Discussion Forums > Technology
Your view on AMD's Bulldozer
TMRNetShark:
--- Quote from: mgz on October 15, 2011, 12:48:22 AM ---thats only because you are thinking in current terms and physical items.
As processors shrink heat output generally goes down and power consumption goes down while making a more powerful item as that continues to scale it becomes much more feasible to have what is seemingly unthinkable in a very short period of time.
Just read some shit ray kursweil or w/e writes more or less hes a futurist and inventor i dont care if i spelled his name right.
And just expects our technological advances to follow the same growth it has been for some time which means compared how far we went from the calculator power sofa sized computers to now in 50 years. Our components are tens of thousands times faster and more efficient, and so much fucking smaller.
So just slide the scale in your mind and think about that, and then apply that to a concept like integrated graphics and realize that graphics can only get so good with the type of viewing we currently use.
--- End quote ---
I just think there is something wrong with having a dedicated video card chipset on the same dye as the CPU. If it went in that direction, there would only be 8-10 different PC's because they all have the same "APUs". But like you said, the future only means you get more for less space. Then imagine what real dedicated cards will be like. You'll have 48-core GPUs which become the bases of the 1000's of shader/vector/whatever the fuck ATI/Nvidia call them... Graphics will be photo realistic and games like that Unreal tech demo would be like how Battlefield will look in 10 years. :P
vuzedome:
You do realise that the real market is in integrated stuff, don't you?
Those who actually know that bulldozer is AMD's new FAILED toy isn't considered the average consumer.
kureshii:
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on October 14, 2011, 05:10:41 PM ---So Kureshii... your worried that built in graphics cards are gonna be replaced by IGPs? That's a GOOD thing. Will IGPs effect gaming/enthusiaists dedicated graphics cards? I havn't seen a single IGP that can rate up to an ATI 5770 or 6850 or a GTX 460/560. Having dedicated graphics is great, but that doesn't mean IGPs are aimed to replace them.
--- End quote ---
You misread. The 5450/6450 cards were released as IGP alternatives anyway; they are now no longer needed except as upgrades on older platforms. Intel doesn’t need the gaming segment, and likely won’t jump into gaming cards. What worries me is that AMD’s going to lose the IGP game (for reasons laid out in earlier posts), which would
Relegate AMD graphics to only the gaming sector.
PC gaming is still very much a niche sector, and AMD doesn’t have anything up against Tegra at the moment. [Flashback to AMD failing to gain a foothold in the mobile/tablet market]. That means they’re doomed to lose smartphone presence at this rate, which leaves them with only the PC gaming segment (which they still have to fight Nvidia for).
Though they claim their cards are capable of HPC, AMD’s FireStream doesn’t enjoy the same level of development tools that Tesla has with CUDA. It makes a lot of difference to enterprise customers who expect not only performance, but service support and customisable solutions (think Radeons in 1U form factor, desktop add-on form factor, with custom cooling solutions, etc). The ones using Radeons for HPC at the moment are niche HPC consumers; they make for nice PR, but you don’t earn money targetting only them. You need to capture a wider slice of the HPC market, and it takes more than just claiming Radeons can do HPC as well. I’m afraid AMD simply hasn’t been doing too well in GPGPU computing. OpenCL is still buggier and not as stable as CUDA, and has fewer libraries for development.
Relegate their APUs to the budget segment rather than the "better-integrated-graphics" alternative to Intel processors.
Right now, the Lynx (desktop Llano) platform is seen as a better-IGP alternative to Sandy Bridge, despite weaker CPU performance. That won’t last if Intel catches up in IGP performance. I don’t doubt that with the same GPU TDP limits and power consumption AMD would outclass Intel, but looking at Bulldozer’s performance I’m not so sure AMD can match Intel in the TDP-balancing game. If Intel catches up in IGP performance, AMD’s only position for APUs will be as a budget, lower-performing alternative (euphemistically referred to as “value-for-money” computing).
Kill their netbook/nettop presence
Intel has managed to make mobile Haswell quad-cores (i7-QM) with 35W TDP; these were 45W parts in Sandy Bridge and prior (with Extreme processor models going to 55W). This is in line with Intel’s intent to hit the 10–20W TDP window with mobile Haswell. (Haswell is supposed to get configurable TDP, so mobile parts can be dropped to 20W TDP when desired, and raised back to 30+W TDP when cooling capability allows.) If this doesn’t sound scary yet, keep in mind that Bobcat (AMD’s high-end Brazos, aka E350) has 18W TDP and graphics comparable to the lower-end Sandy Bridge HD Graphics 2000. Soon, Atom won’t be competing against Brazos; mobile Core will be doing that instead. I don’t see how Brazos is going to win that matchup. The last thing AMD needs is to lose more market segments without winning any others.
kureshii:
--- Quote from: ColdFission on October 15, 2011, 12:37:34 AM ---An official blog post form AMD:
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/13/our-take-on-amd-fx/
--- End quote ---
I sure hope that is just a fire-fighting response, and not AMD actually believing their own hype.
--- Quote ---Here’s some example scenarios where the AMD FX processor shines:
A perfect example is Battlefield 3. Take a look at how our test of AMD FX CPU compared to the Core i7 2600K and AMD Phenom™ II X6 1100T processors at full settings:
--- End quote ---
What we get: 1–1.8fps more in one map in one game. And we don’t even know if this extends to other games and maps. Nor are these FPS numbers what higher-end gamers would consider playable. Does AMD not think people know what a GPU-bottlenecked benchmark is? Clearly performance improvement will only be gained with better graphics setups. Here the Bulldozer platform has the advantage of being able to do quad-SLI/CFX, but guess what? The older, cheaper Phenom IIs can do that with 890FX as well, without all the empty hype.
I guess they were just afraid to show this.
--- Quote ---Those users running time intensive tasks are going to want an AMD FX processor for applications like x264, HandBrake, Cinema4D where an eight-core processor will rip right along.
--- End quote ---
That eight-core processor will rip right along ... just right behind a four-core processor, right?
--- Quote ---This is a new architecture. Compilers have recently been updated, and programs have just started exploring the new instructions like XOP and FMA4 (two new instructions first supported by the AMD FX CPU) to speed up many applications, especially when compared to our older generation.
--- End quote ---
From the review: “Although not depicted here, the performance using the AMD XOP codepath was virtually identical to the AVX results.”
So much for XOP. And Dark_Shikari tells us what to expect in x264 from these new instructions. To quote: “microarchitecture changes are vastly more important and valuable than new instructions.” Take a hint, AMD. Also, Agner’s worth listening to.
It must really suck to be in Adam Kozack’s shoes. Did he draw the short straw when they were deciding who would write that post?
Not delivering a better product than the competition? That I can live with; there are no poor products, only poor prices. Not delivering on promises? Still forgivable, once or twice. Not respecting fans and consumers and treating them like idiots? Sorry AMD, you just lost a customer and potential investor (at least until you get your PR and management sorted out). Better luck with your next microarchitecture.
kitamesume:
^ like i said, they bulldozed and gonna piledrive them selves soon, steamroll for a finish. after a few more years they'll excavate them selves for a come back, thats their roadmap of hell.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version