AMD Bulldozer Finally!

[pooey]

They've probably researched their business model no?

 

[JasonM]

People in the middle are going to wait until the actual product is ready, they are not going to go on the word of a benchmark.

There are the following people in the market:

A. Intel loyalists, will only buy intel
B. AMD loyalists, will only buy AMD
C. The undecided, will buy what is best at the time that they are buying
D. Everyone else

Let's start with D first. The "everyone else" bucket is probably 80%+ of the market. They are going to buy based on something other than processor. We call them processor unaware. What kind of engine is in your car? What kind of transmission? While we all obsess about processors, the real world doesn't know/care. They worry about HD size, memory, screen, etc. For this group processor benchmarks don't matter because they don't know about processors. This is the group that might "wait it out because they heard there was a new model coming." They will buy whatever is in their budget range and will wait because they think they can get a lower price. So, they aren't going to buy bulldozer, they will still buy an athlon, only they will buy it a few months from now. Revenue delayed.

A will not buy bulldozer no matter what the benchmarks say
B will buy bulldozer no matter what the benchmarks say
C is a small slice of the processor aware market and while they might be swayed, they will probably not be swayed by a benchmark, they want real proof. Like 3rd party reviews.

The reality is that while you think that releasing benchmarks will get some people to jump ship, the majority of the processor aware market is biased in some manner so they just won't leave their current favorite, no matter what the numbers say.

One of the best posts i've read on a forum in long time, totally sums it up :up:

 

[JF-AMD]

Why would OEMs care, people who buy from OEM are not enthusiasts are not going to find out about benchmarks from enthusiast sites

And if they do find out about benchmarks then they must already know that BD is on the way and is better

Lastly SB is already better than anything AMD offers so people would be buying SB stuff from OEM anyway

The argument about OEM losing sales is totally flawed

If you read my post you would see that it is not the performance crowd. As soon as benchmarks come out, the general public gets antsy and thinks that they need to wait because they are about to pay too much for their mid-level PC. As soon as the new stuff comes out at the top, prices will drop across the board, so it is better to wait.

THAT is why the OEMs don't want benchmarks out there. It screws up the supply chain. Nobody makes money at the high end, the big money is in the middle and you don't want to mess with that. Is half a percent of share on the top worth risking the 50% of the market in the middle? Never.

AMD is not the only one doing this. When did intel's official benchmarks come out? at the SB launch. Very few people put benchmarks out ahead of the product. This industry knows all too well about the risks.

 

[theforce]

From what l know the general public doesn't read news regarding upcoming CPU architecture performance. Hell, the vast majority of the general public doesn't even know what brand of CPU they are using.

 

[Zarf]

From what l know the general public doesn't read news regarding upcoming CPU architecture performance. Hell, the vast majority of the general public doesn't even know what brand of CPU they are using.

Yes, but most people will know someone else who IS tech-savvy and ask for their advice before buying.

 

[Martini1991]

If you read my post you would see that it is not the performance crowd. As soon as benchmarks come out, the general public gets antsy and thinks that they need to wait because they are about to pay too much for their mid-level PC. As soon as the new stuff comes out at the top, prices will drop across the board, so it is better to wait.

THAT is why the OEMs don't want benchmarks out there. It screws up the supply chain. Nobody makes money at the high end, the big money is in the middle and you don't want to mess with that. Is half a percent of share on the top worth risking the 50% of the market in the middle? Never.

AMD is not the only one doing this. When did intel's official benchmarks come out? at the SB launch. Very few people put benchmarks out ahead of the product. This industry knows all too well about the risks.

Intels performance is proven in their previous CPU range, it's not going to be worse, it's going to be better.

You can't compare AMD's reluctance of Benchmarks with Intel.

 

[pspcpog]

People in the middle are going to wait until the actual product is ready, they are not going to go on the word of a benchmark.

There are the following people in the market:

A. Intel loyalists, will only buy intel
B. AMD loyalists, will only buy AMD
C. The undecided, will buy what is best at the time that they are buying
D. Everyone else

Let's start with D first. The "everyone else" bucket is probably 80%+ of the market. They are going to buy based on something other than processor. We call them processor unaware. What kind of engine is in your car? What kind of transmission? While we all obsess about processors, the real world doesn't know/care. They worry about HD size, memory, screen, etc. For this group processor benchmarks don't matter because they don't know about processors. This is the group that might "wait it out because they heard there was a new model coming." They will buy whatever is in their budget range and will wait because they think they can get a lower price. So, they aren't going to buy bulldozer, they will still buy an athlon, only they will buy it a few months from now. Revenue delayed.

A will not buy bulldozer no matter what the benchmarks say
B will buy bulldozer no matter what the benchmarks say
C is a small slice of the processor aware market and while they might be swayed, they will probably not be swayed by a benchmark, they want real proof. Like 3rd party reviews.

The reality is that while you think that releasing benchmarks will get some people to jump ship, the majority of the processor aware market is biased in some manner so they just won't leave their current favorite, no matter what the numbers say.

What I'm wondering is if this is based on quantifiable qualitative research or just a personal conviction. Where does that 80% figure come from?

 

[qbazdz]

I have to agree with JF-AMD...
Frankly speaking, how many of you who are considering BD and were on a brink of upgrading their rigs to SB after it came out, are hoping that the prices of intel and older AMD chips will drop after the launch?
So any official leak of info is only going to make sales stall as people who are not despare will wait.
Having said that, I believe this is actually what intel is waiting for. The moment AMD realeases their chip and they know where they stand in terms of performance and potential markets for SB and IB they will adjust their prices to take some sales out of BD if its close with performance while being cheaper (as we hope for).

In the end we all should be happy...
well... as long as BD can compete with SB (IB maybe...?) as intel can't inflate their prices too much than and both companies have to compete for the OEMs and enthusiast markets.

 

[deusexlumina]

common sense surely? we are enthusiasts who actually care about this sort of thing, but as such we are a very small percentage of the market.

How often do you strike up conversation with a friend about phenom II performance vs core2quad? I know i never talk about it apart from on here.

In fact it's likely higher than 85%. As JF-AMD has said most people are processor unaware. Its amazing but most people think that a computer with "more memory" and a "hd screen" with a nice looking case will be faster and better than other computers with better core components.

 

[JF-AMD]

Intels performance is proven in their previous CPU range, it's not going to be worse, it's going to be better.

You can't compare AMD's reluctance of Benchmarks with Intel.

AMD's performance will be better than current products as well.

What I'm wondering is if this is based on quantifiable qualitative research or just a personal conviction. Where does that 80% figure come from?

There is quantifiable research. The "processor unaware" number is between 80-90% of the market. If I recall correctly, enthusiasts are ~4% of the overall market.

Processor unaware does not mean that they don't know what a processor is or they don't know the models, it means that a.) they don't know if processor x is better than processor y and that b.) when deciding on a computer they are choosing elements other than processor.

When you bought your last car, did you enquire about the brand of the engine? We all know that there are different engines. You probably went as far as to note the number of cylindars (i.e. number of cores) and *maybe* you noticed the horsepower (i.e. clock speed). But could you correlate all of the engine specs? How many of us even know what kind of engine is in their car? I only know I bought an infiniti, I don't know who built the engine. Nor do I care. But some sliver of the car market cares. The rest, like most of us, are "engine unaware." That does not make us stupid, it is just not something that matters to us.

If you don't believe an 80% number, do this. Go to a grocery store or a mall, stop 10 random people. Ask them what kind of processor they have. Maybe you will will get "intel" or "amd" out of half. Maybe 1 will be able to give you the model number. The vast market doesn't obsess on processors like this crowd will.

I can tell you ever single part on my bike, down the the stem length and angle (Thomson elite, 90mm, 5deg rise) but I don't even know who makes my car engine.

 

[WingZero30]

Its amazing but most people think that a computer with "more memory" and a "hd screen" with a nice looking case will be faster and better than other computers with better core components.

Should just chuck an ancient cpu in general populations 'nice' looking PCs as you mentioned and then see the horrors on their faces when they can't even multi task.

 

[JF-AMD]

What if nice is more important than fast? What if they never need to multi-task?

If anyone on this thread owns a mountain bike I can guarantee you that I have a better bike than you. But I won't mock your shocks or your bike brand because it probably does everything you need it to do.

I don't apply my needs to your decision; folks should do the same for computers. Everyone buy what you need.

If in the case above you only do one thing at a time, then why does multi-tasking even matter?

 

[deusexlumina]

Should just chuck an ancient cpu in general populations 'nice' looking PCs as you mentioned and then see the horrors on their faces when they can't even multi task.

Exactly lol, and another "issue" that is cropping up more and more is that many people will think a "RAM upgrade" will cure everything.

Honestly the amount of terms ive heard:

"ahh my computer is so slow" --> "needs a RAM upgrade mate"

or even to my surprise:

"my computer wont play DVD's correctly"

"needs more RAM mate"

Ignorance is the main enemy of the computing market IMO, and unfortunately some companies have cottened on and have started to take advantage of it.

Back on topic: I can see why no benchmarks have been released and fully understand it. What i don't understand is why it's taken so long to get it out of the door. Im sure AMD have thier reasons but getting bulldozer out there during the whole sandybridge SATA issue period would have been ansolutely golden, and *really* injured the reputation of intel for this generation.

 

[Moodle]

"my computer wont play DVD's correctly"

"needs more RAM mate"

Lol, thats pretty funny

 

[zoomee]

Bad analogy JF

Let me see - I own a VW car - VW makes the engine!
If you had a Honda - I'd probably be guessing right that Honda made the engine

LOL - only playing dude. I do see the point your making and agree.

Excuse my impatience if its beginning to show :>

 

[Martini1991]

AMD's performance will be better than current products as well.

That's a given. But that's a cop out reply.
My reply regarding Intel was that Intel was already in the lead, AMD are far far behind in performance per core. Because of all the AMD "Hush Hush" and their "AM3+ only for BD for official support" I sold my AMD 6 core and CH4 set up for an Intel Sandy Bridge.. Wish I'd been able to stay AMD personally.

 

[1kiwi]

I assume that this forum however is more concerned about performance, whether it be out of the box or overclocked. If for instance BD was not quite as fast as a 2600K but overclocked to a speed when it was faster than say my 2600K I would upgrade. I'm not specifically an Intel fan, I just want the fasterest chip I can afford.

 

[KelDG]

Bad analogy JF

Let me see - I own a VW car - VW makes the engine!
If you had a Honda - I'd probably be guessing right that Honda made the engine

LOL - only playing dude. I do see the point your making and agree.

Excuse my impatience if its beginning to show :>

Its a pretty good analogy. My dads Volvo has an Audi engine, the same car 5 years ago had a Volvo engone. My SEAT has a VW engine and so did my *cringe* old skoda. My mates Lotus Exige has a Toyota engine. I keep telling my mate my VW engine in my old skoda is better than his Toyota engine in his exige, I can't convince him to swap cars tho

 

[Hagar]

Its not just about the 'engine' though, the analogy is the car. You can have a 300bhp engine in a rubbish chassis, you will be fast but you will crash.

I would look at the CPU sure, but I would also look at a bulletproof chipset with all the bells and whistles required to support the latest hardware.

I still believe that AMD make better chipsets and so would be persuaded to buy BD even if it was not quite so quick out of the box as SB.

Most higher end CPU's are capable of 99.99% of all tasks. If you game then the GPU is as important or more so than the CPU.

Reliability is more important than raw speed. The CPU is one component of several that makes a fast PC.

andy.

 

[JF-AMD]

Back on topic: I can see why no benchmarks have been released and fully understand it. What i don't understand is why it's taken so long to get it out of the door. Im sure AMD have thier reasons but getting bulldozer out there during the whole sandybridge SATA issue period would have been ansolutely golden, and *really* injured the reputation of intel for this generation.

Well, we could have tried to rush it out the door. But, then again, you already brought up the SB SATA issue. You release the products when they are fully tested, not before.