AMD Bulldozer Finally!

[opethdisciple]

Supposedly Bulldozer selling well.

 

[mmj_uk]

Supposedly Bulldozer selling well.

Just a positive marketing spin, of course it's selling out stock has been poor to the point where only pre-orders have been fulfilled.

Of course, getting sold out could be indicative that the inventories of such CPUs aren't all that big

 

[sunama]

AMD need to ramp up production. There is clearly a demand, but AMD can't seem to get their CPUs out to retail in decent quantities.

 

[Martini1991]

AMD need to ramp up production. There is clearly a demand, but AMD can't seem to get their CPUs out to retail in decent quantities.

Yeah, all those people who bought AM3+ boards with interim CPU's, or the people who will buy them regardless of their performance.

 

[sunama]

Believe me, there are lot of people who are not the nerdy types (which we are) and they will buy them regardless, if the price/core makes sense.

AMD can definitely sell more of these, but only if they can make them faster. At present supply is barely satiating demand.

 

[Martini1991]

Oh, I know that they'll sell, maybe not as much to the enthusiasts compared to Phenom II's however.

 

[Tuvoc]

Yes the average man in the street will buy it. 6 cores and 8 cores impresses people.

 

[blackninja]

Believe me, there are lot of people who are not the nerdy types (which we are) and they will buy them regardless, if the price/core makes sense.

AMD can definitely sell more of these, but only if they can make them faster. At present supply is barely satiating demand.

If they did that significantly I'd probably buy one ... my 920 rig is heading for home server duty and looking for new kit to replace it.

 

[Deleted member 70857]

If they did that significantly I'd probably buy one ... my 920 rig is heading for home server duty and looking for new kit to replace it.

I think he means produce them faster, not up the clock speed

 

[ng93]

I think he means produce them faster, not up the clock speed

Yeah the performance is good enough that the uninformed (of which there are a huge amount) will lap up the 6 and 8 core models.

 

[sunama]

I think he means produce them faster, not up the clock speed

Yes...sorry...I was too ambiguous.

They need to manufacture them at a faster rate, to increase supply.
Lack of supply is their main problem at present, because there are clearly plenty of people willing to buy them, at current (inflated) prices.

 

[BigAndy87]

Never mind.

 

[Gashman]

to manufacture them faster, they need to stop messing around with the insane die-size, make a one with two modules and no pointless four Hyper Transport connects and they'll get much better yields, plus better thermals and power consumption one would imagine.

Edit: also don't know if anyone is interested by the transistor count was wrong all along, the transistor count for Bulldozer (8***) is 1.2B rather than the insane 2.0B that was around. so in that respect it seems like much more competitive vs. Intel processors, since a lot of the anti-Bulldozer arguments were based around transistor counts and die-size, still got no idea why the die-size is so big, could be something to do with Global Foundries issues?

 

[Tuvoc]

AMD Shifts Course from Intel Rivalry

http://www.pcworld.com/article/245365/amd_shifts_course_from_intel_rivalry.html#tk.nl_dnx_h_crawl

 

[layte]

to manufacture them faster, they need to stop messing around with the insane die-size, make a one with two modules and no pointless four Hyper Transport connects and they'll get much better yields, plus better thermals and power consumption one would imagine.

Edit: also don't know if anyone is interested by the transistor count was wrong all along, the transistor count for Bulldozer (8***) is 1.2B rather than the insane 2.0B that was around. so in that respect it seems like much more competitive vs. Intel processors, since a lot of the anti-Bulldozer arguments were based around transistor counts and die-size, still got no idea why the die-size is so big, could be something to do with Global Foundries issues?

That's still roughly equal with Intel's much faster (but more expensive) Gulftown series.

 

[sunama]

to manufacture them faster, they need to stop messing around with the insane die-size, make a one with two modules and no pointless four Hyper Transport connects and they'll get much better yields, ...

So, just to clarify, are you suggesting that AMD go back to the drawing board and redesign the CPU? IF this is the case, surely this would be an absolute (financial) disaster as they will have to create an all new CPU, then run simulations, then instruct the CPU factories of the new CPU design. To do all this takes a lot of time and certainly is not a quick fix. It may end up taking them another year to make all these modifications, by which time, Intel will have brought out Ivybridge. By this time, AMD will not longer be competing against Sandybridge the even faster Ivybridge.

The way I see it, is that AMD have come too far now. They have to persist with their new CPU design and see it through.

 

[Gashman]

So, just to clarify, are you suggesting that AMD go back to the drawing board and redesign the CPU? IF this is the case, surely this would be an absolute (financial) disaster as they will have to create an all new CPU, then run simulations, then instruct the CPU factories of the new CPU design. To do all this takes a lot of time and certainly is not a quick fix. It may end up taking them another year to make all these modifications, by which time, Intel will have brought out Ivybridge. By this time, AMD will not longer be competing against Sandybridge the even faster Ivybridge.

The way I see it, is that AMD have come too far now. They have to persist with their new CPU design and see it through.

no, not at all! the design by its very nature is modular, the whole idea is so one can add and subtract modules without any real effort, i.e. no need to go back to the drawing board. so why they don't show off the merits of their M-SPACE modular design by simply removing two of the modules and making a two module chip instead of using all four module (some with one disabled, some with two) to improve their margins makes no sense.

also 1.2B transistors isn't too bad, sure its still a load but then Bulldozer with its complicated yet simplified design was always going to be quite heavy on the transistor count. but the count is still not as bad as one would think, it has eight integer cores, four complicated floating-point units and an absolute ton of cache, it only has ~300 million more than Thuban, so it hasn't worked out too badly in that respect.

the four Hyper Transport connects have no use in the desktop space either, so if the design is indeed modular, then take them off and stop adding pointless things to an already large die, as far as I know those connects are more for the server side of things rather than desktop.

 

[Deleted member 70857]

the four Hyper Transport connects have no use in the desktop space either, so if the design is indeed modular, then take them off and stop adding pointless things to an already large die, as far as I know those connects are more for the server side of things rather than desktop.

But then surly the argument comes in where it would cost more to manufacturer two different products.
I am sure it is cheaper for them to just disable modules than it is to produce a different CPU without the module.

I agree that by doing it the way that they are doing it now, that they are wasting resources. at the end of the day though it all comes down in what is cheaper for them to produce

 

[opethdisciple]

Has any one tested Win 8 gaming performance with a Bulldozer?

Is that even possible at this early stage?

 

[Martini1991]

If you use the Windows 8 preview I suppose you could.