Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Fx is selling out, phenom ii and athlon ii are the victims, w.t.h.?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Phenom
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 83 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 3:17:41 AM

Quote:
mayankleoboy1 wrote :
http://www.techpowerup.com/156119/AMD-Bulldozer-A-Surpr...

can someone explain this?

this is quite interesting actually. zambezi is clearly an underwhelming product, yet it seems to be selling out in places and eating into reliable phenom ii and athlon ii cpu sales. good news for fx, bad news for ph ii and thlon ii as amd now has enough incentive to pull the plug on 45 nm ph ii and athlon ii productions. what will happen? will informed buyers who chose not to buy fx will be forced to buy them?
edit: fixed the url.

More about : selling phenom athlon victims

a c 83 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 3:28:11 AM


i saw this on this newegg.com page.
and on this fx 4100 page.
hmm
okay, one more. this is from amd's fx page.
notice something ?
the word 'module' is only mentioned once in the fx newegg pages. they are obscure enough to be overlooked. i was lazy and used the browser's find function to find it. it's not even properly mentioned on amd's fx page, or product details page. imo module is the most important part of bulldozer and should be explained and mentioned properly.
from wikipedia (i am lazy):
Quote:
Bulldozer is the first major redesign of AMD’s processor architecture since 2003, when the firm launched its Athlon 64/Opteron (K8) processors, and also features two 128-bit FMA-capable FPUs which can be combined into one 256-bit FPU. This design is accompanied by two integer cores each with 4 pipelines (the fetch/decode stage is shared). Bulldozer will also introduce shared L2 cache in the new architecture. AMD calls this design a "Bulldozer module".

i guess amd's definition of core is different. imo the fx cpus behave more like dual, triple, quad core cpus with hyper-threading. not like fully quad, hexa and octo core cpus. this is a clever marketing tactic on amd's part.
regular people won't look beyond the shiny red text box on amd's site that says amd has the world's first 8 core cpu. or newegg's product brief where it says fx is 4, 6 or 8 core cpus that 'promise' far higher performance.
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 6:37:36 AM

Bulldozer may not perform 100% like an octo core, but it does have more dedicated hardware per thread than Intel's SB.

The fact that Bulldozer has less IPC than Phenom II and is still able to beat the 2600k in a few benchmarks tells us that the scaling must be there for certain uses.

Whenever a piece of the CPU is shared, it will not act like a 'true core' all of the time. Otherwise there is no point in sharing that piece to begin with. It's efficiency over pure performance, and that is the reason why I like Hyperthreading so much.

Quote:
will informed buyers who chose not to buy fx will be forced to buy them?

It's not like Intel is going anywhere.

The 8120 is the one cpu priced right compared to the competition. ~$200 for a 4 module BD would at least put the performance between the 2500k and 2600k in certain uses.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 9:00:58 AM

From the look of it, seems that the people are opting for the BD mainly due to it's core count, since it's nearly at par with the Phenom IIs people are opting for it since they get the extra OC abilities and the extra cores. Plus another thing is that the number or quantity of CPUs being shipped is not that high, thus it's creating a demand vs supply thing helping them keep the prices at what they are and instantaneously selling the stuff that has been shipped.
I certainly wanted a 8150FX but luckily or unluckily it didn't come through. So now I have enough wait time till they come up with the better revisions and less power hungry CPUs.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 9:12:42 AM

i, too, think people are buying because of the core count.
i think amd should have put 'modules' before they advertised 'cores' though.
December 3, 2011 9:14:58 AM

why i thin it sold

the bulldozer fails in most apps but in some multi threaded ones it beats the 2600k so it probably means its just not optimized for some programs .

the bulldozer sold because some people built amd systems expecting the bulldozer to have great performance .

even if it isn't so good its better than phenom so its a good upgrade.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 9:40:52 AM

my issue was with amd's advertisement of fx. i know intel does this and that they use underhanded tactics. i always thought of amd as the good guys. the one who sold based on more honest tactics.
that's why i didn't like them skipping over modules and pitching core count.
imo the 4100 is really cheap for a quad core but it's overpriced for a dual core(module). the 8120 is the best positioned cpu on fx line up - it's price, performance are more appropriate.
for me, one of the biggest gripe with fx was with power consumption. amd calling fx more power efficient is just not true.
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 9:48:13 AM

de5_Roy said:
i, too, think people are buying because of the core count.
i think amd should have put 'modules' before they advertised 'cores' though.


Without gov't regulation I could call a CUDA shader a core, a module a core and possibly even a carrot a core.

de5_Roy said:
my issue was with amd's advertisement of fx. i know intel does this and that they use underhanded tactics. i always thought of amd as the good guys. the one who sold based on more honest tactics.
that's why i didn't like them skipping over modules and pitching core count.
imo the 4100 is really cheap for a quad core but it's overpriced for a dual core(module). the 8120 is the best positioned cpu on fx line up - it's price, performance are more appropriate.
for me, one of the biggest gripe with fx was with power consumption. amd calling fx more power efficient is just not true.


You forget this is a company, not Ghandi or your favourite selfless persona.

AMD has brewed up the perfect marketiture. A CPU that looks good on paper irl but doesn't do much else.

Like the Pentium 4.

Or that afformented carrot.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 10:29:38 AM

@amdfangirl: you're right. i just read in another thread that tahiti xt gpu will feature 2048 (shader) cores lol.
when reality hits (me), it hurts.
i wonder how long amd will keep selling the phenom iis and athlon iis. athlon ii has made somewhat of a transition to socket fm1. i think it's a next step in amd's plan to seperate entry level mainstream from enthusiast desktop segments. i saw in another thread, may be in the piledriver sticky, that there were some phenom ii x8s compatible with 990fx chipsets. i know these phenom iis might be engineering samples but i wish the phenom iis would live longer as next level bulldozer closes in and users can skip current bulldozer.
are the zosma cpus any good? i didn't know much about them before fx came along.
December 3, 2011 10:42:52 AM

phenom x8 ?
a c 83 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 10:51:32 AM

9_breaker said:
phenom x8 ?

i couldn't find the original post, but i found the source. here it is:
http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail...
Quote:
CPU º Support AM3+ 32nm FX-Series processors
º Support AM3 socket for AMD Phenom™ II processors
º Support 140W Phenom™ II X8 processors
º AMD Cool 'n' Quiet™ Technology
º High-performance HyperTransport 3.0 CPU Interface
º Support transfer rate up to 5200 mega-transfers per second
º Note: This board supports CPU up to 140W TDP only; you can refer to AMD website to check your CPU.

weird thing is, the amd page it links to doesn't mention any x8.
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 12:03:32 PM

de5_Roy said:
@amdfangirl: you're right. i just read in another thread that tahiti xt gpu will feature 2048 (shader) cores lol.
when reality hits (me), it hurts.
i wonder how long amd will keep selling the phenom iis and athlon iis. athlon ii has made somewhat of a transition to socket fm1. i think it's a next step in amd's plan to seperate entry level mainstream from enthusiast desktop segments. i saw in another thread, may be in the piledriver sticky, that there were some phenom ii x8s compatible with 990fx chipsets. i know these phenom iis might be engineering samples but i wish the phenom iis would live longer as next level bulldozer closes in and users can skip current bulldozer.
are the zosma cpus any good? i didn't know much about them before fx came along.

AMD has stopped producing Phenom II and Athlon II so it wil be available until stocks run out.

I don't think AMD has ever produced a Phenom II X8, but it would be nice to see how one would perform.

Zosma is an X4 made from a Thuban X6. I would rather have one of them, since their low power revision is better than even C3. You also have a chance of unlocking an X6 out of them.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 4, 2011 4:58:10 AM

http://www.pcworld.com/article/245365/amd_shifts_course...
i am glad that amd realizes that focussing on competing with intel hasn't benefitted them. they are now focussing more on consumers.
but their recent statements kinda bugged me. i may be reading too much into this. but i think their recent statements could be interpreted as - amd has always focussed more on competing with intel rather than caring about releasing a complete, well-rounded product for customers. they were trying to relive their glory days from athlon vs prescott. that's why they always scrambled to get a new competing product against intel rather than taking their time to perfect it (first phenom, zambezi). they may have faced delays for this reason. however this could be attributed to amd's lack of r&d but i think amd's strong need to compete against intel is also part of it. their lack of customer-orientation is also evident in their driver support for their products.
i think amd's previous ceos were more about hardware than about marketing, management and customer service. amd's guys are not less talented than anyone else. the new ceo seems to be doing something that will help amd in the long term.
December 4, 2011 8:40:59 AM

this is just like amd giving up . that sucks .
a c 91 à CPUs
December 4, 2011 7:37:08 PM

you can even see in the forums, people that have some PC knowledge still chosing FX chips over the better phenom II chips. It confuses the hell out of me why people that know how to build a pc will not look into their purchases and only look at marketing hype.
a c 152 à CPUs
December 4, 2011 8:31:24 PM

People that build systems for others have to sell them so they have to build what people want. When the uninfomed walk into a store do you think they are going want the old PIIx4 thats been around for years or the new Bulldog FX x4 or x8. Hmmm? Thats like trying to sell 4gb ram when every one else is selling 8gb. 'of course 8 has to be better than 4' mentaility wins in the marketing world. This is just another example.
December 5, 2011 4:12:56 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
you can even see in the forums, people that have some PC knowledge still chosing FX chips over the better phenom II chips. It confuses the hell out of me why people that know how to build a pc will not look into their purchases and only look at marketing hype.


some fx chips are good like the 4100 , its $100 and it can beat an i3 and the x4 840 at most tasks .so why not recommend it.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 5, 2011 4:52:19 AM

9_breaker said:
some fx chips are good like the 4100 , its $100 and it can beat an i3 and the x4 840 at most tasks .so why not recommend it.

against a $120 core i3, may be. it makes a good dual module overclockable cpu (imagine intel's core i3 2200k but less power efficient). it still generates quite a lot of heat.
but i've read at legitreviews where it gets beaten by llano a8 3850 and core i3 2100 and pentium g8xx and g6xx keeping up with it. hell even phoronix said it was not that good.
i wouldn't recomment it to someone who won't overclock it and cares about power consumption. someone who'd buy a core i3 might be interested in those factors. because, at stock speed, core i3 is better in terms of power-performance efficiency followed by a8 3850 and 4100. and 4100 lacks an igp.
imo one of the main reason the 4100 sells is the advertisement amd is putting behind it. the ads show it as a quad core cpu that has 3.6 ghz base clock, 3.7 ghz cpu turbo core and 3.8 ghz max turbo. those are core i7 2600/2700 numbers. add the term 'unlocked' to it and you're hooked. i admit that terms like 'unlocked', 'unleashed' do have slight effect on me, make me think i am seeing something high performance.
the reality is having half of the cores cut off (i think that the fx 4100 is die-harvested from fx 8150) affect's it's performance. memory bandwidth gets halved, so does l2 cache. that as a result affects tasks like encryption. i'd never recommend a 4100 to someone looking to build a core i3 htpc, i'd recommend a llano. but if someone is looking for a cheap, easily overclockable 32 nm cpu with no regards to power consumption, the 4100 is on top of the list.
December 5, 2011 6:47:54 AM

but for $500 gaming rig it might be worth it over an i3 and a lot of people in the forums want $500
rigs .
a c 83 à CPUs
December 5, 2011 9:48:00 AM

for a $500 gaming pc, multiple combinations can be made. it's kind of a tough price point with very little wiggle room.
i went searching on newegg and saw this:
a really cheap system with core i3, h61 mobo - $185
with h67- $210
with z68 - $215
a cooler master hyper 212 evo adds $34
a really cheap one with athlon 631 (llano without igpu), a55 mobo, cooler - $178
with a75, cooler - $189
on with fx 4100, 970 mobo, cooler - $244
990x, cooler - $279
990fx, cooler - $284
only the 990x and the 990fx boards let you use dual cards. but they're expensive as well. with the llano and the fx, a good cooler is a must.
strictly in terms of value, the i3 setup is the cheapest and the most restricted.
in terms of expandability, overclockability, the one with 990x is better with dual x8 option. problem is, the cheapest combo with an fx is costlier than the costliest i3 combo. even if i add the cost of a cooler, the price of the z68 combo comes to $249 - still almost as cheap as the 970 combo ( with no dual card option).

December 5, 2011 10:14:50 AM

In the end everyone makes their own choice. If Bulldozer is as pathetic as most here are saying, then AMD will ultimately pay the price. If you made the decision to buy i3, i5 or i7 instead, then be happy with your lot in life and be glad you are not a fool. And let the fools do their thing. It's a cheap platform and if it's a lemon as you folk say the afflicted will not be back.

Personally I have no problem with the product or its marketing. It's very raw and there is much tweaking to be done on the system as a whole, but I am sure the picture will change over time with software awareness. As an entry product I think Bulldozer can and should hold its place in market share.

I hope to move on BD half way through next year and dispensing with the 965, but I'll CrossFire to make sure the system gets a kick from at least that component. Then I can wait for the new optomised software. I am sure BD will run everything I currently run without any problem. At least I am not expecting any from past experience with AMD, if anything it seems to have become much easier to upgrade over the last few cycles.
December 5, 2011 10:49:55 AM

de5_Roy said:
for a $500 gaming pc, multiple combinations can be made. it's kind of a tough price point with very little wiggle room.
i went searching on newegg and saw this:
a really cheap system with core i3, h61 mobo - $185
with h67- $210
with z68 - $215
a cooler master hyper 212 evo adds $34
a really cheap one with athlon 631 (llano without igpu), a55 mobo, cooler - $178
with a75, cooler - $189
on with fx 4100, 970 mobo, cooler - $244
990x, cooler - $279
990fx, cooler - $284
only the 990x and the 990fx boards let you use dual cards. but they're expensive as well. with the llano and the fx, a good cooler is a must.
strictly in terms of value, the i3 setup is the cheapest and the most restricted.
in terms of expandability, overclockability, the one with 990x is better with dual x8 option. problem is, the cheapest combo with an fx is costlier than the costliest i3 combo. even if i add the cost of a cooler, the price of the z68 combo comes to $249 - still almost as cheap as the 970 combo ( with no dual card option).


which i3 ?
the 970 can use sli and crossfire , ive got one and it can do three way crossfire and two way sli but I don't have a bulldozer im waiting for the b3 revision or piledriver.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 5, 2011 11:38:20 AM

@9_breaker:
this i3:
Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000 $125
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
used this 970 board in the fx combo:
GIGABYTE GA-970A-D3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
i chose all the components based on price to build the cheapest combo. i did cherry pick a bit - left out ecs, jetway, foxconn and in case of intel mobos, skipped the ones that did not explicitly state their chipset revision.
@harna:
i don't think anyone here is saying bulldozer is pathetic. i, personally, am a bit amazed at how people are buying into amd's marketing and at how successful amd's marketing strategy is.
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2011 2:25:54 PM

FC is selling out for two reasons:

1: Its a new CPU, so uninformed buyers will buy it
2: Lack of supply, due to GF problems
a b à CPUs
December 5, 2011 4:43:09 PM

I don't buy the idea that all the customers or majority of them are mis-informed or are impressed by the marketing for the BD.
It's pretty simple, they are looking for something more than what they have been seeing for so long and since few leapt to the Hexa Core bandwagon, most people are now opting for the 8 Core, 4 Module ( 2 Cores Per Module) since 8 >6>4.
And they are certainly not complaining......
It's only us ,who were really expecting the BD to break all the sky limits set by the predecessors and we are disappointed, no doubt about it, but, not every one wanted to blow the sky with big holes, they're all pretty happy with a new heater in the house and also does most of what they want it to do.
Actually most of the consumers had just got onto the Quad core chips when the hexas were introduced. A household PC for an average income group has a life of 3 to 4 years before they think of making any upgrades, so by that time the hexas came and by the time they planned on upgrading their rigs the BD was out. What do you expect.....
December 5, 2011 5:22:29 PM

in my defense, i just build a new PC with FX6100. it's an excellence processor for $100
a c 83 à CPUs
December 6, 2011 1:54:53 AM

magicbullet said:
in my defense, i just build a new PC with FX6100. it's an excellence processor for $100

cool. where did you buy the fx 6100 from? i couldn't find even an fx4100 a that price.
a c 91 à CPUs
December 6, 2011 7:21:34 AM

magicbullet said:
in my defense, i just build a new PC with FX6100. it's an excellence processor for $100

you cant get that cpu anywhere for $100. Where did you get it? and what currency? $US? the fx4100 is priced the same as a phenom 955 and the 955 its faster. the fx 6100 is priced the same as the 1090T and the 1090t is faster. So what are AMD doing? shafting their customer in the butt is what they are doing. They are giving them less and charging more. I am a disappointed AMD ex-customer, i feel for them what I used to feel for intel back in the P4 days. It used to be intel who overcharged, now it is AMD. Another really stupid thing, is AMD's A8 3850 cpu, which is supposed to be lower end, is outperforming the fx4100 and uses a lower clock speed AND gives you a graphics chip. None of the FX cpu's give integrated graphics. So Intel are giving you a faster CPU + graphics chip for what it costs to buy an overall slower more power hungry bulldozer cpu. So if you did need just a fast cpu and had no use for dedicated graphics, you will have to add a graphics card to the cost of your bulldozer setup making it even worse value for money. For all these reasons Bulldozer = fail. There is NOTHING good about amd's bulldozer cpu.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 6, 2011 7:38:16 AM

i wouldn't call bulldozer a fail. all the price-related reason could be blamed on the marketing department of amd.
when i read anandtech's preview of bulldozer architecture i thought that amd had finally made something that could give intel some serious run for money. all the main ideas of bulldozer are very good. bulldozer's way of handling multithreading, power management, their revamped turbo core - all these made perfect sense then. it didn't seem like any speculation or some kind of rumor but coherent explanation.
what i didn't realize, and i have only my lack of knowledge to blame, was that what amd would do in reality and how they were trying to achieve what they put on paper.
that's why when bulldozer came out, was benchmarked, compared to others i was a bit shocked. it still somewhat does what it's supposed to do, but underneath the exterior of marketing and pr, there was an annoying feeling that amd got sloppy with bulldozer. as if they planned right but executed wrong.
i hope trinity and piledriver fix that.
a c 91 à CPUs
December 6, 2011 7:06:53 PM

de5_Roy said:
i wouldn't call bulldozer a fail.

so a company releases a cpu that is more power hungry and slower than their previous line of cpu's and significantly slower than their competitors, and did not live up to what was expected is not a failure? The definition of failure is to fall short of what was expected, and bulldozer has fallen short.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 7, 2011 1:30:06 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
so a company releases a cpu that is more power hungry and slower than their previous line of cpu's and significantly slower than their competitors, and did not live up to what was expected is not a failure? The definition of failure is to fall short of what was expected, and bulldozer has fallen short.

i meant bulldozer - the cpu architecture.
zambezi is pretty much a bust in terms of pwoer-performance efficiency. it goes further down when you bring price into that equation. one needs to overclock fx cpus to get them to work properly and when fx is overclocked, it takes up a lot of power. they get easily heated even at stock speed. don't know about interlagos or valencia, afaik they were positioned against lower and midrange xeons. the new opterons didn't perform as well as amd promised. just like thuban and deneb cpus sometimes outperformed zambezi, same thing happened with magny cours and interlagos.
despite fx and opteron's dismal performance, i think amd is going to use bulldozer architecture from now on in their cpus and apus.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 7, 2011 1:42:09 AM

i still haven't seen bulldozer arch. in action in one area yet - mobile computing. that's the only area amd has had some success recently with their llano and bobcat apus. amd has promised that trinity will be faster in cpu performance, much better than llano in gpu performance. and they're readying vce to counter intel's quick sync. imo amd actually delivered what they promised with llano and bobcat.
however i've recently started to have a scary thought about desktop replacement laptops that use desktop cpus. 'a dr laptop with fx 8150 overclocked to 4.7 ghz with nvidia gtx 580m in sli'.
amd recently has been quiet about how the new apus will perform while intel has been consistently 'leaking' ivb information.
December 7, 2011 2:00:26 AM

Guys, I really, honestly think that the opinion that "bulldozer is a fail" is inaccurate and uneducated. It is a pass in the sense that they all have unlocked multipliers, meaning that the FX-8150 that is very competitive with the i5 2500k in everything but price, is no different from the FX-8120 (with a lower price then the aforementioned i5) when at the same clock speed. I am no idiot, and I bought my FX-8120 a full 2 weeks after its release. I did so because I was willing to sacrifice single threaded performance for extremely strong multi-threaded performance. Anybody who does not think that apps are becoming more core-friendly is an idiot. Yah, I also sacrificed half an FPS here and gained one or two there, but I also supported industry growth by purchasing from the only major competitor to Intel. For what it is, the Bulldozer is a great chip, I get great temps, and I saved $~15 over an i5 for VERY similar performance and the potential that it will get better with Windows 8, although I run Fedora 16 and it has better benches in Linux anyway. The problem is they hyped it up to where people where expecting it to slay the i7, which it won't, but it also isn't $330.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 7, 2011 2:21:38 AM

fx 8120 is cheaper than 2500k? strangely, the 2500k is cheaper than the 8120 at microcenter, and $10 costlier at newegg. the locked 2400 is even cheaper. it is worth mentioning that the 8120 at newegg can only be purchased as a part of a combo.
apps are becoming multi-threaded - true. but today and in the near future, people will still make do with quad core at most. and when multithreading becomes the standard, something else from both amd and intel will face off against each other. sadly though, it likely will not be zambezi.
this is where amd's marketing comes in. amd's focus on number of cores, use of high numbers (8150, 8120, 6100, 4100), advertising high clock speeds all entice regular amd users into upgrading to fx.
i remember that historically amd processors has always had 'more'. phenoms had higher model numbers too.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 7, 2011 8:29:51 AM


you're right. iirc it was 10 bucks ($220) more than the 8120 at newegg when it was still available. but i noticed that the 8120 was part of a combo, so i thought that the 8120 only might be costlier than the 2500k.
love the 2500k negative reviews lol. looks like people who bought it had most of the problems with shipping, motherboard and themselves. the 8120 buyers seemed more informed and properly reviewed the cpu.
i wonder if intel would phase out 2500k, 2500 when ivb becomes available for purchase. i'd love to buy a 2600k when ivb comes out.
a c 91 à CPUs
December 7, 2011 8:43:40 AM

de5_Roy said:
i remember that historically amd processors has always had 'more'. phenoms had higher model numbers too.

their athlon xp series were the first to use numbering system like "2800+" rather than use the actual mhz. Because people would get confused and buy a higher clock P4 when the Athlon was much faster per-clock. Now numbers are just all over the place and there are so many models of a particular cpu its just crazy. I would like to see a major cutback in the amount of different cpu models and a numbering system that makes sense, particularly from inter. there is an i3 2100, 2102, 2105, 2120, 2125, 2130 all within 300mhz of each other and some with slightly different gpu's. How is a consumer expected to know the difference? The one thing ill give credit to AMD FX cpu's is the naming makes some amount of sense. The first number gives the amount of cores, the following numbers represent level of performance of those cores, kind of.....
a c 83 à CPUs
December 7, 2011 9:06:10 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
their athlon xp series were the first to use numbering system like "2800+" rather than use the actual mhz. Because people would get confused and buy a higher clock P4 when the Athlon was much faster per-clock. Now numbers are just all over the place and there are so many models of a particular cpu its just crazy. I would like to see a major cutback in the amount of different cpu models and a numbering system that makes sense, particularly from inter. there is an i3 2100, 2102, 2105, 2120, 2125, 2130 all within 300mhz of each other and some with slightly different gpu's. How is a consumer expected to know the difference? The one thing ill give credit to AMD FX cpu's is the naming makes some amount of sense. The first number gives the amount of cores, the following numbers represent level of performance of those cores, kind of.....

good ol' days. i vaguely remember the renumbering of athlon xp. iirc there was a bit of a confusion about how customers were supposed to know which cpu to buy. then fast forward to phenoms - i couldn't figure out how they were numbered. phenom - cpu family name, x2/3/4 - core count, then the number which quite didn't make sense to me. all i knew was that the higher the number the faster the cpu. it was intel who totally screwed up understanding cpu model numbering for me. i still cannot fully make sense of their numberings of pre-nehalem cpus. still, nehalem's odd core ix numbering was confusing too. back then, when i first heard about nehalem, i almost bought a core i3 cpu before realizing that with nehalem cpus i'd have to compromise between high clock speed and core count.
amd's fx numbering is a bit clearer than before. llano numberings somewhat make sense too. well that was before amd released llano a8 3870k and intel leaked the ivb cpu specs...
so far i've found intel's numbering to be more confusing than amd's. now amd seems to be getting deeper into number-confusing game as well.
all these seem to be part of each company's marketing strategy. i am sad to say that they work.
a b à CPUs
December 7, 2011 9:41:40 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
their athlon xp series were the first to use numbering system like "2800+" rather than use the actual mhz. Because people would get confused and buy a higher clock P4 when the Athlon was much faster per-clock. Now numbers are just all over the place and there are so many models of a particular cpu its just crazy. I would like to see a major cutback in the amount of different cpu models and a numbering system that makes sense, particularly from inter. there is an i3 2100, 2102, 2105, 2120, 2125, 2130 all within 300mhz of each other and some with slightly different gpu's. How is a consumer expected to know the difference? The one thing ill give credit to AMD FX cpu's is the naming makes some amount of sense. The first number gives the amount of cores, the following numbers represent level of performance of those cores, kind of.....

At least the numbering system can somewhat make sense now.

Intel:
i7- 4 core with HT
i5- 4 core
i3- 2 core with HT
Pentium- 2 core
Celeron- low end 2 core/1 core

K versions and those ending in 5 have the HD 3000 graphics while others have HD 2k.

T and S models are lower power models. T is lowest power(35W) and S is a tier higher(65W) compared to normal 95W TDPs.

AMD:
8150- 8 cores/ 1st gen BD/ Performace level of the cores
6150- 6 cores/ " "
4150- 4 cores/ "etc."

A8- Top tier Llano
A6- Middle of the road
A4- Low end
----

First gen i series was a mess... i5 had split between dual core with HT and quad core, and one had integrated graphics while the other did not. Not to mention the i7's had split between two sockets.
December 7, 2011 9:42:41 AM

most consumers don't know much about the naming so if they buy a pc they leave out the model number and choose between i3 ,i5 and i7.
December 11, 2011 10:05:52 PM

Well this sap just bought and built a new system using the AMD FX-4100 chip and I love it. Truly all of these nay say'rs, do they own a Bulldozer? Got mine in a combo deal with 8 gig of ram for 142.00$, reducing the price further. For that money I got a cpu that is currently clocked at 4.7GHz and ripping through everything I can throw at it. Did some comparison benchmarks with my older rig which has the Phenom 965 and the Dozer wins. Well not every bench (mathematics are it's Achilles heel) Wprime achieves dull results on the Dozer. I just wish folks would step back and see that all that is said isn't the true bottom line.
December 11, 2011 11:07:54 PM

de5_Roy said:
Quote:
mayankleoboy1 wrote :
http://www.techpowerup.com/156119/AMD-Bulldozer-A-Surpr...

can someone explain this?

this is quite interesting actually. zambezi is clearly an underwhelming product, yet it seems to be selling out in places and eating into reliable phenom ii and athlon ii cpu sales. good news for fx, bad news for ph ii and thlon ii as amd now has enough incentive to pull the plug on 45 nm ph ii and athlon ii productions. what will happen? will informed buyers who chose not to buy fx will be forced to buy them?
edit: fixed the url.




a c 91 à CPUs
December 12, 2011 12:56:48 AM

MooPi said:
Well this sap just bought and built a new system using the AMD FX-4100 chip and I love it. Truly all of these nay say'rs, do they own a Bulldozer? Got mine in a combo deal with 8 gig of ram for 142.00$, reducing the price further. For that money I got a cpu that is currently clocked at 4.7GHz and ripping through everything I can throw at it. Did some comparison benchmarks with my older rig which has the Phenom 965 and the Dozer wins. Well not every bench (mathematics are it's Achilles heel) Wprime achieves dull results on the Dozer. I just wish folks would step back and see that all that is said isn't the true bottom line.

did you oc your 965, or leave it at stock? if you oc'd the 965 it would be completely pointless "upgrading" to the fx 4100, at best it may be on-par when OC'd. Do you play games? if you dont then yes its a perfectly capable cpu to run pointless benchmark utils on. If i OC my 4 year old core 2 quad to 3.5ghz its faster than an fx 4100.
December 12, 2011 4:09:42 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
did you oc your 965, or leave it at stock? if you oc'd the 965 it would be completely pointless "upgrading" to the fx 4100, at best it may be on-par when OC'd. Do you play games? if you dont then yes its a perfectly capable cpu to run pointless benchmark utils on. If i OC my 4 year old core 2 quad to 3.5ghz its faster than an fx 4100.

I upgraded to the FX-4100 because my older rig couldn't hold an OC any longer due to power surges and a lightning strike. Hasn't been the same since that awful day. But the benchmarks are from my oc'd phenom rest assured. I just appreciate that I'm running at such high clock speeds for penny's and getting the performance I require. I don't even have the video card that I want for this rig yet and it meets my needs. My eventual video will be AMD HD 6970 and currently have the AMD HD6850, which is noticeably not on par with my ATI HD5870 from the old rig.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 12, 2011 4:39:51 AM


thanks for the link. at first, i couldn't load the image url directly. after a little google searching, found this:
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/galerileri/AMD-Bull...
the gallery is quite interesting. when zambezi launched i didn't see these slides, only the cpu architecture slides in different reviews. i still can't find them on amd's site though. amd nailed zambezi's advertisement in those slides. compared to a core i7 980x system, an fx 8150 or fx 6100 cpu with a 990fx motherboard offers a lot of value. and the comparisons are well thought out. to uninformed and slightly less informed people these would easily make zambezi the better choice for purchase.
meanwhile at newegg (i usually use it for price reference), old ph ii and athlon cpus continue to run out. newegg still hasn't restocked their 955 and 965s. looks like they're gone along with some athlon x3 and ph ii x6s (ph ii x6 1090t sold out).
choosing fx is simpler (restricted?) compared to old phenom and athlons. right now only one of 2 module 4 core, 3 module 6 core and 4 module 8 core cpu available at newegg. 8150 - out of stock.
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2011 7:09:40 PM

I think the biggest problem is the fact that all the "bulldozer failure" only concentrates on the total aspect of BD, concentrating on the bad areas and highlighting those.

Seriously, if your going to buy a new cpu/mb, are you looking at benchmarks that you don't care about? ya, im going to do a lot of wprime and superpi with my computer every day.

Looking at what I will be doing, the 8 core BD makes perfect sense. As for applications I like to play around with photoshop and autocad, while doing some encoding. As for games I prefer flight/racing games so looking at hawx and dirt 3 shows BD faster than phenom II x6. Alternately I play Civ games as well and recently started playing BF3 wich show nearly 0 difference.

Then there is the real world overclocking. 8120 stock 3.1ghz and 4.0ghz turbo runs at 1.4125V. Real world easy OC, 4.4ghz for 8 cores at 1.375V (technially speaking thats undervolted and overclocked by 1.3ghz) and no where near the 1.45V that pulls 400W from the wall.

Now if all you want to do is look at the single treaded benchmarks, then you should be considering an I3 2100 and pretend that software will never be multithreaded.

Ask anyone who purchased BD if they regret their purchase.
a c 152 à CPUs
December 12, 2011 7:25:58 PM

Pretty sad really. People continue to buy the Bulldozer even though it underperformed. Not to mention you can get an I5 that's in the same price range and faster.
December 12, 2011 8:14:48 PM

noob2222 said:
I think the biggest problem is the fact that all the "bulldozer failure" only concentrates on the total aspect of BD, concentrating on the bad areas and highlighting those.

Well when there are so many . . . . .

Quote:
Now if all you want to do is look at the single treaded benchmarks, then you should be considering an I3 2100 and pretend that software will never be multithreaded.

LOL, how nice of you to be channelling the "Ghost of IPC will be higher".

How about if you care about performance on applications that have up to 4 to 6 threads?

Quote:
Ask anyone who purchased BD if they regret their purchase.


Well they would need to have an i5 or i7 around to see what they are missing and not only is this unlikely, but if they are coming from a 4 or 5 year old system, then it wouldn't be hard for even Bulldozer to impress.

Of course, they could be a diehard AMD fan who have their own version of reality, so BD is just swell for them.
a c 152 à CPUs
December 12, 2011 8:57:07 PM

Chad Boga said:
Well when there are so many . . .


Yea no kidding. There really isn't to many goods points to focus on with the Bulldozer.
December 12, 2011 10:13:24 PM

de5_Roy said:
thanks for the link. at first, i couldn't load the image url directly. after a little google searching, found this:
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/galerileri/AMD-Bull...
the gallery is quite interesting. when zambezi launched i didn't see these slides, only the cpu architecture slides in different reviews. i still can't find them on amd's site though. amd nailed zambezi's advertisement in those slides. compared to a core i7 980x system, an fx 8150 or fx 6100 cpu with a 990fx motherboard offers a lot of value. and the comparisons are well thought out. to uninformed and slightly less informed people these would easily make zambezi the better choice for purchase.
meanwhile at newegg (i usually use it for price reference), old ph ii and athlon cpus continue to run out. newegg still hasn't restocked their 955 and 965s. looks like they're gone along with some athlon x3 and ph ii x6s (ph ii x6 1090t sold out).
choosing fx is simpler (restricted?) compared to old phenom and athlons. right now only one of 2 module 4 core, 3 module 6 core and 4 module 8 core cpu available at newegg. 8150 - out of stock.




The point I wanted to make was that AMD made FX for the Future, NOT for SuperPi. If the new CEO isn't paying to get XOP\FMA support before Haswell (Intel FMAC) he should be shot. All multimedia\ graphics can use FMA (it's in GPUs) and XOP can do INT and FP and is as fast as AVX.
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!