Opnion: Did We Expect Too Much of AMD Bulldozer?

[shafe88]

Maybe instead each Bulldozer module having two identical cores, they could of made 1 core larger and more powerful and the other core smaller and more power efficient. That way you have better single threaded performance and still have good multithread performance.

 

[southernshark]

I was hopeful about the BD, not as hopeful as some, but realistically even the pessimists expected this thing to be superior in every way to the Phenom II. I mean no one who is being honest thought it would be a step backwards. Many people did not think it would stand up to IvyBridge, and I admit that I was one of those. I expected it to be up to Sandybridge performance though.......... and obviously that is not the case. Its all a bit sad. I hope AMD can make it in the server and low end notebook space, because at the mid to high end gaming/ PC venue they are not going to make it.

 

[neo_anderson]

If I may offer a different opinion, this processor makes a lot of sense long-term. Designing a new Architecture for a CPU cannot be done with a short-term view, it takes an immense amount of research, testing, designing, funding and time. When AMD started with Bulldozer they would have had to make a lot of predictions about what would be needed over the next 5 years. My opinion, and it is just that, is that they took a gamble and it very nearly paid off short-term, and almost certainly will long-term.
Mobile phones and tablets are improving at an alarming rate to the point where a device you always carry can do what your $2000 pc could do 5-10 years ago, and it doesn’t look like slowing down any time soon. This combined with Cloud-Computing (I hate that term) means that we are really on the cusp of a very different way of being productive. The life of the traditional desktop/laptop as we know it is very short right now, alot of what we used to do on a laptop or desktop will shift to a more mobile platform (Look at Windows 8 and the iPad). It means that the way we use traditional computing methods needs to be more specialised and more powerful.
A quick search on the internet will reveal how much emphasis and research is going into GPGPU by the big IT companies – when software starts to leverage this technology we will start to see some amazing stuff – but we aren’t there yet for consumer software. Doing floating point calculations in parallel is what GPGPU is all about, and also happens to be the biggest weak-spot of thisnew architecture. That just can’t be a coincidence from a company that has been plugging on about “Fusion” in such a big way. I’m not really explaining this very well, but when you combine the two (This processor architecture and GPGPU) you end up with the potential for something really powerful, modular, and forward thinking.
To make it work today (with Today’s software) they needed this processor to run at a ridiculous clock-rate to be competitive, and to AMD’s credit, they came v. close. I don’t think AMD stuffed-up, I think what we expected was different. Can’t really blame AMD Marketing either, they need to shift units today and today’s marketing is aimed at exactly that. This new architecture in my opinion will cement AMD’s future, it just isn’t as good at what we are doing today (to be fair it’s pretty close), and was not designed to be.
The problem as a consumer is that you don’t buy a prototype car today so you can get the production model that works tomorrow, and as a result AMD is going to struggle for a couple more years at least. And this is a very sad thing

 

[Infikiran]

Honestly, I did order the 8150FX, but I do plan on using it as a home server as well as the occasional game. I didn't expect it to compete clock for clock with intel, I really just wanted an 8 core to effectively run several OS's with vmware and still have some headroom. As far as hoping it will do better with Windows 8, it is really hard to tell at this point. AMD has made claims that they have introduced new instruction sets that are not fully compatible with Windows 7 and that Windows 8 will make better use of the CPU.
I do have a copy of Windows 8 beta, so I might dual boot it to see if there is any difference.

But going back to Pentium 4 vs higher clocked Pentium III. It wasn't advance instruction sets that screwed the Pentium 4 in older versions of Windows. It was NETBURST. In fact, I have pitted a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 against a 1.4GHz Pentium III under Windows XP and the Pentium III was much faster. The Pentium 4 wasn't really an upgrade until the 2.2GHz versions came out. While Intel used the NETBURST architecture, AMD slaughtered them in per clock performance and Intel didn't come out ahead until the Core 2 conroe, which I also owned at one point.

Looking at reviews, the FX8150 is not slaughtered by the 2600k, yes it does have the edge but the FX8150 does come close to matching it in some benchmarks. And yes it is on par with the 2500k on some things. So I would say from what I observed the FX8150 sits roughly between the 2500k and 2600k, in which case the price is fair.

 

[neo_anderson]

Err... sorry for the wall of text, it didn't look like that in the preview

 

[mayne92]

[citation][nom]luc vr[/nom]Interlagos Opteron 16 cores at 1.8ghz is a fail also since you cannot use this chip as a workstation way to low for Single threaded use.[/citation]
Try not to read desktop applied reviews about hardware then make assumptions about server/workstation hardware as being one in the same. However, you did make me chuckle pretty good.

 

[rohitbaran]

I didn't expect Bulldozer to blow high end Intel chips like i7 980, but I did expect it to outperform i5 chips, which it didn't. As a consumer, bulldozer seems a fail to me.

 

[halcyon]

No, we didn't expect too much we just got too little.

 

[dealcorn]

It wipes the floor with Atom at 32mn and almost certainly can do the same at 22nm. However, I am curious whether AMD's capital investment to create Bulldozer will generate more or less revenue than Intel's capital investment in Atom. Designing chips takes IP. That is where AMD is a hurting puppy that has not articulated a credible plan to offset its deficit.

AMD's survival turns largely on its ability to claim the hearts and wallets of the gaming community. Itanium (a dead Intel Chip) generates more revenue than everything AMD's got in the server space. Problem is Intel's road map recycles the snot out of the dead Larrabee technology. If they let any of that stuff near Atom multicore at 22mn, Intel is going to own the low cost credible gaming platform title. Loss of that title probably means game over for AMD. I predict that the final blow that does AMD in will be a double dead attack, Atom and Larrabee.

 

[bwcbwc]

[citation][nom]beenthere[/nom]While we would all have liked more from Zambezi, what AMD delivered is still a significant step forward on many fronts - especially for heavy processing loads, i.e server use - where Opteron 6200/4200's are selling VERY well. Let's not forget that AMD also has great demand for Llano APUs and trinity is not too far off, so consumers most definitely have more CPU/APU choices now than ever.[/citation]

I'll grant you that the performance profile on Bulldozer matches up better with server loads than desktop and graphics loads. But at this performance level they had to hit a 95-100W TDP envelope to be credible in either market. And they couldn't. For a 120-125W TDP, it should blow 2500K's socks off and run neck and neck with the 2600K. Especially at the price level they set.

I suppose there's a chance that some server niches will benefit from BD vs. SB and her cousins. But I can't think of any off-hand.

 

[bwcbwc]

[citation][nom]Infikiran[/nom].Looking at reviews, the FX8150 is not slaughtered by the 2600k, yes it does have the edge but the FX8150 does come close to matching it in some benchmarks. And yes it is on par with the 2500k on some things. So I would say from what I observed the FX8150 sits roughly between the 2500k and 2600k, in which case the price is fair.[/citation]
Well, there are some desktop tests where it can't even beat a 2100, so from my POV it rates somewhere between a 2400 and 2500K, and loses points from there because the performance profile is so unbalanced. If I was putting it on a server, I'd rank it about equal to a 2500k for performance, based on the heavier threaded workloads. But then you look at TDP and the 2500K pulls back ahead. An extra 30W per CPU adds up to a lot of extra cooling required in a data center.

 

[sayantan]

I think they should start manufacturing 32nm Deneb and Thuban with insanely high overclocking headroom and sell them at dirt cheap prices.At least they will have something to challenge Intel in sub $150 segment.

 

[striker410]

I think it's a bit of both. I for one was certainly looking for something to compete with Sandy Bridge, especially the 2500k. What we got instead was a system that is aimed more towards video production and servers, or the 2600k. the FX 8 cores CAN go toe to toe with the 2500k in these categories, but I was disappointed in it's gaming performance. I think with a bit of refinement, this system might overtake Intel. But for now? Bulldozer's gonna fall into obscurity after a few months, just like their Thuban 6-core's. I really do wish they could have pulled it off, my Athlon II is starting to show it's age xD

 

[rrr1431]

I never expected Bulldozer to beat Intel's best however I did expect it to be competitive at the very least with the i5. It seems that Intel will be in my next PC build.

 

[GustoGuy]

I believe that AMD will be able to get better performance out of this processor. Remember the original Phenom. It suffered from a TLB errata bug. AMD later corrected the microcode and updated the new cores to eliminate this problem. Also motherboard improvements with the 790 improvement in it northbridge also improved its overclock significantly. So don't count AMD out. Besides it not a slow processor. I believe it has a few bugs and AMD should have worked them out before it was released but in heavily threaded multithreaded aplications it scored very well. Lets see if AMD can make it better. Remember the original Phenom vrs the improved Phenom II. Amd got it right there and it scored just as well as the Intel Core duo chips after the upgrade to the Phenom II

 

[BaronMatrix]

All the info I remember was internal leaks.

AMD made ZERO OFFICIAL desktop perf estimates that I remember.

 

[ern88]

Don't forget. Not only does bulldozer hold the record for single core over clock. But it holds the record for power thirst as well!!!!

 

[Benihana]

They basically dropped a deuce without first raising the toilet seat cover.

 

[MasterMace]

We were told it was gonna challenge the i7 2600k. We find out it doesn't beat out the Phenom lineup. Talk about taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back..

 

[AMDkid1]

AMD over stepped themselves. However, as a Desktop CPU, what do I need 8-cores for really? There is No software for Desktop users i.e. gamers and multimedia, that put little or no demand on 8-cores. That is a lot of horsepower. Quad cores is just right for most any Desktop users applications. I blame the Media and AMD.

 

[AMDkid1]

Additionally, my question is how fast is fast enough?

 

[MasterMace]

No wonder they named it bullDOZER. They fell asleep at the wheel. The quad core is worse than the Phenoms, hell it's worse than the Athlons.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]By releasing Bulldozer, AMD is telling the world that it is now more than 3 years behind Intel because the i7 920 still kicks ass and that was released in late 2008.[/citation]
The i7 920 is not faster than Bulldozer, did you even look at the benchmarks?

 

[aniklues]

Bulldozer is a monster devouring all of your computer power, and then it generates a enormous heat. it is the real reason why I was disappointed at Bulldozer. TDP is too bad when compared with Sandy Bridge.

 

[Guest]

I'm AMD all the way. intel processing is sloppy and have a tendency to have more errors running windows. also amd is a better company just a crapy pr team however I would save for a bulldozer computer or even build one of my own because there won't be anything better than it from intel for some time