thilanliyan
Lifer
- Jun 21, 2005
- 11,944
- 2,175
- 126
I'm sure this car had some defenders back in the day too.
Suitable colour
Lemons are yellow right?
I'm sure this car had some defenders back in the day too.
Suitable colour
Lemons are yellow right?
The Edsel was an automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor Company during the 1958, 1959, and 1960 model years. The Edsel never gained popularity with contemporary American car buyers and sold poorly. Consequently, the Ford Motor Company lost millions of dollars on the Edsel's development, manufacture, and marketing. The name "Edsel" has since become synonymous with failure.
A number of reviewers have reported problems with a Blue Screen Of Death on AMD’s Bulldozer, even with stock settings:
Can I just point out that the device I'm typing this on fits in my pocket and can encode ~13mbps h264 1080p video in real time?
Ya, I know, it doesn't look anything like x264 quality, but it is still massively impressive.
People that say that are citizens of developed countries that already own a desktop or a laptop replacement for the desktop.
Emerging markets on the other hand are gaining purchasing power and as their standard of living goes up they will start by buying the tools that provide them higher performance and different uses.
Defending this http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/amd-bulldozer-can-it-get-even-worse/ ,is kind of hard.
I felt compelled to "defend" bulldozer simply because of the huge exaggeration and half-truths spread about it. It's a weak CPU, no denying that, and the i5 2500k is a better buy for the majority of CPU buyers, but it's not as bad as some people try to make it sound.
Did you do the same of Prescott when it first came out?
Nope, I don't think I ever read this forum back then. Why do you ask, were posters constantly posting blatant exaggerations about how bad Prescott was?
In case you, or others, don't know the backstory - its an Edsel
Nope, I don't think I ever read this forum back then. Why do you ask, were posters constantly posting blatant exaggerations about how bad Prescott was?
I'm guessing if bulldozer was cheaper, people probably wouldn't be so upset.
When sandy bridge was released, did people complain about how the i5-2500 and i7-2600 were slower than the previous generation i7-980X in so many benchmarks? No, because a $250 CPU being almost as good as previous generation $900 CPU was considered to be fine.
Only problem is, the FX-8150/8120 are both completely sold out, even at full price. AMD has no reason to reduce the price, currently.
From what I remember of the story it actually had some mechanical faults too coming out of the factory.
Nope, I don't think I ever read this forum back then. Why do you ask, were posters constantly posting blatant exaggerations about how bad Prescott was?
I'm guessing if bulldozer was cheaper, people probably wouldn't be so upset.
When sandy bridge was released, did people complain about how the i5-2500 and i7-2600 were slower than the previous generation i7-980X in so many benchmarks? No, because a $250 CPU being almost as good as previous generation $900 CPU was considered to be fine.
Only problem is, the FX-8150/8120 are both completely sold out, even at full price. AMD has no reason to reduce the price, currently.
Here's the problem: BOTH AMD and Intel have processors that are faster AND cheaper AND more power efficient than BD. So yes, it is every bit as bad as people say and worse.
In case you, or others, don't know the backstory - its an Edsel
That is false. AMD doesn't have another CPU that is faster and more power efficient than bulldozer, not at the same time.
At best you might be able to find an example where bulldozer is a little slower, but more power efficient, or faster and using more power.
The Anandtech review includes a ton of single threaded non-scaling benchmarks (which only use a fraction of the total number of cores), and then includes a power chart showing how much power bulldozer uses at full load with 8 threads. A little bit odd, in my opinion. At full load, bulldozer *is* faster than phenom II. It's only slower in the non-scaling benchmarks, where it won't pull the same power as it does with 8 cores at 100%.
You guys latching on to one example in the Anandtech review, check out some other websites to see the power usage in less biased situations.
That is false. AMD doesn't have another CPU that is faster and more power efficient than bulldozer, not at the same time.
At best you might be able to find an example where bulldozer is a little slower, but more power efficient, or faster and using more power.
The Anandtech review includes a ton of single threaded non-scaling benchmarks (which only use a fraction of the total number of cores), and then includes a power chart showing how much power bulldozer uses at full load with 8 threads. A little bit odd, in my opinion. At full load, bulldozer *is* faster than phenom II. It's only slower in the non-scaling benchmarks, where it won't pull the same power as it does with 8 cores at 100%.
You guys latching on to one example in the Anandtech review, check out some other websites to see the power usage in less biased situations.
You are dead wrong.
PhII quad > BD Quad
PhII hexacore > BD 6-core
The BD 81xx series is the only CPU that is across the board competitive with existing quads and hexacores.
Are you just talking about explicit situations (E.G. a program that actually can use 8 cores) and using that reasoning to state that AMD has no CPU that is faster nor more power efficient than Bulldozer?
I'm proving a negative false. As long as at least one bulldoze CPU is faster *or* more power efficient than a Phenom II, I am correct.
I never said *all* bulldozers are faster than *all* Phenom II, to suggest that is what I meant makes me wonder if you are just trolling. This has never been the case with Intel or AMD, new architecture or not. There are always low/mid-end CPUs in the new generation that are slower than previous generation high-end.
The chart in the andandtech article where FX-8150 uses more power than the 1100T is one of the few tests which actually stress all 8 cores. It's also a test where the FX-8150 solidly beats the 1100T.
Then there are tests where the FX-8150 is limited to a single thread in which it loses to the 1100T.
The point is you can't take a worst case power situation and assume the power usage will be the same across all tests, as this is easily proven false. I challenge anyone to produce a benchmark in which the FX-8150 uses more power and also loses against the 1100T in performance. Such a benchmark doesn't exist.
Here is what actually occurs-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-22.html
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-12.html
FX-8150 wins, uses same power.
Not everyone thinks it is a "flop", I certainly don't. I think bringing out the FX branding for this initial release version of the chip is disappointing.
Time will tell if BD turns out as well as Pentium M rather than end up a P4v2.
This is it? This is the angle you're going to go with?
Ok, then you tell us. Why does everyone think Bulldozer is a flop?
Imaginary reasons? What?
It's only 0-15% faster than AMD's previous high end CPUs...
ARM may have gained considerable traction in the current situation but PC will never disappear. If it did then where would content be produced? Would you prefer to transcode a video on an iPad or a PC which would be miles faster than a ARM could ever be. Any ultra mobile that comes out from the factory will be no more than a content consuming device, it will never be a full fledged content producing device like a PC could. All that Apple revolutionized was touch interface, performance was never Apple or any ARM based devices forte.
Basically, you are contradicting yourself. First you say that AMD should not drop prices on Bulldozer. Then you say basically that everyone has more CPU power than they need.
So if that is true, we should all be buying dual core Pentiums for less than 100.00.
And my computer does most of what I want. I have an E4500 and 9800GT. But would I like a better CPU--damn right I would. It is sort of like my car. I have a honda civic with a wimpy 4 cylinder. Sure it is adequate and serves its purpose, but I would definitely like a more powerful engine. So considering that computers last several years now for most users, the small extra cost to have a powerful CPU does not seem wasted to me.
Edit: and believe me, the more powerful CPU I would pick would be an i5 or i7 series, not bulldozer, because they have both better performance in the things I do and use less power.
HAHAHHA! It's always hilarious when people say the pc's day is over. I've been hearing it for about 10 years now. Sure a ipad is cool, but who wants to sit and type alot on one, how many files will it store? Will it run a game that requires any horsepower? Will it do hardcore photo editing? Will it run proprietary business software or databases? The answer to ALL of these is pretty obvious. A pad, or tablet is not even a replacement for a good netbook or small laptop let alone a full fledge desktop. This point was driven home last night. We had parent/ teacher conference with my daughter's 3rd grade teacher and she was raving about the new ipads and how cool they are and how much the kids love them etc. I looked and on her desk is her ipad but it was on the usb cord and hooked to a full size dell tower