What if bulldozer fails?

I've been back and forth with CPU's from both sides. I generally have purchased processors falling under the sweet spot for performance per dollar. It's got me thinking, if bulldozer ends up being a failure, then basically we're just looking at intel for consumers. With that being said, it may not necessarily mean things will be all that bad because surely intel will want to keep up with r&d to create new chips to sell.

I really hope bulldozer doesn't fail since intel will pretty have no competition.

Anybody here even waiting for bulldozer still? They say Q2/Q3 release which could be as early as June. It seems like everybody is jumping onto the SB bandwagon.

I'm waiting :) After hearing that SLI support was coming to AMD boards as well, I decided I might as well hold off on the upgrade and see what they can come up with.

Hopefully they don't fail though. The whole price/performance thing is starting to get old...

I've been back and forth with CPU's from both sides. I generally have purchased processors falling under the sweet spot for performance per dollar. It's got me thinking, if bulldozer ends up being a failure, then basically we're just looking at intel for consumers. With that being said, it may not necessarily mean things will be all that bad because surely intel will want to keep up with r&d to create new chips to sell.

I really hope bulldozer doesn't fail since intel will pretty have no competition.

Anybody here even waiting for bulldozer still? They say Q2/Q3 release which could be as early as June. It seems like everybody is jumping onto the SB bandwagon.

JunkTrap

Even if they fail to match or surpass SB, which I doubt, they can still remain competitive with good pricing. The Phenom II X4 955 & 965 are still the best selling CPUs on newegg :P

I am waiting for Bulldozer. If the price is right on their quad-core and AM3+ mobo then I will buy one maybe 1 month after release.

if it does it wont matter to me phenom II x4 is still mroe than enough for a long while

I hope it doesn't, cos:

Competition = Price War = Happy Consumer who looks like this::arrow::D

Otherwise, the consumer will look like this::cry:

I'll just wait to get benchmarks for the FX Octocore, then I'll decide if I'm going for AMD or Intel (SB) for my new system.trastamad03

why just the octo-core? cpu lines can have misfit children. look at the am2+ amd lineup's the phenom x4's sucked eggs but the athalon 64 x2 was jsut a BEAST

My future relies on this build as I will either go with this or Sandy Bridge this summer.

It wouldn't make sense to be barely better than a Phenom II.

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]I'll just wait to get benchmarks for the FX Octocore, then I'll decide if I'm going for AMD or Intel (SB) for my new system.ionusX

look at the am2+ amd lineup's the phenom x4's sucked eggs

What!? :o

It's not like AMD will go out of business...

It's not like AMD will go out of business...

Tezcatlipoca666

I read it's suppose to be 50% faster than the Phenom II.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]I'll just wait to get benchmarks for the FX Octocore, then I'll decide if I'm going for AMD or Intel (SB) for my new system.gmaster456

look at the am2+ amd lineup's the phenom x4's sucked eggs

What!? :o

they werent "bad" but like comapred to the core 2 quad (not even going to discuss core 2 extreme) they were really under preforming.

in som,e cases core 2 duo's were slaying phenom x3's!

My future relies on this build as I will either go with this or Sandy Bridge this summer.

It wouldn't make sense to be barely better than a Phenom II.

mitu123

It's not like AMD will go out of business...

Tezcatlipoca666

I read it's suppose to be 50% faster than the Phenom II.

mitu123

50% faster than core i7 neahelm (im assuming that list includes up to the 980x)

[QUOTE="gmaster456"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

look at the am2+ amd lineup's the phenom x4's sucked eggs

ionusX

What!? :o

they werent "bad" but like comapred to the core 2 quad (not even going to discuss core 2 extreme) they were really under preforming.

in som,e cases core 2 duo's were slaying phenom x3's!

[QUOTE="trastamad03"]I'll just wait to get benchmarks for the FX Octocore, then I'll decide if I'm going for AMD or Intel (SB) for my new system.ionusX

why just the octo-core? cpu lines can have misfit children. look at the am2+ amd lineup's the phenom x4's sucked eggs but the athalon 64 x2 was jsut a BEAST

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I read it's suppose to be 50% faster than the Phenom II.

ionusX

50% faster than core i7 neahelm (im assuming that list includes up to the 980x)

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I read it's suppose to be 50% faster than the Phenom II.

tequilasunriser

50% faster than core i7 neahelm (im assuming that list includes up to the 980x)

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

50% faster than core i7 neahelm (im assuming that list includes up to the 980x)

gmaster456

The bulldozer is a new line "fresh" cpu architecture, Even the Phenom 2's are based upon the Athlon 64's tech.

I think it may match the first gen i5, i7, but i think the sb will be better

Of course that it wont go out of business. Intel needs AMD to hold some market share due to anti-monopoly laws. Theyd loose more money from lawsuits than from AMD competition. And trust me, if Intel wanted to they could kill of the competition but they legally cant. Anyways Im still waiting for the bulldozer lineup to come out, if they turn out worse than Intel, I will switch to Sandy Bridge. robertoenrique

I think it may match the first gen i5, i7, but i think the sb will be better

James161324

i think it will surpass first gen i7, seeing as how first gen i7 is more than 3 years old. AMD would definitely have reverse engineered the i7 and made improvements to their own cpu. But we will see, hopefully they give intel a run for their money.

The way I see it they can't fail if they perform a bit better than the Ph II witch they will and if they OC good enough for enthusiast to keep interest in bulldozer.

If i were to guess about the performance i don't think they will surpass the nehalem that much and therfor they'll sit in the budget market again.

What AMD need is a strong enthusiast pulling feuture like madness OC or great SLI/CF boards affordable.

In my opinion the one saver of AM2+/AM3 is the black edition series, they offer god bang per buck and can OC reach fairly high OC's.

I would not like to see a reborn "phenom" I agree to erlier post about the subjekt, they were truly awful, they ran hot, unefficient, wasbad performing, and wouldn't even reach a crappy OC, this would kill the bulldozer before they arrive.

And I would like them to have better heat tolerance, it could help with OC.

I'm sure it will do very well, but I'm still gonna hang on to my x6 1100 for a long time to come :)

wait are you guys talking about bulldozer in terms of gaming? because it isn't actually designed for gaming, never was, http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/229879,amd-puts-its-chips-on-the-table.aspx it is targeted for threaded applications, but even though it will have higher floating point performance than current AMD products, until we know the pricing we will not know whether this increase will make it a better price/performance product than say the phenom ii x4 series. which makes us consider, intel's first gen i7 series Nehalem weren't designed for gaming either, it just so happened that they did pretty well in games, but you paid for that in the price. so if bulldozer ends up being AMD's version of Nehalem but at a steep price reduction, then it will do very well in games and have price/performance that may compete with sandybridge.ferelden

It's designed for running computer programs, games happen to be computer programs.eBusiness

different types of computer programs are coded differently than othersand operate differently. cpu designers create cpus to function more efficiently with certain types of programs. not all programs run the same in different cpu architectures. your oversimplistic view on how computers operate is elementary at best.

[QUOTE="eBusiness"]It's designed for running computer programs, games happen to be computer programs.ferelden

different types of computer programs are coded differently than othersand operate differently. cpu designers create cpus to function more efficiently with certain types of programs. not all programs run the same in different cpu architectures. your oversimplistic view on how computers operate is elementary at best.

That some processors are faster than others is really all a simpleton like you need to consider. It takes a pretty deep understanding, and a humble awareness of what one still does not know, to appreciate the finer points of computer performance.

You tried to say something smart about a topic that you don't know enough about to talk, and the result was 100% fact-free bollocks.

[QUOTE="ferelden"]

[QUOTE="eBusiness"]It's designed for running computer programs, games happen to be computer programs.eBusiness

different types of computer programs are coded differently than othersand operate differently. cpu designers create cpus to function more efficiently with certain types of programs. not all programs run the same in different cpu architectures. your oversimplistic view on how computers operate is elementary at best.

That some processors are faster than others is really all a simpleton like you need to consider. It takes a pretty deep understanding, and a humble awareness of what one still does not know, to appreciate the finer points of computer performance.

You tried to say something smart about a topic that you don't know enough about to talk, and the result was 100% fact-free bollocks.

There is a reason why the i5 2500k competes with the 980 and 990x, the i5 was built from the ground up for gaming, the intel six core wasn't, and neither is the bulldozer. If its built for gaming or say editing can max a large difference

When are the bulldozers going to be released btw? robertoenrique

The high end ones are supposed on come out on the 20 of june

There is a reason why the i5 2500k competes with the 980 and 990x, the i5 was built from the ground up for gaming, the intel six core wasn't, and neither is the bulldozer. If its built for gaming or say editing can max a large differenceJames161324

i think that is too complicated for ebusiness to understand. he just thinks u put floppy disk into computer and press start. adding integer execution units into a bulldozer does not make it faster for gaming, but it does make it faster for server performance. durrr computers iz hard i think cpu made for computer program and games are computer program so having 8 cores going to make my video game super fast, not.

I've been back and forth with CPU's from both sides. I generally have purchased processors falling under the sweet spot for performance per dollar. It's got me thinking, if bulldozer ends up being a failure, then basically we're just looking at intel for consumers. With that being said, it may not necessarily mean things will be all that bad because surely intel will want to keep up with r&d to create new chips to sell.

I really hope bulldozer doesn't fail since intel will pretty have no competition.

Anybody here even waiting for bulldozer still? They say Q2/Q3 release which could be as early as June. It seems like everybody is jumping onto the SB bandwagon.

[QUOTE="eBusiness"]

[QUOTE="ferelden"]

different types of computer programs are coded differently than othersand operate differently. cpu designers create cpus to function more efficiently with certain types of programs. not all programs run the same in different cpu architectures. your oversimplistic view on how computers operate is elementary at best.

That some processors are faster than others is really all a simpleton like you need to consider. It takes a pretty deep understanding, and a humble awareness of what one still does not know, to appreciate the finer points of computer performance.

You tried to say something smart about a topic that you don't know enough about to talk, and the result was 100% fact-free bollocks.

There is a reason why the i5 2500k competes with the 980 and 990x, the i5 was built from the ground up for gaming, the intel six core wasn't, and neither is the bulldozer. If its built for gaming or say editing can max a large difference

[QUOTE="eBusiness"]

[QUOTE="ferelden"]

different types of computer programs are coded differently than othersand operate differently. cpu designers create cpus to function more efficiently with certain types of programs. not all programs run the same in different cpu architectures. your oversimplistic view on how computers operate is elementary at best.

James161324

That some processors are faster than others is really all a simpleton like you need to consider. It takes a pretty deep understanding, and a humble awareness of what one still does not know, to appreciate the finer points of computer performance.

You tried to say something smart about a topic that you don't know enough about to talk, and the result was 100% fact-free bollocks.

There is a reason why the i5 2500k competes with the 980 and 990x, the i5 was built from the ground up for gaming, the intel six core wasn't, and neither is the bulldozer. If its built for gaming or say editing can max a large difference

i5 2500 is clocked at 3.3Ghz, 3.7 GHz turbo, has 4 CPU cores (no hyper-thread) and support faster DDR3-1333. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52210

Core i7-990X support slower DDR3-1066 http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=52585

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="eBusiness"]I do know how they work, from chaining transistors to writing code I have got at least a basic understanding of every part of the chain, and I know that the link between what task a program perform and it's CPU performance characteristics are quite slim. Sure one can make some generalizations, but the individual variation is such a great factor that there is usually not much use for such generalizations.

That some processors are faster than others is really all a simpleton like you need to consider. It takes a pretty deep understanding, and a humble awareness of what one still does not know, to appreciate the finer points of computer performance.

You tried to say something smart about a topic that you don't know enough about to talk, and the result was 100% fact-free bollocks.

JunkTrap

There is a reason why the i5 2500k competes with the 980 and 990x, the i5 was built from the ground up for gaming, the intel six core wasn't, and neither is the bulldozer. If its built for gaming or say editing can max a large difference

Phenom II only supports 3 X86 inctruction issues per cycle. The competition has 4 X86 instruction issues per cycle.

Phenom II X6 has 18 X86 instruction issues per cycle, i5 2500k has 16 X86 instruction issues per cycle. Factor in the Phenom II's FMISC unit is still 64bit wide i.e. not 100 percent 128bit wide SSE units e.g. only Phenom II's FADD and FMUL are 128bit wide.

I think it may match the first gen i5, i7, but i think the sb will be better

James161324

AMD's BZ hyperthread solution is better than Nehalem/SB. AMD's BZ FPUs are 4 operand types(FMA4) and there's two of them(in SSE mode).

SB has 2 operand types (2 for ADD, 2 for MUL).

PowerPC VMX/SPE is3 operand types (FMA3).

AMD's BZ hyperthread solution is better than Nehalem/SB. AMD's BZ FPUs are 4 operand types(FMA4) and there's two of them(in SSE mode).

SB has 2 operand types (2 for ADD, 2 for MUL).

Bulldozer does not have hyperthreading. They created the modules to add extra threads through a hardware approach instead of a software approach (hyperthreading)

[QUOTE="James161324"]There is a reason why the i5 2500k competes with the 980 and 990x, the i5 was built from the ground up for gaming, the intel six core wasn't, and neither is the bulldozer. If its built for gaming or say editing can max a large differenceferelden

i think that is too complicated for ebusiness to understand. he just thinks u put floppy disk into computer and press start. adding integer execution units into a bulldozer does not make it faster for gaming, but it does make it faster for server performance. durrr computers iz hard i think cpu made for computer program and games are computer program so having 8 cores going to make my video game super fast, not.

[QUOTE="ferelden"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]There is a reason why the i5 2500k competes with the 980 and 990x, the i5 was built from the ground up for gaming, the intel six core wasn't, and neither is the bulldozer. If its built for gaming or say editing can max a large differenceeBusiness

i think that is too complicated for ebusiness to understand. he just thinks u put floppy disk into computer and press start. adding integer execution units into a bulldozer does not make it faster for gaming, but it does make it faster for server performance. durrr computers iz hard i think cpu made for computer program and games are computer program so having 8 cores going to make my video game super fast, not.

No game is going to use 8 cores, just in the past year we have finally have a large use of quads

[QUOTE="eBusiness"]

[QUOTE="ferelden"]

i think that is too complicated for ebusiness to understand. he just thinks u put floppy disk into computer and press start. adding integer execution units into a bulldozer does not make it faster for gaming, but it does make it faster for server performance. durrr computers iz hard i think cpu made for computer program and games are computer program so having 8 cores going to make my video game super fast, not.

James161324

No game is going to use 8 cores, just in the past year we have finally have a large use of quads