Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Is Bulldozer considered a failure

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 9:45:20 AM

In games=Yes.
In Multithreaded apps=Not really.

Overall they needed to sell more cores so more money goes out of the company.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 9:55:08 AM

IMO,Performance wise its fine but I(and I think most people)were expecting a far better performance,because it took a long time for AMD to release the bulldozer CPUs and now the fastest model falls behind Intel's 2500/2600 CPU(in most benchies)
Score
0
October 12, 2011 9:59:40 AM

Not really a failure, it happens, when the competitor is Intel..!! LOL
Its quite good actually, But even I had more expectations from Bulldozer being an Intel fan.
I thought at least for some months, or days, it will be the fastest CPU on the planet. But even core i5 sandy bridge beats it in many benchmarks.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bul...
It aint no failure, but its relatively cheaper. Not everyone can afford core i7 2600 or higher..!!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 10:15:00 AM

Actually the more i see it the more it is a failure.The Old arch K10 phenom II X4 980 and Phenom II X6 1100t is actually a good competitor to bulldozer.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:20:20 AM

Sigh.. I was planning a epic build for bulldozer... even started reading up on watercooling... Might buy one anyway so i don't put my efforts to waste.... I wish i was --->
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 10:22:01 AM

Scoregie said:
Sigh.. I was planning a epic build for bulldozer... even started reading up on watercooling... Might buy one anyway so i don't put my efforts to waste.... I wish i was --->

Why not sell the board?
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:23:10 AM

Because i just planned it haven't bought anything yet.... Plus i like wasting money on pointless things :D 
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:24:11 AM

bulldozer is a failure in my eyes, its more expensive than 2500k and the 2500k whips its ass at gaming. I was expecting the BD to at least give it a challenge. In my honest opinios AMD are only good for one thing in the past few years and that GPUS. 19 21 14 14 14 21 14 61 25 25 116 38 155 12 45 78 98 65 14 14 14
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 10:25:48 AM

Scoregie said:
Because i just planned it haven't bought anything yet.... Plus i like wasting money on pointless things :D 

Alright mate.But if i was you i would sell the board.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:32:31 AM

Sort of. I think the hype outweighed the reality. I do think AMD does pretty well in getting close to Intel with what resources they have available, but until they up their budget and resources, then it's a rare occurrence when they catch Intel. Bulldozer needed to be better. It had to be. I kind of feel sorry for them.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 10:34:12 AM

Ive given this some thought before all the fanbois come on screaming about this..

Bulldozer = is it a failure

yeah for sure

AMD has produced a 8 core processor which is beaten by something with only 4.

and its older..

AMD had loads of time to get there act together and in that time Intel will be releasing is new series of processor to knock bulldozer dead..

Ive been selling quad core AMD chips this year and a few Intel 5700's

I was really hoping AMD would pull out trumps here but as usual this is a weak release, just as it was since the Phenom came out

Stroll on core i series
Score
0
October 12, 2011 11:05:07 AM

Looking at the early reviews, Bulldozer seems to get "steamrolled" by Intel.

It didn't really surprise me really.

Intel came out with such a "WIN" product which makes Bulldozer look even worse.

I hope AMD price these accordingly.

A lot of people were waiting for Bulldozer.

A lot will be disappointed.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 11:15:49 AM

I find it quite laughable that the IPC of bulldozer is lower than Phenom. No, seriously, I haven't stopped laughing.

On another note, it was shown in another benchmark that 1 bulldozer core at 4.9ghz is slower than one sandy bridge core at 3.11ghz. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

18
Score
0
October 12, 2011 11:21:56 AM

Performance/Watt for BD is really bad.

Has anyone noticed AMD's high stock frequencies post Core2?

They're raising frequency, adding more cores just to keep up with Intel's offerings.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 12:22:32 PM

We have been reading and hearing and hoping about Bulldozer for so long, I finally gave up and went with Sandy Bridge myself a few months back. Now that the release is finally here, my decision not to wait on Bulldozer proves itself out as a good one.

Perhaps they should have named it Back-hoe.............

I don't know if I would call it a failure, but it certainly is not impressing the enthusiast crowd.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 12:28:02 PM

Unless BullDozer can overclock better than SandyBridge (which currently it seems its about the same if not a little less) then generally SandyBridge is going to remain the processor of choice. The multiple-cores just aren't necessary for most end users, its all about each cores speed/potential that makes a difference.

EDIT: Its not a failure, its just not what many people expected (too high expectations IMO).
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 12:42:48 PM

This compares to the initial Phenom flop disaster although so far no big bugs unlike the first Phenom series.The fixed Phenoms were not really that bad like the 9850 and 9950 except for high TDP's.
Phenom II gave us hope although it was behind Nehalem.I hope that AMD will have a better plan ahead because this is not looking good.I like their APU series though (great for low cost laptops,ultraportables etc).Many people still bought AMD CPU's although I think that more people are going to jump ship to Intel for this fail.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 12:53:57 PM

I had my fingers crossed that AMD would be able to relase a real winner with the Bulldozer. I've always been a fan of the underdog and have had AMD rigs for years. My last Intel CPU was an i486 33MHz (for Doom baby!) After that I went AMD, then regrettably a Cyrix MX333MHz chip (omg what a pos) then back to AMD to this day.

That being said... I believe my next build will have an Intel CPU, unless BD does a complete 180 before release.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 1:37:54 PM

It was a let down since users like us want to see a better CPU from AMD to compete w/ Intel...

This is bad for all users like us since Intel has tendencies to screw up when there is no competition.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 1:55:53 PM

jj463rd said:
This compares to the initial Phenom flop disaster although so far no big bugs unlike the first Phenom series.The fixed Phenoms were not really that bad like the 9850 and 9950 except for high TDP's.
Phenom II gave us hope although it was behind Nehalem.I hope that AMD will have a better plan ahead because this is not looking good.I like their APU series though (great for low cost laptops,ultraportables etc).Many people still bought AMD CPU's although I think that more people are going to jump ship to Intel for this fail.

Good point but I think some delusional people were expecting AMD to somehow trash Intel this round and yea, that's just not gonna happen. Hopefully they'll find something to turn it around and provide a good value draw just like the PhenomII's




yea. 18
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2011 1:56:58 PM

The 8120, when OC'd is an attractive option. But its single threaded performance is horrid, and has significant power draw issues. Its only real saving grace is that it outperfoms when all 8 cores are used, and even then, the i5 and i7's more then hold their own.

I have yet to see 4 core BD results, but expect them to be outright bad. If so, then yes, BD is a failure. If those cheaper 4 core modules are at least competitive, however, then there may yet be a spot for BD in the budget segment.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2011 2:21:15 PM

C0rehound said:
I had my fingers crossed that AMD would be able to relase a real winner with the Bulldozer. I've always been a fan of the underdog and have had AMD rigs for years. My last Intel CPU was an i486 33MHz (for Doom baby!) After that I went AMD, then regrettably a Cyrix MX333MHz chip (omg what a pos) then back to AMD to this day.

That being said... I believe my next build will have an Intel CPU, unless BD does a complete 180 before release.



Sounds like your PC history nearly parallels mine, but I did go one better than the 48633DX and dropped in a DX4/100 overdrive for Doom, now that rocked! And I did the Cyrix 166+ nonsense as well for short time. I have ran nothing but AMD up until this spring when I retired my 965 BE system for a Sandy Bridge. There were so many years during the Pentium era that I simply refused to pay for Intel crap, and we have AMD to thank for releasing the Athlon and getting Intel off the "sit back and bump the mhz up by 200 every 3 months and charge more money" mentality and actually roll up their sleeves, do some work, and release better products.
Now we are all waiting on AMD to bring another Athlon type release to the table, and I doubt it will ever happen.
Score
0
October 13, 2011 2:37:43 PM

Snap to jitpublisher and Corehound. I always root for the underdog.

486-66DX2 then K6-2 350, Athlon XP2800+ now Athlon 64X2 6000+ been waiting for BD and unfortunately I'm going to be hard-pressed to ignore the low per-core performance. Sad. I hate near-monopolies....
Score
0
October 13, 2011 3:06:57 PM

The market will decide that...Companies will still sell BD base pc... Specially the cheap ones.

For the gamers... not so many unless those who are to upgrade an existing socket.

For new setup very few most likely
Score
0
a c 159 à CPUs
October 13, 2011 3:17:56 PM

Read this guys:

Quote:
AMD hasn't launched Bulldozer today; instead, they made the mistake of launching the FX-8150 and the FX-8150 only. This is where the problem lies with what AMD has done today with the launch of the new Bulldozer CPU.

So, maybe it's not the marketing team; maybe the marketing team wanted to do what I think they should've done, but the suits up top wouldn't let them. The problem is, when we look at a launch of a product, we deal with the marketing people; they're the people that sample us and we feel that if something happens in that area, it's because of the marketing team. I don't really want to point the finger at just them, though. I think the whole corporate culture at AMD is what hurt the launch of the Bulldozer CPU.

...

This might come off as a personal attack at AMD, but I have to be honest here. I've called AMD out before and they've responded positively to it. What I like about them is they don't have their head so far up their butts that they think the media and public are just a bunch of plebs. Someone once told me; the problem with AMD is that they're an "Engineering" company, unlike NVIDIA who are a "Marketing" one. NVIDIA has the ability to make products that aren't great, while looking fantastic with marketing. Unfortunately, AMD have this issue where they make fantastic products look bad because they're not launched in the same way.

I'd love to hear from someone at AMD who can actually tell me why this launch happened this way. I don't mean someone who tells someone who tells someone who tells my main contact who then tells me. I mean someone really within AMD who makes the decision behind this kind of thing. Who at AMD said we need to send a Crosshair V Formula and Belt Buckle with our FX-8150 and not a FX-6100 and Intel i5-2300 with the FX-8150.


Full article: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4347/shi_y_marketing_...
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 8:01:02 AM

leon2006 said:
The market will decide that...Companies will still sell BD base pc... Specially the cheap ones.

For the gamers... not so many unless those who are to upgrade an existing socket.

For new setup very few most likely



There is really no price difference..

Not for what you get..

Ive been told that the llano chips were not well recieved in the trade and now the bulldozy wont be either

its all down to the die hard fans of amd to keep the company alive now as its so disapointing that intels 2500 k which is nearly a year older still out performs benchmarks on a new 8 core cpu

read and weep technos

Intel wont be rushing out a 6 or 8 core processor soon cos it dont have too.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 5:34:03 AM

Quote removed by 4ryan6


Yeah but were talking about software now.

By the time Windows 8 comes round ( which will run well on current hardware ) there be im sure quite a few processor releases by then.

AMD in my eyes have done it again... The just dont seem to do produce what people want. Bulldozer has been over hyped and can only lead to people deserting AMD and moving to Intel by disapointing fans.

On top of this Intel have a new range of Core series processor being released any time soon.

How can you spend all this time and 9 months behind with a 8 core processor and release something which is in all intense and purposes - slower.

I have sold more AMD processors this year than Intel... So its not like im giving them the support for it.
Score
0
October 16, 2011 6:20:37 AM

well definetly looking forward to when AMD reduces the price to compete with 2500K.
2700K is well out of its reach. but 2500K ...... can be beaten if they match the price
I have made like 50 AMD systems in past few years until 2011. (and none for intel) so i am definetly a AMD fanboy,
but since sandy bridge I had to give in to AMD pressure and go for he better deal with intel. currently i have made 10 systems for my friends and so in last 8 months and 8 have been Intel SB 2100. it is the best deal at low mid range.
looking forward to buldozers FX4100 benches. if they beat the 2100, then AMD has a winner.
AMD doesnt need to compete with 2700K, (because it cant compete). it needs to make sure that it doesn't bleed the 100$ to 200$ range. if it starts bleeding here then there will be no innovation from Intel also, because they will rule the roost, uncontested.
Score
0
October 16, 2011 6:54:25 AM

BD is a total failure in all aspects.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 7:23:57 AM

BD is a mixed bag of nuts and bolts. it confuses everyone so they just look at it like WTF?

Quote:
We thought we would recap over all the review content today and present some graphs highlighting FX 8150, i7 2600k and i5 2500k performance. First place in a specific benchmark earns 5 points, second place earns 3 points and last place 1 point.

At reference clock speeds the Intel Core i7 2600k is the clear winner scoring 64 points out of a possible 70 points. The FX 8150 takes second place with 42 points and the Core i5 2500k takes last place with 20 points. Obviously this is at default clock speeds, and when overclocked to 4.6ghz (or beyond) then the results are a little closer between the FX 8150 and Core i5 2500k. - Kitguru


Its a radical change and the reviews show its exactly just that.

If you take all the losses and put them in one review, BD Looks like hell and obviously by the looks of things, thats all people want to see. Its much easier to support Intel than to say BD has potential because you will have 90% of the people behind you just for that one reason.

Quote:
Using these benchmarks, the stock-clocked AMD FX-8150 averages 2.2% slower than the stock-clocked Intel Core i5 2500K. But as you can see looking at this chart, the individual differences are typically much higher: the FX-8150 tends to win big or lose big. It would be easy to choose a mix of benchmarks that gave a decisive win to either CPU, but I tried to use as broad an array of tests as I could to give the most accurate performance comparison. - Benchmark reviews
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 8:15:07 AM

noob2222 said:
BD is a mixed bag of nuts and bolts. it confuses everyone so they just look at it like WTF?

Quote:
We thought we would recap over all the review content today and present some graphs highlighting FX 8150, i7 2600k and i5 2500k performance. First place in a specific benchmark earns 5 points, second place earns 3 points and last place 1 point.

At reference clock speeds the Intel Core i7 2600k is the clear winner scoring 64 points out of a possible 70 points. The FX 8150 takes second place with 42 points and the Core i5 2500k takes last place with 20 points. Obviously this is at default clock speeds, and when overclocked to 4.6ghz (or beyond) then the results are a little closer between the FX 8150 and Core i5 2500k. - Kitguru


Its a radical change and the reviews show its exactly just that.

If you take all the losses and put them in one review, BD Looks like hell and obviously by the looks of things, thats all people want to see. Its much easier to support Intel than to say BD has potential because you will have 90% of the people behind you just for that one reason.

Quote:
Using these benchmarks, the stock-clocked AMD FX-8150 averages 2.2% slower than the stock-clocked Intel Core i5 2500K. But as you can see looking at this chart, the individual differences are typically much higher: the FX-8150 tends to win big or lose big. It would be easy to choose a mix of benchmarks that gave a decisive win to either CPU, but I tried to use as broad an array of tests as I could to give the most accurate performance comparison. - Benchmark reviews



This is true. I never ever thought bulldozer would overtake Intel's performance but i was expecting at least 15-25% better Single core performance and around 30% better Multithreading performance. And i was definitively expecting bulldozer to overclock better then the sandy because overclocking is so over hyped by AMD. I was not expecting lower IPC performance 10% better Multithreading performance(8 core BD vs Phenom II x6) And a high TDP processor that can overclock well as long as your not using air cooling. And i was not expecting it to cost more while being slower overall. It's like Amd priced bulldozer by its best performance over overall performance. by looking at these results i compared 8 reviews and bulldozer is on average 10-15% faster then the Phenom II x6 on stock and when both are overclocked on air 4.2Ghz for the Phenom and 4.6Ghz for the bulldozer its a tie in performance. BD is usually 5% faster(when both the Phenom and BD is overclocked) while costing 23% more. Amd let me down big time, But since i'm such a fan and i'm to cheap and lazy to sell my sabertooth am3+(I just ordered a Phenom II x6 1100T on Friday) board i'm going to wait for PD. And since i'm a Amd fanboy i'll be waiting and waiting with know official info given to me.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 8:16:19 AM

phatbuddha79 said:
BD is a total failure in all aspects.



I blame lots of things and Amd is on top of the list. If anything i hate AMD marketing i trusted Amd because they called it FX and that name used to mean something when it comes to AMD.
Score
0
October 16, 2011 3:02:09 PM

The best performance is irrelevant. The ONLY failure is the price. AMD need to pressure Intel in perfomance per dollar. Intel hasn't dropped the prices on it's mainstream parts this year and it's not looking like they will need to do that for a while to come.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 6:10:55 PM

Quote:
It needs to do something rapidly to impress me.
As my am3 unit still needs an upgrade...
Phenom II x4 B55 4.4ghz unlocked (555 x2 BE!)
MSI 790FX-GD70
4GB Geil Black dragon DDR3 1600mhz
1x 6970
Corsair TX650w


That's still a beast rig is that a dual core or a quad?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 6:22:13 PM

saint19 said:
Read this guys:

Quote:
Who at AMD said we need to send a ... Belt Buckle with our FX-8150


Full article: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4347/shi_y_marketing_...


This would explain their pants falling down :D ..

Seriously, maybe we should all just wait a while and see what happens with BD - give AMD some time to fix some issues or at least explain things. JF-AMD posted just a day or so ago over on Anandtech explaining how he was told initially by AMD engineers about IPC being higher with BD. My guess is that their computer simulations of performance went out of whack again, as they did during Barcie. Maybe they can get a fix out..
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
October 16, 2011 6:31:18 PM

hixbot said:
The best performance is irrelevant. The ONLY failure is the price. AMD need to pressure Intel in perfomance per dollar. Intel hasn't dropped the prices on it's mainstream parts this year and it's not looking like they will need to do that for a while to come.


/////The best performance is irrelevant.

The best performance is never irrelevant, it may be acceptable to some, but not irrelevant.

/////The ONLY failure is the price.

Not according to every review I've read so far.

Anytime a brand new CPU in any category of testing can be bested by the same companies previous released CPU not overclocked, I myself absolutely class that as a failure.

/////AMD need to pressure Intel in performance per dollar.

That's what bulldozer was hoped to do.

/////Intel hasn't dropped the prices on it's mainstream parts this year and it's not looking like they will need to do that for a while to come.

You got that right, Intel is presently not under any pressure to do anything, why should they even consider dropping prices.

Bulldozer is simply no threat to Intel at all, even overclocked it is no threat

I for one was at least hoping bulldozer would force Intel to release the 2700K or whatever Intel held in the wings for the furtherance of the 1155 platform, but now they don't have to do anything.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 8:32:13 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Anytime a brand new CPU in any category of testing can be bested by the same companies previous released CPU not overclocked, I myself absolutely class that as a failure.

As long as that company is AMD?


for those that forgot, yonah was Intel's stepping stone into the "core" era.. it didn't immediately impress, but was easlily welcomed.

as far as absolutely classing a failure for any category ...



I guess in your own comment that Sandy bridge is a failure, unless that statement only applies to AMD? notice how the 2600k is bested by the 870 at a lower clock ... :o 
Ever wonder why there wasn't many reviews showing the 950 vs sb.... Because it looks similar to bd/980/1100t (not the same but similar), but since thats intel, it can be overlooked.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 9:22:39 PM

Quote:
I'm keeping my AM3+ unit and not quite sure about when I'll be purchasing a FX-41xx after they are released.
I keep hearing about another stepping around the end of the year or shortly into next, maybe then.

I did a small upgrade from a 955BE C2 to 965BE C3 and I'm sure I will get a small kick as well as better voltage when turning up the unlocked multi..
my hopes are to that will hold me over until when and if they get improvements on the FX chips.

but to be honest, I had a killer AM2+ unit and it suited all my needs in computing just fine.
the AM3+ 990XA motherboard was a big improvement with the latest technologies that come with the newer boards
but was it (motherboard) enough of an improvement by itself without the new FX chips (because they are currently a failure (currently)) to justify it's purchase.?
that's the question I keep asking myself.

it's a tough call because the new motherboards are wicked..



Yeah i jumped to a Phenom II x6 1100t i was on a Athlon II x4 C2 stepping i hear all the Phenom's II x6 can overclock to 4.0-4.2Ghz on air. That should do me until PD comes out then i'll upgrade at that time W8 will be out and the bulldozer will be out long enough for software to patch up in time for PD. People need to stop calling it a failure its not it just needs work. Sandy bridge is a mature design and its had a long time to grow in fact a lot of the design is from netburst and people called that design a failure also. On paper BD looks like a beast, It can use all the shared resources for just one integer core that's pretty amazing and i don't think W7 is letting it do that. On top of using all the resources for just one core it can also overclock that core while the other is in a sleep state. Bulldozer has 4IPC and according to Toms and some other places their saying bulldozer is not splitting the resources right.

That's why i'll wait until PD and W8 to jump board. If Amd can't deliver then i'm getting a Intel based pc and using Amd for strictly laptops/Tablets as i love their APU's. Please note when i say "Deliver" i don't mean a Intel killer i mean a price/performance killer that can overclock like a beast and that's competitive at a given price bracket.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
October 16, 2011 9:49:33 PM

noob2222 said:
As long as that company is AMD?


for those that forgot, yonah was Intel's stepping stone into the "core" era.. it didn't immediately impress, but was easlily welcomed.

as far as absolutely classing a failure for any category ...



I guess in your own comment that Sandy bridge is a failure, unless that statement only applies to AMD? notice how the 2600k is bested by the 870 at a lower clock ... :o 
Ever wonder why there wasn't many reviews showing the 950 vs sb.... Because it looks similar to bd/980/1100t (not the same but similar), but since thats intel, it can be overlooked.



Intel and AMD have both had past failures, we're not talking about yonah here.


///// notice how the 2600k is bested by the 870 at a lower clock ...


Are you actually going to try and make an argument out of what I said out of .2 fps

Ok noob2222 you got me, how could I possibly respond to such logic with any dignity, I bow to your superior intelligence!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 9:52:00 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
This would explain their pants falling down :D ..

Seriously, maybe we should all just wait a while and see what happens with BD - give AMD some time to fix some issues or at least explain things. JF-AMD posted just a day or so ago over on Anandtech explaining how he was told initially by AMD engineers about IPC being higher with BD. My guess is that their computer simulations of performance went out of whack again, as they did during Barcie. Maybe they can get a fix out..


I think IPC will be higher once the module scheduling issue is addressed. The tests we have seen so far with the second integer core shut down suggest significant performance is left on the table.

The multicore scaling suggest the single threaded stuff is being throttled. I have been beating this drum since a week before the launch and the evidence has only become stronger with time.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:08:02 PM

IPC is down in many uses, so most of the time it has to be made up with more cores/frequency.

The saving grace of Bulldozer is that it has 8 cores that it can use on highly threaded tasks, which it trades blows with a 2600k, but that is no where near good enough.

Will everyone here always be using 8 threads at one time? No. That is the problem with matching a 2600k with their threads; they won't always be used. When the threads aren't used, it loses to even the 2500k. It even loses to a 2500k while using all 8 cores in very branch heavy tasks.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review...

Being so big and so power hungry doesn't help it at all. The 2600k/2500k can overclock to Bulldozer levels, not only due to a better process, but Bulldozer's design just puts out so much heat.

2 billion transistors barely matches 1.1 billion on Sandy, and Sandy includes integrated graphics. When SB-E comes out, Intel will beat Bulldozer in single/multiple threaded tests with less transistors and equal TDP(unless those 180W rumors are true). Luckily Intel most likely won't price SB-E six cores in Bulldozer's price range, since the high end would than compete with the low end Sandy.

AMD designed Bulldozer to compete with the mid range Sandy Bridge. Does it compete in my eyes? No. Bigger die, more power, and it's slower in most cases for desktop use; sure, it can also come out a little bit faster than a 2600k, much like the Pentium 4 v. Athlon 64, but that's not the case most of the time.

I can't recommend the 8 core for much of anything at this point. It can outperform the old Phenom II arch, but it can also underperform it to a point that even an overclock v. overclock might not make it faster than Thuban. If the 4 core is at least decent compared to dual core SB systems, I will at least be able to recommend that.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:09:08 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Intel and AMD have both had past failures, we're not talking about yonah here.


///// notice how the 2600k is bested by the 870 at a lower clock ...


Are you actually going to try and make an argument out of what I said out of .2 fps

Ok noob2222 you got me, how could I possibly respond to such logic with any dignity, I bow to your superior intelligence!

My point was that just because a product doesn't beat the previous gen 100% across the board without exception does not automatically equate to a total failure, otherwise you have to do the same for both sides.

As far as .2 fps, thats at 2.9ghz vs 3.4ghz

As AMD, everyone loves to hate, and usually do so without looking at the positive side of things. yes, BD is sometimes bested by the 1100T, but just as many times BD can beat it as well as both Sandy Bridge cpus (tho not as much as the 2600k, wich is why its priced lower).

as far as yonah, BD is the stepping stone to an entirely new generation. If you don't do full scale testing (ie release the product to the open market), you will never release any new products.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:11:51 PM

@malmental

The Devs are looking into it trying to solve the problem, we're supposed to get a total new forum software, but it was supposed to be done around August of last year, kinda sounds like something familiar, like waiting on Bulldozer! :lol: 

Sorry, couldn't resist. :lol: 

They're trying to resolve it, but there's numerous problems.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:14:03 PM

4Ryan6 said:

/////The ONLY failure is the price.

Not according to every review I've read so far.

Anytime a brand new CPU in any category of testing can be bested by the same companies previous released CPU not overclocked, I myself absolutely class that as a failure.


Nehalem used more power than the core 2 quad and showed no gaming improvement. By your logic (bested in any category of testing) Nehalem was a failure.

The same could be said of a very disapointing Barcelona/Agena chip which matured into very good Deneb and Thuban parts.

So I have to question your method of categorizing such things. These issues are not only multidimensional but like a good playoff series in sports, Are not decided by the first game.

Quote:
Bulldozer is simply no threat to Intel at all, even overclocked it is no threat


That remains to be seen.

I expect the Scheduling issue to bring the lesser threaded performance up beyond Thuban. Also the yield issues at Global Foundries are likely a major issue with both power and clock speed.

Add to that the modular nature of Bulldozer. They can easily add another module or two and take multithreaded performance up several notches.

And those are obvious improvements that we could see in a matter of a few shorts months.

AMD is where it has been for the last five years or so, with one big difference: I think Bulldozer has a real chance of maturing into a high end challenger.


Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:14:39 PM

Yonah was a laptop CPU. Good comparison Desktop vs. Laptop.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:23:27 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Intel and AMD have both had past failures, we're not talking about yonah here.


///// notice how the 2600k is bested by the 870 at a lower clock ...


Are you actually going to try and make an argument out of what I said out of .2 fps

Ok noob2222 you got me, how could I possibly respond to such logic with any dignity, I bow to your superior intelligence!


There is 500mhz clock difference between those two parts. The 975, which runs at the same speed as the 2600k is 12 frames faster.

The criticism of your methodology is a valid one. Bulldozer was disappointing for sure, but failure is a bit more nuanced. Especially given the half a decade plus life of most arches.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:29:13 PM

Haserath said:


AMD designed Bulldozer to compete with the mid range Sandy Bridge. Does it compete in my eyes? No. Bigger die, .....


This is the type of thing that makes me really wonder how rational some of your positions are. Who cares how big the die is? That an issue for AMD to worry about. Not the end users.

Don't accuse people who defend it of grasping at straws when things like die size are part of your argument.
Score
0
a c 95 à CPUs
October 16, 2011 10:29:50 PM

noob2222 said:
My point was that just because a product doesn't beat the previous gen 100% across the board without exception does not automatically equate to a total failure, otherwise you have to do the same for both sides.

As far as .2 fps, thats at 2.9ghz vs 3.4ghz

As AMD, everyone loves to hate, and usually do so without looking at the positive side of things. yes, BD is sometimes bested by the 1100T, but just as many times BD can beat it as well as both Sandy Bridge cpus (tho not as much as the 2600k, wich is why its priced lower).

as far as yonah, BD is the stepping stone to an entirely new generation. If you don't do full scale testing (ie release the product to the open market), you will never release any new products.


Unfortunately for you, I don't have any problem understanding your point, you must have missed that! :) 

I don't hate AMD as you're obvoiusly associating me with AMD hater, the present Bulldozer situation is what it is.

Look in my sig dude, you think I took the time to write the AMD BE overclock guide because I'm and AMD hater.

You don't need to waste your time trying to explain anything to me, I understand exactly whats going on.

Have you got stock in AMD or something?

Or did you just seriously invest in a few thousand AMD Bulldozer T Shirts that you're stuck with now!

If you even have a Bulldozer in your possession post some benchmarks, better yet overclock it as far as you can and post what it can do, no reviews, right here!

I'll go first OK, here's my Intel 2500K SB clocked to 5.1ghz with a 580GTX in WinXP Pro 32bit;



Here's Win7 Pro 64bit;



Your turn!
Score
0
    • 1 / 18
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!