So bad that Techreport can't even get anything higher than 4.4GHz for their BD sample.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21813/18
Honestly I wouldn't even buy it for that, given the power draw. It ruins the bargain aspect that I was hoping for, as it requires a more expensive power supply in consideration with a system build vs. an overclocked SB.
Honestly I wouldn't even buy it for that, given the power draw. It ruins the bargain aspect that I was hoping for, as it requires a more expensive power supply in consideration with a system build vs. an overclocked SB.
All I have to say is this...
If you want AMD to pull through and (hopefully) build better processors and compete with Intel, then you have to support them and purchase their CPUs even if they are are not the cat's meow next to Intel. AMD needs CASH MONEY to get BETTER Engineers for better R&D. Period. If everyone runs to Intel because they can't get the same faps per second or gigglehurts than they can with AMD, then Intel will continue to dominate, charge high prices, and only release competitive products when they have to. Does anyone remember the first company to 1GHz? Intel was incrementally upgrading their CPUs by 33MHz if I remember. With new chipsets. And RAM. Because they could. We all have AMD to thank right now for being as competitive as they are. Lets see, AMD market cap 5 billion, Intel 150 Billion. Who has more money for engineers? At least AMD is trying to stay relevant, and on a shoestring budget. Most engineers are probably like baseball players are go to where the bling is. So, if anything, buy AMD for charity to give them some cash so they can keep Intel on their toes and prices down.
If you thought the power consumption @ 4.8ghz at Bit-Tech.net's results was awful, take a look at this:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...md-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-19.html
Their version needed 1.488V to get to 4.6ghz. At that level, the system was idling at 195 Watts, while load power consumption was 550 Watts from the socket. Together with a GTX460 1GB, the system often spiked to 800 Watts of power.... :whiste:
All I have to say is this...
If you want AMD to pull through and (hopefully) build better processors and compete with Intel, then you have to support them and purchase their CPUs even if they are are not the cat's meow next to Intel.
If its really a 2B transistor product then AMD should can it. It will be incredibly expensive to make.
The estimations about the die size were correct, the die is 315mm2, but Transistor count estimations of 1.6Billion were way off and Bulldozer has the biggest transistor count in desktop CPU to this day at 2 Billion.
In comparison, AMDs Phenom II X6 Thuban has 904Million transistors with a die size of 346mm2, Llano has 1.45Billion transistors with a die size of 228mm2 and Intels SandyBridge has 995Million transistors with a die size of 216mm2.
AMD Bulldozer has more than doubled the transistor count of Thuban with ~9% less die size, ~38% more transistors than Llano with 38% more die size, and double the transistor count over SandyBridge with 45% bigger size.
having just finished reading the anandtech review I now feel even worse about it.
It doesnt overclock well at all, the power consumtion is worse than the Nvidia 480 everyone was up in arms about, maybe that will shut up some of the AMD fanboi's.
It cant even beat a 1100T in ALOT of benches, not just a few but a majority.
Like seriously what the fuck was AMD thinking i refuse to believe they didnt know this was coming they had the god damn sample to check performance along the way. They would have been better off faking a chip crippling bug reporting that and taking 6 months to fix their crap..
AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer. Given AMD's unique multi-core module architecture, the OS scheduler needs to know when to place threads on a single module (with shared caches) vs. on separate modules with dedicated caches. Windows 7's scheduler isn't aware of Bulldozer's architecture and as a result sort of places threads wherever it sees fit, regardless of optimal placement. Windows 8 is expected to correct this, however given the short lead time on Bulldozer reviews we weren't able to do much experimenting with Windows 8 performance on the platform. There's also the fact that Windows 8 isn't expected out until the end of next year, at which point we'll likely see an upgraded successor to Bulldozer.
6 months would do nothing to fix this disaster. I swear to god AMD hired the P4 design team for this product. It is huge hot and slow honestly there is nothing good about it. I would of loved to been in the room when they were starting the design. Was it well the P4 was such a great product lets go that direction. Lets sacrifice IPC for higher clock speed yeah thats the ticket it worked out so well for intel P4. I am still in shock over how bad it really is. They should of never released this product. It kills any positive press they been getting this year with the bobcat and llano.
OMG so terrible. This completely ruins what little hope I had for BD at least being a value overclocking option vs. the irritating 2100/2400.
6 months would do nothing to fix this disaster. I swear to god AMD hired the P4 design team for this product. It is huge hot and slow honestly there is nothing good about it. I would of loved to been in the room when they were starting the design. Was it well the P4 was such a great product lets go that direction. Lets sacrifice IPC for higher clock speed yeah thats the ticket it worked out so well for intel P4. I am still in shock over how bad it really is. They should of never released this product. It kills any positive press they been getting this year with the bobcat and llano.
This is the final nail in the coffin. Intel owns the high-performance CPU market lock stock and barrel. AMD has no chance of coming back, ever. Intel's lead is too great.
Is AMD bringing PH II to 32nm? cause thats literally all i can see saving them at this point.