Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Opnion: Did We Expect Too Much of AMD Bulldozer?

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:13:13 PM

No we didn't expect too much from AMD. This might explain the change in CEO's as they knew Bulldozer was not going to be competitive. In some cases the Phenom II series out performs Bulldozer. I hope the rebound with 2nd gen of this cpu. Looking at benchmarks I also wonder if the 990FX chipset is utilizing Bulldozer's full potential although I may be wrong.
Score
28
October 13, 2011 8:14:41 PM

No. AMD damaged themselves. Nuff said.
Score
41
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 13, 2011 8:15:33 PM

the flagship is horrendous at the moment (it may be more applicable on multithreaded real world scenario's in the future.)

But windows 7 cannot even address the cores properly, it's like reverse hyper threading.

Being crap and future proof in electronics don't mix.
Score
-3
October 13, 2011 8:15:56 PM

i can explain you why AMD looks like another company from which we fell in love, ever since the stupid Hector ruiz crusade became and did all that stupid things like buying ATI and firing everyone within and focusing on the Fusion technology and not bothering to keep ahead on the CPU market , like they say in my language... the bigger the grasp the weaker you hold (spanish)

AMD was not up for a ATI buyout and they bought ATI cause Nvidia broke their relationship of joining
Score
20
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:16:13 PM

As people are starting to understand today Zambezi is a perfectly fine CPU for most people and most applications. It's current optimization is for heavy work loads where it does well. It's weal point is single threaded worlk loads. It's fine in games and most other apps. It is not the fastest CPU for those apps but it works just fine for most everything and is a building block for the next piledriver cores.

Did some folks expect too much? Absolutely. Does Zamabezi OC better than Deneb or Thurban? Yes it most definitely does. Does anyone think that the FX-8150 is the fastest Zambezi that will be released? Not likely. Is Zambezi a decent performing/value CPU for the majority of consumers? Most definitely.

While we would all have liked more from Zambezi, what AMD delivered is still a significant step forward on many fronts - especially for heavy processing loads, i.e server use - where Opteron 6200/4200's are selling VERY well. Let's not forget that AMD also has great demand for Llano APUs and trinity is not too far off, so consumers most definitely have more CPU/APU choices now than ever.
Score
18
October 13, 2011 8:16:59 PM

i dont think you expected to much. the previous generation of amd cpu's beat the bulldozer in many of the benchmarks. that is illogical and unacceptable. i wouldnt fault marketing though, no one markets their chips with the slogan: "this is going to suck" im sure any attempt marketing made to be realistic was overturned by management.
Score
25
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:19:02 PM

To be honest, I had high hopes for Bulldozer. However, I know that AMD was and still far behind Intel. Because of that, I was hoping for Bulldozer challenge Intel Nehalem but at a competitive price point. It's kind of near that..
Score
18
October 13, 2011 8:19:47 PM

AMD marketing go too far, Simple and Efficient.
Score
1
October 13, 2011 8:20:37 PM

The internet is loaded with conversations right now on if there's some bug or a bad combination of particular motherboards/video cards, but more and more of that seems to be getting eliminated, showing consistent disappointment for the AMD product. I have been a proud AMD fanboy for a long time, but after waiting for so long for a (delayed) disappointing product, I've already jumped ship and ordered my i5-2500k build. It's a sad day when AMD can't even provide what has always been their strong point, high performance/$.

I DO think software is holding it back, that there's not enough multithreading in use. This will probably change in the next couple of years, but I want to play games out there right now unfortunately.
Score
16
October 13, 2011 8:23:14 PM

a bit of both, really. i think amd marketing really pushed the idea that bulldozer was going to dominate sandybridge in anything that required good virtual processing (i.e. graphics). and i think that, while it may have been partly amd's fault, we the userbase thought that this totally new processor and processor design would be able to at the very least compete with sandybridge, if not beat it in gaming at the least.
Score
13
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:23:51 PM

I think the marketing did give us high expectation, however I feel that especially if you check out the reviews if you compare things to the previous generation of the Phenom II a lot of us expected things to be somewhat better considering where the X6 and X4 could reach. If in some of the test it hadnt appeared that the previous architecture could nearly keep you there we may not have been so upset. This is where I feel a lot of expectation came from. Who knows, maybe the next generation will be better and give us the performance per dollar and better like the Phenom II chips did. I'm still a fan of AMD but getting an Intel does seem to look like a better purchase for a high performance cpu.
Score
5
October 13, 2011 8:26:01 PM

i can go along with this architecture as you most say that its "enough" but Enough doesnt go for 250 bucks, come on!! 130 maybe
Score
10
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:28:22 PM

I have been waiting eagerly and been disappointed. AMD should have done something to temper the claims circulating the web. I would not have minded if expectations had been set at the start, but after so much build up I doubt there are many fans happy with the outcome (other than Intel ones).
Score
5
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:31:35 PM

I think AMD and the community share the blame equally. AMD's engineers had released enough details in architectural talks to hint that the per-thread performance would not be much better than Phenom II. These details were subtle, but they were there. AMD's marketing and the community's desire for an Intel-killer got the best of us all. AMD should have been stressing that this is a server processor which may not improve desktop performance very much. With everyone hoping/expecting it to compete with the i7 2600K, there's no doubt why all the reviews are so unfavorable. When looking at the reviews, the FX-8150 isn't great, but it is decent. It should probably be a little cheaper than the i5 2500K, not more expensive.
Score
4
October 13, 2011 8:32:20 PM

Quote:
Is Zambezi a decent performing/value CPU for the majority of consumers? Most definitely
NOT.

When you look at the performance in applications the majority of consumers would use its lagging quite a bit behind the Core i5 and i7 chips, even last generation. iTunes, Excel, Photoshop all vastly favor Intel architecture. The most popular PC games like WoW or Star Craft 2 also perform far greater with the Intel architecture.

Its only in a few situations where the FX chips pulls ahead, and none of them are what a mainstream user would likely be doing.
Score
9
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:35:37 PM

The problem is it's not really a 8core and should never have been marketed as one. Really it's more like a 4 core with hyperthrading. Windows and other apps don't recognize it's cores and jumble the threads out of order which is why it performs slow in bencharks that rely on "in order" threading. It seems more of a software issue than a cpu issue. Even Microsoft said Windows said it's not optimized for those kind of cores.
I really don't get what AMD was thinking. I would rather they had just cancelled BD than release a dissapointing product.
Score
22
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:36:04 PM

Opinions vary. That's why people should learn what performs best for their use and then buy AMD instead of supporting the convicted crinals at Intel.
Score
-23
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:37:00 PM

It was exactly what I said it would be, just below the first gen I7's
Some other reviews showed it being a lot better than I thought,
I have to see a review using all amd CPU and GPU's Im sure it will fair better as it did in reviews that did not use the release motherboard.
Score
2
October 13, 2011 8:37:03 PM

LOL the fanbois expected too much from bulldozer. they were hyping it up so much it was like there own 2nd coming of Christ
Score
-7
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:37:26 PM

Can't edit typos...
Score
-12
October 13, 2011 8:37:37 PM

AMD has been over-promising for years... a decade even. The only thing I've seen them really 'win' at recently is the gains they've made in GPU scaling for crossfire against NVIDIA. They need to be more nimble as a company.

Intel plants use 'tools', basically resulting in modular fabrication facilities that allow them to bring new technology to consumer level products quickly. This is probably a 'somewhat standard' approach, but AMD has not demonstrated the same ability, instead twittering away nearly a half-decade NOT keeping up with Tick-Tock.

Someone needs to look at AMD strategy as a whole and identify ways new technology can become products quickly. Stop 'positioning' against Intel and compete!
Score
13
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:37:44 PM

I dont think we expected to much, I think the price leads us to expect to much. When I saw the price at $250 or $280 I assumed it would crush a $210 i5 2500. In reality its about on par. Why would I pay 50 or 70 more for a chip that is about the same on heavily threaded apps and much worse on single threaded apps?
Score
11
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:38:42 PM

The only ones that are disappointed are the AMD fanboys that want AMD to take over the high end market.

Unfortunately, AMD has never been meant to take over the high end spectrum since its creation...

Sorry guys.

But however, this appears to be a fine chip and is typical of AMD's products.
Score
-21
October 13, 2011 8:39:34 PM

i thought this video showing how 8 cores is used. http://youtu.be/FgtzwU9iXnc
It might not be the fastest but it can carry a load. thinking truck. It also cheap for what it is. No new motherboard, gpu, and 8 cores for the future of software. People it in the hands of the people and so developers will develop more for 8 core chips. Soon Intel will have 50, 100 cores. ect. Well not really soon but working on it t be soon.
"People are mostly complaining because single threaded performance decreased from the Phenom II in many cases, so the gap to sandy bridge is huge.. software's limited to 1-4 cores usage are still VERY common, so that's why, but yes, BD can be interesting for some software" by @AustinKing09
Score
-1
October 13, 2011 8:39:50 PM

Bulldozer makes for a great server part, but a pretty meh desktop part. It excels in very highly threaded applications or running a bunch of programs at once(using all of its cores). Which is the usual server environment. In a desktop environment most applications hardly use more than 2 threads, and those that do don't use more than 4. All is not lost for AMD(I hope) because this is a new architecture which, hopefully they can pull more power from with farther revisions, and as time advances maybe we will see more and more application take advantage of more than 4 cores.

But that could just be my wishful thinking.....
Score
10
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:41:31 PM

Read this article first, then went and read the review with benchmarks. Sandybridge doesn't just beat Bulldozer... it wipes the floor with it, I didn't see any mixed reviews, everything showed the i5 and i7 smoking it and that's before taking into account the i5's awesome overclocking ability.
Score
-4
October 13, 2011 8:42:28 PM

It's actually a pretty neat and innovative CPU.
The problem is software.
Writing multithreaded code is not trivial and programmers are used to ever increasing single thread performance, so why bother writing efficient multi threaded code unless u actually are writing some critical productivity app?

The FX8150 actually beats the i7-2600k in some benchmarks. Shame that most games can't use 8 cores.
Score
3
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:42:34 PM

Opinions vary but criminal convictions are forever.
Score
-13
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:44:05 PM

It was well known that Bulldozer would not compete with Sandybridge, well before the launch time, and if anyone saw the helium overclocking parade and automatically thought they were getting an 8ghz cpu at home, they were just delusional.

If Bulldozer didn't perform worse than it's predecessors in certain situations then it wouldn't had received the amount of flak it has.

At any rate, AMD needs to fire their pr and marketing department, this too has been knows for quite a while now.
Score
6
October 13, 2011 8:44:24 PM

As many people have said, I dont think we expected too much. We expected a chip from AMD that would at least be competitive with Sandy Bridge, hopefully outperforming it and setting the bar for Ivy Bridge.

Granted, the chip had a new architecture which will surely be improved on and revised but for now, Bulldozer is a bit of a disappointment.
Score
3
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:44:45 PM

I did not expect anything from Bulldozer. On the other hand it appears gamers and enthusiasts expected too much. More than 30 hardware reviews of the new Bulldozer were published yesterday. That is a record number of reviews for one pc component in one 24 hour period. The reviews were not positive.

We have a somewhat similar situation with Intel's new 520 Series ssd that will be released on November 4th. The are unsubstantiated rumors and speculation that the new ssd will use a SadForce controller. As usual Intel has remained silent.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 8:45:02 PM

beenthereOpinions vary. That's why people should learn what performs best for their use and then buy AMD instead of supporting the convicted crinals at Intel.


sorry but criminal (as the fanboi troll calls them) or not i am not going to go for the loser when the winner outperforms them in almost every way
Score
2
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:46:07 PM

The big expectations came from this being a new architecture. Why make a new architecture if not to improve performance? Why bother spending billions on engineering and research, only to take a step back from where you are? AMD did exactly this. They stepped backward, lost performance per clock, and overall barely stayed right where they were. This is the most upsetting thing with this chip.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 8:47:57 PM

Now even if AMD comes out with the world's fastest CPU for real, any marketing it does on that will have absolutely NO effect at all. AMD is getting discredited with all that bull... yes, bullshit.
Score
2
October 13, 2011 8:48:22 PM

I think people was expecting way too much, almost a unrealistic scenario for this processors, but it was until I saw the Newegg's video that I realized that they are going to use this processor (and the price was a big clue) as part of a Three pieces product that the called "scorpio platform??" which is necessary to GET the desired performance.... in the mean while we are getting some phenoms for the budget rigs and that would do for two-three years hopping the architecture had mature enough.
Score
1
Anonymous
October 13, 2011 8:51:33 PM

Interlagos Opteron 16 cores at 1.8ghz is a fail also since you cannot use this chip as a workstation way to low for Single threaded use.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 8:57:19 PM

Well my two cents on the subject are as follows, I own a T1090 and see no reason to up grade to BD.
Score
2
October 13, 2011 8:57:39 PM

I knew exactly what BD would turn out to be years ago and I've been shouted down by fanboys who said I don't know what I'm talking about.

Fanboys should realize there are no shortcuts in this business, there are no magic breakthroughs and the product/tech maps are drawn years in advance. Intel has been making all the right moves since 2006 while AMD has been stumbling. The reverse would have to be true (for another 5 years) for AMD to even hope of catching up to Intel.
Score
2
October 13, 2011 9:01:07 PM

AMD needs a CPU that is designed for the future. Given current semiconductor technology that future is more CPUs on a die, not faster clock speed. Bulldozer allows rapid turnaround on new CPU designs by simply adding more cores. Previous designs did not have quite so scalable an intraCPU data transfer architecture.
To beat Intel with bulldozer modules, AMD must lead with number of Bulldozer modules cores versus Intel cores. For example: 4 modules (8 cores under Windows) versus 4 Intel cores plus hyperthreading (8 cores under Windows) -- AMD needs a "10 core" CPU to beat a 4 core Intel CPU. Sounds bad, but if they are the same price I would go AMD.
At 32nm, AMD should be able to scale beyond 4 module (8 cores) and it looks like they have done 8 modules (16 cores).
Single-threaded speed is not worth what it used to be; the future is multi-threaded and being able to scale logical cores efficiently is key -- not single-threaded execution.
Score
-5
October 13, 2011 9:01:41 PM

There are too many variables - is it windows fully compatible, intel compiler reads wright CPUID, MoBos fully compatible with the new hardware. After all this is new architecture, and we cannot expect to be perfect (somebody may be don't remember Core Is issues with first mobos).

And for me guys, all day around I'm reading post like "such a disappointment, i just order my I5" - this is acting like a herd of sheeps (sorry but this is truth) - see one - two benches, not even wait a week to see more opinions - and one sheep goes, and others after her.

At last place, marketing was go too far, and somebody has to be fired.
Score
5
October 13, 2011 9:02:53 PM

I never expected too much, seeing as Intel are selling the dozen or so CPUs that are faster for the best part of $1000+ each, with the odd notable exception. It is a very powerful CPU and would make a great upgrade from a previous generation, AMD will do great business in the mid-range. Perhaps attempting to take the performance crown was something to wish for but the smart money is on steady sales in a known market.
Score
2
October 13, 2011 9:06:49 PM

"Unfortunately, AMD has never been meant to take over the high end spectrum since its creation..."

AMD Athlon vs. Intel Pentium 4 anyone?? (I guess it's what you call high end though... so my apologies for being annoying here)

Talking about the Pentium 4 it does seem like the architecture Bulldozer is AMD's netburst in terms of failing to deliver. I really hope they something special in the bag but I think the problem is this should have come out when they first said. Maybe then it would have stood a chance. It's a real shame. I've used both Intel and AMD products and go for whatever gets me the best performance for the money I have available to spend at that time. We need at least one serious competitor in the x86-64 CPU market to drive prices down and, most importantly, innovation!
Score
2
October 13, 2011 9:08:06 PM

I think AMD expected more from AMD. Even a lot of AMD fanboys I know had that gut feeling that it would be a step in the right direction on the competitive and design with a competitive price. I'm not ecstatic nor upset with the benchmarks I've seen. Kind of what I expected. You have to remember if this chip came out years ago before the delays after delays we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, those delays ultimately feel like it's already an aged product for people that waited for so long.

I feel more upset for the people that waited so long and with all the talk and hype from AMD, that they are getting what they're getting. But the price is nice, the cores can come in handy in the future or depending on what you're doing, and things should get better. AMD just needs to meet there deadlines as best as possible. They don't have the backing, R&D, or finances like Intel, but they really do need to do something before they are considered a distant competitor. Right now Intel hasn't really messed with the clock speed or adding more cores, but on the architect and design of the chip to boost functionality. AMD needs to get back into a Core-to-Core performance like Intel and stop thinking adding more cores is going to make there problems go away.
Score
5
October 13, 2011 9:08:17 PM

It's a brand news architecture and it brings 8 cores to the mainstream. Now if they can get the price down about $50USD I think it's a great addition. Sure it's not the monster all the advertising had hyped, for that AMD needs to re-examine their marketing strategies. However, I think it can definitely find a niche of consumers that can make use of the increased amount of cores (ie. one of these would be great and cheap for molecular modeling).
Score
0
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 9:08:18 PM

It consumes far too much power for a 32nm chip design, making the "performance per watt" argument invalid for most desktop users. It also uses far too much power overclocking for too little gains. AMD should have told us Bulldozer would be a niche product for those that use 8 threads constantly that want something cheaper than an i7-2600 and don't mind having to pay extra on their electric bill. Even for most gamers, a Sandy Bridge i3 will be better in most cases because of superior single thread performance and higher frame-rates in games that are CPU bound (the i3 generally outperforms Phenom IIs at 3.7ghz in gaming fps). I just don't see a place for bulldozer in desktop computing right now.
Score
3
October 13, 2011 9:10:38 PM

I was really expecting Zambezi to be not quite as fast as Nehalem but make a valiant effort that would force Intel to lower their prices. Though there is still time for this to happen I can't imagine it making a huge difference.
Score
1
October 13, 2011 9:17:23 PM

By releasing Bulldozer, AMD is telling the world that it is now more than 3 years behind Intel because the i7 920 still kicks ass and that was released in late 2008.
Score
-1
October 13, 2011 9:18:15 PM

You were right in your expectation, it was like Duke Nukem Forever, talk and talk and talk, and when you see it.. ehh.

After all that hype, only to say, "ehh, it's alright." I am by no means a fan boy, I wish AMD would have rocked em, better competition means lower prices :) ! AMD fell short of the mark.
Score
4
!