|
To be fair though, who are they really trying to target by having chips with more cores and less single thread performance?
Gamers and standard users both really need the single thread performance.
The multi-thread performance is good for like servers and video rendering, etc, but why would you cater your entire lineup towards that?
Or are they just aiming towards the future?
To put it bluntly, these processors were not initially meant to compete with SB. They delayed the release for ~2 years.
It's been just about 4 years since AMD announced BD altogether, I think they believed more programmers would be making and utilizing multithreaded apps and games.
The server market is a lot bigger than you think it is, but that's a whole different story and we've yet to see BD server performance. The marketing division shot themselves in the foot with this one though. They pulled the ultimate InControl with all the hype.
AMD aimed for a future that is coming way too slowly.
|
On October 12 2011 20:12 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2011 20:02 Bodom wrote:On October 12 2011 19:44 Soleron wrote:On October 12 2011 19:30 Bodom wrote:
Other than that it seems most likely to be a problem with GLoFO and their yields. I don't think so. Clock speeds are quite high already (4.2GHz Turbo). The problem is that AMD has between 1/10 and 1/8 of the R&D funding and employees of Intel. No one should expect them to be competitive any more. On paper the BD module design isn't bad. Yes, single thread performance is going to be worse, that was a conscious design decision, but it shouldn't be as horrible as it is right now. That, along with the massive power usage overclocking brings, could very well be explained by GLoFo's poor yields. We already know they were having issues with Llano. All we can do is wait and see if better manufacturing techniques bring better yields with FX8170 in Q1, but I'm not holding my breath. To be fair though, who are they really trying to target by having chips with more cores and less single thread performance? Gamers and standard users both really need the single thread performance. The multi-thread performance is good for like servers and video rendering, etc, but why would you cater your entire lineup towards that? Or are they just aiming towards the future?
I'm guessing they just wanted to be better than intel at something for pr reasons rather than have something that doesn't stand out in any way even though it might give a better overall performance. That's just my uneducated feeling though. If the bulldozer can breath enough fresh air into the sales maybe it buys them enough time to come out with something better.
|
Intel Monopoly coming fast.
|
Just get the AMD x6/x4 and be fine. I see no problem with the bulldozers being bad. I'll get my AMD x6 1100t anyway.
|
wow... pretty impressive they spent that long on such trash. not really sure how that's even possible.
|
Oh god what a sad day for all PC users.
As I type this, somewhere, someone from Intel is smashing the "CANCEL" button on the next round of price cuts for Sandy Bridge and slamming the brakes on Ivy Bridge development.
Everyone should cry, except for the people working at Intel.
|
|
|
On October 12 2011 20:35 KeksX wrote:
Just get the AMD x6/x4 and be fine. I see no problem with the bulldozers being bad. I'll get my AMD x6 1100t anyway.
It's a huge concern when you only have two options on the market. If amd can't keep up that will a) give you an inferior product if you choose amd and b) enable intel to overcharge, impose restriction etc to their lineup because you don't have any other option than to pay what they are offering. Intel wins, customers and amd lose.
|
The site is completely not credible (been following them for a while, they have a scattergun approach to rumours and print everything in the hope that one thing is right), and Bapco were clearly too close to Intel and skewing the benchmark (very important because it's used worldwide for government procurement).
If it was just AMD's problem why did Nvidia and VIA (3rd biggest x86 CPU company) leave too?
But BD is bad, no question there.
|
Doesnt really bother me. It was going to be terrible anyways. The future of amd is with fusion and away from the highend. But sandybridge is really really kicking ass in everything it goes into.
Anyways its not like intel hasnt already started to go back to their old ways, the number of sockets that have come out over the past few years and are coming out soon is ridiculous. Great value if you want a new computer now, not so great if you just wanted to upgrade a cpu ):
|
Rofl AMD. Kinda feels like they arent even trying to compete in the consumer market any more.
|
On October 12 2011 20:30 Bodom wrote:Show nested quote +
To be fair though, who are they really trying to target by having chips with more cores and less single thread performance?
Gamers and standard users both really need the single thread performance.
The multi-thread performance is good for like servers and video rendering, etc, but why would you cater your entire lineup towards that?
Or are they just aiming towards the future?
To put it bluntly, these processors were not initially meant to compete with SB. They delayed the release for ~2 years. It's been just about 4 years since AMD announced BD altogether, I think they believed more programmers would be making and utilizing multithreaded apps and games. The server market is a lot bigger than you think it is, but that's a whole different story and we've yet to see BD server performance. The marketing division shot themselves in the foot with this one though. They pulled the ultimate InControl with all the hype. AMD aimed for a future that is coming way too slowly.
It seems like it might be a killer Server chip, which has actually been AMD's bread & butter since the Opterons came out. Which could explain a lot of the issues. AMD might be mostly focused on the Server Market and the normal consumer market is taking a backseat to that.
Though we really need AMD to survive in the consumer market. A monopoly on the consumer market wouldn't be a good thing.
|
|
|
I knew it. The fact that they were delaying it so much and the fact that early leaked benchmarks showed bulldozer loosing to I5 2600K in the cpu area and only winning in the graphics area which is not even important as 90% of the people have dedicated graphic card anyways!
I think AMD is going to go bankrupt which is really, really sad. I hope some wealthy investors buy the majority stake of the shares and pump up money so it can compete and Intel doesn't become a monopoly, but its looking grim for AMD and I wanted them to be competitive so Intel reduces prices!
|
Let us hope that Intel is completely blind and keeps pricing their products like they have competition.
EDIT: ^^^ i5-2500k, not 2600
|
Damn, this is disappointing. After my whole life using AMD, I will probably make he switch to Intel should I ever upgrade. I was really hyped for this release but AMD really bombed it.
Oh well, I was always jealous of Intel owners anyways. ;D
|
I built my rig with P2 x6 1055T a little more than a year ago and was looking forward to this release from AMD. Needless to say, I am disappointed. It's not that I was looking forward to upgrading my CPU in the immediate future, but it's still sad to witness such a disappointment.
|
God man, I'm glad I didn't fall for the trap card that was waiting for this instead of getting SB when they were released.
|
Poor AMD, another fail 
|
On October 12 2011 21:34 TheBomb wrote:
I think AMD is going to go bankrupt which is really, really sad. I hope some wealthy investors buy the majority stake of the shares and pump up money so it can compete and Intel doesn't become a monopoly, but its looking grim for AMD and I wanted them to be competitive so Intel reduces prices!
I think you're forgetting that AMD have a GPU division, which would defiinitely keep them afloat (This generation of Radeons are pretty good - don't know too much myself about PC hardware nowadays though I must admit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
