AMD Bulldozer is a Flop

Discussion in 'Technology' started by knowname, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. :( I'm not gonna be able to put one into my AM2+ motherboard when I bought it SPECIFICALLY just for that... Sad day for me.

    In short it's better (and much more efficient) than what they got, might be better in Win 8, but it's nowhere as good as Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge should handle it easily.

    I'd keep an eye on the 6-core version though, it's basically the same as the best Phenom II x6 but costs 50 bucks less AND uses less volts. I'm sure the price of the Phenom will be adjusted appropriately by launch... It can already be found for ~$25 less than what's posted here.

    (this is about as good as it gets... so I'd guess at release you'll see results acrossed the board like this... in the best case scenerio)
  2. So it's late and a total piece of crap that's not even in the same ballpark as Sandy Bridge. Its single threaded performance is dreadful, and apparently the chip has such weird architecture that Windows 7 has no idea what to do with it.

    No surprises here. AMD hasn't had a CPU worth buying since the Athlon 64. All the AMD fanbois were talking about how this would be the chip to redeem AMD and it's a dud.

    Intel really kicked AMD in the balls with the Core 2 Duo and they've basically never recovered.
  3. ditto... but it costs less, same old story. Seems the architecture is primed for big things IF their fab plant (forget the name) can get things together. At least that's what I got from this and Maxpc's much shorter and more to the point take. I do expect big things from them in the future. Right now I'm just looking at the bottom of their order. The top is obviously too slow, too power hungry and too expensive. (like the P4)
  4. LOL. What a POS. It's not even as good as the first gen Core i processors.

    I wonder if AMD is going to go bankrupt. They've been very close to bankruptcy for awhile now and this chip was supposed to save them. Maybe they should dump their CPU division and just stick to making video cards. It's all they're really good at.
  5. They're Fusion and they're server lines are both top notch.
  6. I think the high end of the CPU market is where AMD seems to really struggle. I can't think of any rational reason to even consider buying a Bulldozer over the $215 i5-2500K.
  7. I'm stuck with a DDR2 AM3, if my board supports BD I'm gonna buy it lol... but just a 4 or 6-core, not the top of the line 8-core :| Otherwise I'll have to buy RAM and a new motherboard... and I don't really want to. It's irrational, your right :/ lol
  8. You really can't even make the argument that AMD chips are a good value these days. The Sandy Bridge chips are cheap and monstrously powerful. I don't see why you would go with AMD at any price point other than fanboyism.
  9. Well if a person gets off on a lot cores the AMD CPU makes sense.
  10. Monkey has a mental block, it's his way and no other way. I doubt he can see over it. For most enthusiasts there is NO doubt Intel is the ONLY way... but I'm pretty sure the world isn't made up of largely nerds... if it was monkey wouldn't have much to complain about in the first place. AMD will survive, if fanboys were enough to keep a company afloat 3dfx and Sega would still be around. Adversely a bad product that fails to impress or make any new "fanboys" won't sink a company. If that were true AMD, the former ATI division, would be wiping the FLOOR with Nvidea! But their not... not yet at least.

    AMD will stay afloat with it's server buisness (Turion??) and the farce that is the APU. It is a farce because it's nothing really revolutionary over SB or even Nehelem or w/e preceded SB. It gains ground by having great gaming performance (though when I say 'great' I still mean 2 years after it's time... but what ya gonna do with such low power draw?).

    AMD can still make waves... but only IF all of it's eggs land in one basket (again)... gotta find another reason to sue Intel... this may be the death knell for them, but this is not the end.
  11. and here's those 6100 numbers I'd been lookin for

    there's also numbers when overclocked... all I can say is not good. surprisingly there isn't much speed gain when bumped up from 3.5 to 4.4ghz. This review is kinda' strange though, I found another one that had 6100 numbers

    and they were WAY worse! what I wanted to know is how much it outperforms the Phenom, but in this last review it doesn't, in the top review it does... but only a little (not surprising, they are identical except the new one has extra instructions sets that should speed up things... obviously it's not properly optimized in current s/w- the FX also is rated at 95w whereas the Phenom is 125w). Both reviews are highly questionable... but I do have more info than I had before. An i7 drops it with hardly a sweat, but it really competes with the i5 and the 8-core can give it a run... it's a better deal too considering the mobo is 50 bucks less too. But it is rather close and won't be in the same arena come ivy bridge I'm sure!
  12. Yeah it's a pretty horrible CPU that's destined for the landfill.
  13. Well it might have an advantage running VMware simply because of the greater number of cores. I'm starting to do some application planning on quad I7 870 servers and many of the programs don't need a powerful CPU but they do need a dedicated core. The blades I'm running have 32 cores. If they had 64 cores I could get more applications on there.
  14. We run Intel Xeon blades and they all perform really well with VMware ESX 4.1. None of them even break a sweat to be honest and the newest one with the 6 core Xeons is stupidly fast.
  15. This is my first time working with any type of virtual servers so it should be fun. I got some Cisco UCS blades which are pretty new in the server world. I’ll mostly be playing with Unix services but I also got a 64 cores for Windows services as well. I’m probably not supposed to have those but oh well. Windows servers are run by another group which is why I never get to play with VMware.
  16. How many servers are you intended to run on that??? I have a 2 x 4 core xeon + HT + Turbo blade running 6 and it barely scratches the surface.


    Granted all of the servers on this blade are utility servers but VMware is really good at resource management. On other blades running important stuff I tend to keep them to 4 servers so that if one blade falls over we have capacity to run the VM's from the broken blade on them.

    We currently run 6 VMware servers, 5 x blades, 1 x tower server at branch office.

    Started using Veeam to back them up and its really good.
  17. I don’t have any plans for the Windows blade but I got 12 servers for the Unix blades. Some of them need 5 cores and 4GB of memory apiece. Total hogs. In fact I don’t have enough cores and will probably have to order more Unix blades. I’ll probably run TFTP, DNS, and some e-911 software on the Windows blade. That’s 6 cores. I got the Windows blade really cheap because Cisco is trying to get a foot hold in our data centers.
  18. The faildozer was a real disaster for AMD. They laid off 10% of their employees a few days ago including some senior execs.

    Things are really not looking good for the company. It's kind of sad because I really don't want to see Intel and nVidia have monopolies.
  19. Most of the layoffs where in marketing - good riddance. Their marketing was aweful, especially how they attempted to market Bulldozer bringing back the FX monicker and saying it's the ultimate gaming CPU.

    WRT the engineers and the rest, that's a big loss. I hope they survive.