Nice, after this we can expect new processor price from Intel to be from RM1500 upward just like old time during early 00's era.

If they pull out, that just means Intel will gain monopoly. Simple logic.

And no, no one is putting blame here. That statement was just to troll Intel fanboys. Obviously you took things too seriously, and for some others, bit the bitter pills.

---

Added on November 30, 2011, 2:04 pmBulldozer ain't that much of a letdown if you really look at it as a 4 core, 8 threads product. Don't bring it to the gaming front. Instead, bring it to the productivity front and you'll be amazed how powerful a bulldozer really can be, going against an i5. Please, don't bring i7 into the equation, they are of different classes.

AMD's size, in terms of capital market is a fraction of Intel's. Obviously on the R&D front, they just can't beat Intel without some serious innovations. Fusion is a start and a right move and I do feel that their decision to leave the high performance market is justified because, how much more performance do you need or could fully utilize?

This post has been edited by jonchai: Nov 30 2011, 02:04 PM

hmm yea, bulldozer is amazing for using other product that really utilize bulldozer mostly workstation and such.

but yea is a little let down for gaming side.

dun a fanboy.

1) bulldozer is a fail architecture. it is comparable to nvidia 1st gen fermi, 400 series.

2) bulldozer even loses badly out in server market.

3) it's not a little down, it's a lot down on gaming front.

1. It is bad currently but with Fermi, it gets better over time when it gets minor tweaks that gives substantial improvement. There is a possibility that BD can be the same.
2. Unless there are new statistics of the server market, that is a very bold statement you're making. It will remain false till proven otherwise.
3. I already clarified even before BD launch that it is not meant for a gaming rig. I mentioned that BD will do much better if the programs could utilize 8 all threads.

Server market?
Based on these articles, 60% of servers are x86, which are either Intel or AMD.
Intel has more than 90% of server market share.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011...t-stronger.aspx
http://www.itproportal.com/2010/08/19/inte...s-amds-expense/

That is based off the old statistics where there are only Magny Cours in the server market. It does not reflect what impact Interlagos has on the market. I want future statistics to prove otherwise.

You will only see the real impact caused or statistics by Interlagos in 2012.
It's more like a future-statistics.
That provided the marketing guys of AMD do their job by convincing the big-three, HP, IBM and Dell, to adopt Interlagos.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011...t-stronger.aspx
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure...s-Chips-124852/

This post has been edited by ALeUNe: Nov 30 2011, 09:32 PM

even if the statistic is slightly old, it is impossible that say AMD grab 10% market share from intel.

hav u actually seen bulldozer server chip review?
poor on the performance per watt.
as u we all know, power usage is big deal in server market.

saying BD is slightly behind in gaming is just plain ignorance & denial.
coz fact is that BD is far off in gaming.

even in heavily threaded app, BD only win SOMETIMES.
& that SOMETIMES is not by much also. fact.

This post has been edited by tech3910: Nov 30 2011, 10:49 PM

Not to forget, the Xeon processors (that Interlagos head-to-head with) are the Nehalem based processors.
Intel Sandy Bridge Xeon was not used.

This post has been edited by ALeUNe: Nov 30 2011, 11:02 PM

It is very unexpected that AMD will make a huge comeback in such a short time. I suppose AMD might gain some share in their niche(virtualization and HPC) that their aiming. The Interlagos review done by AT is somewhat accurate to the extent of standardizing tests across multiple platforms. For real world tests it might prove better where core density is important. Even in the Facebook Open Compute Project, not all servers are made equal and some tasks are given to Intel and some are given to AMD as a memcache.

It is undeniable that they have poor performance/watt and even more unforgiving in the server space but we'll see what the next iteration will bring about. For now it is up to AMD to sort out with GloFlo because the root of the problem with power consumption lies with GloFlo's 32nm node. I've not used the word 'slightly' or 'far off' in my statements regarding BD with games. I know for a fact that BD was not meant for games. First one must understand the nature of current games where they can't utilize the most out of 8 cores, 4 strong cores are better suited for gaming. Never have I said that BD will pawn SB in games.

Considering that BD is 2 billion transistors is one thing but a single BD module is still the same size as a single SB core. The most of the transistors budget goes to the L2 & L3 cache which is much denser compared to regular transistors so AMD is not at a disadvantage yet. If AMD in some tests have similar or worse results compared to a Core i7 2600K in multi threaded tests, this is your answer. As to why AMD decided to with more slower cache rather than smaller faster cache is all up to their design, which in this case it backfired.

Intel currently has Westmere in their server line which is a die shrinked Nehalem to 32nm. So theoretically with Nehalem and SB-EP being made on the same manufacturing process we could probably see a small difference at best. Think of it like X58 vs x79 where X79 definitely has some improvement but not huge.

This post has been edited by dma0991: Nov 30 2011, 11:12 PM

architecture design start years bck & impossible to to som major chances not wasting few more years.
now, AMD is following it's GPU division strategy. thats y they r going to focus on mobile market a lot more.

unless BD is comparable to intel in clock for clock performance, it will nvr win.

And thus WHY AMD says, don't make it AMD vs Intel anymore. Both have different priorities now. As I said earlier, AMD's choice of going towards mobile might be the best choice in the long term as more and more people choose to get smaller, more mobile devices that can be brought everywhere

We'll never know how things might turn out with some minor tweaks in the architecture being made which could improve performance. AMD was betting on Fusion, with its CPU cores to handle integer workloads while the on die GPU cores would handle floating point calculations. It is definitely a gamble which I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end well when a dedicated GPU array would have better floating point performance because they have their own TDP budget. The mobile market strategy is nothing big, it is a known fact that most of the money made now is with servers and mobile. Even if they were to completely give up on desktop, they could focus on the server and mobile market and when they have improved, they could reenter the market again.

If we're measuring IPC relative to the size of the core(an inaccurate measurement), BD will definitely be behind when it comes to IPC. That is why many questioned whether IPC would increase or decrease. Obviously with enough logic many concluded that IPC will decrease but AMD reps says that IPC will increase and 50% throughput with 33% increase in core count. That is obviously marketing speak and even if it were true that BD is bad, his job is to polish a turd. AMD is betting on having more cores instead of more IPC, so single threaded performance suffers for a gain of some multithreaded performance.

I have to search back for the article which showed that the sales of mobile processors is much more profitable than desktop processors so it is not the end of the world if AMD decides to abandon the desktop market altogether. However I already mentioned that AMD is shifting their aim to be more progressive to mobile and not quitting the x86 market. I never really liked Softpedia, no credibility. link

This post has been edited by dma0991: Nov 30 2011, 11:27 PM

Even if AMD's CPUs are the best, people will still go for Intel.

Remember the Duron, Thoroughbred, Barton days, and the early dual core CPUs (Pentium D lololol!), AMD were kicking Intel's ass.

But people still buy Intel. Why? I've seen many people said "Don't buy AMD la, a lot of softwares not compatible" and chose the Presshot instead

So obviously you can't come up with the best product if your competitor have a lot more money for R&D. I don't blame AMD because, as I said earlier, shit or good, majority would still go for Intel.

Anyways, AMD still committed to x86, but not on high end desktop...

Linky

It going to take them awhile to go back to the game head to head with intel.
BD no matter what they can hardly win intel SB and IB is coming in.
Even if BD went through some fine tuning, I doubt they will be able to come make a good return for now.
TBH, AMD are too arrogant with their marketing "example BD comic " showing how powerful their products really bite their feet.

Mere misconception.
Show us a good product and we will get it.
Performance over brand.

I had bought Thunderbird, Thoroughbred and Sledgehammer.
Sledgehammer was the last AMD desktop processor I had owned in 2003.
AMD has not been able to compete since Intel introduced "Core" processors.

P/S I owned Acer Aspire One 721 last year (which had AMD K10 inside). Sold it after 2 months.


This post has been edited by ALeUNe: Dec 1 2011, 05:21 PM

How? Explain

And why did you buy those 3?

So after Sledgehammer, you opted for Prescott?

Enthusiast now what they want. Thunderbird/thoroughbred was popular in retails. I bought them too. But not so in OEM vendor.

If the product is good we buy it. Straight and simple.