Confirmed: AMD will delay BD launch again now to Oct. 2011

[Piano Man]

BD = Duke Nukem

 

[happy medium]

So glad I didn't buy that AM3+ motherboard.
I hope this is not another Phenom 1 chip, I want at least some competition so I can grab a SB platform cheaper.

 

[sawtx]

Is there any confirmation or anything, or is this just another rumor.

I'm guessing that they mean the refresh is set for Q1 2012 and not Q1 2011.

 

[Terzo]

Le sigh.

So these two tidbits of information are unrelated, right? AMD isn't delaying to October so they can add a few models to the launch lineup. If that were the case, I'm thinking the better choice would be to launch ASAP and release further models shortly after...but I'm no industry expert.

Btw, if speculation is the 4170 is being released to go head to head with the 2500k, doesn't that imply the 8150 will roughly offer 2500k performance as well, but with the added benefit of 4 modules for multithreaded programs?

Anyways, I'm half tempted to get a 4100 and lock myself into amd, upgrading again at the Komodo release, but realistically I think it's a lot more sensible to just pick up an Ivy when they come out. Well, realistically I should just keep the 4 core athlon I currently have, but all this processor talk is giving me upgrade-itis.

Is there any confirmation or anything, or is this just another rumor.

I'm guessing that they mean the refresh is set for Q1 2012 and not Q1 2011.

I think when they say refresh they mean higher clocks and/or lower price points, not a new architecture (is that the right word?). The next mainstream desktop line should be Komodo, which I believe is a fusion Bulldozer, and you're right in that it's scheduled for Q1 2012. I could be wrong on that though, I'm going off memory so I may have mixed up some names.

 

[jvroig]

Stinks if true. Still I wonder what the email I got means. Sept 13th is a big announcement AMD says.?

That will be the announcement of the announcement of the launch date. They are clearly pulling an NV here.

"AMD fans, are you ready... to wait some more!!" Hell, yeah! [cue photoshopped picture of the green-turned-red monitor with (sorceror?)]


On a more serious note, I hope they don't pull an NV and announce when they will announce the launch date.

By the way, how come some of you got an email? Where should I subscribe if I wanted a similar email?

 

[bridito]

Abandon hope all ye who enter here. Geez that SB-E is looking good...

 

[ViRGE]

AMD's email says the event is at SFO.

EDIT: It coincides with IDF.

Ahh. The AMD counter-conference. IIRC there aren't usually any major announcements at the counter-conference, but they could surprise us this year.

 

[jvroig]

Personally, I'm not really worried about the delays myself (although I know I'm probably in the minority on this one).

When it is released, it will either kick ass, or it won't. It doesn't matter when it would be, or what it's competition will be. It will still either kick ass (whether it is against SB or IB, whatever is the competition at the time), or it won't. No excuses.

And if it kicks ass, it gets bought. If it doesn't, it stays in shelves and in online OEM catalogues, never to be clicked. Doesn't matter if it's June, or December. It will still get evaluated as "does it kick ass?". People will either rejoice or walk away gnashing their teeth.

Whatever AMD is doing, I hope it is to ensure that BD will be "kicking ass". Particularly, in the server space. Gaining ground in the server market is a big step in continuing their profitability, plus server products are something that will affect me in my job as a server guy, so it is also good for me as a working stiff. They can just continue giving "good enough" products for the consumer market with bobcat and Llano, and care about us enthusiasts last when the servers and high-volume mass-market OEM consumer products are taken care of. It's not what we want to hear, but it's probably the right business decision.

As an enthusiast (not any more as a working stiff), I will be a little disappointed by not having BD kick ass in the desktop, if it so happens that way. No skin off my back, though. I'll just buy a SB or an IB, whatever is in vogue at the time of my next upgrade.

So, about that email... where do I get that email formulav8 and velis (in another thread) are talking about?

 

[Idontcare]

That will be the announcement of the announcement of the launch date. They are clearly pulling an NV here.

"AMD fans, are you ready... to wait some more!!" Hell, yeah! [cue photoshopped picture of the green-turned-red monitor with (sorceror?)]


On a more serious note, I hope they don't pull an NV and announce when they will announce the launch date.

By the way, how come some of you got an email? Where should I subscribe if I wanted a similar email?

 

[happy medium]

Mabe the announcement is the release of BD and some mid range 7xxx series cards at the same time?
That would be cool, but I doubt it.

 

[Soulkeeper]

october 2011 ?
sure it's not october 2012 ?

 

[mjrpes3]

Perhaps I'm missing something, then. The Athlon XP, Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2 were competitive with the Pentium 4 and Pentium D, respectively. That alone accounts for four years. The Phenom II X4 was competitive with the Core 2 Quad, and the Phenom II X6 was competitive with Nehalem Core i7. That's six years. It's this year that AMD has been completely outclassed.

AMD had been competitive with Intel ever since the release of the original Athlon back in 1999. The original Athlon kicked the shit out of the P3. There was a period starting around 2004 until the release of Core 2 Duo in 2006 that AMD outclassed Intel in every way, due to Intel's inability to scale up the P4... that was AMD's golden era. Since 2006 AMD has had no chance to keep up in performance because Intel has been tic-tocking flawlessly.

 

[RussianSensation]

The Phenom II X4 was competitive with the Core 2 Quad, and the Phenom II X6 was competitive with Nehalem Core i7.

Not sure if serious?

AMD had no answer for C2D, C2Q, Core i5/i7 (1st gen) or i5/i7 2nd gen since 2006.

- Phenom I was inferior to C2D/Q 65nm/45nm CPUs
- Phenom II lost even more to 1st generation i5/i7
- Phenom II isn't even on the radar now that SB is around

For most users who do office tasks (Adobe/office apps, games, etc.) an X6 is now only as fast as an i5 760 from 2 years ago. But of course it's all over for the X6 once you overclock i5 750/760/i7 920/930/860/870, etc. ....and that's not even taking into account 2500k/2600k which WHOOP X6 like no tomorrow.......(it's not even close!).

If by competitive you mean AMD had good CPUs < $130, esp. Athlon II X4 then I agree. Since June of 2006 (C2D launch), AMD got blown away every single year outside of low-end market segments. Phenom II X4 is only about as good as C2Quad from 2007. X6 added 2 more slow cores for those who render, but overall it barely changed anything.

Throwing games out of the equation where X4/X6 easily lose, and X4 still can't even convincingly beat an i3-2120. AMD has been throwing 4 cores vs. 2 and 6 cores vs. 4 in the last 3 years to compete with Intel, trying to capture users who do rendering/video encoding and competing on price <$130.

I also believe AMD's server market share has fallen to around 5.5&#37;, an all time low.

Maybe you have a different definition of what being competitive means?

Since 2006 AMD has had no chance to keep up in performance because Intel has been tic-tocking flawlessly.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

AMD had been competitive with Intel ever since the release of the original Athlon back in 1999. The original Athlon kicked the shit out of the P3. There was a period starting around 2004 until the release of Core 2 Duo in 2006 that AMD outclassed Intel in every way, due to Intel's inability to scale up the P4... that was AMD's golden era. Since 2006 AMD has had no chance to keep up in performance because Intel has been tic-tocking flawlessly.

From 2006-2008 AMD were not able to compete. In early 2009 the Phenom II X4 came and it was very competitive with the Core 2 Quads, and in early 2010 the Phenom II X6 came and it was competitive with the Nehalem Core i7s. This year Intel has seen no competition from AMD.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

You can't be serious? AMD had no answer for C2D, C2Q, Core i5/i7 (1st gen) or i5/i7 2nd gen. Phenom I was inferior to C2D/Q 65nm/45nm CPUs and Phenom II lost even more to 1st generation i5/i7.

Overlcocked X6 isn't even as good as an overclocked i5 750/760 from 2 years ago, things get even worse compared to i7 920/930/860/870 and that's not even taking into account 2500k/2600k which WHOOP X6 like no tomorrow.......(and no I don't want to see 6 of the same multi-threaded benchmarks were X6 beats i5 750).

If by competitive you mean AMD had good CPUs < $130, then sure. Since June of 2006 (C2D launch), AMD got blown away every single year. Phenom II now is only as good as C2Quad from 2007.

This is the exact thing I was about to ask you after reading this statement. If you think IPC is the only thing that matters, you're wrong. The Phenom II X6 is faster in multi-threaded and slower in single-threaded than the Nehalem Core i7s. It was definitely competitive with them.

Perhaps you forgot, but the original Phenom X4 was supposed to compete with the Core 2 Quad 65nm, but it failed. Then came the Phenom II X4, and it was competitive with Core 2 Quad 45nm. Then came the Phenom II X6, and it proved competitive against the Nehalem Core i7. You compare things that don't compete with each other, as we can see here from you comparing the original Phenom X4 to C2Q 45nm. You also compare things that aren't even in the same market/price point.

Also, multi-threaded performance matters more than single-threaded now. We're not in 2006.

 

[Absolution75]

Not surprised at all.

I think that their entire architecture just didn't turn out the way they wanted. They basically pulled an Intel with their P4 and went for clockspeed over IPC. Then the ES didn't clock as well as they hoped, just like P4. Wasn't P4 designed to go up to 10GHz eventually? Or am I making it up.

 

[trollolo]

Le sigh.

go back to reddit

 

[jvroig]

Wasn't P4 designed to go up to 10GHz eventually? Or am I making it up.

No, what they released was just scientist-speak for "eventually we might be able to reach 10GHz clockspeeds using this design". It was a forward-thinking "this is possible with this tech" statement, not really a promise or guarantee of delivery, and the timespan quoted was a little far into the future, definitely not for current or next gen back then.

I'm sure if they have netburst right now, they probably could hit that 10GHz figure - it's just that it still won't be a match for their current offerings, for power, thermals, and performance.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Not surprised. Still a bit disappointed. AMD is in serious trouble if they can't deliver a well performing CPU.

 

[dma0991]

I give up on BD. This is taking forever and I don't have forever to wait for vaporware. 125W TDP for a 4 core chip seems to be pushing it to its maximum overclocking potential. I doubt there will be any overclocking headroom compared to a Core i5 2500K. I should have gone with SB like 9 months ago. :|

 

[Venom20]

le sigh indeed

 

[Idontcare]

It explains Anand's comment on the frontpage yesterday about bulldozer info "not coming soon".

 

[StrangerGuy]

Don't buy motherboards, especially expensive ones, before the CPU arrives. True story.

 

[RussianSensation]

You also compare things that aren't even in the same market/price point.

Also, multi-threaded performance matters more than single-threaded now. We're not in 2006.

Were C2D/Q/i5/i7 (1st, 2nd gen) single threaded processors? :sneaky: I am not comparing things at the same price point?

Let me refresh your memory in detail because you don't want to do any hmwk/or purposely do not want to admit how AMD got owned in the last 5 years:

1) Mid-2006 - Core 2 Duo launches and dominates Athlon X2 / FX.

2) Late-2006 - Intel launches 65nm C2Q. AMD is now not even in the picture at this point for high-end or mid-range.

3) Very Late 2006 - AMD tries to counter with Dual FX platform. Nope, not even close.

4) Summer 2007 - Intel introduces 1333 FSB models, and X2 6000+ suddenly looks even more uncompetitive against C2D series.

5) Late Summer 2007 - Intel drops price of Q6600 below $300, completely cementing its position at or above this price as the premium platform (famous Q6600 G0 becomes a legendary processor for 2-3 years for many users). AMD still nowhere in the picture.....having completely given up mid-range and high-end markets.

6) Spring 2007 - The final blow - Intel introduces budget C2D E21xx family. AMD loses its last stronghold - the budget segment. Overclocked E21xx series is fast enough to beat any X2 processor. By this time, Intel has a better processor in every single segment - low end / mid-range and high-end.

7) Late Fall 2007 - Intel introduces 45nm Quads. AMD is still nowhere to be found for mid-range or high-end. Relegated to compete with X2 4800-6000+ chips on price only. Losing performance in every price segment > $100.

8) End of 2007 - AMD launches Phenom I. The highest end 9900 offering still cannot beat Intel's slowest quad core - Q6600, despite being almost 1.5 years late since Q6600 launched. Phenom 9500 is 17&#37; slower and Phenom 9600 &#8211; about 14% slower than their Q6600 competitor. AMD is left with no choice but to lower prices to compete. Another failure with TLB bug. By this point Q6600 users have enjoyed superior performance to Phenom I with their 3.0-3.4ghz overclocks for > 15 months. Shocking.

9) January 2008 - Intel launches Wolfdale on 45nm. This refreshed 45nm C2D puts the nail in the coffin for all X2 series since it results in complete domination of E8xxx series parts and E6xxx series experience price cuts that makes lower end X2 parts irrelevant. By January 2008: So, the results of our today&#8217;s dual-core processor shoot-out indicate clearly that Intel processors win the &#8220;Best Buy&#8221; title in every single price segment.

10) Spring 2008 - AMD tries to carve out a niche segment with X3 processors. Not very successful. Unsatisfactory performance.

11) Late 2008 - with TLB bug behind AMD, they still can't compete with Phenom II against 45nm Q9300/9400/9500 CPUs. Core i7-920 processor comes into retail after November 16 priced at $284....Intel's performance is now 1 full generation ahead of Phenom II; ouch.

 

[happy medium]

Were C2D/Q/i5/i7 (1st, 2nd gen) single threaded processors? :sneaky:

Let me refresh your memory in detail because you don't want to do any hmwk:

1) Mid-2006 - Core 2 Duo launches and dominates Athlon X2 / FX.

2) Late-2006 - Intel launches 65nm C2Q. AMD is now not even in the picture at this point for high-end or mid-range.

3) Very Late 2006 - AMD tries to counter with Dual FX platform. Nope, not even close.

4) Summer 2007 - Intel introduces 1333 FSB models, and X2 6000+ suddenly looks even more uncompetitive against C2D series.

5) Late Summer 2007 - Intel drops price of Q6600 below $300, completely cementing its position at or above this price as the premium platform (famous Q6600 G0 becomes a legendary processor for 2-3 years for many users). AMD still nowhere in the picture.....having completely given up mid-range and high-end markets.

6) Spring 2007 - The final blow - Intel introduces budget C2D E21xx family. AMD loses its last stronghold - the budget segment. Overclocked E21xx series is fast enough to beat any X2 processor. By this time, Intel has a better processor in every single segment - low end / mid-range and high-end.

7) Late Fall 2007 - Intel introduces 45nm Quads. AMD is still nowhere to be found for mid-range or high-end. Relegated to compete with X2 4800-6000+ chips on price only. Losing performance in every price segment > $100.

8) End of 2007 - AMD launches Phenom I. The highest end 9900 offering still cannot beat Intel's slowest quad core - Q6600, despite being almost 1.5 years late since Q6600 launched. Phenom 9500 is 17&#37; slower and Phenom 9600 &#8211; about 14% slower than their Q6600 competitor. AMD is left with no choice but to lower prices to compete. Another failure with TLB bug. By this point Q6600 users have enjoyed superior performance to Phenom I @ 3.0-3.4ghz for > 15 months.

Please continue, Its like a refresher coarse for me

Spring 2008........................