• 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.

Official Bulldozer Reviews

Phatzy said:
xchart.aspx


I stand corrected $7.5 ish sorry
Click to expand...

Well since the bad news official release its gone up a tad LOL.
Time to buy DM.

Its seems that the delay cost AMD allot and when the server version got released it went up again, then the desktop delay hurt again and the final desktop performance did the rest of the damage.
 
Last edited:
wait guys just remember this is the first new architecture in a long long time for amd and remember they didn't let go of there old one quickly, i believe they may be onto something if the stick to it and keep tuning it and refining it like there old stuff
 
ZZZAC said:
wait guys just remember this is the first new architecture in a long long time for amd and remember they didn't let go of there old one quickly, i believe they may be onto something if the stick to it and keep tuning it and refining it like there old stuff
Click to expand...

Kill me now.
 
Last edited:
ZZZAC said:
wait guys just remember this is the first new architecture in a long long time for amd and remember they didn't let go of there old one quickly, i believe they may be onto something if the stick to it and keep tuning it and refining it like there old stuff
Click to expand...

Yes but it seem they cut corners at the design process from the start, relying on to much automated design SW and not enough hand crafting as they put it.
 
Martini1991 said:
Like the original i7's sucked? Oh wait...
Click to expand...

i7 isn't based on new architecture though, it all stems from Pentium M, just highly refined.

Much like Phenom II is based on AMD64 technology.


Bulldozer is an entirely new architecture.

It's like when Intel went from Netburst to Core2, except in reverse. :o (OK that's a bit harsh, but you get the idea :D).
 
I just don't get the power usage though, it is totally mental. The silicon must have some serious issues for that amount of power, or it's doing a lot of things twice.
 
Heres what I think happened...

AMD decided around 5 years ago to set out on this new design, multicore was just coming onto the scene and they (for want of a better term) bet the farm, that in 5 years software would be more multicore aware / compatiable. This has not happened. They have done very similar things in the GPU area, not go for the fastest chip overall but go for bang for buck and encourage using more than 1 chip to get the performance.

I see them trying to do the same thing with bulldozer, but unlike the GPU area where they code the drivers and have significant developer buy in, they are at the mercy of developers who are coding in ways that are not "optimised" for bulldozer - and as it appears actually work against it.

This situation is unliukely to change significantly any time soon which is a shame for AMD.

As others have said, im surprised they didnt just look to do the basics well and try and hang with intel and encourage buyers on a bang for buck basis.

Whats going to happen now?

IMO we will see a "phenom II" type moment. I imagine they (AMD) are now furiously trying to make "piledriver" everything bulldozer should have been, and I would imagine they are now - or should be - focused on real world performance not labs performance on dozer optimised code........

Really hope they get it right next time as this was without doubt a bit of a dogs dinner, which was a real shame.
 
It seems strange how AMD remain competetive within the graphics market by keeping transistor counts low and maximising architectural efficiency, yet they go the complete opposite way with their processors and create an inefficient beast.

What I really do not understand is how a newer 32nm processor with 2bn transistors can be slower than Intel's "older" 32nm processor with less than half that number? On pure transistor count alone these chips will cost AMD twice as much to produce, even ignoring their higher probability of worse yields. If AMD wanted to compete in the low-mid end sectors only, they should have just die shrunk the Phenom II and produced a very cheap, yet pretty fast processor. I guess with hindsight things would have been done much differently.
 
Last edited:
So on another point, when AMD introduce the intergrated GPU to this processor, what is that going to perform like??!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom