What's true about AMD's Bulldozer?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
7

7beauties

Member
Mar 24, 2008
73
6
71
Since I built my first PC in 2000 based around the then blazing fast AMD 700Mhz Athlon CPU, I've been loyal to the AMD brand exclusively. I cheered as the underdog AMD stunned the geek universe by besting Intel in speed, performance and technology. I've seen tit for tat as the two companies would trade for technology supremacy. I was dismayed by the launch of the ill-named "Phenom" CPU and its infamous LBT (did I get that right?) bug with its first stepping. I was hoping that AMD would rebound from that fiasco with a counter punch and regain the technology crown. But the much anticipated Bulldozer, which had been long in coming out, is being delayed; an unfortunate tendency of AMD. If Bulldozer lives up to its promise then the long wait will be justified, but I want to know how to discern the truth about this CPU from the scant rumors about it. From what I can only glean is that its speed from the first stepping is too slow to be competitive and live up to AMD's promise that it will be a high-end chip. Can anyone tell me what the truth is? Is there hope for AMD? It will be a sad future for all of us PC enthusiasts as the competition it's given Intel improved Intel's technology. Without this competition Intel won't have the incentive to make great chips and we all, Intel loyalists included, will suffer.
 
B

Borealis7

Platinum Member
Oct 19, 2006
2,901
205
106
the bug's name was TLB. BLT is a sandwich :)

lets start a "Some say..." thread for Bulldozer!

"Some say, his reflection doesn't appear in the mirror...and that he once bit off the head of a pigeon. All we know is, he's called the Sti...Bulldozer."
 
frostedflakes

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Stagnation is already happening I think. Gulftown has been around since 2010 and AMD still doesn't have any desktop processors that come close to it in performance, and it doesn't sound like 8 core Bulldozer will be able to close the gap. Intel could probably easily release 8 core Sandy Bridge-E processors on the desktop if they had a reason to, but there's really no point when it looks like BD won't even be able to compete with their 6 core Westmere parts. It's a shame because I'm a fan of AMD and would really like to see them compete well with Intel at all price points. It's tough, though, Intel has been at the top of their game since Netburst. The tick-tock cadence they've adopted is very aggressive.
 
BD231

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
138
106
frostedflakes said:
Stagnation is already happening I think. Gulftown has been around since 2010 and AMD still doesn't have any desktop processors that come close to it in performance, and it doesn't sound like 8 core Bulldozer will be able to close the gap. Intel could probably easily release 8 core Sandy Bridge-E processors on the desktop if they had a reason to, but there's really no point when it looks like BD won't even be able to compete with their 6 core Westmere parts. It's a shame because I'm a fan of AMD and would really like to see them compete well with Intel at all price points. It's tough, though, Intel has been at the top of their game since Netburst. The tick-tock cadence they've adopted is very aggressive.
Click to expand...

Generations behind I'm not quite sure we should even be comparing the two.
 
T

Troll Trolling

Member
Sep 19, 2009
85
0
0
It cures cancer.
Trustory bro.

The thing is: we know almost nothing about it. It could be from the highest performing chip ever made (see Chuck Norris of the CPUs), destroying Sandy Bridge in every single workload, to a shitty crap that is slower than the first Pentium.
And I swear bro, it is somewhere in between.
 
sm625

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
If you were following this stuff back in 2003 you'd know it was just as agonizing waiting for A64. You had the same people saying the hell with it I'm buying a P4 with its uber HT. Just go read this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1101 and see that the new K8 really didnt look all that impressive against the P4.
 
exar333

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
sm625 said:
If you were following this stuff back in 2003 you'd know it was just as agonizing waiting for A64. You had the same people saying the hell with it I'm buying a P4 with its uber HT. Just go read this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1101 and see that the new K8 really didnt look all that impressive against the P4.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would agree. In 2003, AMD had come off some stellar years of either beating or matching most of Intel's offerings. Sure, the P4 and P4EE had a little more headroom with OCing than most AthlonXPs, but for thr average Joe the XP was pretty much just as fast, and MUCH cheaper for the overall solution. Buy a 1.8-2.0ghz XP, OC to ~2.4 or 2.5sh and your good.

Right now, AMD has not had parity with Intel performance since X2 days/before C2D. That was a LONG time ago...

Plus, they have been beating the 'BD train' drum for years now with no actual performance data, just a lot of pretty charts and terms.
 
sm625

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
ExarKun333 said:
I'm not sure I would agree. In 2003, AMD had come off some stellar years of either beating or matching most of Intel's offerings. Sure, the P4 and P4EE had a little more headroom with OCing than most AthlonXPs, but for thr average Joe the XP was pretty much just as fast, and MUCH cheaper for the overall solution. Buy a 1.8-2.0ghz XP, OC to ~2.4 or 2.5sh and your good.

Right now, AMD has not had parity with Intel performance since X2 days/before C2D. That was a LONG time ago...
Click to expand...


That doesnt make any sense. It is the same now as it was then. AMD is a better value than intel on any cpu/motherboard/ram combo under $300. It has always been that way as far as I can remember. The average joe does not or should not care about chips that cost much more than $100.
 
sandorski

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,861
6,396
126
sm625 said:
That doesnt make any sense. It is the same now as it was then. AMD is a better value than intel on any cpu/motherboard/ram combo under $300. It has always been that way as far as I can remember. The average joe does not or should not care about chips that cost much more than $100.
Click to expand...

Such a thing didn't exist not long ago.
 
exar333

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
sm625 said:
That doesnt make any sense. It is the same now as it was then. AMD is a better value than intel on any cpu/motherboard/ram combo under $300. It has always been that way as far as I can remember. The average joe does not or should not care about chips that cost much more than $100.
Click to expand...

:wub:

AMDZone is that way -------------------------------------->
 
I

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
64
91
remyat said:
Oooh it's coming...

http://sites.amd.com/us/promo/processors/Pages/operation-scorpius.aspx

geez...
Click to expand...

Bulldozeriscoming.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom