Problem is that "Team" has been nothing but BS'ing us..
Im sure they are BSing the upper management guys.
Here is a good post I read on another forum:
"Not sure if folks understand this, but Bergman was the single most visible and longest-tenured "Radeon guy" from the old ATI who made the transition to AMD. I remember him introducing the Radeon 9700 at its launch [the greatest videocard of all time imo], and he's been leading the GPU folks there ever since. Bergman was behind AMD's move to shorter product cycles and a nice cadence with Brazos, Llano, Zambezi (soon), and Trinity (early 2012). Guys like that don't just leave on a whim, and when they do, it has consequences that go beyond a single person's departure. I'm not sure yet what Read and the board are planning to do with AMD, but it apparently doesn't involve continuing on the trajectory they've established with Radeon GPUs and AMD APUs. If it did, I doubt Bergman would have left."
Not sure how accurate this is, but it looks like he did a lot of good things at AMD. Everyone makes mistakes. It looks like BD's mistake is that the CPU was designed to be competitive in multi-threaded scenarios in the first place when in the year 2011 hardly any programs are threaded beyond 4 threads. As such, the CPU needed much higher clock speeds as usual to compensate for the weaker performance in 1-4 threaded apps when extra cores wouldn't help. That put a lot more pressure on getting the yields and higher clocked speeds out on time.
Essentially, it's always easy to blame someone for current execution mistakes and miss the
big picture that Bulldozer as an architectural design decision may have been wrong in the first place. Sure you can blame current poor yields, or inability to get to higher clock speeds with current steppings on Rick or other higher-ups. But these are all "after-the-fact" problems by going with the module design. I think the fundamental decision to go with a 6-8 core CPU vs. a fast 4 core CPU was done YEARS AGO. We'll find out soon enough just how vital
that very decision was. Personally, I think it was the biggest mistake the engineering/managerial did at the time. I wish they pursued higher IPC/watt instead. We'll see if AMD got this right come launch day. I still stand firm by my own prediction when BD launches, it will be at least 1 generation ahead of current software trends (although content creation users will rejoice).
There are just too many bad omens all lining up here since Dirk's departure in Jan to possibily dismiss their sum total at this juncture
^ This. A guy like Dirk was extremely passionate about competing against Intel but he was also completely against diverting resources to try to go into the tablet/smartphone space. The Board of D. however wanted exactly the opposite. Those guys just want to make $ for themselves and shareholders. I don't think people understand the gravity of the situation. If the BOD was convinced that the future is not desktop/mobile computing (traditionally desktops/servers and laptops), but mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones, they could force AMD as a firm (by putting puppet mgmt that does what they want) to adopt a new market direction. That direction can just as well be focusing on becoming leaders in tablet/smartphone and APU space and stop worrying about competing with Intel on the high-end altogether. I hope I am wrong on this one. But when you start hearing rumors of an 8-core desktop CPU selling for $200+change, you seriously start to wonder...