Fudzilla: Bulldozer performance figures are in

[ed29a]

I'd say that it might be very difficult for AMD marketing to try and sucker... er... convince the enthusiast community that Trinity is just around the corner and it will be blah blah blah blah (all the same apparently baseless crap we've had shoveled about BD for years).

My good sir, I admire your belief that enthusiasts matter for Intel or AMD.

 

[bridito]

All the chances are that Zambezi @ 3.6Ghz won't outperform SB-E 6C @ 3.3Ghz,both with Turbo.BUT it should come close enough,difference of roughly 11% or so by my estimate(my estimate for average performance on desktop ,based on hardware.fr test results-I explained how I've got there in my blog).If AMD launches 8170 with 3.8Ghz default clock then they will be even closer to top performance crown. Westmere 6C will still be a contender to both though,but with its high price and dead end platform,I suppose very small number of enthusiasts will opt for it.
As for 2600K,Zambezi 8C will probably outperform it,but 2600K is strong because desktop workloads don't favor many cores that much.

I respect your calculations and conclusions, but I personally feel far too burned by the slew of faked benchmarks issuing from turkeys in Turkey which have clouded the entire BD issue to place my trust in anything but fully indy benchies on production released CPUs.

My good sir, I admire you belief that enthusiasts matter for Intel or AMD.

Yes, I know that servers come first, but I still do believe that there is a market for enthusiasts and neither manufacturer would consider it a good business practice to ignore that market.

 

[ed29a]

Ignore? No. Not focus on it? Yes.

That's why we'll have Bulldozer for desktops. Enthusiast market is a drop in a bucket compared to vendors like Dell, Hp or others. It would be an economic suicide to focus on enthusiast market and ignore your bread and butter. You might not like it, I might not like it, but c'est la vie. I can bitch and moan that companies don't make good drivers for Linux or that some companies don't support Linux, guess what? It makes no economic sense for them. Same way that AMD doesn't put all their efforts into getting Bulldozer desktop out of the door and doesn't make sure it is very competitive. It makes no economic sense for them when they can focus on server, Brazos and Llano.

 

[Mr Vain]

Umm...ARM moving into lower market segments will actually hurt AMD first because that's their "battleground".

AMD and ARM join forces at last

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/22/amd-and-arm-join-forces-at-last/

 

[Cogman]

AMD and ARM join forces at last

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/22/a...orces-at-last/

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/22/amd-and-arm-join-forces-at-last/

Your link was broken.

That being said, the argument is based off of a LOT of speculation. Just a couple of marketing slides and "hey, these slides kind of look the same OMG, AMD AND ARM ARE TEAMING UP!!!!"

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Mr Vain]

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/22/amd-and-arm-join-forces-at-last/

Your link was broken.

Fixed Thanks.

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/22/amd-and-arm-join-forces-at-last/

 

[Edrick]

isn't Intel the by-far-largest-graphics-supplier with its integrated graphics? or at least was, last time i checked, it held something like 40%.

That is true. But the context of the discussion was a dedicated GPU, like Nvidia and AMD put out. At least that is what I took it for (Larrabee?).

 

[wuliheron]

AMD isn't a threat, but I think ARM is a lot more serious. Intel will probably always dominate the performance market, but in the consumer space people are moving to cheaper, lighter, smaller, mobile, and power efficient. ARM has huge advantages here, and now it's getting Windows 8.

ARM is basically a one trick pony that could easily find itself relegated to the bargain bin overnight. Yeah, they're cutting into Intel's business but it hasn't stopped Intel from making record profits. Yeah, they're more efficient, but how much will that matter in the long run? There are already some tablets and netbooks coming out that are solar powered. That's how many watts we are talking about.

 

[wuliheron]

You do realize that Intel purchasing Nvidia has basically no chance of being approved by regulators, right? And I still fail to understand how new battery tech would somehow make Intel an unstoppable juggernaut. A much longer battery life would help everyone, and it would make Intel's process advantage much less important. If anything, it would hurt Intel more than help them.

As I just mentioned to someone else there are already tablets and netbooks coming on the market that are solar powered. That's how many watts you seem to find so impressive. My Amazon Kindle goes for 10 days without recharging and if I could trade a little battery life for more performance I would.

As for Intel buying Nvidia, AMD already bought ATI.

You come across as grasping at straws and making up unlikely scenarios, just because Intel is the "800 pound gorilla". Intel has been extremely fortunate that they were able to get away with being a virtual monopoly for most of their existence. Why would the market move to Intel in ultra mobile anyway? The only reason that will happen is if Intel becomes a monopoly here, and according to you, that seems only possible if Intel purchases Nvidia.

Things change, at one time Apple was left for dead and was very close to going under. Microsoft used to be considered unstoppable, now they are struggling to gain a foothold in expanding markets, their Zune and mobile phone and other mobile device presence is a complete disaster, and Bing has failed to make much of an impact.

If I'm grasping at straws you are grasping at conspiracy theories. Intel is still making record profits and still dominant in just about every other respect. Likewise, MS just turned in record profits as well! All this nonsense about them being on the ropes is just so much conspiracy theory crap. The tabloids love nothing better then to speculate on the possibility of any leading industry or public figure falling from grace and people eat it up right along with the latest reality TV.

 

[AnandThenMan]

As for Intel buying Nvidia, AMD already bought ATI.

Intel is already a near monopoly, has been fined and/or convicted of being one in Japan, the United States, and Europe. Buying Nvidia would make Intel a certain monopoly. It will never happen for regulatory reasons alone. And Jensen will have to die before he hands over the reigns to anyone.

Yes you are grasping at straws, at best. Your view of Intel being the almighty unstoppable machine and companies like like ARM could be "relegated to the bargain bin overnight" is laughable.

 

[OCGuy]

My good sir, I admire your belief that enthusiasts matter for Intel or AMD.

They absolutely do. They go through a lot of trouble advertising "Black edition", "Unlocked", "headroom", etc. They even segment their line-up to account for enthusiasts.

Yes enthusiasts themselves are a small % of CPU sales, but don't underestimate the power of their suggestions to friends and family, and even their business.

I don't know about you, but I am the one my family and friends call if they want help or some sort of advice as to which desktop or notebook to buy.

 

[Cogman]

Intel is already a near monopoly, has been fined and/or convicted of being one in Japan, the United States, and Europe. Buying Nvidia would make Intel a certain monopoly. It will never happen for regulatory reasons alone. And Jensen will have to die before he hands over the reigns to anyone.

Yes you are grasping at straws, at best. Your view of Intel being the almighty unstoppable machine and companies like like ARM could be "relegated to the bargain bin overnight" is laughable.

For the next 10 years, at least, Intel is unstoppable. There is nothing any company could do right now that would cause Intel to die within the next 10 years. (looking at this from a strict "produce a product that puts Intel out of business" standpoint. Obviously, someone could find some seriously illegal activity that could burn the company to the ground).

Intel is VERY well ingrained into the markets that really matter.

 

[wuliheron]

Intel is already a near monopoly, has been fined and/or convicted of being one in Japan, the United States, and Europe. Buying Nvidia would make Intel a certain monopoly. It will never happen for regulatory reasons alone. And Jensen will have to die before he hands over the reigns to anyone.

Yes you are grasping at straws, at best. Your view of Intel being the almighty unstoppable machine and companies like like ARM could be "relegated to the bargain bin overnight" is laughable.

Great hyperbole to go with all your conspiracy theories.

 

[Arzachel]

Great hyperbole to go with all your conspiracy theories.

So Intel payed several settlements and fines just because they felt charitable?

For the next 10 years, at least, Intel is unstoppable. There is nothing any company could do right now that would cause Intel to die within the next 10 years. (looking at this from a strict "produce a product that puts Intel out of business" standpoint. Obviously, someone could find some seriously illegal activity that could burn the company to the ground).

Intel is VERY well ingrained into the markets that really matter.

Wrong, if AMD goes bankrupt, Intel would most likely split into several companies

 

[wuliheron]

For the next 10 years, at least, Intel is unstoppable. There is nothing any company could do right now that would cause Intel to die within the next 10 years. (looking at this from a strict "produce a product that puts Intel out of business" standpoint. Obviously, someone could find some seriously illegal activity that could burn the company to the ground).

Intel is VERY well ingrained into the markets that really matter.

Exactly. They are thoroughly entrenched in the markets and way ahead of the competition in every regard with the exception of graphics and efficiency. Its like people predicting MS would go under because they couldn't produce a decent browser, Linux is more stable and cheap, and Apple more user friendly.

 

[OCGuy]

Exactly. They are thoroughly entrenched in the markets and way ahead of the competition in every regard with the exception of graphics and efficiency. Its like people predicting MS would go under because they couldn't produce a decent browser, Linux is more stable and cheap, and Apple more user friendly.

And the scary part is that they are the desktop graphics leader, even though they arent good at it.

They are a beast.....

 

[wuliheron]

Wrong, if AMD goes bankrupt, Intel would most likely split into several companies

Intel has no interest in driving AMD into bankruptcy and all they would have to do to avoid driving them into bankruptcy is ease up on the competition.

 

[Idontcare]

For the next 10 years, at least, Intel is unstoppable. There is nothing any company could do right now that would cause Intel to die within the next 10 years. (looking at this from a strict "produce a product that puts Intel out of business" standpoint. Obviously, someone could find some seriously illegal activity that could burn the company to the ground).

Intel is VERY well ingrained into the markets that really matter.

I subscribe to this viewpoint as well.

Unfortunately I see many of my fellow forum colleagues viewing the future as being of the "either/or" variety. Either Intel succeeds and everyone else (AMD/ARM/NV) die or else Intel fails and ARM succeeds.

I don't see it that way, I see plenty of TAM for everyone to find a seat at the table to do business.

I do not see Intel doing a DEC or a CRAY. (best technology and market leadership in the world and yet still managed to find a way to go bankrupt)

At the same time I don't see AMD going away, at worst they'll do a Chapter 11 equivalent to wipe away debt and restart the business clock (just as the airline and the auto industries succeed in doing) using their deep and vast IP portfolio and design teams to continue making competitive products.

Intel's challenge, as had been duly noted by other posters, is to remain relevant in a world that increasingly relies on their smartphones to be their "good enough" personal computing devices.

I have a brother in-law who sells computers and for the past five years him and his laptop were inseperable. Every family function he'd have his laptop with him to find a place to log in and do whatever. I just got back from a near 3wk family vacation where I saw him every day and I did not once see him with his laptop. His smartphone has completely taken over and displaced his computing "needs" that his once inseperable laptop provided.

It was as night-and-day of a difference in terms of shifting computer usage behaviors as I could have ever imagined. Very stark and IMHO very telling of the future of PC's.

 

[wuliheron]

And the scary part is that they are the desktop graphics leader, even though they arent good at it.

They are a beast.....

Yeah, its very much like MS. They specialize in operating systems, office programs, and the xbox and leverage their dominance in these areas to sell a lot of other software that is half baked crap. No doubt the push towards efficient portables, graphics, and heterogeneous computing will force them to change their strategy, but like MS they can afford to wait until the last moment. In this competition they are the dark horse who keeps their cards close to their vest.

 

[Edrick]

Intel is already a near monopoly, has been fined and/or convicted of being one in Japan, the United States, and Europe. Buying Nvidia would make Intel a certain monopoly. It will never happen for regulatory reasons alone.

I do not follow your thought process here. A monopoly means they are the only company providing a product without competition and use that power to drive up costs, etc. Buying Nvidia would only change brand names for the graphic cards and they would still be competing with AMD/ATI. Intel does not have a product in the dedicated GPU market currently, so I see that as expanding their customer base as opposed to a monopoly. If Intel decided to get into the HDD market and they bought out Wester Digital, would that be a monopoly? No. There would still be plenty of competition.

Now if Intel bought AMD or IBM, then yes, that would be a monopoly.

But I do agree with you in that Nvidia would never sell to Intel anyways, so all arguements are moot.

 

[GammaLaser]

For the next 10 years, at least, Intel is unstoppable. There is nothing any company could do right now that would cause Intel to die within the next 10 years. (looking at this from a strict "produce a product that puts Intel out of business" standpoint. Obviously, someone could find some seriously illegal activity that could burn the company to the ground).

Intel is VERY well ingrained into the markets that really matter.

Case in point: Intel just released Q2 earnings report and blew past expections ($13.1B versus $12.8B expected).

 

[AnandThenMan]

Great hyperbole to go with all your conspiracy theories.

Because you can't debate on the facts, you just call what I post a "conspiracy".

I do not follow your thought process here. A monopoly means they are the only company providing a product without competition and use that power to drive up costs, etc.

Not true. The definition of a monopoly in economics is when a "specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."
source

It is a common misconception that a monopoly means a company is the only supplier in that particular market.

Buying Nvidia would only change brand names for the graphic cards and they would still be competing with AMD/ATI. Intel does not have a product in the dedicated GPU market currently, so I see that as expanding their customer base as opposed to a monopoly.

You can chose to look at it that way, but that is not how it would be viewed by the various regulatory boards like the FTC.

If Intel decided to get into the HDD market and they bought out Wester Digital, would that be a monopoly? No. There would still be plenty of competition.

Now if Intel bought AMD or IBM, then yes, that would be a monopoly.

But I do agree with you in that Nvidia would never sell to Intel anyways, so all arguements are moot.

Again, you have your own idea of what a monopoly is, but that is not the criteria used. See the Sherman Antitrust Act to get an idea of how the U.S. government determines what a monopoly is.

A monopolist has the power to dominate markets—the ability to set the price by altering supply. Anticompetitive techniques include:

• Buying out competitors
• Forcing customers to sign long-term agreements
• Forcing customers to buy unwanted products in order to receive other goods ("Understanding Antritrust Law," 1999)

Intel has done all of the above, repeatedly, going back to the early 90's and possibly earlier.

 

[exar333]

I subscribe to this viewpoint as well.

Unfortunately I see many of my fellow forum colleagues viewing the future as being of the "either/or" variety. Either Intel succeeds and everyone else (AMD/ARM/NV) die or else Intel fails and ARM succeeds.

I don't see it that way, I see plenty of TAM for everyone to find a seat at the table to do business.

I do not see Intel doing a DEC or a CRAY. (best technology and market leadership in the world and yet still managed to find a way to go bankrupt)

At the same time I don't see AMD going away, at worst they'll do a Chapter 11 equivalent to wipe away debt and restart the business clock (just as the airline and the auto industries succeed in doing) using their deep and vast IP portfolio and design teams to continue making competitive products.

Intel's challenge, as had been duly noted by other posters, is to remain relevant in a world that increasingly relies on their smartphones to be their "good enough" personal computing devices.

I have a brother in-law who sells computers and for the past five years him and his laptop were inseperable. Every family function he'd have his laptop with him to find a place to log in and do whatever. I just got back from a near 3wk family vacation where I saw him every day and I did not once see him with his laptop. His smartphone has completely taken over and displaced his computing "needs" that his once inseperable laptop provided.

It was as night-and-day of a difference in terms of shifting computer usage behaviors as I could have ever imagined. Very stark and IMHO very telling of the future of PC's.

I love mobile smart phones but to say they replace the functionality of a laptop is exaggerated. Sure you can cruise the web and use some apps for functionality, but the laptop will do so much more. Update a spreadshet on a phone? You can barely even read it. Efficiently fill-out a web-bsed form? Nope. The list goes on and on.

'Light' computing like web-browsing and checking your bank account balance are great functions to be replaced on a phone, but anything very detailed gets onerous quickly and will waste your time.

My fiance will spend 15 minutes filling out a form to order a pizza online when I could get up and do that on my PC in 3 minutes or just call them. The convenience often causes inefficiency because it 'can' do it.

I am not poo-pooing the tech, just saying that a smartphone is not a great replacement for most things. I love mine for light-browsing, email, and handy applications for weather, etc. but it has it's limits.

 

[Nemesis 1]

@ p0st 447 Please can someone give the above person some cheeese to go along with his constant whine. He knows nothing of Intels IB. or what constitues a monoply. Arm has made Intel a non monoply as they enter into notebooks and desktops. its not about x86 its about windows 8 now . NO more intel monopoly as x86 falls by the wayside. as the only windows operating system

 

[notty22]

The numbers Apple released yesterday are staggering. The Ipad is more profitable than the Mac lineup. 9 million 500 dollar and up Ipads sold in 3 months. IMO, where families sometimes have/had multiple PC's, now with Smart Phones, and tablets everyone is getting their own. And they are upgrading more often.
These monies have to be draining from the traditional computer business model.

Here are the most important numbers from Apple’s earnings that show that the iPad is seemingly unstoppable, and clearly Apple’s most important product.
$6 billion. That’s how much money Apple made from the iPad just in April, May and June of this year. The key is that Apple now makes more money off the iPad, a product slightly more than one year old, than its Mac lineup. Apple pulled in just under $5 billion in revenue from Mac desktops and notebooks during the same quarter.
The people scooping up iPads are not just gadget hounds and consumers with expendable income. Buyers include large corporations who are handing them out to employees to help them do their job, something Apple has been actively pushing for a while. But Apple is also getting a boost in iPad sales even from sources the company didn’t anticipate.
“We sold more iPads to K–12 [schools] than we did Macs, which is absolutely shocking,” said Apple COO Tim Cook on a conference call with analysts on Tuesday. “We never would have predicted that.”


Shocking, perhaps. But probably not unwelcome. Apple very likely doesn’t mind getting kids used to working on iPads in elementary school.
9.25 million. That’s how many iPads Apple sold during the quarter.