Opnion: Did We Expect Too Much of AMD Bulldozer?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I might have misunderstood, but i thought the good ones weren't coming till 2012. I thought everyone said the first ones i thought weren't the good ones. Everyone was like wait till the 2012 ones come before this release, so what changed. Not that i really care.
 
We didn't expect to much from AMD but we did expect software to work better with 8 cores. Games without question you can see the quad FX-4170 beating the octal FX-8150. No overclock should achieve this with half the cores unless a good portion of the software isn't optimized for the extra cores. Case in point is the FX-4170 beating ever CPU at 1920X1200 in Just Cause 2.
http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_02.png
By its self this single test doesn't mean much but what about Crysis. The 4170 this time beats every AMD CPU at 1680X1050. At 1920X1200 the FX-4170 is nearly a tie with top Phenom quad, six core, and FX-8150.
http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Gaming_04.png

Even without games there is far to many benchmarks showing the quad FX-4170 matching or beating the Fx8150.
SPECviewperf v11 http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Synthetic_01.png
SPECviewperf v11 Maya benchmark http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Synthetic_02.png
CINEBENCH R11.5 http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Synthetic_03.png The Fx-4170 trails the FX-8150 in OpenGL by less then 2 pts.
TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/452/bench/Encoding_03.png the FX-6100 match's the FX-8100. Clearly only uses about 6 cores.

I think the programs needed to be scale tested. The game tests should have had some triple monitor high end resolution testing. I know the FX-8150 isn't a great CPU but does perform as well as the i5 2500k.
 
in a way, I am happy that this first iteration of Bulldozer is lackluster and WAY-TFL for release. I will save my money for next years' great intel Itanium and Gen3 videocard, and hopefully a Playstation 4 by years' end.

Still trooping along with my AMD Tricore 720, but I shoved 16GB of Ram and SSD, so I really don't need a new System yet. It boots faster than most people's ipads too.
 
I expect a flashed am3+ bios, some more software tweaking, and pci-e 3.0.
i dont want a crappy, single threaded, buggy intel cpu. intel cpus make me impatience, and linker11 dont like that.
 
Bulldozer as meant to compete against the original i7 (920/965). But its late, way late. The difference between 8 core bulldozer and PII x6 is small. Its as if each bulldozer core is no better than the 7+ year old stars (k8) cores...
 
I love AMD as a company and the competition they give to Intel. It creates a healthy market, and we all benefit from that.

Having said that, I haven't bought AMD for years since they have been behind Intel for some time.

Come on AMD time to put yourself back in the game. Bring out a CPU that rivals Intel!!
 
It looks like a chip that was designed for the server market and encryption primarily. As an afterthought it was marketed to the public as the next gen. I think they are trying to do what Intel has with a more unified server/mainstream platform to save on costs. Unfortunately their performance/core is not up to the same level as Intel.

Pity but I don't think they have anyone to blame but themselves. During the hay day of the Athlon FX, AMD had an excellent opportunity to strike while the fire was hot but instead got greedy, raised their prices up to Intel levels and delayed their development cycles by almost two years. Just enough to give Intel the time to recoup and stomp them into the ground.
 
The 8150 is more expensive than an i5 2500k, almost as spendy as an i7 2600k, yet it gets soundly beaten by the i5 and slaughtered by the i7.

Not to mention that Bulldozer is power hungry CPU


 
AMD hyoped the CPU up and allowed people to further hype it, especially the die hard AMD fans.

They also help back performance information and release dates, something Intel never does, which means they made it more mysterious.

They claimed they did it because they didn't want to hurt sales of older products by giving info on a newer processor but I think they did it to not hurt early adoptor sales of Bulldozer. A lot of people got a AM3+ and preordered BD which means they are stuck with something they had no idea would perform as bad as it did.

In a way, AMD tricked early adopters to buy something without any real info. I think they need to have benchmarks out before you can even preorder the products.
 
i've been using amd processors since the K6-II. I am now running an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3GHz, windsor core). i'm in need of replacing this system and i've been holding out so far because i was waiting for the bd launch and i had the firm impression that they were going to be killer cpus (however, my experience with amd products made me severely doubt it, and there you go). the k6-ii turned out to be a bad decision. the choice of the current A64X2 was a compromise choice, i spent the money i saved from getting an intel cpu for a better graphics card, and since this processor was pulling in good reviews for gaming, it made sense. but now? no. with amd cpus pulling in lower gaming scores almost across the board, and much lower for everything else, why go amd? they may make a degree of sense in server space, especially where the higher number of cores on some opteron lines favors them, but intel will have that one advantage covered pretty soon. it may be that the best thing for amd is to get out of the cpu business and concentrate on the graphics business. they're a dead duck now, whether they continue to exist or not.
 
Sadly, I never gave a second thought to AMD having a chance of a revival, even after hearing all the hoopla about Bulldozer. There were a lot of tell-tale signs, all too obvious to miss.

- The Fusion E-350 was a clear indicator, and my last hope for AMD, both in the fact AMD downplayed the CPU and focused on the GPU instead, but also in low the performance per clockcycle and performance per watt performance. I think this is a great strategy for AMD however.

- AMD has been behind for a long time in tech; how could it leap ahead of Intel who has been making leaps of its own for so long now. Intel's clockcycle performance is staggering, for example, and Intel has been using 32nm for a while now...

-Games use, on average, 3 cores. This is demonstrated by Intel's i3-2100 CPU that is able to power most modern games smoothly with just 2 cores. 6, 8, or 12 cores, is unneeded, which is demonstrated by the Core i7 990X, the 2600k with hyperthreading, and the AMD 1100T/1090T. Games are where it is at.

-AMD has 12-core server CPUs and they also released a server bulldozer CPU series a few months back. Performance was okay for server applications, but power efficiency and other variables made it a bad option IMO.

-Leaked benchmarks have been released on bulldozer and other AMD chips for months now; often on Chinese websites. AMD Fanboys always found a way to ignore these results, focusing instead on powerpoint slides from inside AMD's ad department, which was always funny to see.

I have no loyalties to either Intel or AMD, but rather I am a fan of BOTH companies. I of course would of loved to see AMD push out a highly competitive product, but I only had the expectation that it would be the same old, fail. I personally would be more likely to buy an AMD 1090T than one of the new FX chips, mostly due to overall system cost, but also because it will likely be faster for the applications I need it for.

I wouldn't even buy the FX platform for full time x264 video encoding, something I do do for work, as the power costs and cutting edge performance are just not there.

 
here is where I'm at now. I have given two different generations of AMD chips a chance since moving from C2D and now I'm done. while AMD might believe that heavy workload and multithreaded numbers are king, they are wrong. core efficiency is what is kicking their asses. Unless the entire Dev community dedicated software to be wholly multithreaded AMD will continue to lose with their current and future architectures. Hello i2600k, piece out 955BE.
 
More clueless posts as usual. The AMD chip hardly gets slaughtered in any benchmark. Yes they are being beaten but for most tasks you would never notice the difference. Oooo in some stupid benchmark its 5% or 10% faster most of which you'll never use. Everyone talks about how they want AMD to stay in the game and keep Intel honest. How exactly are they going to do that when no one buys their chips? R&D costs money people it doesnt fall off trees. When Intel is a monopoly and you are paying $2000 for a low end chip you'll wish you had bought a Bulldozer chip.
 
I understand Bulldozer is a new architecture and there are kinks to work out. It performance is also an improvement on its predecessors. However, the hardware community has some expectations on performance and marketing will either raise or lower those expectations. In my opinion, marketing/PR kept raising the bar especially with the FX moniker and Guinness World record.
On some occasions in the past, AMD had a tendency to overstate processor performances and the outcome has never been favorable for the company. It just doesn't look good if you promote an unrealistic expectation, as the reviews will come in at some point a reveal the actual picture.
Click to expand...
AMD needs to learn from their own past. Under-promise and over deliver, which Bulldozer did not do.
 
I don't think it's possible to separate the hype from marketing, but it was the delay that allowed it all to happen. If these had been released on time, it might not have been such a big deal, just the next step in AMD's line. I wasn't thinking or hoping it would blow intel out of the water. What I was hoping for, was a nice performance boost over my OC'd 1100T. Already having that setup, it isn't cost effective for me to upgrade, and I think many are in the same boat.
 
AMD may eventually turn the Bulldozer technology around and derive some use from it in a future processor line, but let's get this clear while we can. If all they forecast is a ten to fifteen percent increase in performance, per year, then they will be Tick-Tocked into a crater by Intel. Ivy bridge is already looking to revolutionize the high end and THAT is just a minor revision/die shrink, with the really big guns coming out later.

Notes for AMD:

AMD is no longer in the game with Intel. AMD exists as number two and has primary holdings in the value market. Exploit this as a brand strength and release better offerings on the low end. Stop trying to capture a moving target. Three generations AMD tried to overtake Intel, three generations AMD failed. Stop trying to make AMD's customer base make up the difference for company incompetence.

Failure to realize this will result in eventual death of the brand. Centaur survived by quitting the rat race and taking a niche market while other X86 manufacturers died out.

End note:

I don't blame AMD as much as I blame the idiotic fanboys who continued to buy crap products for two generations to "keep alive and support competition". This is what you get. Another lackluster generation of CPUs that through some conspiracy, are actually (or so the idiots will convince themselves) in truth the fastest things on the planet.

I don't hate AMD. I just think it's terrible they get away with this over and over again. Building up hype that never materializes so slack jawed morons will rabidly buy whatever they serve to them.
 
I think the only one equating clock speed to performance is the author. If AMD said they had the fastest CPU and then proved it what's to criticize. If they had said they had the highest performing CPU and they backed it up by proving they had the fastest CPU I would call them hypocrites as the author is suggesting. I think this is a case of the author hearing something that AMD didn't say.
 
[citation][nom]beenthere[/nom]Opinions vary but criminal convictions are forever.[/citation]


You are clearly a classic example of a fanboy, you're still using that as an excuse for bulldozer's benchmark results?!? stupid!
 
People forget the fine details: that world record was reached on just a SINGLE MODULE (2C/2T) - the other six cores on the chip were deactivated!!! That's what you call big marketing BS.

They were doing it just to get a crazy high number, nothing more!!!

Now on the other hand, if a 8150 can do 5GHz with a H100 for every-day use ON ALL 8 CORES, that may be something worth people's money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom