Your view on AMD's Bulldozer

[TMRNetShark]

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.

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.

[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]

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.

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]

An official blog post form AMD:

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/13/our-take-on-amd-fx/

I sure hope that is just a fire-fighting response, and not AMD actually believing their own hype.

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:

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.

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.

That eight-core processor will rip right along ... just right behind a four-core processor, right?

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.

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.

[kamuixtv99]

You get what you pay with AMD, They have poor benchmarks but with its price, it's still the 'king' for massive buyers like for schools and internet cafes. These days what you see inside internet cafes are facebook and its lousy games and WoW

[kitamesume]

^ not at all, if some school bought bulldozer they'll be breaking their pockets because they're looking at PCs eating 3-4x more power than the equivalent competition, they're already running at megawatts per hour just by air conditioning, the additional heat those bulldozer would increase it further, well do you want to pay 500$ more per semester?
or are you talking about the cheap schools? then thats even worse, those kind of schools still uses pentium4s these days.

if they're smart enough, they'd either go with Llano or i3 with additional dGPU if needed, specially on graphic arts schools.
why? schools dont need that much power, nor do they game.

internet cafes i've seen has C2Q Q6600 + 9800GT in them, much newer cafes has i3-530 + GT450 in them.

[kureshii]

AMD actually only has two “value-for-money” product lines at the moment.

Propus (Athlon II X4, including the Phenom II rebrands), which offers quad-core performance below the $100 CPU price point, where Intel only offers dual-core non-HT (Sandy Bridge) Celerons at that price.

Thuban (Phenom II X6), which offers hex-core performance that still edges out the i5-2500 in heavily-multithreaded applications at a similar price point (The i5 still wins lightly threaded benchmarks though).

No, Zambezi (FX-series) doesn’t fit anywhere in there at all. The 900-series AM3+ motherboards are way overpriced, and the eight-core processor loses to Thuban in value-for-money (not to mention availability). The quad-core parts may yet prove themselves; lets see how the reviews go.

There is a niche market for Deneb cores (Phenom II X4), which are great overclocking chips, especially the BEs. Unfortunately, performance-wise an overclocked Athlon II X4 is still better performance for money, and at higher price points you might as well be getting an X6 already.

Let’s not talk about the rock-bottom SKUs, because a consumer buying those might as well be buying second-hand, in which case price is difficult to discuss since it depends much on luck.

[TMRNetShark]

Let’s not talk about the rock-bottom SKUs, because a consumer buying those might as well be buying second-hand, in which case price is difficult to discuss since it depends much on luck.

I recently bought an X6... you calling that second hand? XD

I mean, I have a 1055T X6... so it's bottom of the bottom of the X6 CPUs. Surprisingly, that CPU held up really nicely in the BF3 beta on the Caspian Border map... Not once did my FPS go below 50 even with the multitude of tanks and helicopter bombings.

That's besides the point though. It would seem that Intel is doing whatever it wants right now while AMD is trying to be the competitive 2nd place contender. Bulldozer doesn't seem to be THAT competitive with a lot of the higher end CPUs, but we will have to wait to REAL benchmarks are made.

[kureshii]

By rock-bottom I meant Sempron actually; old Athlon Is, 65nm X2s, and whatever else AMD has at that price point. What made you think an X6 is rock-bottom?

[TMRNetShark]

By rock-bottom I meant Sempron actually; old Athlon Is, 65nm X2s, and whatever else AMD has at that price point. What made you think an X6 is rock-bottom?

Your transition made it sound like it was. And I know my X6 isn't rock bottom at all. It just can't compete with an i5-2500K. For the price, and what it can do though, I feel it's better than the Sandybridge. Running multiple application really doesn't hinder the performance of another program. That's what the Sandybridge's limitations are (not the i7 yet). The i5-2500K only have 4 threads versus it's bigger brother's 8 threads (the i7-2600K). My X6 1055T has 6 threads, 2 more cores, and still struggles to keep up in single threaded applications. My other guess is, throw a lot at the Sandybridge and throw a lot at the FX-8150... see which one can multitask better.

[kureshii]

Your transition made it sound like it was. And I know my X6 isn't rock bottom at all. It just can't compete with an i5-2500K. For the price, and what it can do though, I feel it's better than the Sandybridge. Running multiple application really doesn't hinder the performance of another program. That's what the Sandybridge's limitations are (not the i7 yet). The i5-2500K only have 4 threads versus it's bigger brother's 8 threads (the i7-2600K). My X6 1055T has 6 threads, 2 more cores, and still struggles to keep up in single threaded applications. My other guess is, throw a lot at the Sandybridge and throw a lot at the FX-8150... see which one can multitask better.

You don’t seem to have much idea how threading works, and how multicore processors handle loads. Raw logical core count alone isn’t everything.

[vuzedome]

Oh I've seen this movie before.
You guys having a re-run?

[TMRNetShark]

You don’t seem to have much idea how threading works, and how multicore processors handle loads. Raw logical core count alone isn’t everything.

Not a computer science person... but I know that if one thread is being tied up with a long-run piece of code or instructions... the other threads can still process data from memory or have it request the data from the hard drive. That's why multicore processors work well with multi-threaded applications. This is called time division multiplexing... or just multitasking. The problem is with programs that require "faster" CPUs tend to favor Intel... but when it comes to heavy multi-threaded applications... it's a toss up in the air. Then again, 4 core 965 BE's are in the same range as the 6-core X6's.

But comparing 6-core AMD CPUs to Intels 6-core CPUs? Intel's are around 3-6 times more expensive ($450-$1000)... Hell, even AMD's 8-core CPU doesn't even come close... (let alone the fact that it can't beat a freakin i5-2500K)

[kitamesume]

^ to make it short, AMD is on the brink of giving up the PC segment, they'll lose more investors if they dont manage to recover next year, releasing product at their lowest possible price doesnt help either. though they're doing pretty fine in the server segment.

whats keeping them clinging to it is the Llano and the old phenoms/athlons, if they try discontinuing the phenom/athlon line then i dont even know what will happen to them.

what made them like this? the limited budget, the time it took them to create such a grotesque CPU, the lawsuits they've been throwing non-stop, not to mention their staffs resigning one after the other.

[kureshii]

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22964411

In 2Q11 by form factor, Intel earned 84.4% share in the mobile PC processor segment, a loss of 1.9%, AMD finished with 15.2%, a gain of 1.8%, and VIA earned 0.4%. In the PC server/workstation processor segment, Intel finished with 94.5% market share, a gain of 0.6%, and AMD earned 5.5%, a loss of 0.6%. In the desktop PC processor segment, Intel earned 70.9%, a loss of 1.5%, and AMD earned 28.9%, a gain of 1.5%.

Amusingly, in Q2 this year, AMD actually gained in the mobile/PC market (likely aided by Llano’s release), and lost a little in the server market. These are small changes though, and actually against the general trend of the past few quarters. Lets see how 2011 ends.

[kitamesume]

^ i think what made the little bit of rise in the PC segment is the stalling of the FX and announcing that the 900-series chipset supports them, it made people buy rigs based on 900-series boards in advance thinking "bulldozer bulldozer! wooo bulldozer!", and the Llano's successful "2in1" processors for low budget consumers.

[kureshii]

The report is only about microprocessor unit shipments though, not motherboard SKUs and other peripheral products.

[kitamesume]

no i mean whole rigs, motherboard+processor being bought in advance. people were thinking "i`ma buy me a phenom II rig and change the proc to bulldozer later" or something like that.

[kamuixtv99]

What I said about wholesale of AMDs on schools/network gaming is limited only in Asia. What's this thing about AMD going to fail/lose? AMD holds a little share in the PC market ever since and when it comes to revenues Intel still earns billions of $. I remember during Athlon days the "average joes" are avoiding Athlon because of additional cooling fan requirement. Some felt they wasted their money on their 'overheated' Athlon because they don't have any idea on 3rd party cooling fans. This was a low-blow for AMD and somehow they manage to survive. Pentium4 was like $100 more expensive than Athlon and all you need is a descent $15 cooling solution. The average joes didn't change from 10 years ago, what's running on their mind now is i3/i5/i7...while x6/bulldozer/fusion wtf is that? It's sad that 70% of the world is 'average joe' and they are fooled by Intel and Apple. oh btw Linux and Hackintosh have little support on AMD. Meh, It's just a matter of choice right? Most will drive Ford/GM/Toyota but only a select few will drive Volkswagen/Subaru...oops maybe a bad example idk their prices it depends where you are.