Would AMD be better off if they had not developed Bulldozer?

[Sweepr]

I believe you should re-check Anands FX8150 review,

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7

FX8150 only losses in a single benchmark (Compile Chromium Test) while it has lower idle power consumption than Thuban. FX8150 consume more power in x264 but it is faster than Thuban.

Next time do your homework before you speak

The hotfix doesnt change Bulldozer IPC (which is lower than 3-year old Phenom II), neither changes the fact that it draws more power under load for barely beating Thuban even in highly MT tests. Hardware.fr shows its ~7.5% faster than X6 1100T on a series of mixed workloads (with the patches). Pretty far from the 50% more perf. with 33% more cores (higher IPC) we where promised:

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/34/IMG0034531.gif

A completely new architecture under a new fab process is barely able to keep up with an old CPU on an older fab process in performance per watt, trust me, no reason to be proud or go after everyone that doesnt share your oppinions about BD here. Perhaps you should call AMD to take a look at some of their old great products from the K7/K8-era and do their homework next time.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

The hotfix doesnt change Bulldozer IPC (which is lower than 3-year old Phenom II), neither changes the fact that it draws more power under load for barely beating Thuban even in highly MT tests. Hardware.fr shows its ~7.5% faster than X6 1100T on a series of mixed workloads (with the patches). Pretty far from the 50% more perf. with 33% more cores (higher IPC) we where promised:

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos_news/00/34/IMG0034531.gif

A completely new architecture under a new fab process is barely able to keep up with an old CPU on an older fab process in performance per watt, trust me, no reason to be proud or go after everyone that doesnt share your oppinions about BD here. Perhaps you should call AMD to take a look at some of their old great products from the K7/K8-era and do their homework next time.

Keep in mind that the generally preferred method is choosing either a new process OR a new architecture. AMD was so far behind they were essentially forced to do both. They took a swing and missed. However, they gained useful experience with the new process and have a better understanding of the bottlenecks in BD. Lastly, considering the 8150 typically splits the difference performance wise between the 2500k and 2600k, it isn't like we are dealing a Cyrix here. The failure would be if Piledriver isn't a marked improvement. Typically, the super ambitious projects like this (Fermi, r600, P6) have some major initial teething issues before they blossom. To be honest, the similarities between P6 and BD are actually pretty glaring (in terms of market initial performance) and P6 is still (arguably) alive today some 17 years later (highly modified of course). While I'm about 99.9999999999% certain BD won't have that type of an impact, design principals from the arch will be around for quite some time.

 

[Sweepr]

Keep in mind that the generally preferred method is choosing either a new process OR a new architecture. AMD was so far behind they were essentially forced to do both. They took a swing and missed. However, they gained useful experience with the new process and have a better understanding of the bottlenecks in BD. Lastly, considering the 8150 typically splits the difference performance wise between the 2500k and 2600k, it isn't like we are dealing a Cyrix here. The failure would be if Piledriver isn't a marked improvement. Typically, the super ambitious projects like this (Fermi, r600, P6) have some major initial teething issues before they blossom. To be honest, the similarities between P6 and BD are actually pretty glaring (in terms of market initial performance) and P6 is still (arguably) alive today some 17 years later (highly modified of course). While I'm about 99.9999999999% certain BD won't have that type of an impact, design principals from the arch will be around for quite some time.

Yes, we should see how BD follow-ups perform before telling if the architecture is broken or not. The first iteration may have failed, but AMD has a 10-15% performance speed up projected for Piledriver (one third of it coming from IPC improvements). I'm expecting higher clocks and improved power comsumption (which should be enough to beat Llano by a confortable margin).

 

[Chiropteran]

Why do you hook intel up with a 580 and amd with the 7970?

Ill gladly take a 2500k with a 7970 and have faster everything and less power over the AMD setup thank you very much

I'm sure you would. Yet inexplicably, many people do buy nvidia cards and use them on intel systems.

I'm just pointing out the double-standard, where FX CPUs are demonized because peak power used is worse than Intel. FX idle power usage is actually better, but you won't hear that from most posters here. Yet nvidia cards, which use EVEN MORE power, are basically compared directly to AMD equivalents based on performance and cost, while power usage is largly ignored.

Why? If using an extra 50W for your CPU is so bad, then using an extra 100W for your GPU should be twice as bad.

 

[BD231]

I'm sure you would. Yet inexplicably, many people do buy nvidia cards and use them on intel systems.

I'm just pointing out the double-standard, where FX CPUs are demonized because peak power used is worse than Intel. FX idle power usage is actually better, but you won't hear that from most posters here. Yet nvidia cards, which use EVEN MORE power, are basically compared directly to AMD equivalents based on performance and cost, while power usage is largly ignored.

Why? If using an extra 50W for your CPU is so bad, then using an extra 100W for your GPU should be twice as bad.

Overclocked to 4.6ghz BD consumes almost twice the amount of power as Sandy Bridge does at 4.8ghz ~> http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/9

Either you're midgetating the issue or you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Chiropteran]

Overclocked to 4.6ghz BD consumes almost twice the amount of power as Sandy Bridge does at 4.8ghz ~> http://hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_desktop_performance_review/9

Either you're midgetating the issue or you have no clue what you're talking about.

Why are you looking at the overclocked values? I am talking about STOCK. A STOCK gtx 580 uses over 200W, that is insane.

 

[grkM3]

Why are you looking at the overclocked values? I am talking about STOCK. A STOCK gtx 580 uses over 200W, that is insane.

And how many watts does a card that has the same performance from AMD consume?

 

[Chiropteran]

And how many watts does a card that has the same performance from AMD consume?

A hell of a lot less. You go ahead and look up numbers yourself, as they very from site to site, but in no case does nvidia ever use less power than the competing AMD equivalents.

 

[Lonbjerg]

A hell of a lot less. You go ahead and look up numbers yourself, as they very from site to site, but in no case does nvidia ever use less power than the competing AMD equivalents.

I guess that dosn't mean the same to you as the rest of the world...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/27

 

[grkM3]

A hell of a lot less. You go ahead and look up numbers yourself, as they very from site to site, but in no case does nvidia ever use less power than the competing AMD equivalents.

I dont know where or what review you read but anything near a gtx 580 performance is consuming pretty much the same power.

please show me a card that has the same performance than a 580 and consumes under 200 watts full load

even the brand new AMD flagship on a smaller die process consumes close to 400 watts full load

and Ill say it again because you seem to forget that the gtx580 consumes more power but was the fastest GPU out that had the performance to back up its power draw.

people are mad at AMD because they went backwards with BD and gives less performance for the more power it uses.

at least the nvidia cards can back up there power with raw speed

 

[Chiropteran]

I guess that dosn't mean the same to you as the rest of the world...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/27

Are you trying to argue that the 580 is the equivalent to a 7970? Try 30% slower, and yet it still uses a lot more power.

 

[grkM3]

Are you trying to argue that the 580 is the equivalent to a 7970? Try 30% slower, and yet it still uses a lot more power.

Wow

First look at the other cards that are competing with a gtx 580 and see how much power they pull and see how close they are in its performance.

A gtx580 in most cases is on par with 2 older same gen AMD cards.

the 7970 is on 28nm brand new process vs gtx580s 40nm die

You make no sence

 

[Chiropteran]

the 7970 is on 28nm brand new process vs gtx580s 40nm die

You make no sence

True.

We should only compare Phenom X6 with old 45nm Intel CPU.

Also, bulldozer should only be compared to the 32nm Nehalem CPU, since it wouldn't be fair to compare Intel's 2nd gen 32nm CPU vs a 1st gen 32nm AMD CPU.

I'm sure AMD will cease production of 7970 video cards until Nvidia has it's 32nm equivalent available, it wouldn't be fair to market the 7970 against the GTX 580/590.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Are you trying to argue that the 580 is the equivalent to a 7970? Try 30% slower, and yet it still uses a lot more power.

Eh?

A hell of a lot less. You go ahead and look up numbers yourself, as they very from site to site, but in no case does nvidia ever use less power than the competing AMD equivalents.

Notice the plural "s" at the end of your sentence.
Nice moving the goalposts...not sure if you are serious or trolling?

 

[Riek]

I dont know where or what review you read but anything near a gtx 580 performance is consuming pretty much the same power.

please show me a card that has the same performance than a 580 and consumes under 200 watts full load

even the brand new AMD flagship on a smaller die process consumes close to 400 watts full load

and Ill say it again because you seem to forget that the gtx580 consumes more power but was the fastest GPU out that had the performance to back up its power draw.

Where do you get that 400W marker? are you referring to the system powerconsumption which includes ... euh the rest of the system?

AMD 7970 is very close to the 200W marker. Depending on the gpu you have 1.05 or 1.17V it is below 200 or above 200.

Anand has a 1.17 which consumes 34W less than the 580 in metro2003. if we assume the 580 consumes 250W that would be 13% less power for 33% more performance (metro2003). (which also includes more cpu activity).

If we use the occt parts the difference is 94W in favor of the 7970.

The 6970 performed the same in metro2003 as the 580 and consumed 55W less. (i though typical gaming load for 6970 was a little under ~190W)

people are mad at AMD because they went backwards with BD and gives less performance for the more power it uses.

at least the nvidia cards can back up there power with raw speed

True, BD failed on many fields due to many issues. yet if llano is an indication of phenom derivative on the 32glofo process... bd isn't really doing so badly. (e.g. a 6core llano would be slower on all acounts than the 1100T while consumes more power also. Heck they would need more voltage than phenom on 45nm to reach the necesairy frequency).
Just to point out that what AMD could have done, even a proven design would fail on a troubled process node. (trbouled in terms of voltage-frequency. Might be the gate first that hurts them really bad in this).

 

[Olikan]

one thing for sure....amd would have to do a complete and modern new arch, sooner or later.

 

[Chiropteran]

Notice the plural "s" at the end of your sentence.
Nice moving the goalposts...not sure if you are serious or trolling?

Yes plural. Because there is more than one nvidia card, and at least one AMD equivalent for each, thus more than one, thus the "S".

We were talking about the GTX 580, of which there is one equivalent. Or are you now arguing that the 6970 (at about $200 cheaper) is equivalent to a GTX 580? It uses less power also, so I am not sure what you are trying to prove. Instead of talking in riddles trying to make me guess what magical AMD card you are talking about, just come out and say it.

If you have an example of an AMD card which uses more power than the equivalent from nvidia, what is it? Either name it or admit you've been trolling the whole time.

 

[blckgrffn]

Yes plural. Because there is more than one nvidia card, and at least one AMD equivalent for each, thus more than one, thus the "S".

We were talking about the GTX 580, of which there is one equivalent. Or are you now arguing that the 6970 (at about $200 cheaper) is equivalent to a GTX 580? It uses less power also, so I am not sure what you are trying to prove. Instead of talking in riddles trying to make me guess what magical AMD card you are talking about, just come out and say it.

If you have an example of an AMD card which uses more power than the equivalent from nvidia, what is it? Either name it or admit you've been trolling the whole time.

2900XT!

(Intended to be a bit of good natured trolling)

Lighten up folks - few people posting in this thread are likely to change their minds soon...

It would be interesting to see what BD would have looked like on Intels process technology... we'll never know. How much of SB's lead is due to process technology? If SB was being made at GF and BD at Intel how would our discussion and perception change?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Yes plural. Because there is more than one nvidia card, and at least one AMD equivalent for each, thus more than one, thus the "S".

For each what?
Being so vague that nobody van hold you to what you is is not constrictive.

We were talking about the GTX 580, of which there is one equivalent. Or are you now arguing that the 6970 (at about $200 cheaper) is equivalent to a GTX 580? It uses less power also, so I am not sure what you are trying to prove. Instead of talking in riddles trying to make me guess what magical AMD card you are talking about, just come out and say it.

Ah, you posts is trolling...it is the counterpart...unless you ofcourse are going to do this again when GTX680 is relased...or is that "irrelevant" then?

If you have an example of an AMD card which uses more power than the equivalent from nvidia, what is it? Either name it or admit you've been trolling the whole time.

Moving the goalposts is one thing...but trying to revese the tables fallacies are for children.

You still havn't done anything but rape the language...but carry on...I am done.

 

[grkM3]

True.

We should only compare Phenom X6 with old 45nm Intel CPU.

Also, bulldozer should only be compared to the 32nm Nehalem CPU, since it wouldn't be fair to compare Intel's 2nd gen 32nm CPU vs a 1st gen 32nm AMD CPU.

I'm sure AMD will cease production of 7970 video cards until Nvidia has it's 32nm equivalent available, it wouldn't be fair to market the 7970 against the GTX 580/590.

what are you talking about.You say that AMD cards draw less power and I tell you the gtx580 draws more power BUT it has the performance to back that extra power draw up.Go back the past few years and tell me what card AMD had that could keep pace with a 580 and drew a HELL OF A LOT less power like you claim.

If the AMD BD drew more power but it was 15-20% faster in everything sandybridge does then people would not be hating on BD power draw.

If haswell comes out and consumes 125 watts and runs slower than an ivy bridge in 90% of the workload people use what do you think people would say about intel?

and you trying to compare last gen to new gen is a complete joke.I cant wait to see what you say when the next gen nvida cards come out and draw less power than the 580 and perform better due to better process shrink.

It only took AMD 7 years to make BD and its slower than what it already has on the market,heck the ceo steps down knowing they fed up big time but there fan boys still back up a company that could give to craps about them.

Guess what?he pulled all his stocks out the company well before BD hit the streets and Im willing to bet damn well that he knew BD was a FLOP.

 

[Kristijonas]

Seriously when talking about hardware, it's maths. So no need to be so mean to each other.

 

[Chiropteran]

what are you talking about.You say that AMD cards draw less power and I tell you the gtx580 draws more power BUT it has the performance to back that extra power draw up.Go back the past few years and tell me what card AMD had that could keep pace with a 580 and drew a HELL OF A LOT less power like you claim.

7970 does more than keeps pace, it blows it away, for less power. Did you think that would be hard?

 

[Chiropteran]

For each what?
Being so vague that nobody van hold you to what you is is not constrictive.

Vague? Name any given nvidia card that outperforms any given current AMD card while using LESS power. They don't exist.

Nvidia cards are less efficient, period, end of story.

Ah, you posts is trolling...it is the counterpart...unless you ofcourse are going to do this again when GTX680 is relased...or is that "irrelevant" then?



Moving the goalposts is one thing...but trying to revese the tables fallacies are for children.

You still havn't done anything but rape the language...but carry on...I am done.

So are you going to make a point or are you just going to argue semantics about my choice of words? GTX 680? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I never made claims about the future. Right now nvidia cards are power hungry and inefficient, when compared to AMD cards. Fact. This might change when nvidia's next release occurs, but when will that be? Talk about me being vague, try to get some solid information from nvidia- good luck.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Vague? Name any given nvidia card that outperforms any given current AMD card while using LESS power. They don't exist.

Nvidia cards are less efficient, period, end of story.

lol

You keep beliving that...as we havn't seen any 28 nm (GP)GPU from NVIDIA...oh wait...it must be NOW or else it's irrelevant....right? :thumbsdown:

So are you going to make a point or are you just going to argue semantics about my choice of words?

If you start redefining the language on a personal whim...all forms of communaication stops.

Just admit you went overboard....watching you jump through hoops...unless you are going to re-rewrite you stance when "kepler" launches.

My bet is not.

 

[grkM3]

7970 does more than keeps pace, it blows it away, for less power. Did you think that would be hard?

You are comparing 28nm to 40nm what did AMD have last year when we were comapring the 580 to the cards before the 7970,you know,the ones that actually were going against the 580?

nvidia is about to launch its own new card on a better smaller process like amd did on the 7970.

You cant compare power draw of the best card from 2010 on 40nm to a brand new card on 28nm.

forget the 7970 and find a card that competes with the 580 in its time and draws a HELL OF A LOT LESS POWER.

what are you going to say when the rumored next gen nvidia card comes out and it out performs the 7970?

ohh and back to my original post,why cant the intel system use the amd cards to have the best of both?power draw and performance 2600k with a 7970.

actually now that I think about it.A 2600k with a gtx580 would probably beat a 7970 with a BD chip since the AMD cpu is holding back the video card lol