AMD FX is AMD's Pentium 4

[whooleo]

Disclaimer: I am not an Intel fanboy, to the contrary I've only bought AMD CPUs (owned Intel but never bought).

AMD has been dropping the ball in it's CPU division ever since they bought ATI. They are a shadow of their former self, their CPUs have stagnated and their GPUs have blossomed, go figure! The FX reminds me of the Pentium 4, why? Lets go back in time.... Intel was late in releasing the Pentium 4 constantly pushing it back, and when it was released performance was sub par the higher clocked Pentium IIIs of the time were able to beat the Pentium 4 in most applications/benchmarks (sound familiar?). So the original Pentium 4 based on the Willamette core sucked but after, Intel was able to release a more competitive Pentium 4, the Northwood based Pentium 4, but with that CPU came high power consumption (remember how you needed a motherboard with a 4-pin CPU power connecter to use the higher clocked Pentium 4s?) and increased heat output (does this all sound familiar to the FX? Because it should). In the end the Pentium 4 was a hot and IPC inefficient CPU based on clock speed marketing just like how the FX is based on core count marketing. This is why I think the FX is AMD's Pentium 4. Does anybody agree?

 

[nna2]

im not saying FX isnt a dissapointment, but lets wait to see if windows 8 really does improve on it

 

[aford10]

I will allow this to continue, but please keep on topic, and no flame wars.

 

[saint19]

Now we are to moderators watching this. Please keep it most clean and civilized as possible.

 

[rds1220]

im not saying FX isnt a dissapointment, but lets wait to see if windows 8 really does improve on it

Except it probably won't improve it not that much atleast. The Bulldozer is a lost cause.

 

[Supernova1138]

Improvements to the scheduler in Windows 8 won't save Bulldozer. The design isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it is ahead of its time, the vast majority of software simply isn't threaded enough to take advantage of the higher core count. That combined with what in this day and age is almost abysmal single threaded performance, and you have a flop.

Its only saving grace as far as gaming goes is the fact that most games are GPU bound these days, so its poor performance is only really apparent in a handful of CPU heavy titles, or when it is paired with a really high end SLI/Crossfire setup. It also performs okay in a small number of content creation applications that are heavily multithreaded. However, the fact that a quad core Intel CPU without hyperthreading performs very close to an 8 core AMD CPU is quite telling. There are definitely some major flaws AMD has to work out with this design, you shouldn't need to overclock your CPU to 4 or 5 GHz to get good single threaded performance.

 

[rolli59]

Not great but neither is it Garbage!

 

[de5_Roy]

i think voting options are too limited.
p4, disappointing and garbage do not usually mean the same thing. so the first option could come off as 'bulldozer-bashing'. amd fanboys could take offence and start up some verbal fights with ipcsomething or multithreadedthingamazig.
for instance, i am disappointed with bulldozer. but i don't think it is garbage. the idea behind bulldozer is pretty good. the implementation, execution and marketing were bad. still voted the first option because i could not fully agree with the other one.
imo if the voting options were a bit more diverse, people's responses would be more accurate.

 

[Brett928S2]

Hi

You say you are not biased , but....

You only compare cpus...

What about graphics ?

We all know that ONBOARD graphics are awful from Intel and stunning from AMD....

Lack of innovation in onboard graphics from Intel has set back laptops for years, if i had designed Intels ONBOARD graphics, I would have shot myself years ago....

Which is why lappies are rubbish at games, at least AMD are improving things rapidly with their APUs...

Its a case of swings and roundabouts, some companies have better things at one time than others, other times its the other company.....

So yes you are biased...

And my Computer companies sell BOTH Amd and Intel....we sell a LOT more Amd stuff though than as Intel is DRASTICALLY overpriced and customers see that and choose Amd generally...

All the best Brett

 

[amuffin]

Hi

You say you are not biased , but....

You only compare cpus...

What about graphics ?

We all know that ONBOARD graphics are awful from Intel and stunning from AMD....

Lack of innovation in onboard graphics from Intel has set back laptops for years, if i had designed Intels ONBOARD graphics, I would have shot myself years ago....

Which is why lappies are rubbish at games, at least AMD are improving things rapidly with their APUs...

Its a case of swings and roundabouts, some companies have better things at one time than others, other times its the other company.....

So yes you are biased...

And my Computer companies sell BOTH Amd and Intel....we sell a LOT more Amd stuff though than as Intel is DRASTICALLY overpriced and customers see that and choose Amd generally...

All the best Brett

Maybe its cause you are overpricing them...anyways this thread is about fx not amd..

 

[Guest]

FX is out performed by its predecessor just like the P4 was when it was released. So I think its pretty apt. Except Intel saw the error of the P4 and turned around and created Core, a truly great architecture, while AMD from what I have read at their recent event seems to be abandoning the high end desktop space.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

they do great in integer heavy benchmarks, and those that really use 8 threads.
they are not garbage, though i did select that option in the poll.

would i recommend it to anyone ? never.
would i ever buy it myself? never.
will win8 make it better? no.
but it is not garbage.

 

[4745454b]

and when it was released performance was sub par the higher clocked Pentium IIIs of the time were able to beat the Pentium 4 in most applications

I stopped reading at that point. If you can't get your facts straight I question everything else you say. And if I'm going to question it why read it.

The Bulldozer is a lost cause.

Not sure I agree with this. First, if you've seen the win8 tests you'll know that BD does score higher. And more then just 1% like with the patches for win7. If PD and win8 turn out well, then the dozer family isn't a lost cause. I still feel there is something wrong with the front end of the chip, but my degree isn't in chip design.

Another thing to keep in mind is that yes, while BD has a lower IPC when compared to the PhenomII series or SB, all you need to overcome that is higher clocks. IF GloFlo can up the clocks by a lot on the next node then AMD will have quite the chip on its hands.

 

[deadjon]

and when it was released performance was sub par the higher clocked Pentium IIIs of the time were able to beat the Pentium 4 in most applications

I stopped reading at that point. If you can't get your facts straight I question everything else you say. And if I'm going to question it why read it.

The Bulldozer is a lost cause.

Not sure I agree with this. First, if you've seen the win8 tests you'll know that BD does score higher. And more then just 1% like with the patches for win7. If PD and win8 turn out well, then the dozer family isn't a lost cause. I still feel there is something wrong with the front end of the chip, but my degree isn't in chip design.

Another thing to keep in mind is that yes, while BD has a lower IPC when compared to the PhenomII series or SB, all you need to overcome that is higher clocks. IF GloFlo can up the clocks by a lot on the next node then AMD will have quite the chip on its hands.

Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s in all but a handful Applications at the time of release - In a sense, It was ahead of its time (Most applications still used older instruction sets and code more suited to the PIII or the Athlon) - Which again is a testament to his claim about how Bulldozer is a kin to the P4.

 

[4745454b]

Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s

Again, incorrect. Would you like me to bold the part that is wrong?

 

[sharken]

I like the FX, keeps my table with one shorter leg very stable, AMD!

 

[kitsunestarwind]

I like the idea of the FX, With a little luck one or 2 incarnations of it Could see one of the best multicore designs out there.
But in it's current incarnation it's a let down that the Thuban CPU can out perform bulldozer still

In reference to the P3 vs P4 notes above, I believe they mean the SLOWER clocked P3's still beat the Higher Clocked P4's (as P3's only went to 1.2ghz?, while P4's started at 1.5ghz? not sure if that's correct)

 

[radnor]

Its a well known fact that the Higher clocked PIIIs performed better than the original (Willamette) P4s

Again, incorrect. Would you like me to bold the part that is wrong?

Back then, i was still assembling computer for a company that built workstations and "boutique" computers. The original willamette (1.3 to 1.5 ) was weaker than most athlons, tualatin P3, and later on Intel launch a celeron 1200 model that also wiped their ass. Even tomshardware had charts reflecting that. P4 was a fluke. And using RIMMs increased alot the price of the computer.

Athlon XP/TB vs P4

[link]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-xp-meets-p4,383.html[/link]

Another Willamette Review
[link] http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel,264-23.html [/link]

Quotes from the second review

"Let's get serious now however. We have learned that Pentium 4 has got a rather exciting and interesting brand new design that comes with a whole lot of potential. However, the benchmark results might seem a bit sobering to the majority of you. Whatever Pentium 4 is right now, it is certainly not the greatest and best performing processor in the world. It's not a bad performer as well though."

"Pentium 4 at 1.4 GHz goes for $644, Pentium 4 at 1.5 GHz costs $819 right now. It's not exactly a bargain, but, hey, who really cares about price if it really is all about style?"

Can't find any reviews under the codename Tualatin, that was the last iteration of PIII. It reached a maximum of 1.4GHz (stock) and we used it widely for our boxes. We could use 166 Mhz SDRAM at the fraction of the COST of RIMMS and usually with more than double capacity. Tualatins capabilities were always hidden from consumer because they were really good and Intel wanted to sell those extremely overpriced P4.

If you search a bit you will see, that P4's were crap. Too expensive for their own good. Any P3 or Athlon were literally half the price. And with more performance.

 

[radnor]

And stop bashing BD like that. It is not the crap P4 was. It is just on the wrong price point.

 

[horaciopz]

Well Im an AMD fanboy, but well Intel is doing a great job with their strong processors...

I really hope that AMD will come with a better processor. At least the so much talked "improvement" that Win8 will give to FX should help, but what I am really waiting is a new architecture or at least the next FX gen... I´d would change my crappy processor by there. AMD! PUT YOUR EYES IN THIS KIND OF FURUMS!

 

[4745454b]

I didn't see anything wrong in that post. But take a look at what you two actually wrote and not what you think it says. Read it out loud if you need to. Its not a matter of semantics, but a serious flaw in your argument.

 

[13thmonkey]

Hi

You say you are not biased , but....

You only compare cpus...

What about graphics ?

We all know that ONBOARD graphics are awful from Intel and stunning from AMD....

Does FX have onboard GPU, is FX available in a laptop?

And to the original question, yes it might be ahead of its time, but you have design for the market that exists, not one that might exist in a 2-3 years.

 

[radnor]

I didn't see anything wrong in that post. But take a look at what you two actually wrote and not what you think it says. Read it out loud if you need to. Its not a matter of semantics, but a serious flaw in your argument.

Give me fact vs my main argument.

"Back then, i was still assembling computer for a company that built workstations and "boutique" computers. The original willamette (1.3 to 1.5 ) was weaker than most athlons, tualatin P3, and later on Intel launch a celeron 1200 model that also wiped their ass. Even tomshardware had charts reflecting that. P4 was a fluke. And using RIMMs increased alot the price of the computer. "

Even in the second review they refer that the athlon 1800+ would trash the p4 2000 in some benchmarks. for less than half the price. the 1800+ worked at 1533 Mhz. Comparing back then and the actual situation, we are complaining that BD is 50USD/Euro too expensive. That's it. If you sell the 8150/8120 at 199 USD it is a rather good deal.

Back then Intel was selling at 600 USD what supposedly should cost 250/300 USD. And yes, the P4 were beaten by lower clocked/priced athlons and PIII tualatins. And those are the facts.

 

[HEXiT]

wow op what a load of crap. amd made 1 cpu that managed to beat intel every 1 since has been slower and under performed against intels comparative cpu...
amd have always been a generation behind but got lucky in the early days and came up with a cpu that punched above its weight.
bulldozer was a gamble that didnt pay off. they were hoping to create another athlon but failed... to say that bulldozer is amds pentium suggests there was some sort of too and fro of the title of best cpu, when we all know ever since athlon, intel have held the crown...
amd had the budget cpu against intels premium for performance , but since sandy bridge and the 2100 intel have made inroads into amds territory in a big way...
no bulldozer isnt amd's pentium coz every cpu since pentium has been amd's pentium... and yes you are a fanboy....
(you gave it away by sayin you owned but never bought intel. like it left a bad taste in yer mouth.... grow up.... buy the best not a brand.)

 

[Chad Boga]

Give me fact vs my main argument.

"Back then, i was still assembling computer for a company that built workstations and "boutique" computers. The original willamette (1.3 to 1.5 ) was weaker than most athlons, tualatin P3, and later on Intel launch a celeron 1200 model that also wiped their ass. Even tomshardware had charts reflecting that. P4 was a fluke. And using RIMMs increased alot the price of the computer. "

Even in the second review they refer that the athlon 1800+ would trash the p4 2000 in some benchmarks. for less than half the price. the 1800+ worked at 1533 Mhz. Comparing back then and the actual situation, we are complaining that BD is 50USD/Euro too expensive. That's it. If you sell the 8150/8120 at 199 USD it is a rather good deal.

Back then Intel was selling at 600 USD what supposedly should cost 250/300 USD. And yes, the P4 were beaten by lower clocked/priced athlons and PIII tualatins. And those are the facts.

In many applications(especially games), Intel's Dual Core CPU's trounce Bulldozer.

Bulldozer is remarkably reminiscent of the P4.

Sure there are going to be some differences that don't make the comparison 100% in all instances, but it is striking how many instances that the comparison is very apt.

What's more, AMD even had the example of the P4 as a warning of how risky the low IPC/high clock speed strategy is, and at a time when AMD's process situation has never been more shaky, and yet that is still the road they travelled down.

As bad as Bulldozer is now, I suspect that by the time its follow on products get compared to Haswell, the Bulldozer architecture is going to win itself a very special place in the Hall of Shame.