EPTAMD Bulldozer official release and reviews. - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Delinius
United States324 Posts
| ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
People need to understand AMD has a market cap of about 3.3 billion compared to Intel's 120 billion. For them to make something that even comes close to beating what Intel can produce is pretty remarkable. What the two companies can spend on R&D is incomparable. That's personally why I like AMD. Sadly there's no way I can buy these chips if they can barely beat phenom 2s It's an honest shame that these chips are so disappointing because we are rapidly losing out of real competition in the cpu market which is never a good thing for the consumer. | ||
|
android_245
Australia103 Posts
On October 12 2011 21:34 TheBomb wrote: 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! How does Bulldozer beat Sandy Bridge in the graphics area when it doesn't even have a IGP? | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
The Bulldozer design is at the start of its lifecycle and it starts where the phenom II line stopps. Bulldozer is for sure not inferior to the phenom II line, and it is compareable to the i7 line in many benchmarks.It also outclasses the i5 in many benchmarks. Its flaw is the single core performance but that performance is nowhere near as horrendously bad as stated by some posters here. Also stating it is "fail" or whatever for gaming or for SC II is utter nonsense when it can run SC II on +90 FPS with a bad graphics card. I dont think the CPU was made to outclass Intel but to create a successor for the phenom II line wich reached its technical limits and to create a platform that can compete with intel in the future, maybe not at all performance level but for sure with better pricing. I think that AMD is going for the more bang for bucks instead of some percent more calculations for double the price. I would place the card between i5 and i7 but giving the price advantage to AMD. And Zambesi does not have an integrated graphics like some people stated here. | ||
|
Onlinejaguar
Australia2823 Posts
| ||
|
drdreggor
Sweden207 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:31 Holy_AT wrote: Most of the comments here are really unquallified. The Bulldozer design is at the start of its lifecycle and it starts where the phenom II line stopps. Bulldozer is for sure not inferior to the phenom II line, and it is compareable to the i7 line in many benchmarks.It also outclasses the i5 in many benchmarks. Its flaw is the single core performance but that performance is nowhere near as horrendously bad as stated by some posters here. Also stating it is "fail" or whatever for gaming or for SC II is utter nonsense when it can run SC II on +90 FPS with a bad graphics card. I dont think the CPU was made to outclass Intel but to create a successor for the phenom II line wich reached its technical limits and to create a platform that can compete with intel in the future, maybe not at all performance level but for sure with better pricing. I think that AMD is going for the more bang for bucks instead of some percent more calculations for double the price. I would place the card between i5 and i7 but giving the price advantage to AMD. And Zambesi does not have an integrated graphics like some people stated here. Yeah I'm also hoping that this is just the first generation of processors we're seeing on this plattform, and that these have some flaws (like energy consumption for example), and that new releases will somewhat solve this. Overall AMD has never really been able to compete with the high end performance of Intel, but they offer a cheaper alternative, which is atleast why I've stuck with them. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14911 Posts
| ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
The fabrication process is to blame for sure, but how bad can that be? They said 50% faster than their 6core and this isn't close at all. They should have hit over 4.5 GHz to get there. We can definitely see llano is also suffering on clockspeed and power consumption compared to previous generations, and this should have been a warning for AMD. | ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
| ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
This problem is only getting worse with time so I'm afraid the company will go under pretty soon. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:18 floor exercise wrote: People need to understand AMD has a market cap of about 3.3 billion compared to Intel's 120 billion. For them to make something that even comes close to beating what Intel can produce is pretty remarkable. What the two companies can spend on R&D is incomparable. That's personally why I like AMD. Sadly there's no way I can buy these chips if they can barely beat phenom 2s How is it remarkable? AMD beat Intel pretty handily with their Athlon series all the way up to San Diego... Wasn't the gap even larger back then? Also, I think people are overrestimating the end user PC enthusiast saying AMD will go under because of this and all that shit. There is a lot more money to be made selling to server clusters and things like that and it seems like the architecture favors that. | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
AMD not only is NOT price competitve, but also worse in IPC that the Thubans, and worse in power consumption to add insult to injury. I'm just a little miffed at the people who played their part in suggesting this was a good chip. chew at XS, the reddit thread with Icrontic giving updates...MovieMan even changed his avatar. << Ok last one was good for a chuckle...but damn. I know Kyle at H suggested that it's a decent chip for BF3, but IMO, the power consumption and price, when you can already get a i5 2500K for $149/$179 at MC, the BD just isn't compelling. PS - Why is this thread in the General, haha. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:53 mav451 wrote: AMD not only is NOT price competitve, but also worse in IPC that the Thubans, and worse in power consumption to add insult to injury. I'm just a little miffed at the people who played their part in suggesting this was a good chip. chew at XS, the reddit thread with Icrontic giving updates...MovieMan even changed his avatar. << Ok last one was good for a chuckle...but damn. Misery loves company I guess. For once I get to feel smarmy about being a generation behind in my processor. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Its interesting especially because its not like Intel is doing anything anti-competitive. Intel just totally and completely outclasses AMD. Does this create a sorta monopoly situation? I dunno, seems so strange. I wonder why AMD can't even come close to keeping up. | ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On October 12 2011 22:50 Shauni wrote: How is it remarkable? AMD beat Intel pretty handily with their Athlon series all the way up to San Diego... Wasn't the gap even larger back then? Also, I think people are overrestimating the end user PC enthusiast saying AMD will go under because of this and all that shit. There is a lot more money to be made selling to server clusters and things like that and it seems like the architecture favors that. One small flash in a pan doesn't mean that much. All the other times were basically "good effort AMD but you're not good enough for Intel". It'll still be "good effort AMD" till the end of time because Intel aren't going to lose this lead. AMD won't go under because Intel will make sure of this. They are popular in HPCs because they are dirt cheap, not because they perform exceptionally well: Magny Cours was basically handing out free silicon to stop market share from slipping further. That hasn't worked too well since in overall servers, Intel is the undisputed king...that is reflected by AMD's server market share slipping down to single figures. You also have companies like Oracle selling servers by the core, which obviously is advantageous to Intel (Hyperthreading =/= Core) and bad for AMD. AMD is too far behind Intel at this point of time. No doubt they can design a good product (all companies have talented people, it just takes management to make them shine) but without fabrication resources Intel has they'll never be remotely competitive in any sector. On October 12 2011 23:19 Mohdoo wrote: I'm surprised they even released this. It makes the company look so bad. After this, they essentially look 100% incapable of competing with Intel. Its interesting especially because its not like Intel is doing anything anti-competitive. Intel just totally and completely outclasses AMD. Does this create a sorta monopoly situation? I dunno, seems so strange. I wonder why AMD can't even come close to keeping up. Intel pours money into their fabs. Their fabs are like 18 months ahead of Global Foundries, which is what AMD generally uses to manufacturer their processors. It doesn't help this was a new processor architecture on an entirely new process so you get mad yield issues. In a perfect world, Bulldozer would probably be clocked extremely aggressively and perform quite well at stock settings. It was delayed for so long because they were incapable of reaching, I suppose, their target frequencies. | ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
| ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
And haven't they pretty much switched to Bulldozer? Phenom II EOL is like the end of this year or something. | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On October 12 2011 18:38 Cocoabean wrote: So judging by the benchmarks, AMD basically did the impossible and reversed Moore's Law. /clap Not true. Moore's law simply states that you can purchase a processor twice as powerful for the same price every 2 years. This fact still holds true. You just can't buy that processor from AMD. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
| ||
| ||
