AMD Starts Shipping "Bulldozer" CPUs

[tecmo34]

AMD has announced the shipments of the x86 “Bulldozer” architecture... unfortunately for the masses, it is the Opteron server based processors and not the Zambezi (FX Series) desktop processors.

AMD Starts Shipping "Bulldozer" CPUs : Read more

 

[ginnai]

Yay! It has arrived!

 

[billybobser]

they exist

 

[Ciuy]

 

[totalgenius]

Yay its alive, can we get some benchmarks.

Still waiting eagerly for the Zambezi, AMD please release the i7 exterminators.

 

[DjEaZy]

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

 

[reagansmash]

and, halfway there...

 

[j_davis_1980]

still waiting for the desktop version.......

 

[Archean]

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... the desktop version is not far away...[/citation]

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.

 

[xyster]

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

I really hope so, but I have my doubts..

 

[Herr_Koos]

Time will tell... Sooner or later, time will tell.

 

[el33t]

wait....what about x64 processors??

 

[billybobser]

highly doubt this will be competitive, since it's quite a large change, but the iterations of this design that follow should be awesome.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

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&products_id=18137&cPath=1183 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.....

 

[Herr_Koos]

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.

 

[fffffffffff]

BD delayed again

http://www.insideris.com/amd-bulldozer-delayed-untill-q4-2011/

 

[killerclick]

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.

 

[AbdullahG]

[citation][nom]fffffffffff[/nom]BD delayed againhttp://www.insideris.com/amd-bulld [...] l-q4-2011/[/citation]
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.

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]Archean[/nom]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.[/citation]
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.

 

[Archean]

@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.)".

 

[calguyhunk]

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.

 

[SchizoFrog]

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.

 

[calguyhunk]

[citation][nom]calguyhunk[/nom]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.[/citation]

 

[ulysses35]

@ 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.

 

[back_by_demand]

BENCHMARKS
ENCHMARKS
NCHMARKS
CHMARKS
HMARKS
MARKS
ARKS
RKS
KS
S
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!