But ... but .... Prescott was a fail!

Anyhow, as for people who were saying BD was a fail, well, if you were to take a look at their earlier articles, you'd know that their initial plan was to launch BD above 4GHz at stock, which would definitely make up for some of the loss performance due to IPC. However, it was the yield issue that held BD back (this could be resolved if GloFo could get their act together). Then again, it isn't really much of a fail if you can really utilize all their cores. I'd still take a FX-8120 over an i5 Sandy any day. Then again, I hardly do gaming, it's for productivity. So to each his own.

As for some fellas complaining about BD as servers, they're actually quite fast based on AT's tests. However, do remember that not all the tests were recompiled to run on BD. Since it's a new arch, recompiling is necessary to take advantage of the new architecture. As for power consumption, keep in mind that based on performance per watt, BD falls slightly behind Intel's Xeon but it also costs less, the platform as a whole.

it's ironic that how AMD graphic division mock nvidia power consumption while their CPU division is f***ing power hungry.

^haha...
They even mock intel with their comic however they phailed badly.
Sigh their comic even giving me some hope that they will drive down the intel prices.



This post has been edited by yinchet: Dec 2 2011, 12:35 PM

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=130357

It's not ironic, not sure if you serious but look back during Intel Pres-hott era, their mobile segment excels in both performance and power consumption, even beating desktop CPU despite having low clockspeed. Reason is simple, because its on different division

They could have just leave the BD away from the comsumer market. Many cores doesnt work in this area.

Just give the K10/phenom II a 4 issue instruction (like Intel gave its core architectural from a P6) + give K10 a 8 core then we will see AMD start completing at the level with 2011 SB-E.

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Dec 2 2011, 06:03 PM

AMD Revises Bulldozer Transistor Count: 1.2B, not 2B


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BD was made under GloFlo's 32nm and AMD's GPU's are made under TSMC's 40nm and 28nm, so it is possible that GloFlo is still not very good at what they do. Even Bobcat was made under TSMC's 40nm and it is not power hungry.

tsmc is the "father" of foundry (taiwan)
according from my previous intern, a engineer told me quality of tsmc is better than other such as broadcom (not intel, arm, and nvidia)

This post has been edited by chenwah88: Dec 2 2011, 07:57 PM

It depends but in a direct comparison between TSMC and GF, I'm pretty sure TSMC is much better. That is also the reason why Krishna and Wichita, replacement of Brazos was scrapped under GF's 28nm in favor for TSMC's 28nm. Intel's foundry is probably one of the best for what they do.

haiz............ Cos intel got alot of money.............

Btw, i m intel fan before, when i know that intel beat amd with trick, i feel that intel is nothing........

according to latest benchmark on ivy bridge, it seems that it dint offer much improvement on CPU.
most of the improvement actually found in graphic.

No you're wrong. The stars design is very old. BD does work, it was due to poor scheduling coupled with poor yield which caused the flop. Had they been able to launch their processors at the intended clockspeeds (> 4 GHz, at stock), they could've captured the mainstream market, leaving the high end to Sandy Bridge E.

Maybe for you, you don't need a BD but I am sure many people would find BD absolutely great. It's just the pricing that needs adjusting, especially in Malaysia right now. At ~$200, the FX-8120 is a steal, which many people would not agree because they want a chip for games! And games would not utilize so many cores, it's the IPC that matters in games most of the time. The price of a FX-8120 should be around RM650 based on today's currency exchange but retailers here are charging for RM768 based on lowyat's pricelist. That's the only factor that prevents me from purchasing.

+1 Majority ppl sees BD as gaming proc viable option , thats all they could see .

Well because AMD promotes it as a gaming proc? Their demos with Dirt 3 showing utilisation of all the 8 cores? hmm

Regardless of what they promote it as, you can't just go around and say that they flop because they run a few FPS lower than Phenom. As an overall processor, it is clearly better than purchasing an i5 (I'm talking about FX-8120 here, because FX8150 is being too expensive) because of its raw processing power and lower overall platform cost.

I think there is a huge improvement on the CPU just that Intel held back. IB is running on 77 TDP "could be largely factor by its IGP power consumption" and still performance slightly higher than SB.
with the disappointment on BD performance and power consumption and also not to overshadow SB-E probably the reason y Intel held back. Intel could make a 95 TDP IB but it would seriously destroy SB-E.
Anyway it just my opinion.
Regardless it is interesting to see Intel put more effort on its IGP and it just matter of times for intel to catch up with red camp and green camp.

Problem is their marketing had failed. period. no matter how good it is, the damage has been done by themselves by promoting the least good thing about the proc.

It won't happen anytime soon. Intel still has a long way to go in the graphics department. If you were to look at the benchmarks closely, the results were skewed to make HD4000 graphics look nice by comparing it against HD2000, relatively. Why not the HD3000?

---

Added on December 3, 2011, 8:04 pmYou're right. They fail at marketing. They can't even get their transistor count right. However, should we deny or count out its processing power just because of a failed marketing?

This post has been edited by jonchai: Dec 3 2011, 08:04 PM

Forget about Intel GPU.
Intel driver makes the GPU processes less detailed texture, hence FPS increases.
It is kind of "cheating".

Anyway, AMD is working on B3 revision of Bulldozer.
Fixes :
1) L1, L2 and L3 latencies
2) Cache Thrashing Issues
3) Modified Algorithms for Branch Prediction
4) Healthy Bump in Processor Frequency
5) Slight Frequency increase via NB Controller
6) “Total Intelligent Control” For example programs and applications should look at the module design approach and the ability for the processor to intelligently turn off and/or turn on specific cores that it believes is hindering performance for maximum performance. (May be for Socket FM2, not sure at this time).
7) Power will be improved but not my much. We will have to wait for Socket FM2 or a future B4 revision for the AM3+ platform for better power efficiency especially when Over-clocked

Ah yes, interesting indeed, there is a video thingy on Trinity architecture?
AMD wants to provide something like QuickSync?

This post has been edited by kingkingyyk: Dec 3 2011, 08:16 PM

B3 will still have the IPC issue. It is only estimated to perform around 3 - 5% better than B2. The real deal would be PileDriver.

I believe the 2b transistor count was meant for Trinity with an on-die graphics processor, but their marketing people screwed up. If AMD can pull a QuickSync and does not have the mutually exclusive problem like Sandy's prior to the Z-series chipset, why not? It's all the more better. Kudos to AMD if they can pull it off with Trinity.