I don't like where AMD is heading, they had gone back to megahertz race. The common conception that 'AMD is hot' back during the Thunderbird era is going to be back because of this.

Although it doesn't matter much in desktop where you could put big cooler on them and reach very high speeds, but they won't appeal much for mobile gamer.

Just look at current AMD Sabine platform, with only 2.1GHz tops (with on our market it is usually have low based 1.4GHz clock quad core) it won't be able to perform in games because as we could see from similarly architectured desktop Deneb based Phenom II needs 3GHz and above to reach 25fps minimum, like for example Skyrim even with GTX 570 as per review here.

The only saving grace for AMD is because it based on k10 stars architecture people can use k10stats to overclock, some with modded cooling could reach 3GHz speeds as you could read here. Also Crossfire between integrated and dedicated GPU don't work in some games as well, lowering performance instead of increasing them.

I don't see how Trinity could be better than current Llano on laptop, the GPU could be faster, that's why its only 3D benchmark is been floating around, but what about the CPU? What are the clocks might be? With base clock of 3+GHz on desktop they better do something on mobile to make it appeal for gamers because high speed don't equal to low temperature or low power consumption.

AMD could do a lot of things with their Bobcat, really. Just put one in Ultrabook chassis and voila! Affordable Ultrabook.

Have you seen tho, how BD perform under linux environment. Its pretty impressive some of the benchmarks. It gives a view of what happens when better optimisation is done. A window to what windows 8 would be....hopefully!

There's nothing wrong with Megahertz race really, especially with current technology where die shrinks even smaller. Ultimately, fabs would come to a dead end, which was predicted to be at about 8nm or 4? I can't really remember. Instructions per clock cycles matter, the faster it is, the faster things get done. AMD is already some time ahead of what our current technology could handle, in terms of multi-threaded processing, based on BD. Sure, Sandy may seem faster on paper, but BD isn't a slouch either in terms of multi threaded processing. Give AMD some time to fine tune and GloFo to sort out their problems, PileDriver may just be the next true FX chip.

IPC don't equal to fast clock, what it should do is to execute instruction in fewer cycle as possible and done more work per clock cycle thus reducing the needs of high clockspeed and lowering power consumption. The reason why Netburst fails because they were aimed squarely at high clock instead of high IPC. It was predicted to reach 10GHz but where does it stop? Not even half of that. Check Netburst Rapid Execution Engine, it runs twice the clock as the CPU runs, which means Arithmetic Logic Units runs at 6GHz if the CPU clock is 3GHz but does it prove faster than lower clocked K8? AMD really needs to do another K8 to really gives Intel a run for its money. The situation is reversed now. Like I said high clock have huge drawback, mainly power consumption and heat. Other comes in the form of bad yield due to difficulty of manufacturing complex core.

By the time Pliedriver is out, Intel already have Ivy Bridge ready. Remember Intel have process node advantage over AMD.

Unfortunately hope alone won't helps AMD by much. But time will tell whether an improved thread scheduling in Windows 8 will improve its performance as most people hoped or not.

Actually under Linux OS, The FX8150 is on par & even slightly faster than the i7 990X base on IPC. Well that's what I saw on Phoronix review.

I seems Windows 7 isn't optimized for Bulldozer

For those who don't read thread scheduling advantages if it done correctly, read here

it's not that much faster & certainly still not enough to be faster than 2500

Trouble is, right now, Intel has much better OS and application support for Hyper-Threading than AMD does for Bulldozer. In fact, we're a little surprised AMD hasn't attempted to piggyback on Intel's Hyper-Threading infrastructure by making Bulldozer processors present themselves to the OS as four physical cores with eight logical threads. One would think that might be a nice BIOS menu option, at least. (Hmm. Mobo makers, are you listening?)

Actually under Linux OS, The FX8150 is on par & even slightly faster than the i7 990X base on IPC. Well that's what I saw on Phoronix review.

I seems Windows 7 isn't optimized for Bulldozer

Well, the thread scheduling is done so to trigger higher Turbo Core clock because of it uses fewer modules. So it could simply be done by overclocking manually anyway.

But I like this quote in particular near the end of the article, it could be beneficial to AMD somewhat

Not quite on par overall, as the Core i7 990X was never a competitor to FX8150 (even the pricing is a telling sign). For example, you can check the results here: OpenBenchmarking.org - AMD FX-8150 Vs. Intel On Linux Benchmarks (quite a few others at OpenBenchmarking.org as well). 

Bulldozer cores are really more like hardware threads since CMT is another type of multi-threading technology (like SMT or HyperThreading). It also has a few niggling issues (such as drop in performance) as found in HyperThreading with certain software or scenarios. Can be seen that in this new review: AnandTech - Bulldozer for Servers: Testing AMD's "Interlagos" Opteron 6200 Series (look at Rendering Performance: 3DSMax 2012 and Blender results on this page: Rendering Performance: Maxwell Render and Blender). And yups, Interlagos reviewed at last.

It’s all down to TSMC now

AMD has pulled that plug on Deccan, the low voltage APU that was scheduled to succeed the highly successful Brazos platform next year.

According to several sources, AMD was unable to reach a satisfactory agreement with Globalfoundries. The foundry was apparently unable to provide volume 28nm production by mid-2012, which would give Deccan a relatively short lifespan. Going back to TSMC, the makers of AMD’s 40nm APUs, would entail redesigning the chips, which was and a practical option this late in development.

The mess left AMD in a rather awkward situation and not it seems the outfit will have to come up with entirely new 28nm designs for TSMC. Some punters believe AMD simply won’t have time to design entirely new chips and it will have to resort to die shrinking Brazos generation chips. This would basically mean sticking with a derivative of the 8-year-old K8 architecture, which originally started out as a 130nm design. Next generation APUs, including Trinity and probably Deccan successor will use Bulldozer derived cores.

In case AMD chooses to redesign existing chips, it still might be able to introduce 28nm APUs in 2012. However, it would take it about 18 months to design a true replacement for cancelled Krishna and Wichita chips. This would give Intel ample time to catch up and seize much of the market with its 32nm Atoms.
sosej

"We're at an inflection point," said AMD spokesman Mike Silverman, according to a Mercury News report. "We will all need to let go of the old 'AMD versus Intel' mindset, because it won't be about that anymore."

No more AMD vs Intel mentality it seems...
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not-Com...le-237103.shtml

This also translates to Intel monopoly. Hooray for Intel fanboys! They just made their i7 worth even more 

Who is stopping AMD from competing?
AMD just need to deliver the product and keep her mouth shut.

How Intel monopolize?
If you need someone to blame, AMD to blame.
AMD let Intel monopolize the x86 market by introducing bad products and full-of-hypes.