In defense of "Bulldozer"

[thilanliyan]

I'm sure this car had some defenders back in the day too.

Suitable colour

Lemons are yellow right?

 

[Idontcare]

Suitable colour

Lemons are yellow right?

In case you, or others, don't know the backstory - its an Edsel

The Edsel was an automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor Company during the 1958, 1959, and 1960 model years. The Edsel never gained popularity with contemporary American car buyers and sold poorly. Consequently, the Ford Motor Company lost millions of dollars on the Edsel's development, manufacture, and marketing. The name "Edsel" has since become synonymous with failure.

 

[Mem]

Defending this http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/amd-bulldozer-can-it-get-even-worse/ ,is kind of hard.

A number of reviewers have reported problems with a Blue Screen Of Death on AMD’s Bulldozer, even with stock settings:

 

[zsdersw]

Can I just point out that the device I'm typing this on fits in my pocket and can encode ~13mbps h264 1080p video in real time?

Ya, I know, it doesn't look anything like x264 quality, but it is still massively impressive.

It's massively anecdotal.. that's about it.

 

[zsdersw]

People that say that are citizens of developed countries that already own a desktop or a laptop replacement for the desktop.

Emerging markets on the other hand are gaining purchasing power and as their standard of living goes up they will start by buying the tools that provide them higher performance and different uses.

Yes, there's ample room for growth in both the PC/laptop and tablet/smartphone markets in those areas of the world.

 

[Chiropteran]

Defending this http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/amd-bulldozer-can-it-get-even-worse/ ,is kind of hard.

If true, that is pretty terrible. I wonder if fixing it will reduce performance further.

As to the previous couple of posts, I felt compelled to "defend" bulldozer simply because of the huge exaggeration and half-truths spread about it. It's a weak CPU, no denying that, and the i5 2500k is a better buy for the majority of CPU buyers, but it's not as bad as some people try to make it sound.

 

[zsdersw]

I felt compelled to "defend" bulldozer simply because of the huge exaggeration and half-truths spread about it. It's a weak CPU, no denying that, and the i5 2500k is a better buy for the majority of CPU buyers, but it's not as bad as some people try to make it sound.

Did you do the same of Prescott when it first came out?

 

[Chiropteran]

Did you do the same of Prescott when it first came out?

Nope, I don't think I ever read this forum back then. Why do you ask, were posters constantly posting blatant exaggerations about how bad Prescott was?

I'm guessing if bulldozer was cheaper, people probably wouldn't be so upset.

When sandy bridge was released, did people complain about how the i5-2500 and i7-2600 were slower than the previous generation i7-980X in so many benchmarks? No, because a $250 CPU being almost as good as previous generation $900 CPU was considered to be fine.

Only problem is, the FX-8150/8120 are both completely sold out, even at full price. AMD has no reason to reduce the price, currently.

 

[zsdersw]

Nope, I don't think I ever read this forum back then. Why do you ask, were posters constantly posting blatant exaggerations about how bad Prescott was?

There was nothing good said about it, to be sure.

The point is that there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, and any exaggerations therein, especially in a CPU enthusiast forum, are almost always recognized as such without someone defending against them.

 

[thilanliyan]

In case you, or others, don't know the backstory - its an Edsel

Yep I knew, hence the lemon comment

From what I remember of the story it actually had some mechanical faults too coming out of the factory.

 

[exar333]

Nope, I don't think I ever read this forum back then. Why do you ask, were posters constantly posting blatant exaggerations about how bad Prescott was?

I'm guessing if bulldozer was cheaper, people probably wouldn't be so upset.

When sandy bridge was released, did people complain about how the i5-2500 and i7-2600 were slower than the previous generation i7-980X in so many benchmarks? No, because a $250 CPU being almost as good as previous generation $900 CPU was considered to be fine.

Only problem is, the FX-8150/8120 are both completely sold out, even at full price. AMD has no reason to reduce the price, currently.

No, but if a SB quad was slower than a Nahelem quad, you would have heard about it. Your arguement is invalid.

 

[Idontcare]

From what I remember of the story it actually had some mechanical faults too coming out of the factory.

It was a domestic, wasn't it? So your comment about it having mechanical faults at time-zero leaving the factory appears to be redundant/superfluous?

(UAW members in the crowd are gonna have me on their crap-list now )

 

[TemjinGold]

Nope, I don't think I ever read this forum back then. Why do you ask, were posters constantly posting blatant exaggerations about how bad Prescott was?

I'm guessing if bulldozer was cheaper, people probably wouldn't be so upset.

When sandy bridge was released, did people complain about how the i5-2500 and i7-2600 were slower than the previous generation i7-980X in so many benchmarks? No, because a $250 CPU being almost as good as previous generation $900 CPU was considered to be fine.

Only problem is, the FX-8150/8120 are both completely sold out, even at full price. AMD has no reason to reduce the price, currently.

You would be right. However, BD is slower than the previous gen AMD chip that costs less. We're not complaining that AMD had a $1000 processor that beat BD. BD lost to an older AMD processor repeatedly that's cheap.

Here's the problem: BOTH AMD and Intel have processors that are faster AND cheaper AND more power efficient than BD. So yes, it is every bit as bad as people say and worse.

 

[Chiropteran]

Here's the problem: BOTH AMD and Intel have processors that are faster AND cheaper AND more power efficient than BD. So yes, it is every bit as bad as people say and worse.

That is false. AMD doesn't have another CPU that is faster and more power efficient than bulldozer, not at the same time.

At best you might be able to find an example where bulldozer is a little slower, but more power efficient, or faster and using more power.

The Anandtech review includes a ton of single threaded non-scaling benchmarks (which only use a fraction of the total number of cores), and then includes a power chart showing how much power bulldozer uses at full load with 8 threads. A little bit odd, in my opinion. At full load, bulldozer *is* faster than phenom II. It's only slower in the non-scaling benchmarks, where it won't pull the same power as it does with 8 cores at 100%.

You guys latching on to one example in the Anandtech review, check out some other websites to see the power usage in less biased situations.

 

[Blitzvogel]

In case you, or others, don't know the backstory - its an Edsel

Cool Story Bro........LITERALLY :thumbsup:

Seriously, I found that fascinating, along with the recent reading up on turbine powered Chryslers. Cool stuff.

And yes, x86 is still entirely necessary for the creation of content. As long as encoding an HD 1080p video isn't instantaneous, the need for more power will continue to be necessary. Then you have the constantly increasing visualization of the internet, which have hardly managed to catch up to, though of course in turn, web content is now becoming aimed at mobile devices as much as computers. Phones are becoming more powerful as well. Maybe mainstream x86 is powerful enough (like a Core 2 Duo), but ARM by far is not. The market for x86 /could/ shrink, but it would still be so large as to be financially viable and competitive. Some lower players would certainly go down or merge with others, but it would still persist because x86 tech is the most important type when you consider all the different needs for computers in general.

 

[Keysplayr]

That is false. AMD doesn't have another CPU that is faster and more power efficient than bulldozer, not at the same time.

At best you might be able to find an example where bulldozer is a little slower, but more power efficient, or faster and using more power.

The Anandtech review includes a ton of single threaded non-scaling benchmarks (which only use a fraction of the total number of cores), and then includes a power chart showing how much power bulldozer uses at full load with 8 threads. A little bit odd, in my opinion. At full load, bulldozer *is* faster than phenom II. It's only slower in the non-scaling benchmarks, where it won't pull the same power as it does with 8 cores at 100%.

You guys latching on to one example in the Anandtech review, check out some other websites to see the power usage in less biased situations.

So then what is everyone complaining about then?

Is everyone wrong? Are you just talking about explicit situations (E.G. a program that actually can use 8 cores) and using that reasoning to state that AMD has no CPU that is faster nor more power efficient than Bulldozer?
I don't know that you can. At least not without incredible difficulty and a slim chance of anyone taking it seriously. You said yourself you feel "compelled" to defend bulldozer.

 

[nyker96]

I don't understand how can anyone defend this chip. It's made worse when the PR department of amd made it sound like the second coming, even put a FX on it. God, FX should be a chip that's unrivaled in performance and not something that has trouble beating a 2500k. they raised the expectation of everyone when only to deliver something that sounded like requiring a ton of optimization. If you look at amd road map, they plan to optimize (ie handcode) portions of the cpu to squeeze out 10-15% ipc per year. On surface that's good news, but the fact that there's so much fat to trim after 5 years of development is just well ... (sigh).

I think facts speak for itself, no need to berate this thing. it just berates itself to no end.

 

[exar333]

That is false. AMD doesn't have another CPU that is faster and more power efficient than bulldozer, not at the same time.
At best you might be able to find an example where bulldozer is a little slower, but more power efficient, or faster and using more power.

The Anandtech review includes a ton of single threaded non-scaling benchmarks (which only use a fraction of the total number of cores), and then includes a power chart showing how much power bulldozer uses at full load with 8 threads. A little bit odd, in my opinion. At full load, bulldozer *is* faster than phenom II. It's only slower in the non-scaling benchmarks, where it won't pull the same power as it does with 8 cores at 100%.

You guys latching on to one example in the Anandtech review, check out some other websites to see the power usage in less biased situations.

You are dead wrong.

PhII quad > BD Quad
PhII hexacore > BD 6-core

The BD 81xx series is the only CPU that is across the board competitive with existing quads and hexacores.

 

[Chiropteran]

You are dead wrong.

PhII quad > BD Quad
PhII hexacore > BD 6-core

The BD 81xx series is the only CPU that is across the board competitive with existing quads and hexacores.

I'm proving a negative false. As long as at least one bulldoze CPU is faster *or* more power efficient than a Phenom II, I am correct.

I never said *all* bulldozers are faster than *all* Phenom II, to suggest that is what I meant makes me wonder if you are just trolling. This has never been the case with Intel or AMD, new architecture or not. There are always low/mid-end CPUs in the new generation that are slower than previous generation high-end.

Are you just talking about explicit situations (E.G. a program that actually can use 8 cores) and using that reasoning to state that AMD has no CPU that is faster nor more power efficient than Bulldozer?

The chart in the andandtech article where FX-8150 uses more power than the 1100T is one of the few tests which actually stress all 8 cores. It's also a test where the FX-8150 solidly beats the 1100T.

Then there are tests where the FX-8150 is limited to a single thread in which it loses to the 1100T.

The point is you can't take a worst case power situation and assume the power usage will be the same across all tests, as this is easily proven false. I challenge anyone to produce a benchmark in which the FX-8150 uses more power and also loses against the 1100T in performance. Such a benchmark doesn't exist.

Here is what actually occurs-

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-22.html
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-12.html

FX-8150 wins, uses same power.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm proving a negative false. As long as at least one bulldoze CPU is faster *or* more power efficient than a Phenom II, I am correct.

I never said *all* bulldozers are faster than *all* Phenom II, to suggest that is what I meant makes me wonder if you are just trolling. This has never been the case with Intel or AMD, new architecture or not. There are always low/mid-end CPUs in the new generation that are slower than previous generation high-end.





The chart in the andandtech article where FX-8150 uses more power than the 1100T is one of the few tests which actually stress all 8 cores. It's also a test where the FX-8150 solidly beats the 1100T.

Then there are tests where the FX-8150 is limited to a single thread in which it loses to the 1100T.

The point is you can't take a worst case power situation and assume the power usage will be the same across all tests, as this is easily proven false. I challenge anyone to produce a benchmark in which the FX-8150 uses more power and also loses against the 1100T in performance. Such a benchmark doesn't exist.

Here is what actually occurs-

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-22.html
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-12.html

FX-8150 wins, uses same power.

This is it? This is the angle you're going to go with?

Ok, then you tell us. Why does everyone think Bulldozer is a flop?

Imaginary reasons? What?

 

[Vesku]

Not everyone thinks it is a "flop", I certainly don't. I think bringing out the FX branding for this initial release version of the chip is disappointing.

Time will tell if BD turns out as well as Pentium M rather than end up a P4v2.

 

[Keysplayr]

Not everyone thinks it is a "flop", I certainly don't. I think bringing out the FX branding for this initial release version of the chip is disappointing.

Time will tell if BD turns out as well as Pentium M rather than end up a P4v2.

Ah, was considering editing the word "everyone" out while I was typing the above think that there will be someone... someone who will ring that bell.

 

[Chiropteran]

This is it? This is the angle you're going to go with?

Ok, then you tell us. Why does everyone think Bulldozer is a flop?

Imaginary reasons? What?

Are you serious? I never said the CPU is a success even. I am just tired of outright lies and false statements being passed off as the truth.

The CPU does suck. It's only 0-15% faster than AMD's previous high end CPUs, and in some situations it can use more power, and it's not good enough to compete with intel's high end products. It's single threaded performance is abysmal, in many situations worse than Phenom II.

I simply felt the need to correct a stupid myth going around "fx-8150 uses more power and performs worse than Phenom II". That is false, and I think I have proven it so.

 

[Idontcare]

It's only 0-15% faster than AMD's previous high end CPUs...

Scale starts at zero? Its never slower than AMD's previous high end CPU? (1100 thuban)

 

[Obsoleet]

ARM may have gained considerable traction in the current situation but PC will never disappear. If it did then where would content be produced? Would you prefer to transcode a video on an iPad or a PC which would be miles faster than a ARM could ever be. Any ultra mobile that comes out from the factory will be no more than a content consuming device, it will never be a full fledged content producing device like a PC could. All that Apple revolutionized was touch interface, performance was never Apple or any ARM based devices forte.

If the need isn't there for 90% of the people, and the battery life and usability increases in massive amounts (Apple products for example), then content creation rigs will be more and more of a niche market. Not everyone here makes content, in fact few do even in this forum.

Basically, you are contradicting yourself. First you say that AMD should not drop prices on Bulldozer. Then you say basically that everyone has more CPU power than they need.
So if that is true, we should all be buying dual core Pentiums for less than 100.00.

And my computer does most of what I want. I have an E4500 and 9800GT. But would I like a better CPU--damn right I would. It is sort of like my car. I have a honda civic with a wimpy 4 cylinder. Sure it is adequate and serves its purpose, but I would definitely like a more powerful engine. So considering that computers last several years now for most users, the small extra cost to have a powerful CPU does not seem wasted to me.

Edit: and believe me, the more powerful CPU I would pick would be an i5 or i7 series, not bulldozer, because they have both better performance in the things I do and use less power.

With your 4 cylinder car, and your E4500, you are saving money.. both get the job done, and probably even a little more than just get the job done. We've reached a point where x86 CPUs arent the main attraction anymore.
From low power (ARM) devices, to SSDs, to APUs.. that's where things are headed.. not the i7/i8/i9 development cycle.

As you said, a E4500 does the job and you're happy.

Most people that I know no longer upgrade their CPU out of necessity like the old days. They do it to spend money / boredom / interest (that's increasingly waning in CPU advancements).
Bulldozer isn't on my to-buy list either, I'm just saying it's not a bad CPU. People either wanted a grand slam with Bulldozer or a total failure.
They are acting like its a total failure and I contend due to the sheer power of the chip, it's not. It's faster than what many people here (including myself) are using, not to mention, more than we need.
The price does need to drop on it though to get me to buy it, I just don't think AMD has to do that. They need to market it at the retail level.

Well designed (Apple style) devices like ultraportables, unique fullsize PCs and other factors will sell Bulldozer. Intel knows this, hence their ultraportable initiative they're funding.

HAHAHHA! It's always hilarious when people say the pc's day is over. I've been hearing it for about 10 years now. Sure a ipad is cool, but who wants to sit and type alot on one, how many files will it store? Will it run a game that requires any horsepower? Will it do hardcore photo editing? Will it run proprietary business software or databases? The answer to ALL of these is pretty obvious. A pad, or tablet is not even a replacement for a good netbook or small laptop let alone a full fledge desktop. This point was driven home last night. We had parent/ teacher conference with my daughter's 3rd grade teacher and she was raving about the new ipads and how cool they are and how much the kids love them etc. I looked and on her desk is her ipad but it was on the usb cord and hooked to a full size dell tower

The PC will last another 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? It will go away, that much is sure, because it's already dying.

Apple is the largest company in the United States in market cap. It's the largest IT related company, in the world. This is all built on everything but Wintel PCs.

They have laptops that do everything you're specifying, they do it on MacOS and they could certainly do it on AMD APUs better than Intel does it. I fully expect them to move to their own chips in due time as they ramp them up.