I think it all boils down to: Bulldozer was not ready to release

Status
Not open for further replies.
The question then becomes:

Can it compete with Ivy Bridge once it matures?
 
It probly catches up to i7 920's in a year (8/ but itz gotz tha 8 sawed offz, ta blast the software up wit YOOOOOOO! (8V
 
Don Wong said:
I think in 12 months this chip will start to show its true potential ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree, i was very sick of waiting. Sick of pressing F5 every two hours looking for an leak... Rather be disappointed and have it then ,sit in anxiety wondering when it will come and what it will do.
 
Don Wong said:
I think in 12 months this chip will start to show its true potential ;)
Click to expand...

I am still optimistic. I do not see any plowing ever but I am optimistic that AMD will fix the issues with BD and it will be competitive in performance with Intel's mainstream parts.
 
Wasn't optimized correctly. rushed to release even then, just to show that it was coming.
 
Well, in this case maybe AMD should just go Touchpad on Bulldozer and sell the CPUs at low price.

(Wishful thinking)
 
Turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, maybe someday BD will beat the world, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, come on it's not so bad, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, BD beats 2600K in supercalifragialistic V3.4 on nights with a full moon, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, everybody used the wrong benchmarks, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, BD rules and you guys all suck, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, it's an Intel conspiracy since they paid off all the reviewers, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, just wait until TriniVishnuPilesInYourButtDriver, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, turd, and turd.

There! I've just saved you reading the thousands of forum posts I've read about BD. :D
 
Tsumi said:
The question then becomes:

Can it compete with Ivy Bridge once it matures?
Click to expand...
No, the question becomes:
Will the blind fanboys pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize the air they were breathing stinks?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You have such an enlightening way of expressing yourself. It really sells your point.

look at this ?

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1110239-AR-FX8150AMD26/358306e08d84206de8af395b29da0bca3cfd6a76
Click to expand...

You have such an enlightening way of expressing your support for the unsupportable. It makes me want to believe in forest fairies and angels dancing on the head of a pin. :rolleyes:

That link falls right into: BD beats 2600K in supercalifragialistic V3.4 on nights with a full moon.

CaptNumbNutz above has said it best. I believe he was referring to you. :D
 
You mean that most of the benchmarks under Linux look good?
It goes to show that performance is there?

Well it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about you have some weird idea about how computers and software work, but if you are so happy about calling Bulldozer a turd why can't you explain it ?

Maybe it is because you have no clue ?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You mean that most of the benchmarks under Linux look good?
It goes to show that performance is there?

Well it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about you have some weird idea about how computers and software work, but if you are so happy about calling Bulldozer a turd why can't you explain it ?

Maybe it is because you have no clue ?
Click to expand...

With the maximum respect for you, your views, your opinions, your technical background, your expertise, your intelligence, your kids, and your dog: Anyone who defends BD as being a valid CPU at the price point it's at is sooooooooooooo deluded that they are simply not worth arguing with. Enjoy FLACing your Linux and have a wonderful AMDay! :p
 
The Bulldozer haters do have to accept the fact that in nearly all more modern games (Civilization 5 aside - yes, if you have a hard-on for Civ 5, the FX is NOT your chip) the FX-8150 not only keeps up with the core i7-2600K in bencharks at realistic, playable resolutions (1920x1080), it even beats them in a few with exactly the same graphics cards. I think this is the real sticking point for me.

If the FX-8150's gaming performance were consistently worse, I'd agree it was a flop. The problem is, it seems to kick serious ass in most games and in several crucial multi-core benchmarks (when is the last time you remember any AMD processor BEATING the fastest Intel processor in ANY Adobe Photoshop plug-in?). In addition, Cray doesn't appear to have cancelled their order for Interlogos 16 core Bulldozer-based CPUs for their upcoming Titan supercomputer. Again, if they had done so, I'd have no problem concluding the FX is a dud plain and simple.

So here's the dilemma for me. No, I'm not personally going to go out and buy a 990FX motherboard tomorrow and replace my Phenom II X2 550 with 4 unlocked cores all running at 3.6GHz - there's clearly a bad cost-benefit equation there, especially since I'm GPU limited for pretty well any game I want to play.

However, to say the FX 'sucks' in an over-all sense is pretty stupid. It's clearly good enough for CRAY; frankly, how COULD it suck, if it's the choice for the next world fastest supercomputer? It is obvious its design is radical, and that was designed to forgo excellent single-threaded performance, most especially, single-threaded x87 FPU perfomance: there's no argument about that. The issue for me is just how quickly we're ALREADY seeing gaming engines that can take advantage of the FX's architecture: Battlefield 3 and F1 2011 and Dirt 3 all seem to love the FX. This isn't a case of 'one day, this chip might run nicely with optimized code'. We're ALREADY seeing this code in games RIGHT NOW.

So, I'm still leaving the door open in my mind to Bulldozer as a viable next chip, or at least a future stepping or revision, such as Piledriver.
 
I emailed AMD and asked them to stopped making CPU's since they are doing it wrong.

I'm hoping they will stop that way we are no longer disappointed again in a few years when we find out again that their performance horrible.

I'm hoping they will honor my request and stop.
 
lots of impressionable folks read cpu reviews it seems.

BD performance is there, and in some instances it's pretty darned impressive. It sucks in some of the other things people benchmark.

I am tired of the whole thing, AMD delivered, time will show the architecture is solid. All this other butthurt nonsense is well, nonsense.
 
Intel's lineup has a consistent performance level across the board, and it's a strong performance level. Bulldozer ranges from great to falling well behind its predecessor. Is Bulldozer sufficient for games? More than sufficient I think. However, realistically, few computer users use a computer for a single purpose. And those that do generally have more than one machine, so as to dedicate machines for different tasks. But, the real problem is what Bulldozer does with its resources (namely, power).

Bulldozer is a power hog but unlike the previous power hog, Bloomfield on 1366, it doesn't throttle everything else on the market. It uses disproportionately more power given its performance levels. For some perspective, I came from a Phenom II 965 about two weeks ago. When I would fully load up the system, using BOINC, all cores and the graphics card going full tilt, at stock speeds I was using more power than my 2600K and system use at 4.3GHz. Those numbers would have been impossible with Bulldozer. In fact, I daresay, I would have been looking at over 100 more watts under peak load to do the same tasks. That translates into not only more heat my room, but more dollars out of pocket for the power consumption. Had power consumption been even 75% of what it is, though much preferably less, Bulldozer wouldn't have been badmouthed nearly as much. But, it's not, it's like an old 7L V8 versus a new 3.5L flat six. They both put out roughly the same amount of power, but the V8 struggles to hit 10MPG while the flat six pushes nearly 30. Bulldozer makes about as much sense to use as a 7L V8 that puts out 350HP today. The expectation is that the V8 should put out far more power given its massive displacement but its design is just so inefficient that it struggles to keep up with smaller, far more efficient designs in raw power.
 
blitzkommando said:
Bulldozer is a power hog but unlike the previous power hog,
Click to expand...

Idle power is good and that is most important,
With AMD you don't need to buy as many motherboards as with intel

I hope GF will improve the power consumption on higher clocks
 
anubis44 said:
The Bulldozer haters do have to accept the fact that in nearly all more modern games (Civilization 5 aside - yes, if you have a hard-on for Civ 5, the FX is NOT your chip) the FX-8150 not only keeps up with the core i7-2600K in bencharks at realistic, playable resolutions (1920x1080), it even beats them in a few with exactly the same graphics cards. I think this is the real sticking point for me.
e
If the FX-8150's gaming performance were consistently worse, I'd agree it was a flop. The problem is, it seems to kick serious ass in most games and in several crucial multi-core benchmarks (when is the last time you remember any AMD processor BEATING the fastest Intel processor in ANY Adobe Photoshop plug-in?). In addition, Cray doesn't appear to have cancelled their order for Interlogos 16 core Bulldozer-based CPUs for their upcoming Titan supercomputer. Again, if they had done so, I'd have no problem concluding the FX is a dud plain and simple.
Click to expand...

40882.jpg
 
Michaelius said:
40882.jpg
Click to expand...

Not sure if sane.

Are you implying CRAY Research are really just AMD fanboys in denial with your childish picture?

Are you really sure the manufacturer of world-class supercomputers, who almost certainly worked intimately with AMD on the exact characteristics of this chip, just simply 'f-cked up' and got it wrong?

Think carefully before you respond.
 
Last edited:
I didn't know Cray is in the business of making gaming supercomputers using desktop bulldozer cpus ;)

If you are one of 0,1% of users who solely do stuff where BD outperforms SB cool for you as soon you will have access to plenty of cpus at bargain bin prices but for vast majority of people BD is crap.

But I'm fairly sure this video describes the state you are in currently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfM94ttj2cs
 
BD was not as expected, I get it, I'm also not defending or something, most benchmarks proved it is in some situations slower than its predcessors, but let's return reality, who plays games on CPU power only?
If you want to have high FPS in games you must especially have a fast graphics card or more of them interconnected. Even newest games are not bottle-necked by 3+ year old CPUs if you have upto day cards.
Who is using at home such a specialized software that needs such a high equation power that BD would be slow for it? It really looks that even enthusiasts on this and many other sites just stare at the benchmark stats. Nothing else is important just the CPU that won the chart without having any practical use for it.Yes I am aware of that also it's power consumption/performance ratio and so on are worse than in Phenom and i7, but let's be honest just very little amount of all of you would really be slowed down by the performance of BD. That's why I think most BD haters are just complaining about pointless stats rather comparing the CPUs in real action intended for CPU intensive use. In any real application you would hardly notice any difference in using BD and i7.
That's my 2 cents, peace
 
Michaelius said:
Ooh look two hundreds benchmarks that show truth some people don't want to accept:
Click to expand...

And maybe none of them are compiled with optimized flags for Bulldozer. You can benchmark anything you want but it doesn't make any sense to run code from 1983 on the Bulldozer FX series.
 
Something tells me Cray got a killer deal on those BD chips just so AMD could advertise "omg Cray uses our chips they must suck less than everybody thinks!". I'd estimate somewhere in the 50-100% off range.
 
Waiting is one thing but waiting and getting a sub par processor is another.
I agree for whatever reason it was not ready for release lord knows why it was in development long enough
 
anubis44 said:
Not sure if sane.

Are you implying CRAY Research are really just AMD fanboys in denial with your childish picture?

Are you really sure the manufacturer of world-class supercomputers, who almost certainly worked intimately with AMD on the exact characteristics of this chip, just simply 'f-cked up' and got it wrong?

Think carefully before you respond.
Click to expand...

Are you some kind of a pundit in the supercomputing world? Don't pretend to understand what motivates their decisions because you read a few benchmarks and trolled a few forums.
 
anubis44 said:
Not sure if sane.

Are you implying CRAY Research are really just AMD fanboys in denial with your childish picture?

Are you really sure the manufacturer of world-class supercomputers, who almost certainly worked intimately with AMD on the exact characteristics of this chip, just simply 'f-cked up' and got it wrong?

Think carefully before you respond.
Click to expand...

Jesus, stop it with your ass-licking worship of Cray. They are not not using CPUs for the same reason forum members here are, how fucking hard is that to get through your skull? With a few exceptions, it is hard to recommend BD for a computer build at this point. Yes, there are exceptions, but this doesn't come close to making BD a resounding success.
 
-Dragon- said:
Something tells me Cray got a killer deal on those BD chips just so AMD could advertise "omg Cray uses our chips they must suck less than everybody thinks!". I'd estimate somewhere in the 50-100% off range.
Click to expand...

Actually there is no sucking period

But do you believe that companies make super computers out of sub par components just because they were on sale?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top