Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Closed

AMD's Bulldozer server benchmarks are here, and they're a catastrophe

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Bulldozer
  • AMD
  • Servers
Last response: in CPUs
November 23, 2011 2:12:01 AM

According to ars
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/bulldozer-...

The discussion on Bulldozer has always been centered on how awesome this architecture is for servers first and foremost. From john fruehe to Baronmatrix, the argument that BD is a server chip first and foremost has been used to explain lack of information prior to release, to explain bad bench results when BD came out, and more recently to explain why AMD hasn't utterly failed with this release.

From the article
Quote:
AMD is boasting that Opteron 6200 is the "first and only" 16-core x86 processor on the market. Not only is this not really true (equating threads and cores is playing fast and loose with the truth), it just doesn't matter. In its effort to add all those "cores," performance has been severely compromised. AMD faces an uphill struggle just to compete with its own old chips—let alone with Intel.


Maybe the whole "need moar coars" argument needs to get put to rest. Maybe IPC improvements, and all it entails (faster, larger cache esp L1, better prediction, etc) are the main thing to strive for in both desktop and workstation markets.

More about : amd bulldozer server benchmarks catastrophe

a c 187 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 2:26:45 AM

intel4eva said:
According to ars
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/bulldozer-...

The discussion on Bulldozer has always been centered on how awesome this architecture is for servers first and foremost. From john fruehe to Baronmatrix, the argument that BD is a server chip first and foremost has been used to explain lack of information prior to release, to explain bad bench results when BD came out, and more recently to explain why AMD hasn't utterly failed with this release.

From the article
Quote:
AMD is boasting that Opteron 6200 is the "first and only" 16-core x86 processor on the market. Not only is this not really true (equating threads and cores is playing fast and loose with the truth), it just doesn't matter. In its effort to add all those "cores," performance has been severely compromised. AMD faces an uphill struggle just to compete with its own old chips—let alone with Intel.


Maybe the whole "need moar coars" argument needs to get put to rest. Maybe IPC improvements, and all it entails (faster, larger cache esp L1, better prediction, etc) are the main thing to strive for in both desktop and workstation markets.

What a disappointment :pfff: 
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 2:30:08 AM

The only thing AMD has that appeals to me is Brazos.

Already got me one.

But the future of Brazos is in jeopardy is seems. Next-gen ones are canned according to the rumour mill.

Shame, I was just beginning to believe AMD might have hope with Fusion.
Related resources
November 23, 2011 3:07:02 AM

Sad, really sad.
a c 211 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 3:19:57 AM

amdfangirl said:
The only thing AMD has that appeals to me is Brazos.

Already got me one.

But the future of Brazos is in jeopardy is seems. Next-gen ones are canned according to the rumour mill.

Shame, I was just beginning to believe AMD might have hope with Fusion.


I think AMDs new CEO is a bad idea. First they have Project WIN launch by canning 10% of their work force. Then the rumors of AMD stopping 28nm Trinitys at GF to go to TSMC and of course Brazos next gen being canned.

If AMD survives, I would be suprised as everything seems to be spiraling out of control.

Homeboy2 said:
Sad, really sad.


I cannot comment on server applications as much as DT, don't mess with them. But it looks like you are right. AMDs BD is a flop all around. I can see its purpose in some things but overall I cannot see why it would be recommended.
November 23, 2011 6:35:04 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Then the rumors of AMD stopping 28nm Trinitys at GF to go to TSMC and of course Brazos next gen being canned.


You mean to say they're actually stopping ongoing production to make the switch? How is that even possible, don't they have a contract in place? If this is the case, it's a really drastic move. I agree that they have massive fab issues and now that their financial stake in GF is like 8% or something they can move away easily, but in the middle of a launch? At a new 28nm process? This is the worst time to do it, no?
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 8:00:30 AM

If they have trouble beating their last gen chips, a move this stupid seems like a good idea, doesn't it?

Anyone up for 28nm K10?
a c 144 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 8:16:18 AM

disclaimer: i know nothing about servers. not even gonna pretend i know something about them. :) 
that article presents some information about how other reviewers tested interlagos, but i didn't see them testing interlagos themselves.
i learned quite a few things from this article. for instance, how cpu is less of a major component where cost is concerned, how server vendors tweak statistics (different from a review site) to favor their products etc.
when i compared numbers to numbers, interlagos did seem underwhelming. even though amd compared interlagos to their own last gen opteron (magny cours) and intel's soon-to-be-last-gen xeon, magny cours seemed like a better option and xeon better than magny cours. i doubt that is going to change after intel releases sandy bridge xeons (i observed the same thing happening with fx vs sb).
iirc amd already has a meager 5-6% share of server market. they'll be in big trouble if they can't expand their share further.

i don't think amd fanboys can blame this on windows 7's scheduler.
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 8:41:54 AM

No you can't because all of those issues really could have been addressed in AMD told the OS that those were more like threads than cores...
a c 133 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 11:02:17 AM

I didn't even read the link, but I'm sure OUCH is not an understatement.

I hope AMDs BoD is starting to wonder if they've made the right choices. From where I'm sitting they've nearly managed to wipe out a good company. I hope that my hunch is right and a big issue with BD is the FP cores and it can be fixed. But considering the other choices that are being made right now, and I'm not so sure even a fixed BD can stop this board from ruining AMD.
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 11:07:06 AM

intel4eva said:
You mean to say they're actually stopping ongoing production to make the switch? How is that even possible, don't they have a contract in place? If this is the case, it's a really drastic move. I agree that they have massive fab issues and now that their financial stake in GF is like 8% or something they can move away easily, but in the middle of a launch? At a new 28nm process? This is the worst time to do it, no?


That was the news yesterday. Nevermind TSMC doesn't even have a 28nm node yet, so they would have to build one from scratch, which would delay production by about a year. The 28nm node would be ready for production about the same time Intel would be shipping its 22nm parts...

AMD could very easily start to hemorage money again, and this time, theres little they can sell off to stay afloat. The only obvious part would be the unit formerly known as ATI...
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 11:10:33 AM

You mean the part which acutually makes a profit?
a c 144 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 11:54:13 AM

so while amd makes the (alleged) transition from glofo to tsmc they'll be 1 year behind. imo that's not entirely a bad thing. amd released their 32 nm processors nearly a year after intel did. while they start 28 nm apu production they can use glofo to manufacture 28 nm piledrivers or more 32 nm trinities. they can also use socket fm1 for 32 nm athlons and later phenom iis. amd already has 2 athlon iis for socket fm1 iirc. a bunch of die-shrunk phenoms could inject some new blood into fm1.
i assume since amd couldn't deliver a well-performing product for mid-range and up, they're gonna have to use their position in value segment even more.
i don't know much about server sales, but isn't that a desirable market for cpu makers, like office pc market?
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 11:55:40 AM

IIRC it was just the Brazos parts that are being moved to TSMC's 28nm process (which is apparently pretty good - something like 47% improvement over their 40nm). I initially thought it included Trinity, but that is still slated for GF's 32nm as a Llano replacement. So the Wichita and whazzisname 'next-gen' Brazos parts aren't canceled - just delayed for something like a year as they are redesigned for TSMC's gate-last HKMG 28nm. I imagine the design rules differ greatly between TSMC's and GF's (gate-first HKMG) 28nm, so basically a big job with the new layout.

I just wonder now if GF will ever do a 22nm SOI node for AMD. Considering that GF is supposed to switch to gate-last HKMG on 22nm, they'll have a learning curve with that node, and AFAIK still only one customer - AMD - for all their time and expense. Given all the problems with 32nm and insisting that AMD go back to paying for production volume (instead of the one-year paying only for good wafers agreement which expires the end of next month), I see them cutting all ties in the near future..

According to the rumors, AMD's CEO Read is supposedly going to make some big announcement at a meeting in January about a shift in AMD's direction. I think they might talk up mobile and de-emphasize DT and server..
November 23, 2011 12:53:52 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
I just wonder now if GF will ever do a 22nm SOI node for AMD. Considering that GF is supposed to switch to gate-last HKMG on 22nm, they'll have a learning curve with that node, and AFAIK still only one customer - AMD - for all their time and expense. Given all the problems with 32nm and insisting that AMD go back to paying for production volume (instead of the one-year paying only for good wafers agreement which expires the end of next month), I see them cutting all ties in the near future..

I don't know if that's possible in the near future, but further down the road - who knows?

BTW, did anyone else read recently that AMD no longer has enough share of GF to even get 1 seat on the Board of Directors? It seems AMD no longer gets much say in GF's future direction, except as a customer.
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 2:02:20 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
According to the rumors, AMD's CEO Read is supposedly going to make some big announcement at a meeting in January about a shift in AMD's direction. I think they might talk up mobile and de-emphasize DT and server..


I wouldn't be shocked. I also wouldn't be shocked if they spun off either their CPU or GPU portion of the business either. AMD needs to decide where its primary focus is going to be, and go balls in at this point. I don't think AMD has the resources to fight Intel/NVIDIA on every front anymore.
a c 144 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 4:38:53 PM

dirtyferret said:
AMD buys ATI
AMD re-positions ATI as the AMD brand
the company formerly know as ATI splits off from AMD
ATI buys AMD
ATI re-positions AMD as the ATI brand :whistle: 

so the yang becomes the yin but christina has to choose between her job and owen and teddy won't leave her alone...whatever...
kidding aside, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. imo ati/amd's gpu division is not in that position financially. they're still behind nvidia in discreet graphics card sales. dunno about their workstation cards. didn't see any boasting from amd about their pro or workstation cards as much as supercomputer builders buying bulldozer cpus and llano a8 apus etc. iirc amd actually lost a few market share percentage to nvidia in dgfx field.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 5:07:53 PM

dirtyferret said:
AMD buys ATI
AMD re-positions ATI as the AMD brand
the company formerly know as ATI splits off from AMD
ATI buys AMD
ATI re-positions AMD as the ATI brand :whistle: 


And I think that's the best decision AMD made from 2006.
About new CEO, Read, I think he is kinda Good. Course he fired about 10% of employees, but I like his decision about
broke the contract with GlobalF. 'Cause it means to me that he is very serious on his job.
Life is not always that easy and by now is cruel to AMD. CEOs must making tough decisions no matter who cries or anything else.

@amdfangirl: I dont think shrinking K10 into 28nm would be a great idea at all. Escaping to the past is the thing that hopeless/depressed people do often :) 

a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 5:12:56 PM

sonoran said:
I don't know if that's possible in the near future, but further down the road - who knows?


Wasn't GF originally supposed to ship on 22nm in 2013 sometime? I think they'll be lucky if they get there in 2014, if at all.

Quote:
BTW, did anyone else read recently that AMD no longer has enough share of GF to even get 1 seat on the Board of Directors? It seems AMD no longer gets much say in GF's future direction, except as a customer.


Yes, I've seen figures under 10% share, on quite a few sites now (S/A for one).

BTW, does Intel have FD-SOI under consideration for future nodes under 22nm? From http://semimd.com/blog/2011/02/10/partners-test-utb-soi...:

Quote:
The partners tested fully depleted transistors created on ultra-thin-layer SOI wafers and found that performance was much higher than bulk silicon technology, said Horacio Mendez, executive director of the SOI Consortium. “Because of the buried oxide layer, there is much less capacitance, which means the transistors are much faster,” he said. The SOI Consortium did not divulge specific performance metrics, but said that the UTB-SOI technology delivered “an additional 80 percent gain beyond the traditional increase” of 20-30 percent achieved by moving to the next technology node.

Mendez also said the ARM prototyping core operated reliably at operating voltages down to 0.7 V, which he said is difficult to achieve on bulk CMOS

Halo, channel, and deep well implants, and shallow trench isolation (STI) steps are eliminated in fully depleted UTB-SOI, he said. Moreover, UTB-SOI can be enhanced with back biasing techniques that are not possible with the tall FinFETs. By etching through the thin BOX layer, a bottom gate can be created to control threshold voltages. Power can be saved by turning down the Vt when a chip is in operation and raising the Vt when it is in standby mode. Creating multiple threshold voltages in bulk is much more expensive, requiring implant steps and additional mask layers, Mendez said.

“Back biasing is something that has been going on in bulk for at least 10 years to reduce power. We can easily apply that to SOI once the BOX layer becomes thin,” he said.
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 5:15:17 PM

gamerk316 said:
I wouldn't be shocked. I also wouldn't be shocked if they spun off either their CPU or GPU portion of the business either. AMD needs to decide where its primary focus is going to be, and go balls in at this point. I don't think AMD has the resources to fight Intel/NVIDIA on every front anymore.


Well if they do, I think AMD's days would be numbered because then they'll be going up against ARM who is already entrenched there. Or else they'll license an ARM design and take on all the other ARM manufacturers..
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 5:45:56 PM

^^ Which may be their best long term option: Ditch X86 and go after the very lucrative mobile market.

Its an interesting discussion, but with ATI in tow, AMD is in a very good position to come up with a ARM varient of Fusion, which could compete directly against Tegra...
November 23, 2011 5:54:37 PM

intel4eva said:
According to ars
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/11/bulldozer-...

The discussion on Bulldozer has always been centered on how awesome this architecture is for servers first and foremost. From john fruehe to Baronmatrix, the argument that BD is a server chip first and foremost has been used to explain lack of information prior to release, to explain bad bench results when BD came out, and more recently to explain why AMD hasn't utterly failed with this release.

From the article
Quote:
AMD is boasting that Opteron 6200 is the "first and only" 16-core x86 processor on the market. Not only is this not really true (equating threads and cores is playing fast and loose with the truth), it just doesn't matter. In its effort to add all those "cores," performance has been severely compromised. AMD faces an uphill struggle just to compete with its own old chips—let alone with Intel.


Maybe the whole "need moar coars" argument needs to get put to rest. Maybe IPC improvements, and all it entails (faster, larger cache esp L1, better prediction, etc) are the main thing to strive for in both desktop and workstation markets.


NEC Corporation Express5800/A1080a-D (Intel Xeon E7-8830) 2.13GHz
64 32 4 8 2 737   783


Hewlett-Packard Company ProLiant BL685c G7 (2.3 GHz AMD Opteron 6276)
64 64 4 16 1 835   958 

NEC Corporation Express5800/A1080a-D (Intel Xeon E7-8850)
80 40 4 10 2 867   918




Industry standard benchmarks from COMPANIES that SELL the systems. Even 80 E7 cores can't beat 64 BD cores.

No wonder I came up with the name Brood.


a c 156 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 6:07:11 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I think AMDs new CEO is a bad idea. First they have Project WIN launch by canning 10% of their work force. Then the rumors of AMD stopping 28nm Trinitys at GF to go to TSMC and of course Brazos next gen being canned.

If AMD survives, I would be suprised as everything seems to be spiraling out of control.


I agree and it does seem as if they are starting to lose control of the company and don't even get me started on Rory Read I think he's helping to destroy that company. BTW someone tell him to get a freaking haircut it looks like his hair is glued to his head. Firing 10% of their workers and stopping the 28nm production...real smart Rory. It doesn't surprise me that Bulldozer was yet again a failure in the server field too. Now maybe the AMD Fanboys like Baron Matrix will keep quiet since they have nothing else to hold onto. Thier only argument was that Bulldozer would be great for servers...BUZZ wrong again. Now they have nothing left to hold onto Bulldozer was a failure thats why its called the Faildozer.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 7:11:30 PM

rds1220 said:
I agree and it does seem as if they are starting to lose control of the company and don't even get me started on Rory Read I think he's helping to destroy that company. BTW someone tell him to get a freaking haircut it looks like his hair is glued to his head. Firing 10% of their workers and stopping the 28nm production...real smart Rory. It doesn't surprise me that Bulldozer was yet again a failure in the server field too. Now maybe the AMD Fanboys like Baron Matrix will keep quiet since they have nothing else to hold onto. Thier only argument was that Bulldozer would be great for servers...BUZZ wrong again. Now they have nothing left to hold onto Bulldozer was a failure thats why its called the Faildozer.


I like AMD but I aint a fanboy, Actually I hate this word.
but if anyone digs into intel's, sure, by far they did much worse in case of firing people:
http://www.faceintel.com/comments.htm
there's many more links too BTW. just Google it


a c 156 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 7:30:33 PM

Please AMD isn't any better. In December 2006 both AMD and Nvidia received subpoenas from the Justice Department because of possible antitrust violations in the graphics card industry, including the act of fixing prices.

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2011 8:28:21 PM

rds1220 said:
Please AMD isn't any better. In December 2006 both AMD and Nvidia received subpoenas from the Justice Department because of possible antitrust violations in the graphics card industry, including the act of fixing prices.


@rds1220 : I thought you did mention about Firing people by AMD,
In that case there are many other things you may know:
for the record:
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel
Quote:
History

AMD launched the lawsuit against its rival Intel, the world's leading microprocessor manufacturer. AMD has claimed that Intel engaged in unfair competition by offering rebates to Japanese PC manufacturers who agreed to eliminate or limit purchases of microprocessors made by AMD or a smaller manufacturer, Transmeta.[1]

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Delaware in June 2005. The court date, originally scheduled for April 2009, was pushed back to February 2010. One delay was due to the Korea Fair Trade Commission issuing Intel a fine of US$25.4 million. Some of the manufacturers involved in the case were Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi.[2][3]

In February 2009 it was reported that Intel had spent at least US$116 million to date on legal representation on the antitrust suit. This was inferred from a US$50 million lawsuit filed by Intel against one of its insurers; the lawsuit disclosed that Intel had already exhausted US$66 million in coverage from two other insurers while fighting the antitrust lawsuit.[4]

This is not the first time AMD has accused Intel Corp. of abusing their power as the leading manufacturer for x86 processors. In 1991, AMD filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel claiming that they were trying to secure and maintain a monopoly,[citation needed] and one year later, a court ruled against Intel, awarding AMD US$10 million "plus a royalty-free license to any Intel patents used in AMD's own 386-style processor"


and I'm not gonna continue with these craps anyways...... :sleep: 
November 23, 2011 8:51:14 PM

Something weird about the Bulldozer platform is the sudden change in the scheme AMD is using for the number of cores in a CPU.

They have added an extra integer ALU into each core and let them take two threads per core. So the design is merely a form of hyperthreading (or SMT).

But they don't call it hyperthreading or SMT. Instead they call the cores "modules" and double the core count. I thought this was a cheap marketing trick but I think I have found out why they have done this.

When it comes to servers, a lot enterprise softare licenses are on a per-core basis. Even Microsoft who used to charge per processor is going to base their licensing on the number of cores starting with SQL Enterprise 2012. The naming scheme of AMD allows them to charge twice as much for their software.
a c 156 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 23, 2011 8:53:12 PM

pff please Intel farts and they cry unfair business practices.
November 24, 2011 5:05:09 AM

g00ey said:
Something weird about the Bulldozer platform is the sudden change in the scheme AMD is using for the number of cores in a CPU.

They have added an extra integer ALU into each core and let them take two threads per core. So the design is merely a form of hyperthreading (or SMT).

But they don't call it hyperthreading or SMT. Instead they call the cores "modules" and double the core count. I thought this was a cheap marketing trick but I think I have found out why they have done this.

When it comes to servers, a lot enterprise softare licenses are on a per-core basis. Even Microsoft who used to charge per processor is going to base their licensing on the number of cores starting with SQL Enterprise 2012. The naming scheme of AMD allows them to charge twice as much for their software.



Most if not all Enterprise apps, especially MS are per SOCKET licensing now simply because the per core paradigm existed when there were 4 cores in 4 sockets. Now there are 64 cores in 4 sockets so companies need to reevaluate pricing that way. But another key is that you pay almost the same amount for 64 cores in 2u as you did for 16 cores in 2U, so your costs go up only for licensing in cases where it is per core. But even they have a min amount where the first 6-8 cores a x dollars and each increment is added.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 1:56:54 PM

g00ey said:
When it comes to servers, a lot enterprise softare licenses are on a per-core basis. Even Microsoft who used to charge per processor is going to base their licensing on the number of cores starting with SQL Enterprise 2012. The naming scheme of AMD allows them to charge twice as much for their software.


That would only make sense if the SW companies like Oracle, MS, etc give AMD a kickback under the table, which I doubt. Anyway, from the customer viewpoint, why would somebody buy an Interlagos server then, and be forced to pay twice as much for the software "per core" license? Seems to me that they would find Intel cheaper in the long run, despite the initial higher hardware price.

I think AMD chose to advertise Interlagos and BD as 16 or 8 cores respectively as an advertising gimmick. And perhaps that typical server loads are integer, not too branchy and highly threaded, in which case one of Interlagos/BD's big problem in desktop apps - namely having on average a 2-issue decoder per "core" instead of a 3-issue like Phenom II or 4-issue like Intel has used ever since Core2 - is not as much of a problem in server.

AMD's Q4 earnings conference should be quite interesting, seeing as how Interlagos that shipped in August or September would be available for the full quarter (Oct. 1 through Dec. 31). If their server share continues to drop from it's current <5% level, that would be a pretty good sign that Interlagos, just like Magny Cours, failed to sell. Or that all those Intel customers passed on switching, or maybe are looking to the Sandy Bridge E5 Xeons which also seem tuned for HPC applications with their huge bandwidth to memory.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 2:12:05 PM

I hope you enjoy $1000-1200 performance CPUs and commodity CPUs selling for $200-300 for the next few years. As long as you continue to flog AMD and badmouth their product (like the little Intel fanbois you are) rather than encourage people looking for reasonable performance on a budget to look at AMD parts, then you will perpetuate higher prices for the parts you like to buy.

6 years ago, AMD held the performance crown and spurred Intel to actually come out with better product. Not just better product, but better product at competitive prices, which forced AMD in turn to do the same. For a short while these two companies were neck-and-neck, and it was great for consumers, since prices were kept low and the product was very fast.

So now, Intel has the performance crown. Where AMD competes with Intel, the prices are actually reasonable. But where AMD does not compete, the prices have been jacked beyond reason. And BD's poor showing has not helped any.

I weep for the price of the CPU for my next build, which is scheduled to be an Intel build since I alternate from AMD to Intel, regardless of who holds the performance crown. And to be honest, every one of you out there should try doing the same if you don't like having to pay outrageous prices.
November 24, 2011 2:22:49 PM

Houndsteeth said:
I hope you enjoy $1000-1200 performance CPUs and commodity CPUs selling for $200-300 for the next few years.


Ummm, this is what CPUs cost right now, and is standard. The latest i7 Extreme is about 1000, and 2-300 are the "good" processors. What's your point?

Houndsteeth said:
As long as you continue to flog AMD and badmouth their product (like the little Intel fanbois you are)


So we should praise and recommend AMD right now?

Houndsteeth said:
6 years ago, AMD held the performance crown and spurred Intel to actually come out with better product. Not just better product, but better product at competitive prices, which forced AMD in turn to do the same.


Ummm, no. First of all the top FX CPU from AMD was over $1000 (NOT inflation adjusted) and second it didn't force Intel to actually create a better product. They took a server part and rebranded it asap so they would keep the performance crown. Oh, and third, neither the top intel or AMD processors of the time were anywhere near "competitive prices".


Houndsteeth said:
For a short while these two companies were neck-and-neck, and it was great for consumers, since prices were kept low and the product was very fast.


Product prices were higher than today, even moreso if you adjust for inflation. The CPUs were slower than those today. What's your point?

Houndsteeth said:
And BD's poor showing has not helped any.


Wait, what? Still want us to recommend AMD?


Houndsteeth said:
I weep for the price of the CPU for my next build, which is scheduled to be an Intel build since I alternate from AMD to Intel, regardless of who holds the performance crown.


Ah, a thinking man! Truly objective and well thought out since you're so concerned with value. Blindly alternating is sure to make the most of your funds!

Houndsteeth said:
And to be honest, every one of you out there should try doing the same if you don't like having to pay outrageous prices.


lol
November 24, 2011 2:41:10 PM

Houndsteeth said:
I hope you enjoy $1000-1200 performance CPUs and commodity CPUs selling for $200-300 for the next few years. As long as you continue to flog AMD and badmouth their product (like the little Intel fanbois you are) rather than encourage people looking for reasonable performance on a budget to look at AMD parts, then you will perpetuate higher prices for the parts you like to buy.

6 years ago, AMD held the performance crown and spurred Intel to actually come out with better product. Not just better product, but better product at competitive prices, which forced AMD in turn to do the same. For a short while these two companies were neck-and-neck, and it was great for consumers, since prices were kept low and the product was very fast.

So now, Intel has the performance crown. Where AMD competes with Intel, the prices are actually reasonable. But where AMD does not compete, the prices have been jacked beyond reason. And BD's poor showing has not helped any.

I weep for the price of the CPU for my next build, which is scheduled to be an Intel build since I alternate from AMD to Intel, regardless of who holds the performance crown. And to be honest, every one of you out there should try doing the same if you don't like having to pay outrageous prices.




Well i paid 300.00 dollars for my E6600, Q6600 and my 2600k all while Intel had no competition from AMD.
So what your point again.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 2:52:28 PM

Houndsteeth said:
I hope you enjoy $1000-1200 performance CPUs and commodity CPUs selling for $200-300 for the next few years. As long as you continue to flog AMD and badmouth their product (like the little Intel fanbois you are) rather than encourage people looking for reasonable performance on a budget to look at AMD parts, then you will perpetuate higher prices for the parts you like to buy.


OTOH, buying a Bulldozer 8150 would just perpetuate AMD's overcharging by 20% or more for a part that is barely better than the Thuban, which is an excellent value at $190 or so.

BTW, the idea that Intel would jack up their prices to the stratosphere should AMD get out of the middle or higher-end CPU biz, is just that - an idea. There's no evidence to support it, just a theory. An alternate but equally plausible theory is that Intel knows mainstream customers won't pay a lot for their computers and will make do with their old systems. Or that might encourage ARM to move more quickly into the desktop arena.

Most big companies run marketing projections to determine how much the market will bear - beyond a certain price point - the 'sweet spot' - sales drop off rapidly as do profits. Plus Intel already has 80% of the CPU market anyway.

Quote:
So now, Intel has the performance crown. Where AMD competes with Intel, the prices are actually reasonable. But where AMD does not compete, the prices have been jacked beyond reason. And BD's poor showing has not helped any.


"Jacked"? Intel has charged ~$1K for their top-end DT CPU for I dunno how long - at least since the Pentium was introduced IIRC: http://www.laynetworks.com/history5.htm

Quote:
•1993: - Microsoft unveils Windows NT.
•1993: Pentium-based systems start shipping. 60-MHz Pentium: 64-bit bus 32-bit registers 3.2 million transistors $878
•MS-DOS 6.0 sells 1 million retail copies in first 40 days.
•Gateway ships # 1,ooo,ooo
•InterNIC created by NSF to provide specific Internet services
•White House & United Nations come on-line
•Mosaic (NCSA) takes off - co-developer, Marc Andreesen
•WWW has 341,634% annual growth rate
•Microsoft ships Windows NT & reports a $1 billion quarter
•1993: Microsoft outlines the Plug and Play and Microsoft at Work (MAW) initiatives
•1993: EPA's Energy Star Initiative is unveiled and most PC vendors support the program with announcements of energy efficient PCs.
•1993: Apple ships the Newton MessagePad--its first Personal Digital Assistant.
•1993: AT&T announces it will acquire McCaw Cellular for $12.6B.
•1993: Compaq introduces the Presario, a PC family targeted for the home market.
•1993: FTC ends its probe of Microsoft without any actions, but the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice will launch its investigation.
•1993: IBM debuts its first workstations based on the PowerPC chip.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 3:01:46 PM

In case anybody interested :D , here's some more history from 1993: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1993.html

Quote:
Technology
•The Pentium microprocessor introduced by Intel.
•Windows NT 3.1 released by Microsoft
•The World Wide Web was born at CERN
•Dyson sells the first bagless cyclonic Vacuum Cleaner
•World Health Organization W.H.O. estimates 14 million people worldwide infected with the AIDS Virus
•The Debian GNU/Linux distribution is founded by Ian Murdock.
•Space Shuttle Endeavour mission to repair an optical flaw in the Hubble Space Telescope.
•The first cloning of a Human Embryo by 2 American Scientists.
•US Drops SDI initiative
•US and Russia sign the Start II treaty calling for bilateral reduction of strategic nuclear weapons


Quote:
Popular Culture 1993
•Police begin investigations of child abuse by Michael Jackson

Popular Films
•Jurassic Park
•Mrs. Doubtfire
•The Fugitive
•The Firm
•Sleepless in Seattle
•Indecent Proposal
•In the Line of Fire
•The Pelican Brief
•Schindler's List
•Cliffhanger
•Philadelpha
•Robin Hood: Men in Tights

Popular Musicians
•Janet Jackson with That's The Way Love Goes
•Snoop Doggy Dogg
•Garth Brooks
•Rage Against the Machine
•Phil Collins
•UB40
•Radiohead
•Aerosmith
•Madonna
•Rod Stewart with Have I told You Lately
•Mariah Carey with Dream Lover
•Nirvana
•Whitney Houston with I Will Always Love You
•Meat Loaf
•The Proclaimers
•R.E.M.
•Garth Brooks
•Alice in Chains


Ahh, Meat Loaf.. :p 
a c 144 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 24, 2011 3:28:17 PM

iirc amd used to charge premium price for their 'enthusiast class' cpu as much as intel did.
about zambezi, i think amd's marketing realized that fx is not worthy of the magic $500-1000 range. but they had already hyped the new platform a lot. so they decide to sell it as a mainstream desktop processor. imho everything about fx and it's flagship chipset - 990fx screams 'amd's (delayed-too-long or d2l) response to intel's x58 (lga 1356)'.
i noticed that intel might release xeon processors for lga 2011, might make a good server setup with a <$300 xeon + $320 x79 mobo etc. i wonder if amd has a similar way to use cheap opterons with 990fx mobos.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 3:51:41 PM

^ If you recall, the BD FX series was originally supposed to be priced around $350 I think. Then all the problems started and that's why the pre-release price kept dropping until the 8150 came out around $100 less.

If AMD had released it at $200 less ($150 or so), we wouldn't be having all these "Is BD a catastrophe" threads :p ..

Anyway, Happy Turkey Day to everybody! :) 
November 24, 2011 3:56:58 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
In case anybody interested :D , here's some more history from 1993: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1993.html

Quote:
Technology
•The Pentium microprocessor introduced by Intel.
•Windows NT 3.1 released by Microsoft
•The World Wide Web was born at CERN
•Dyson sells the first bagless cyclonic Vacuum Cleaner
•World Health Organization W.H.O. estimates 14 million people worldwide infected with the AIDS Virus
•The Debian GNU/Linux distribution is founded by Ian Murdock.
•Space Shuttle Endeavour mission to repair an optical flaw in the Hubble Space Telescope.
•The first cloning of a Human Embryo by 2 American Scientists.
•US Drops SDI initiative
•US and Russia sign the Start II treaty calling for bilateral reduction of strategic nuclear weapons



Ahh, Meat Loaf.. :p 


:o  Wow, what a year! Think we'll see another year again with that much progress in our lifetimes?
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 4:00:45 PM

Oh heres my cent / penny worth

AMD are phasing out AM3 processors and pushing forward Bulldozer chips.

Why as a Phenom II 850 is a good processor for its price - margainly more than a Athlon 640 series and heaps better.

Everyone is moving over to core i 3 / 5 and 7

AMD has done this as i purchased AMD chips through out the year and have just finished with my last P2 850..

Please tell me that if Bulldozer is so bad compared to the core i 5 then why are they dropping AM3 like a stone when its been a good money maker..

Llano has been a failure too as no one has bothered buying it.. and this is from one of the UK's leading disties..

To say im preturbed by all this amd crap then I'll move over to Intel - no worries.

Hello Fazers :)  btw anyway AMD you fail at failing - good luck this holiday season as there is no AM3s around of reasonable stocks with my disties
a c 156 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 24, 2011 4:52:12 PM

Houndsteeth said:
I hope you enjoy $1000-1200 performance CPUs and commodity CPUs selling for $200-300 for the next few years.


What are you talking about. This is 2011 not 1981 this is the price of CPUs today. As others have said AMD has had just as outrageous prices as Intel. They have had their share of overpriced CPUs too including the Faildozer. O and I will enjoy my so called overpriced Intel CPU because it's a lot better then anything AMD has out right now.

Houndsteeth said:
As long as you continue to flog AMD and badmouth their product (like the little Intel fanbois you are) rather than encourage people looking for reasonable performance on a budget to look at AMD parts, then you will perpetuate higher prices for the parts you like to buy.



I'm not going to praise a company when they put out stuff that doesn't perform. I will not buy anything more from AMD because everything I have bought from them has been nothing but a disappointment and I won't recommend them to anyone either. That goes for both CPUs and video cards.


Houndsteeth said:
I weep for the price of the CPU for my next build, which is scheduled to be an Intel build since I alternate from AMD to Intel, regardless of who holds the performance crown. And to be honest, every one of you out there should try doing the same if you don't like having to pay outrageous prices.


That's nice but get with the real world. You sound like one of those hippies that say" I can live with everyone in peace and so can you if you just try." ok John Lennon keep living in your computer fantasy world.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 4:54:50 PM

Well looks like AMD is going the way of IDT and Cyrix did a decade ago. Eventually they are either going to go under or get bought out. As for BD we all know that it is crap even for servers. Their APUs however may in the end be the only worth while product for a long time. As for Brazos well it was good while it lasted. I got two Llano apus right now and both are mobiles. I am glad that I caved in and hunted down a A8 3530MX as it turned out to be a good overclocker. 3ghz easy.

AMD R.I.P
November 24, 2011 5:50:44 PM

nforce4max said:


AMD R.I.P



Hopefully not, but I just bought a 2500k so that is a really bad sign.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 5:59:09 PM

intel4eva said:
:o  Wow, what a year! Think we'll see another year again with that much progress in our lifetimes?


Yes - Meat Loaf was decades ahead of his time :D ..

Good thing we're having turkey today and not meatloaf :p ..

IIRC DOS 6.0 came out in '93 as well, but didn't quite make the top 10,000 list..
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2011 6:05:24 PM

Hellboy said:
Oh heres my cent / penny worth

AMD are phasing out AM3 processors and pushing forward Bulldozer chips.

Why as a Phenom II 850 is a good processor for its price - margainly more than a Athlon 640 series and heaps better.

Everyone is moving over to core i 3 / 5 and 7

AMD has done this as i purchased AMD chips through out the year and have just finished with my last P2 850..

Please tell me that if Bulldozer is so bad compared to the core i 5 then why are they dropping AM3 like a stone when its been a good money maker..

Llano has been a failure too as no one has bothered buying it.. and this is from one of the UK's leading disties..

To say im preturbed by all this amd crap then I'll move over to Intel - no worries.

Hello Fazers :)  btw anyway AMD you fail at failing - good luck this holiday season as there is no AM3s around of reasonable stocks with my disties


Hey HB - long time no see :) . Happy Large Chicken Day or whatever they celebrate across the pond :D  - my guess would be fish & chips & a pint of bitters..

Hadn't heard that Llano wasn't selling too well in Europe - from what I've read, it sells like pancakes :D  in the developing countries (Asia, India etc).
a c 211 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 24, 2011 6:29:22 PM

Quote:
And I think that's the best decision AMD made from 2006.
About new CEO, Read, I think he is kinda Good. Course he fired about 10% of employees, but I like his decision about
broke the contract with GlobalF. 'Cause it means to me that he is very serious on his job.
Life is not always that easy and by now is cruel to AMD. CEOs must making tough decisions no matter who cries or anything else.

@amdfangirl: I dont think shrinking K10 into 28nm would be a great idea at all. Escaping to the past is the thing that hopeless/depressed people do often :) 


I am sorry but thats wrong. What did Intel do when the Athlon 64 was kicking NetBursts arse all over the place? They went back to a older design and enhanced it: the Pentium 54C. Well Coppermine Pentium III but still was absed on the Pentium 54C arch.

So thanks to Intel taking an older arch, shrinking it and enhancing it with some neat tricks they learned since then we got Core 2 which smashed Athlon 64.

AMD could take K10, shrink it again, enhance it and probably have a CPU that performs much better than BD and is more competitive.

Houndsteeth said:
I hope you enjoy $1000-1200 performance CPUs and commodity CPUs selling for $200-300 for the next few years. As long as you continue to flog AMD and badmouth their product (like the little Intel fanbois you are) rather than encourage people looking for reasonable performance on a budget to look at AMD parts, then you will perpetuate higher prices for the parts you like to buy.

6 years ago, AMD held the performance crown and spurred Intel to actually come out with better product. Not just better product, but better product at competitive prices, which forced AMD in turn to do the same. For a short while these two companies were neck-and-neck, and it was great for consumers, since prices were kept low and the product was very fast.

So now, Intel has the performance crown. Where AMD competes with Intel, the prices are actually reasonable. But where AMD does not compete, the prices have been jacked beyond reason. And BD's poor showing has not helped any.

I weep for the price of the CPU for my next build, which is scheduled to be an Intel build since I alternate from AMD to Intel, regardless of who holds the performance crown. And to be honest, every one of you out there should try doing the same if you don't like having to pay outrageous prices.


Sorry but I set a price for the part and buy whatever is best at the time. And right now for my normal of $250, BD is not the 2500K is. I see no reason to buy a inferior product from a company. The only way to get them to do anything is to not buy from them.

Look at American car companies. They used to be the best. Then they went to carp (80s-90s). Now at least Ford has made great strides and their current line of cars are pretty damn good. But when they were sucking, no one bought their cars hence why they turned around and started making decent cars again.

fazers_on_stun said:
In case anybody interested :D , here's some more history from 1993: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1993.html

Quote:
Technology
•The Pentium microprocessor introduced by Intel.
•Windows NT 3.1 released by Microsoft
•The World Wide Web was born at CERN
•Dyson sells the first bagless cyclonic Vacuum Cleaner
•World Health Organization W.H.O. estimates 14 million people worldwide infected with the AIDS Virus
•The Debian GNU/Linux distribution is founded by Ian Murdock.
•Space Shuttle Endeavour mission to repair an optical flaw in the Hubble Space Telescope.
•The first cloning of a Human Embryo by 2 American Scientists.
•US Drops SDI initiative
•US and Russia sign the Start II treaty calling for bilateral reduction of strategic nuclear weapons


Quote:
Popular Culture 1993
•Police begin investigations of child abuse by Michael Jackson

Popular Films
•Jurassic Park
•Mrs. Doubtfire
•The Fugitive
•The Firm
•Sleepless in Seattle
•Indecent Proposal
•In the Line of Fire
•The Pelican Brief
•Schindler's List
•Cliffhanger
•Philadelpha
•Robin Hood: Men in Tights

Popular Musicians
•Janet Jackson with That's The Way Love Goes
•Snoop Doggy Dogg
•Garth Brooks
•Rage Against the Machine
•Phil Collins
•UB40
•Radiohead
•Aerosmith
•Madonna
•Rod Stewart with Have I told You Lately
•Mariah Carey with Dream Lover
•Nirvana
•Whitney Houston with I Will Always Love You
•Meat Loaf
•The Proclaimers
•R.E.M.
•Garth Brooks
•Alice in Chains


Ahh, Meat Loaf.. :p 


Ahhh 1993. One year befoe Green Day went mainstream and just a few before Nirvanas lead singer commits suicide and forever embodies the band a higher reputation than they deserve. But hey, at least we got David Grohl who started the awesome band Foo Fighters.
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2011 1:42:14 AM

BaronMatrix said:
NEC Corporation Express5800/A1080a-D (Intel Xeon E7-8830) 2.13GHz
64 32 4 8 2 737   783


Hewlett-Packard Company ProLiant BL685c G7 (2.3 GHz AMD Opteron 6276)
64 64 4 16 1 835   958 

NEC Corporation Express5800/A1080a-D (Intel Xeon E7-8850)
80 40 4 10 2 867   918




Industry standard benchmarks from COMPANIES that SELL the systems. Even 80 E7 cores can't beat 64 BD cores.

No wonder I came up with the name Brood.


Yeah and Redbull will literally give you wings. I'd rather trust real world reviews myself or reviews from 3rd parties. Canned test benches, where the people conducting the test(s) have an interest in their scores being rather high, I do not trust.

When AMD/Intel/nVIDIA release performance slides... I do not trust them (and for good reason as they tend to be misinformation)

Your argument is sorta like the argument from many that Corporations ought to regulate themselves. We've seen how well that has gone (ignoring how horrible State regulations are themselves of course).
November 25, 2011 1:50:36 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Yeah and Redbull will literally give you wings. I'd rather trust real world reviews myself or reviews from 3rd parties. Canned test benches, where the people conducting the test(s) have an interest in their scores being rather high, I do not trust.

When AMD/Intel/nVIDIA release performance slides... I do not trust them (and for good reason as they tend to be misinformation)

Your argument is sorta like the argument from many that Corporations ought to regulate themselves. We've seen how well that has gone (ignoring how horrible State regulations are themselves of course).




I'll leave you all with your mindless blithering after I say,

WHAT?

So now SPEC scores don't mean anything? Are you saying someone figured out how to to cheat?

Down with the Brood!
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2011 1:52:53 AM

Houndsteeth said:
I hope you enjoy $1000-1200 performance CPUs and commodity CPUs selling for $200-300 for the next few years. As long as you continue to flog AMD and badmouth their product (like the little Intel fanbois you are) rather than encourage people looking for reasonable performance on a budget to look at AMD parts, then you will perpetuate higher prices for the parts you like to buy.

6 years ago, AMD held the performance crown and spurred Intel to actually come out with better product. Not just better product, but better product at competitive prices, which forced AMD in turn to do the same. For a short while these two companies were neck-and-neck, and it was great for consumers, since prices were kept low and the product was very fast.

So now, Intel has the performance crown. Where AMD competes with Intel, the prices are actually reasonable. But where AMD does not compete, the prices have been jacked beyond reason. And BD's poor showing has not helped any.

I weep for the price of the CPU for my next build, which is scheduled to be an Intel build since I alternate from AMD to Intel, regardless of who holds the performance crown. And to be honest, every one of you out there should try doing the same if you don't like having to pay outrageous prices.


I'll summarize this post for everyone.

"Do not get the most bang for your buck, do not think rationally. Do not reason. Simply buy with your feelings. AMDs FX-8150 comes in a red box.. and red is a nice color. My feelings are nice and warm when I look at the color red. So buy red err I mean AMD"

a b à CPUs
November 25, 2011 1:55:57 AM

BaronMatrix said:
I'll leave you all with your mindless blithering after I say,

WHAT?

So now SPEC scores don't mean anything? Are you saying someone figured out how to to cheat?

Down with the Brood!


Always thinking in absolutes.

No my young friend... the other components in the system have an effect on performance. They're not objective tests. The hardware in those systems differ (hell a lot of their software is vastly different too).


And yes people cheat on tests: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/24/apple_accused_o...


On another note... do you have no shame? I mean it doesn't bother you in the least to sit here and mis-inform people the way you do? Do you not find this ethically and morally repulsive?

I've often asked myself that question when it came to you. You haven't changed. You will still lie in order to sell products for AMD.
November 25, 2011 6:25:16 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
On another note... do you have no shame? I mean it doesn't bother you in the least to sit here and mis-inform people the way you do? Do you not find this ethically and morally repulsive?

I've often asked myself that question when it came to you. You haven't changed. You will still lie in order to sell products for AMD.


Love is a beautiful thing. :lol: 
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest