In defense of "Bulldozer"

[ElFenix]

Rationalizations for Bulldozer can be made for the performance and possibly the price, but not the power consumption.

yup, if it was a 75 watt part it'd be peachy.

 

[drizek]

Agreed.

The price is high, but not ridiculous. The performance is underwhelming but not terrible. The performance/watt is completely dreadful though, as is the raw power consumption under load at high clocks. When the thing is drawing 150W+, it becomes genuinely difficult to keep it cool in a case designed for silence rather than high airflow.

 

[exar333]

Agreed.

The price is high, but not ridiculous. The performance is underwhelming but not terrible. The performance/watt is completely dreadful though, as is the raw power consumption under load at high clocks. When the thing is drawing 150W+, it becomes genuinely difficult to keep it cool in a case designed for silence rather than high airflow.

That is why Intel has focused so much on perf/watt improvements. In many cases, performance is 'good enough' from the cheapest SB duallies to the fastest hexacores. Focusing on lower-power means expanding the market for their mainstream chips (TVs, tablets, ULV laptops, phones, etc).

Companies like ARM are converging to the same place, but they start with lower power usage and much lower performance. So they focus on better performance, more cores, at the same (or similar) power envelope.

AMD struck-out with BD because it was no faster than PhII while consuming MORE power. It is less competitive all-around.

 

[dac7nco]

Even when you take into account MB pricing, the "premium" for an Intel build still does not make BD appealing unless you already have an AM3+ board.

Indeed, there is in fact no "premium" any longer for an Intel build. Sandy Bridge likes the cheapest memory you can buy, and you can get dirt cheap Z68 boards. I don't see a future in ASUS/MSI/Gigabyte developing for AM3+ any longer, and aside from the 1% of incredibly noisy fanatics, I don't think AMD will sell any FX CPUs to enthusiasts. I'm sure people who get OEM machines at Best Buy will flock to the Moar Corez!!! advertisements.

AMD may stay barely aloat on the backs of the insanely stupid.

Daimon

 

[Obsoleet]

Bulldozer is fine. It's not the best on the market.. but the markets can be broken down like this-
Desktop (not as important as it used to be)- Intel
Laptop/portable/UltraPortables- AMD
Chips like Llano and Brazos are impressive.

Bulldozer, while not optimal, are acceptable outside of power requirements which I'm sure won't remain the same forever. Some people won't give AMD credit where they deserve, because they're here to destroy their reputation, but I'd trade my i7-640M for an equivalently priced Llano laptop.

I'd also trade my Q9450 for a FX-8150. Lets face it, it's fast, just not as fast as the i7's, and in this day and age with the focus being on portables (either Brazos ultraportables or ARM stuff), or the GPU/SSD.. it really doesn't matter like it used to.
Having C2Q/PhenomII level hardware already, I don't find the latest Intel OR AMD CPUs to be worth buying. My SSDs and 5870 have been far, far greater investments. This market is increasingly irrelevant as performance has reached beyond what 90% of users need, or want to pay for.

 

[3DVagabond]

Bulldozer is fine. It's not the best on the market.. but the markets can be broken down like this-
Desktop (not as important as it used to be)- Intel
Laptop/portable/UltraPortables- AMD
Chips like Llano and Brazos are impressive.

Bulldozer, while not optimal, are acceptable outside of power requirements which I'm sure won't remain the same forever. Some people won't give AMD credit where they deserve, because they're here to destroy their reputation, but I'd trade my i7-640M for an equivalently priced Llano laptop.

I'd also trade my Q9450 for a FX-8150. Lets face it, it's fast, just not as fast as the i7's, and in this day and age with the focus being on portables (either Brazos ultraportables or ARM stuff), or the GPU/SSD.. it really doesn't matter like it used to.
Having C2Q/PhenomII level hardware already, I don't find the latest Intel OR AMD CPUs to be worth buying. My SSDs and 5870 have been far, far greater investments. This market is increasingly irrelevant as performance has reached beyond what 90% of users need, or want to pay for.

For this discussion, let's agree with everything you've said. That doesn't fix the fact that BD is bigger, slower, and hotter than PhII. In no measurable way is it better. I can overlook a lot from AMD because of their size, and therefore budget, when compared to Intel. When they can't even beat their own last gen design though, I have a hard time thinking Bulldozer is good in any way.

With luck it's some kind of bug/flaw that can be fixed. I hope so, anyway.

 

[Keysplayr]

Bulldozer is fine. It's not the best on the market.. but the markets can be broken down like this-
Desktop (not as important as it used to be)- Intel
Laptop/portable/UltraPortables- AMD
Chips like Llano and Brazos are impressive.

Bulldozer, while not optimal, are acceptable outside of power requirements which I'm sure won't remain the same forever. Some people won't give AMD credit where they deserve, because they're here to destroy their reputation, but I'd trade my i7-640M for an equivalently priced Llano laptop.

I'd also trade my Q9450 for a FX-8150. Lets face it, it's fast, just not as fast as the i7's, and in this day and age with the focus being on portables (either Brazos ultraportables or ARM stuff), or the GPU/SSD.. it really doesn't matter like it used to.
Having C2Q/PhenomII level hardware already, I don't find the latest Intel OR AMD CPUs to be worth buying. My SSDs and 5870 have been far, far greater investments. This market is increasingly irrelevant as performance has reached beyond what 90% of users need, or want to pay for.

Bulldozer is not fine for several reasons. You know what those reasons are. I'd no doubt sooner buy an PhenomII than FX because FX would be a step backward on almost every aspect. Power consumption, Heat, performance and greater cost. AMD IS getting the credit they deserve and it looks like they're out to further damage their own reputation without the assistance of anyone else.

"Let's face it"? Jeez mon, that's exactly what you "haven't done" is face it. Bulldozer is a fantastic upgrade for a very select few. That will change as PhenomII and AthlonII supplies run dry and the only choices left will be Bobcat and Bulldozer. Bobcat isn't so bad though.

 

[SickBeast]

With luck it's some kind of bug/flaw that can be fixed. I hope so, anyway.

I don't think it is. If you look at the CPU, they lengthened the pipeline and reduced efficiency with their "modules".

I have a feeling their marketing department made some idiotic design decisions for the company. They probably figured that clock speed and core count sells.

I feel bad for the intelligent people who engineer AMD's CPUs. The company needs to be re-vamped from the top down and their entire marketing department should be let go.

It's not as though they even have talented people who know much about how to engineer CPUs running their company at this point.

AMD is in dire straights.

Even at $5/share, I would sell at this point. It's been as low as $1.80/share; I could easily see them hitting $2 within a year or two.

 

[Olikan]

AMD is in dire straights.

Even at $5/share, I would sell at this point. It's been as low as $1.80/share; I could easily see them hitting $2 within a year or two.

meh! Financial ppl seems to don't understand that can't reach demand is better than no demand at all...

Even bulldozer beeing that bad, amd will still profit, than we will see another +20% jump

 

[3DVagabond]

I don't think it is. If you look at the CPU, they lengthened the pipeline and reduced efficiency with their "modules".

I have a feeling their marketing department made some idiotic design decisions for the company. They probably figured that clock speed and core count sells.

I feel bad for the intelligent people who engineer AMD's CPUs. The company needs to be re-vamped from the top down and their entire marketing department should be let go.

It's not as though they even have talented people who know much about how to engineer CPUs running their company at this point.

AMD is in dire straights.

Even at $5/share, I would sell at this point. It's been as low as $1.80/share; I could easily see them hitting $2 within a year or two.

AMD has more products to sell than just BD for desktop.

 

[SickBeast]

AMD has more products to sell than just BD for desktop.

Yes, and they all border on obsolescence at this point, Bulldozer included (which is supposed to represent the company's future produts, I might add).

Intel is like a bad man with a big stick right now. AMD used to come out with winning designs, and Intel would smack them down. Now, AMD is barely coming out with a whimper. Intel can put away their big stick and just flick them with their pinky finger.

 

[3DVagabond]

Yes, and they all border on obsolescence at this point, Bulldozer included (which is supposed to represent the company's future produts, I might add).

You'll need to back this up with something.

 

[RussianSensation]

Don't worry friends! Bulldozer Next generation is already undergoing testing at 22nm and it will be a Quantum Leap.

Liquid nitrogen will become the new standard in AMD cooling solutions. FX2-8150 will have 16 cores @ 10ghz with IPC of up to 2x faster than Sandy Bridge.

On a more serious note, after the rush of early adopters, I foresee AMD lowering prices on their CPUs in the short-term. Perhaps by Q1 2012 we'll also see a faster clocked FX-8170 with a 95W TDP and even better overclocking. For now, I can't think of a single reason to buy an FX-8120 or FX-8150 for as long as a $150-160 X6 1090T or $220 2500k is available. The scary part is that the situation may only get worse when IVB arrives.

 

[Obsoleet]

For this discussion, let's agree with everything you've said. That doesn't fix the fact that BD is bigger, slower, and hotter than PhII. In no measurable way is it better. I can overlook a lot from AMD because of their size, and therefore budget, when compared to Intel. When they can't even beat their own last gen design though, I have a hard time thinking Bulldozer is good in any way.

With luck it's some kind of bug/flaw that can be fixed. I hope so, anyway.

It's a more modern design than Phenom II. All things considered, I'd rather build off Bulldozer. They screwed up on IPC, which is a difficult metric to hit.. and the process is leading to the power consumption we're seeing.
That said, this isn't a "slow" CPU. PhenomII was also faster than people needed.

CPUs just aren't that important anymore. Even on the ARM side. It's about power consumption and usability which AMD has down with Brazos/Llano.

Bulldozer is not fine for several reasons. You know what those reasons are. I'd no doubt sooner buy an PhenomII than FX because FX would be a step backward on almost every aspect. Power consumption, Heat, performance and greater cost. AMD IS getting the credit they deserve and it looks like they're out to further damage their own reputation without the assistance of anyone else.

"Let's face it"? Jeez mon, that's exactly what you "haven't done" is face it. Bulldozer is a fantastic upgrade for a very select few. That will change as PhenomII and AthlonII supplies run dry and the only choices left will be Bobcat and Bulldozer. Bobcat isn't so bad though.

I agree the cost should go down on this generation of FX.. but not sure they'll need to drop price to sell them honestly. Obviously not to this crowd, but as octocore CPU that's clocked high.. they'll probably sell fine. Bulldozers aren't slow either. If they were slow, I wouldn't trade my overclocked C2Q for one, but I certainly would.

I wouldn't call my Q9450 "slow" and it's pretty old at this point. I also have a i7 640M, which it's existence/speed is irrelevant. I'd much rather have an AMD Llano. Got a spare FX-8150? I'll send you a decent (stock volts) 3ghz Q9450 rig. Yet I wouldn't purchase either an i7 or an FX.

It goes to show how pointless Intel's CPU advances really are. I realize it makes for great forum fodder, but even storage controllers and their relation to SSD performance are more important and exciting than CPUs, post-2006 (C2D launch).
That was the real last shot fired in the x86 CPU wars, Intel won (no surprise there).
Now ARM is eating their lunch.

Yes, and they all border on obsolescence at this point, Bulldozer included (which is supposed to represent the company's future produts, I might add).

Intel is like a bad man with a big stick right now. AMD used to come out with winning designs, and Intel would smack them down. Now, AMD is barely coming out with a whimper. Intel can put away their big stick and just flick them with their pinky finger.

AMD exists as Intel's counter to antitrust suits. Let AMD fail, and kiss Intel's sweet ass goodbye.

 

[mosox]

Funny how people who wouldn't touch and AMD CPU with a ten-foot pole are all over the AMD threads. You don't like it, you don't buy it.

And AMD had the performance crown once, didn't help their sales, Intel has a stronghold on the retailers.

If Intel made the Bulldozer we would have seen much more friendly reviews titled "8-core Mega Beast". What happened to the Passmark* benches anyway, they vanished from the reviews just like 3DMark who was replaced by the Nvidia-friendly "Compute & Tessellation"

If the FX-8150’s performance is wanting, there’s no reason to get upset about it. Heck, there’s no reason even to post on a forum about it. Either hang on to your older AMD chip or buy a newer one, it’s that simple. This kind of thing happens in the component segment all the time; it’s the nature of the business. Not every product can (or will) be fastest just because we want it to be, and that’s okay. Publicly lamenting about how you have to actually “settle” for the faster, more power-efficient, and more value-conscious chip — even if it costs more — isn’t the mark of an involved enthusiast, it’s the mark of a whiner.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/100173-when-cpu-brand-loyalty-goes-too-far

The thing is, it's not the AMD owners who are whining but the die-hard Intel fans who wouldn't buy an AMD chip whatever. The kind of dudes who recommend the Intel IGP over the Llano in a HTPC.


*If anyone has meaningful evidence on why the Passmark tests are irrelevant (while benches like "Monte Carlo simulation are) please feel free to post it.

 

[Broheim]

Bulldozer is fine. It's not the best on the market.. but the markets can be broken down like this-
Desktop (not as important as it used to be)- Intel
Laptop/portable/UltraPortables- AMD
Chips like Llano and Brazos are impressive.

Bulldozer, while not optimal, are acceptable outside of power requirements which I'm sure won't remain the same forever. Some people won't give AMD credit where they deserve, because they're here to destroy their reputation, but I'd trade my i7-640M for an equivalently priced Llano laptop.

I'd also trade my Q9450 for a FX-8150. Lets face it, it's fast, just not as fast as the i7's, and in this day and age with the focus being on portables (either Brazos ultraportables or ARM stuff), or the GPU/SSD.. it really doesn't matter like it used to.
Having C2Q/PhenomII level hardware already, I don't find the latest Intel OR AMD CPUs to be worth buying. My SSDs and 5870 have been far, far greater investments. This market is increasingly irrelevant as performance has reached beyond what 90% of users need, or want to pay for.

not true at all, AMD might do fine in some areas, but they do not own the laptop market at all.

 

[zsdersw]

Funny how people who wouldn't touch and AMD CPU with a ten-foot pole are all over the AMD threads. You don't like it, you don't buy it.

And AMD had the performance crown once, didn't help their sales, Intel has a stronghold on the retailers.

If Intel made the Bulldozer we would have seen much more friendly reviews titled "8-core Mega Beast". What happened to the Passmark* benches anyway, they vanished from the reviews just like 3DMark who was replaced by the Nvidia-friendly "Compute & Tessellation"

Intel did make a Bulldozer already: Prescott.. and this forum didn't have friendly reviews for it.

You're relatively new here so I'll forgive not knowing that... but what should be obvious for you is what's contained in the signatures of many people who are posting in "Bulldozer sucks!" threads: they own AMD-based systems.

 

[Meghan54]

Funny how people who wouldn't touch and AMD CPU with a ten-foot pole are all over the AMD threads. You don't like it, you don't buy it.

And AMD had the performance crown once, didn't help their sales, Intel has a stronghold on the retailers.

If Intel made the Bulldozer we would have seen much more friendly reviews titled "8-core Mega Beast".

I think you're wrong on each point. Lots of current Intel users most likely used AMD back in the Athlon 64/X2/Opteron days. I know I did and have probably had about a 50/50 split between the two companies and their processors since my first Intel 8088 cpu, which was followed by an AMD 386DX40.


If you track AMD's market share, you'll find AMD had their highest market share during their Athlon 64/X2 period. And from the time Intel released its C2D, AMD's share has been in decline. So I think that sort of disproves the contention that AMD's performance didn't equate into sales....it did. And AMD's drop in sales reflects AMD's lack of competitiveness through to today's market.

And if you bothered to read some of the old reviews of the Pentium of that era, you'll find AT, among other sites, were not too kind in the reviews written. AT's reviews consistently ended with a no recommendation to by Intel, unless you had a very narrow, specific use for one. Otherwise, AMD was almost always the recommended cpu to buy.



Oh, yeah.....I forgot......

 

[JumpingJack]

Funny how people who wouldn't touch and AMD CPU with a ten-foot pole are all over the AMD threads. You don't like it, you don't buy it.

And AMD had the performance crown once, didn't help their sales, Intel has a stronghold on the retailers.

Actually, AMD gained marketshare in every quarter until Conroe was released, 14 straight quarters of gains (see AMD's Q3 or Q4 2006 quarterly report transcript). They gained in server from around 5% before Opteron to about 26% before Woodcrest. In desktop, they owned as much as 80% of the retail desktop market.

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Grabs+Over+80+of+Desktop+PC+Sales+in+the+Retail+Market/article1120.htm

AMD did the best they did in their history when they had a decisive performance lead.

 

[Chiropteran]

Whats funny to me is that despite all the negativity in this thread and reviews, newegg has been sold out of FX-8120 and FX8150 for the past 3 days. Someone must be buying them

AMD is not dead. They have some great laptop CPUs, and netbook CPUs, and they own the low end ECC desktop niche- not that there are very many people who care about ECC anymore, but there are some. With some tweaks and the release of windows 8 it looks like bulldozer could easily gain 10-20% higher performance. It's not that bad.

 

[zsdersw]

Whats funny to me is that despite all the negativity in this thread and reviews, newegg has been sold out of FX-8120 and FX8150 for the past 3 days. Someone must be buying them

It's not amazing when something in relatively short supply gets sold out.

With some tweaks and the release of windows 8 it looks like bulldozer could easily gain 10-20% higher performance. It's not that bad.

For the power it consumes, yes, it is. Like Intel, AMD should be providing more performance for the same or less power.. not more power.

 

[zlejedi]

Bulldozer is fine. It's not the best on the market.. but the markets can be broken down like this-
Desktop (not as important as it used to be)- Intel
Laptop/portable/UltraPortables- AMD
Chips like Llano and Brazos are impressive.

The only part of laptop market which AMD has advantage is entry level gaming laptops. For corporate users Intel cpu reign superior. And even there GPU advantage might disappear as soon as 28nm mobile GPUs hit the market.

The one and only chip where they are clearly superior is Brazos (mostly because atom sux).

 

[Chiropteran]

It's not amazing when something in relatively short supply gets sold out.

Well sure, but it does change the problem.

Doom & Gloom spreads: "bulldozer is so terrible nobody will ever buy it, it's going to fail because it sucks"

Reality: bulldozer sells out, it may fail because of short supply and lack of profits but it's mediocre performance isn't really holding it back as much as some people think

 

[zsdersw]

Well sure, but it does change the problem.

Doom & Gloom spreads: "bulldozer is so terrible nobody will ever buy it, it's going to fail because it sucks"

No one was really saying, en masse, that nobody will ever buy it.

Reality: bulldozer sells out, it may fail because of short supply and lack of profits but it's mediocre performance isn't really holding it back as much as some people think

No, the reality is: Bulldozer sold out because the only people who would buy it right now, immediately at launch, are enthusiasts... and that's a group of people of just the right size to result in it being sold out.

 

[Chiropteran]

No one was really saying, en masse, that nobody will ever buy it.

Sold out. It's not like a couple people bought the CPU. It completely sold out at one of the most well known and respected internet computer hardware shops. How can it do better than sell out?

No, the reality is: Bulldozer sold out because the only people who would buy it right now, immediately at launch, are enthusiasts... and that's a group of people of just the right size to result in it being sold out.

Actually, I think you have it backwards. The only people who really care about having the fastest and best CPU are enthusiasts. For the majority, whatever cheap CPU is included in Best Buy's $399 deal is what they are happy with. And sure, those $399 systems are not going to include FX-8150 CPUs, but they also aren't going to include i5 or i7 CPUs. And they really don't care about CPU power usage, unless it is directly noticeable (louder fans, for example).