• 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 Bulldozer Finally!

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The article states that AMD gained 1.6% marketshare over the last year. At least their marketshare is not going down!! :p

BTW,what relevance is all of this to a thread about AMD Bulldozer??
Click to expand...

Take a look at the last 10 posts. The debate went from Bulldozer, to Intel vs AMD and how AMD are allegedly looking good to beat Intel.
 
sunama said:
Take a look at the last 10 posts. The debate went from Bulldozer, to Intel vs AMD and how AMD are allegedly looking good to beat Intel.
Click to expand...

I don't get your logic at all TBH. So if AMD can produce CPUs that compete well(or even beat) what Intel is making ATM under £200,how can that be a bad thing???:confused:

For instance,a Core i7 2600 is around £230,but if it was £190 to £200 it would increase my chance of getting one for a drop-in upgrade for my newest system.

Since the desktop CPU market is essentially a two horse race,competition is important. Its like with the GPU market,AMD and Nvidia competing with each other means we are getting some great graphics cards now for under £200.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I don't get your logic at all TBH. So if AMD can produce CPUs that compete well(or even beat) what Intel is making ATM under £200,how can that be a bad thing???:confused:

For instance,a Core i7 2600 is around £230,but if it was £190 to £200 it would increase my chance of getting one for a drop-in upgrade for my newest system.

Since the desktop CPU market is essentially a two horse race,competition is important. Its like with the GPU market,AMD and Nvidia competing with each other means we are getting some great graphics cards now for under £200.
Click to expand...

The GPU situation is different. "Throw more cores at it" sees gains in everything pretty much. AMD are VERY good there, and have always been my choice from the 4870x2 to the 5870, to a 5850, to another 5870, to a 5970, to my 6870 crossfire.

But with throwing more cores into a CPU, you're only seeing those gains in a few situations, you want a CPU with consistently brilliant performance, that is, and will continue to be Intel, until AMD can release chips that compete with near the same level of clock for clock performance.

The 8150 can beat the 2600k in 8 threaded app's, fair enough, I've been saying it should and will for months.

But for 1-6 threaded app's (Mainly 1-4) who's going to win? The 2600k.
Hell, in 1-4, the 2500k's going to best the 8150, it'll probably stand its ground in 6 threaded app's too, but take a beating in some app's, beat in others, much like the 1100T versus 2500k now.

To clarify ; We want a CPU that can compete in every situation, not the minority of situations.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
But with throwing more cores into a CPU, you're only seeing those gains in a few situations, you want a CPU with consistently brilliant performance, that is, and will continue to be Intel, until AMD can release chips that compete with near the same level of clock for clock performance.

The 8150 can beat the 2600k in 8 threaded app's, fair enough, I've been saying it should and will for months.

But for 1-6 threaded app's (Mainly 1-4) who's going to win? The 2600k.
Hell, in 1-4, the 2500k's going to best the 8150, it'll probably stand its ground in 6 threaded app's too, but take a beating in some app's, beat in others, much like the 1100T versus 2500k now.

To clarify ; We want a CPU that can compete in every situation, not the minority of situations.
Click to expand...

???

So someone stated AMD is in a better position to compete with Intel. So again why is it a bad thing??
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
???

So someone stated AMD is in a better position to compete with Intel. So again why is it a bad thing??
Click to expand...

But they're not in a better position to compete with Intel, because they're still not competing with Intel in the long run, except in the minority of situations, even then it's not clear cut.

They're in a good position when they're actually doing it.
 
Martini1991 said:
But they're not in a better position to compete with Intel, because they're still not competing with Intel in the long run, except in the minority of situations, even then it's not clear cut.

They're in a good position when they're actually doing it.
Click to expand...

But then according to the article the chap linked to it says they have gained marketshare against Intel during a recession?? Is the article in error??:confused:

But,surely according to what you say with Sandy Bridge wouldn't they actually have lost even more marketshare??
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
But then according to the article the chap linked to it says they have gained marketshare against Intel during a recession??

But,surely according to what you say with Sandy Bridge wouldn't they actually have lost even more marketshare??
Click to expand...

Total marketshare, not desktop only.
AMD have had some nice releases this year, they'll amount to the gain.

For all we know, they could have lost desktop share, but gained elsewhere, more than they lost.
 
Last edited:
sunama said:
It seems to me like you know stuff about CPU sales that nobody else knows.
Given that AMD is apparently doing so well and that in 2 years time, Intel will basically be flattened (which I don't believe for 1 second), perhaps you should buy some shares in AMD? What's holding you back?
Click to expand...


Please point out where I said Intel will be basically flattened, please, I dare you.

I said, very clearly that Llano is already competitive with Sandybridge as an APU, and infront of it in many situations, Trinity will improve the AMD APU significantly on both cpu and gpu, Intel doesn't have a significant update till Haswell in 2013. Exactly where in that did I say Intel will dissappear? APu's have no bearing on the server market, they have no bearing in high end gaming rigs, they will dominate the general home use market within a year with AMD and Intel realistically producing very little under £150 without a gpu in it, though AMD will continue to offer more cores + no gpu(bulldozer) or less cores + gpu(trinity) or less cores and less money(quad core bulldozers).

AMD can't produce more than well right now, they can't produce more than 20% of the chips the market needs, Intel could be on Core 2 duo's and they'd still have 80% market share.

AMD will have increasing production from mid next year, it will be 5-6 years before they could even approach being able to cater 50% of the market, and the demand isn't there yet, so its pretty much irrelevant.


sunama said:
OEM is where the big money is. I totally agree on that. Intel dominates in this arena, if only because they are "Intel".

But I think the argument here is about AMD producing a CPU which is better overall, than Intel, enthusiasts. In otherwords, for those of us who visit these forums.

I also love to wind up the AMD fan boys...it really gets their goat when they hear any derogatory comments regarding AMD. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, its pretty obvious, and thanks for admitting you're a troll.

Martini1991 said:
But they're not in a better position to compete with Intel, because they're still not competing with Intel in the long run, except in the minority of situations, even then it's not clear cut.

They're in a good position when they're actually doing it.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are, you keep missing this.

making up a random number for an example that won't be too far from the truth, 80% of people buy Sandybridges because the numbers look pretty from reviews, but they don't need any where near the power they buy.

Looking good in reviews, and newer benchmarks does help, secondly, servers will eat cores for breakfast, AMD's lack of profitability is NOT due to sucking in market share on desktops, but due to having crap market share in servers, where they are not quite non existant, but barely there and losing it by the day.

Being competitive in servers, where Bulldozer will excell, will absolutely and without question make them massively more competitive with Intel.

As software moves forwards, they use more threads, its really that simple, the fact that their are benchmarks that can use 8 threads, and are programs, encoding programs, and games available that can use 8 threads pretty much proves this.

Completely ignoring where software and the industry is going because you don't seem to like the fact that is where Bulldozer will do its best work, is just being either irritatingly dense, or ignoring it on purpose because you like having a go at AMD.

Being 5% behind in benchmarks, rather than 20-50% behind, is a huge step forward, you keep saying single thread performance hasn't improved, you keep saying it will ONLY show its performance in highly paralel situations, neither of these things is fact either.
 
Actually forget it, you're far too AMD biased, or anti Intel, I don't care which.
I've said multiple times, BD will be good for the future, right now? It's not, put whatever spin you want on that.
But if it's not a fact that it will only show its performance in highly parallel situations, I assume that means an FX4100 will match a 2500k? Obviously it won't, and the price will reflect this.

I'm not having ago at AMD, I like them, what I don't like is Bulldozer in its current state in the current affair of programs.
I'm a fan of value for money/performance for money, which is why tomorrow, I've got an AMD build, both CPU and GPU to do for a friend.
 
Last edited:
sunama said:
Intel has approximately 80% of the CPU market share.
Click to expand...

This is true. And just one more reason for me not to buy any Intel product. Seriously, I dont see a company attractive just because its a market leader, this kind of information has quite the opposite effect on me.

If AMD gets even close to the 2600K with BD that must be amazing, that means theyve done it with only 20% of resources that massive Intel has.
 
Martini1991 said:
The GPU situation is different. "Throw more cores at it" sees gains in everything pretty much. AMD are VERY good there, and have always been my choice from the 4870x2 to the 5870, to a 5850, to another 5870, to a 5970, to my 6870 crossfire.

But with throwing more cores into a CPU, you're only seeing those gains in a few situations, you want a CPU with consistently brilliant performance, that is, and will continue to be Intel, until AMD can release chips that compete with near the same level of clock for clock performance.

The 8150 can beat the 2600k in 8 threaded app's, fair enough, I've been saying it should and will for months.

But for 1-6 threaded app's (Mainly 1-4) who's going to win? The 2600k.
Hell, in 1-4, the 2500k's going to best the 8150, it'll probably stand its ground in 6 threaded app's too, but take a beating in some app's, beat in others, much like the 1100T versus 2500k now.

To clarify ; We want a CPU that can compete in every situation, not the minority of situations.
Click to expand...
as i said before i don't think/feel amd are trying to beat intel. i feel they focusing on improving performance from they last series/gen more than trying beat intel...
 
Last edited:
gareth170 said:
as i said before i don't think/feel amd are trying to beat intel. i feel they focusing on improving performance from they last series/gen more than trying beat intel...
Click to expand...

The two should go hand in hand.
Yes they're closer to Intel in heavily multi threaded benchmarks, that's the evidence that's there, I don't think anyone's denied that (Not aimed at you).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom