So bummed to see they've only shipped the server version. As much as I want to upgrade from my Q6600 (to pretty much anything at this point, AMD or Intel) I guess I can wait a little longer...
Score
2
September 8, 2011 1:58:40 PM

reagansmashand, halfway there...

Livin' on a prayer
Take my hand and we'll make it - I swear
Livin' on a prayer

was the first thought that came to mind... yea... noting more to add.
Score
-4
September 8, 2011 2:01:44 PM

Rumor has it BD/Zambezi can't be clocked high enough to compete w/ i7 from another article....I was really hoping AMD would do better :-P
Score
-1
September 8, 2011 2:04:35 PM

amd is going down, all you need is to check passmark cpu website to realize that amd is out of business in the high end competition.
Score
-7
September 8, 2011 2:06:28 PM

This begs a review on the Tom's IT Pro site. Pick a few performance req's (e.g. database server with a certain TPHd, or a web server with a certain transaction rate), and then work with the OEMs to get loaners with Intel and AMD that will fulfill those req's. Then determine up-front price, annual cost (power bill, etc.), and performance headroom for each of the solutions to see which is the best. That would be quite an article, and would provide a strong real-world comparison between the two architectures.
Score
2
September 8, 2011 2:08:47 PM

srgesswhy they dont show benchmark like they proudly did with apu one wich is beating the hd graphic, well if they dont its because they cant beat a year old processor, if they beat it, it will be on high end production application because it have 16 core but a single core benchmark they will lose. amd is getting out of the market, maybe they dont know that most app is limited to dual, 4 core..


um... these are server chips, the consumer chips will be 8 core, and threaded applications can handle 8 cores.

Score
-1
September 8, 2011 2:13:21 PM

srgessamd is going down, all you need is to check passmark cpu website to realize that amd is out of business in the high end competition.


Don't take this the wrong way but, you may be an idiot. Regardless of how well (or unwell?) AMD's new processors benchmark against Intel, people will still be buying their products including processors. AMD won't be going anywhere for awhile. First of all, as stated in an earlier post, people don't buy AMD for the fastest speeds. It's been YEARS since AMD has been on top of the 'fastest processor' world. Years. They are still selling their processors left and right. People are buying them for price vs performance, to stay away from Intel's stupid high costs and for the ease of overclocking. Among those, they are still selling based off principle. Guess who isn't buying Intel because of their market tactics. Myself, among MANY others.

Also, let's not forget about the fact that AMD bought ATI. Guess who is selling the crap out of GPUs these days? AMD.

So, before you decide to post this fanboy crap of yours, attend a few courses on basic marketing and business and stay FAR away from any jobs that may put you in charge of running a major corporation any time soon. Boom. Roasted.
Score
11
September 8, 2011 2:19:53 PM

totalgeniusYay its alive, can we get some benchmarks.Still waiting eagerly for the Zambezi, AMD please release the i7 exterminators.

not going to happen
Score
1
September 8, 2011 2:25:11 PM

xysterdo we really expect this to be competitive with IvyBridge or SandyBridge-E?I really hope so, but I have my doubts..


Thats assuming that AMD's Bulldozer is neck and neck with Sandy Bridge.. What if its faster by 15% or more. Intel would be then playing catch up. Also if i'm not mistaking Q1 or Q2 of next year AMD releases Trinity.
Score
-1
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2011 2:30:31 PM

I'm very happy to see Bulldozer chips shipping. There will be many iterations over the next few years and this is good for all of us.
Score
2
a c 113 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 8, 2011 2:56:11 PM

srgessamd is going down, all you need is to check passmark cpu website to realize that amd is out of business in the high end competition.


Just a little heads up for you. AMD left BAPCo (as did nVidia and Via years ago) because SysMark is simply an Intel sham. SysMark is now a tool for only distinguishing one Intel system from another.

The issue, clearly pointed out by AMD, are tests which show no appreciable difference (10 seconds over 3 minutes, or around 5%) that were represented in SysMark numeric scores by a variance of 35% or more.

And lest it is forgotten, Via left BAPCo because their processors received higher scores -- by simply changing their CPU ID string to an Intel variety.

Score
2
!