AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Sin_Chase · 3 Aug 2011 at 09:41

qbazdz said:
It is more important to get it right and slip on the schedule instead of having a flop like SB mobos had with the first rev.

Except SB flew out the door, even with the issue known.

Most of us know the enthusiast market is a drop in the ocean with regards to overall sales so in the grand scheme of things WHEN it comes out is largely irrelevant. It would be nice however, in the context of the enthusiast market, to get competing technologies out at near equal times. Might help pricing if not anything else!

drunkenmaster · 3 Aug 2011 at 10:47

MichaelM said:
Recent AMD forcast:

March -
April -
May -
June -
July -
August -

And that concludes my recap of this thread.

AMD have never at any stage made a release date, some people very stupidly around the time of this thread took Fudzilla's word for gospel and thought AMD was going to publically show Bulldozer at a trade show in march/april time frame, they were only ever going to show it privately and its a big step that other websites suggested was happening. Thats when this thread popped up saying it was launching soon, it never was.

The earliest it was ever going to launch was July, that wasn't official, it was just a possibility.

People hype themselves up over a fake date of fake information(think certain people saying a 6970 was going to be 40% faster than a 580gtx) then get upset with the company rather than THEMSELVES for being gullible and believing something a few anti AMD websites spout.

Martini1991 · 3 Aug 2011 at 10:55

AMD stated 60-90 days June 1st, who the hell thought it was a July launch, unless their maths sucks? August 1st was the earliest, but seems they've missed that 60-90 day window, as I expect September... I said that in August 2010 actually

There's an AMD Launch event this month for a "Significant product" if I remember the wording, though, that at this time could either be 7XXX or BD.

qbazdz · 3 Aug 2011 at 12:20

Sin_Chase said:
Except SB flew out the door, even with the issue known.

Most of us know the enthusiast market is a drop in the ocean with regards to overall sales so in the grand scheme of things WHEN it comes out is largely irrelevant. It would be nice however, in the context of the enthusiast market, to get competing technologies out at near equal times. Might help pricing if not anything else!

I know, but take into account the losses that everyone had to make due to this flop. I saw some figures and they were at least 6 digits long.
I don't think enthusiasts were the problem as we don't mind having the mobo swapped for a new one later on, but all the oem's must have struggled. Don't know if the problem affected laptop market at all but if it did, it must have been a real pain to deal with.

Also, SB was much better in terms of performance from anything there was so no wonder it sold so well. I guess AMD might have chosen to deal with it in a different manner then intel or maybe... intel didn't know about the issue till they released the hardware to the general public.

Scougar · 3 Aug 2011 at 12:31

Seems like forever since this thread started... at least by the time I get to buy new kit i will know whether it's worth buying BD or not over sandy (or possibly ivy).

SlugForAButt · 4 Aug 2011 at 02:02

Seems Jordan97 is trying to recreate this thread.

I've got to say, this thread has become an institution as far as I'm concerned. It almost rivals the This Instant & Moment thread in GD.
This is the equivalent of reading the daily paper for me, I find myself dropping into it daily at work or at home.
Is it just me?

zoomee · 4 Aug 2011 at 02:20

SlugForAButt said:
Seems Jordan97 is trying to recreate this thread.
I've got to say, this thread has become an institution as far as I'm concerned. It almost rivals the This Instant & Moment thread in GD.
This is the equivalent of reading the daily paper for me, I find myself dropping into it daily at work or at home.
Is it just me?

lol +1 mate

phil128 · 6 Aug 2011 at 14:47

With regards to the power saving feature in BD Intel implemented this in their 80 core CPU (2007) prototype, by switching off cores to save power. How come Intel don't implement this in their modern CPU's!

Kinda crap I think.

Judgeneo · 6 Aug 2011 at 14:58

phil128 said:
With regards to the power saving feature in BD Intel implemented this in their 80 core CPU (2007) prototype, by switching off cores to save power. How come Intel don't implement this in their modern CPU's!

Kinda crap I think.

80!!!!! lol

Intel will likely implement it at some stage, whats the point in putting all your best tech into your CPUs when its possible to beat the competition without it. Then when the competition catches up, you can introduce all these advancements to go ahead again.

phil128 · 6 Aug 2011 at 15:15

Judgeneo said:
80!!!!! lol

Intel will likely implement it at some stage, whats the point in putting all your best tech into your CPUs when its possible to beat the competition without it. Then when the competition catches up, you can introduce all these advancements to go ahead again.

So hopefully Ivy will feature this power saving feature. I'm very much aware about power saving now. Our bills a quarter were 300 quid. My PC is constantly on too, even with speedstep etc. I'm drawing 550Watts from the wall when I'm playing games. This is mainly due to I'm using an HDTV (changing it next month for a monitor, should some power).

It just annoys me when, that over the years we're be coming more "greener friendly" and Intel have had the tech to reduce power in CPU's. I guess that's communism for ya.

Pickman · 6 Aug 2011 at 18:14

phil128 said:
It just annoys me when, that over the years we're be coming more "greener friendly" and Intel have had the tech to reduce power in CPU's. I guess that's communism for ya.

Sorry, what is 'communism for ya'?

drunkenmaster · 6 Aug 2011 at 20:25

You do realise Intel have fantastic low power CPU's at the moment, and they can and do turn off cores, so you're basically talking rubbish, and turning off cores wouldn't save power while you're actually gaming anyway. Also yeah, a big stonking 32-50" lcd can easily suck 100-200W, a plama more AFAIK, while a good LED based 1920x1080 24" panel can use as little as 25-30W.

pmc25 · 6 Aug 2011 at 21:18

drunkenmaster said:
You do realise Intel have fantastic low power CPU's at the moment, and they can and do turn off cores, so you're basically talking rubbish, and turning off cores wouldn't save power while you're actually gaming anyway. Also yeah, a big stonking 32-50" lcd can easily suck 100-200W, a plama more AFAIK, while a good LED based 1920x1080 24" panel can use as little as 25-30W.

The point is that they don't have the kind of advanced clock gating features that Bulldozer does on their higher power desktop chips. Not that they're in quite such need of it, as they have a maximum of 6 cores at the moment - nevertheless they'd benefit from it.

Also, Intel's laptop CPUs still don't have quite such advanced power saving features as Bulldozer, from what I can gather.

nightrider1470 · 7 Aug 2011 at 00:07

cool news

Pate · 7 Aug 2011 at 02:30

nightrider1470 said:
cool news

What news?

d_brennen · 7 Aug 2011 at 02:35

pmc25 said:
The point is that they don't have the kind of advanced clock gating features that Bulldozer does on their higher power desktop chips. Not that they're in quite such need of it, as they have a maximum of 6 cores at the moment - nevertheless they'd benefit from it.

Also, Intel's laptop CPUs still don't have quite such advanced power saving features as Bulldozer, from what I can gather.

But BD isn't here yet, it may as well not exist. Intel power efficiency/perf is unrivalled in x86 space

RollerBall · 7 Aug 2011 at 03:33

Are there any benchies about yet?

tigerstyle · 7 Aug 2011 at 05:42

Long thread I tried to read but took too long, sorry:

Is Bulldozer going to have a direct competitor for the Intel i3 2100 chip?
Something small light and fast!

Does Bulldozer mean the Llano line of CPUs is going to be left behind?

Martini1991 · 7 Aug 2011 at 08:38

tigerstyle said:
Long thread I tried to read but took too long, sorry:

Is Bulldozer going to have a direct competitor for the Intel i3 2100 chip?
Something small light and fast!

Does Bulldozer mean the Llano line of CPUs is going to be left behind?

Llano is meant for budget PC's, funnily enough, despite its fairly hefty price for what it is.
Llano is left behind anyways as far as CPU performance is concerned, what is important is its IGP.

Gashman · 7 Aug 2011 at 14:00

Martini1991 said:
Llano is meant for budget PC's, funnily enough, despite its fairly hefty price for what it is.
Llano is left behind anyways as far as CPU performance is concerned, what is important is its IGP.

Llano for me is a vanguard product, its creating a market in which AMD can excel due to the fact they have upcoming 'high performance' architecture in Bulldozer and own ATI, with their upcoming 7*** series graphics processors, don't think Intel can realistically compete in that area of the market since their solutions will always fall short of the tried and tested expertise that ATI bring to the equation.

lots of people thought purchasing ATI was a foolish piece of business, but for the upcoming market I think it was a true masterstroke and gives AMD a chance to really leave Intel behind in a specific area of the market, Llano beats Intel in the area is it supposed to, simple as that really.

Bulldozer 'phase I' as I will call it I think is another vanguard, a proof of concept test for AMD, the real fight is coming next year with the first generation of Bulldozer/Fusion processors, what they really need to do is get Bulldozer closer to Sandy Bridge in clock for clock performance. if they manage to reduce the deficit to say 15 - 20% clock for clock, Intel should be worried when they start ramping up clock speeds more (since Bulldozer is clearly a high frequency design) and combining them with GPUs in socket FM2.

also the biggest market, the server market is where Bulldozer is really targeted, so whatever happens in the desktop market is a bonus for AMD, as long as Bulldozer makes an impact in the server area then they can start clawing back some lost ground to Intel and start strengthening their position in the market again, not sure if Bulldozer is the second coming of K8 as there is insufficient material to judge, but it is a directed and bold move on AMDs part which I can't see being a failure.