-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD admit Bulldozer has 800 Million less transistors than originally stated!!
- Thread starter richb93
- Start date
thing is though, each new deal puts more of their products out their, which will increase their brand awareness, more people will know who Advanced Micro Devices are which is only good in the long run. plus console deals are very very lucrative, so supplying graphics processors, or even accelerated processing units to Sony or Microsoft, or both? will do great things for their revenue and again put them one up on the competition, granted it won't help them in the desktop market but it will allow them to grow as a company, which in turn will help them in the desktop market. since the biggest thing they need right now is sales, to shift a lot of their Bulldozer processors and Llano processors, the more the better for their status as a company. 
as far as whether the deals are true or not, unlike their rival in the graphics market they are actually on schedule and expecting good availability with the next generation of graphics processors, same thing with Trinity, so that would put them in a great place to compete for console deals.
as far as whether the deals are true or not, unlike their rival in the graphics market they are actually on schedule and expecting good availability with the next generation of graphics processors, same thing with Trinity, so that would put them in a great place to compete for console deals.
yeh, or shovel, or perhaps trowel...
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 2,380
- Location
- Crawley/Gatwick
Pretty happy to hear how badly dozer flopped, and i was waiting for that thing for a while.. was dozer ready rig, lost a bit of money going to intel but compared to i5k.. i wont even start..
em..so..this Failldozzer saga wasnt even finished yet? Oh dear...
And DM at his best with his fanboyism yet again LOL
So if amd were made this pile of fail cpu's with all transistors they wanted,what cooling solution you must use then?
Really - this failldozzer is worst ever cpu..Only sad for ati,with amd "engineers" they surely will make another "fastest" single gpu
And DM at his best with his fanboyism yet again LOL
So if amd were made this pile of fail cpu's with all transistors they wanted,what cooling solution you must use then?
Really - this failldozzer is worst ever cpu..Only sad for ati,with amd "engineers" they surely will make another "fastest" single gpu
I hope you will also be happy to pay whatever prices Intel decide to charge in a stagnant marketplace once competition is dead then.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 2,380
- Location
- Crawley/Gatwick
your comment is irrelevant, can you remember how much amd was charing for cpu's back in a day? Now they charge a lot less, becouse their product is [ insert your own word here ] and they trick you into thinking you are paying less, in reality your electricity bill will tell you otherwise. Another fun fact, HDD's are made by loads of manufacturers, however becouse of some [cool story bro ] flood they went in price worldwide. If Intel wanted to upp the price, they would.
I remember one of AMD's best CPUs in that era which was roughly equivalent to the 2500k today for bang for buck was the Opty 144 - £120 at the start of 2006.
Check the prices for yourself.
indeed, for pricing AMD have always been better than Intel. bought an Athlon X2 3800+ (no idea where the prices above are from!?) not long after release, was fast as hell at the time on my ASUS A8N-SLI premium board, would stamp all over any Intel processor of the time and was well priced. same thing goes for the 3200+ 'Venice' processor I had in my machine before that, reasonably priced with fantastic bang for buck.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
No, its a server chip they sell for a crapload more than Sandybridge's in the server segment. Intel sell the SB-E in servers, and that is 435mm2.
trinity is the planned equivalent for Sandybridge, its likely to have either no L3, or not much, which will likely cut the die size down considerably.
Yes, Nvidia also sell their chips as higher end much more expensive chips, and that is a viable plan, however Bulldozer is the FIRST of what will likely be 8-10 various incarnations of the same architecture, first chip ALWAYS is less efficient, ALWAYS. We have no idea why its inefficient. The 5870 had roughly 10-15% increase in die size purely to account for process problems, we have no idea how much that might account for it. If you look at die shots of Bulldozer, LONG before launch people were looking at it and saying, errrr.... about 30-35% of the chip is EMPTY. Is this due to design, clock speed, or the process simply requiring enough space around the "fast bits" to work, is this because of the process full stop, or the process problems which will be rectified.
No, I didn't think either of you had accounted for that, If I added that in as well, I'd only get bashed for making a longer post and you wouldn't read it, see how easy it is for a fanboy(bhavv) to nullify anything logical you post, while his general contribution is "lol, its crap, yeah, woo, you're a fanboy".
ANyway back to Nvidia, the 580gtx is both a proper GPU part intended for anyone that wants one and a lower volume professional/gpgpu card, Bulldozer is really just the SB-E, its not intended to be high volume, it was NEVER going to get everything right on the first go, it has HUGE potential and should have no problem identifying the least efficient parts and improving them. Essentially the worse a chip starts off, the bigger the gains to be made. Considering it can already beat the 2500k and sometimes the 2600k, gains WILL make it very competitive.
As for cost, firstly AMD are paying for yields on 32nm, not per wafer, and secondly, its smaller than a x6 thuban, and faster or not it has higher demand due to being an easier PR sell than a thuban, its new, its octo core and it CAN beat a 2600k in a few benchmarks, Thuban CAN'T beat the 2600k, Bulldozer can...... yet people categorically call it slower, it's beyond absurd.
Trinty should be much better on size, 2 modules swapped for a gpu, and the l3 gone, hopefully most if not all of the wasted die space also removed.......
How does SB-E look in performance in what most people use vs SB non E, pretty awful, that's what happens when you add more cores and stupid amount of L3 cache to feed them all. a quad core with smaller or no l3, entirely different prospect.
You wonder why the marketing team was the first to go, Bulldozer as it was released shouldn't have been marketed as anything but a server chip, because it isn't anything but a server chip. Should it still be better, yes, do we know, does a single person have the slightest clue where the problem lies, no. If Piledriver and more importantly Steamroller(due likely not too far off from Haswell) both suck, that is a big problem, Bulldozer not being epic the first time out on a from all accounts not working great process, its not bad.
Expectations are the problem, people expect a company with a minuscule budget in comparison to produce a chip that spanks Intel, it is truly laughable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,258
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Really? ARM has even less money then AMD but produces much better CPU's for mobile devices then Intel so it's not all about money. And it's not as if Bulldozer was cheap to either, how long was spent on it's development? 5 years? With that kind time period for R&D on a single design the money spent on it means billions would have been spent on it so unless Windows 8 is the magic that can really show off what Bulldozer can do AMD would have been better off tweaking existing designs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,067
Although I get your angle, comparing companies based on budget and size of company etc is irrelevant. We would never know where Intel would be if their R&D spending was half. Why? Because it's irrelevant. The fact is that Intel has grown/developed as a company to what it is today and have R&D budgets and staffing levels because of their success. AMD is where it is today. We could ask where AMD would be today if they had a budget twice the size. That's irrelevant also and we can NOT guess where they'd be, they might actually not be any better as a company.
I think it's kind of human nature to support the underdog. Heck I do it myself also,but only when I know/think it's completely justified.
I think we'd better hope the next series of AMD graphics cards get good reviews.
I've used AMD/Ati products in the past and hope they can compete in the future.
And as Freddie has said, look at ARM. They're now looking at developing server chips now too if I remember correctly.
Last edited:
"Always" is a very broad time spectrum, you quote two cpus from the mid-noughties when AMD were arguably best value (hence I also had a Venice) but in more recent times Intel have matched AMD. Take the 2500K for example, since that was released AMD haven't had a faster cpu available for less (ignoring a few scenarios). In fact since the Core 2 range I'd say Intel have been able to match AMD in the enthusiast sector. When you factor in overclocking Intel is even more competitive.
How many of these server chips do they actually sell? Here is a hint? Not many. Why? The performance is poor in all but the most highly threaded applications.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4230309/IDC--PC-processor-sales-rose-12--in-Q3
The 62xx range are just managing to hold onto the coat trails of Intel's well established hex core 56xx chips (that's 8 core 16 thread parts not managing to beat 6 core 12 thread parts fact fans). I'd imagine the imminent release of SB based Xeons will utterly crush them.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5058/amds-opteron-interlagos-6200
As for your poor attempts to brush off the obvious design flaws in the chip, well I just had a chuckle to myself. The chips are hotter, more expensive to manufacture due to taking up 45% more die space and are unable to be sold at a higher price due to performance deficits (but.. but.. BD wins a few tests, so what? the Intel chips win the vast majority) in comparison to the i5/i7 chips, but for some strange reason you give them a free pass on these things and waffle on about future potential. Here is something for you to think about when looking at the value of your AMD shares, if they don't sort things out soon, they wont have a future. ARM are looking to get into the server market, and I can very well see things getting into a two horse race between them and Intel, and we know Intel have their radical 22nm designed chips in volume production right now things really do look bad for AMD. BD is looking to be a disaster, it has certainly been a PR one so far, the next series of GPU's keep slipping back and they have nothing at all to compete in the ultra low voltage mobile space (something the previous CEO got the boot for). Infact it would not surprise me if they picked up a ARM license and attempted to produce their own Tegra style chip, as continuing to try and slug it out with Intel in the high performance x86 space seems to be a battle they are destined to lose. Given they have access to their own (well kinda) manufacturing capability this could be a winner for them. Integrating some of their existing technology with ARM core designs could produce some very viable ultra dense highly threaded servers (think SPARC Tx chips). At the very least it would differentiate their offerings from Intel's approach.
Last edited:
AMD dont have the finance it would cost to compete with Sony / MS in the console market (or nintendo in the mainly portable one), plus I think they would probably struggle to come up with an OS (albeit that it wouldnt need to be anywhere as complex as Windows) - thats even before getting software companies to develop for the new console
I suppose they could go for an expanded mobile o/s, but with no similar hardware its a big ? performance wise without even considering the complexity of writing performance drivers for gfx etc for hardware designed for Windows
Remember everyone thought it was a huge gamble for Sony when the first PS came out and that was when Sony was MEGA successful at 90% of what it did
I just cant see it happening at all
I suppose they could go for an expanded mobile o/s, but with no similar hardware its a big ? performance wise without even considering the complexity of writing performance drivers for gfx etc for hardware designed for Windows
Remember everyone thought it was a huge gamble for Sony when the first PS came out and that was when Sony was MEGA successful at 90% of what it did
I just cant see it happening at all
I was never into AMD,their best try at defeating Intel was the X6 series of processors(mostly X6 1100T-1090T) and by ''killing'' them,they just destroyed themselves in the CPU market(at least they are looking strong on the GPU market with the 7000 series coming up).
So,nothing really for me
So,nothing really for me
clearly not around during the glory days of K8 I would guess? which knocked Intel round the face a couple times!
The AMD64 series owned...