Official AMD FX Bulldozer review thread!

[jcrox]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Now they have much worse products and are more expensive than better cpus.

#1 Much worse for gamers, which is a tiny portion of the market. For 90+ percent of people they wouldn't know the difference if you replaced a SB overclocked to 5.0GHz with a Phenom II at 2.5 GHz. It doesn't take a lot of power to open up an Excel file or a PDF much less Facebook.

#2 People have a tendency to go with a familiar name thus Intel having a larger market share even when they had an inferior product for an extended period of time. Even if Bulldozer came out and doubled SB performance it would still only amount in a small increase in desktop market share.

As for the server market...

Trefis members predict the share will rise towards 17%

Like I said... in the professional world screaming fast clock speeds aren't sought after, usability is. Right now virtualization = usability and virtualization requires multiple REAL cores, not hyper-threading.

At 2.4 - 2.8 GHz a single 8 core Bulldozer chip is going to use less power and create less heat than the two quad core Intel chips it would take to achieve the same amount of virtualization.

with 12-core processors not far away AMD is sitting just fine. 16 and 20 core parts (if they ever really release them) would be highly sought after in the professional IT world.

[sillyeagle]

Originally Posted by Rollo

AMD chips are ALWAYS cheaper than intel, yet they only have a small market share. This was true even when they had better products. Now they have much worse products and are more expensive than better cpus.

I see your point but for example look at Dells list of "best sellers" on their site. 2 out of the 5 are AMD systems. If you look at their overall desktop lineup, there's a nice mix of Intel and AMD, about a 1 or 2 to 3 ratio.

Originally Posted by nekrosoft13

most people in store now look at WEI scores.

From what I have seen average joe doesn't know anything about wei scores, clock for clock perf, or anything of that sort. Average joe looks at price, and the basic specs like ram, hdd, and cpu speed, and for the most part gets whatever processor he happen to get for the price he is willing to pay. From my experience it mostly comes down to how the OEMs choose to divy up their processors along their price points.

[Johnny C]

Originally Posted by Rollo

AMD chips are ALWAYS cheaper than intel, yet they only have a small market share. This was true even when they had better products. Now they have much worse products and are more expensive than better cpus.

I'm gonna call you on this one.

It's true...Intel to have way more market share but only because when AMD could have excelled and gained market share..massive market share, with their vastly superior products(read light years ahead), Intel engaged in anti competitive business practices and paid OEMs to use their processors(read bribed).

Please don't quote market share again, since we can't go back in time, pistol whip intel for being a bunch of douchebag thugs with deep pockets, and allow free market rules to prevail circa 2003.

Right now Intel > AMD we all know this. This thread is full of the fail of bulldozer...that is enough.

[Rollo]

Ah, I meant no offense to the BeefDozer. If there were no PhenomIIs, i5s, or i7s I'd consider one.

But alas, the Encino Man of CPUs was born two years too late and really no one has any reason whatsoever to buy one.

[Sean_W]

AMD are going to hurt for a while until something uses their arch and cores better. We know some benchmarks and apps are heavily optimised for Intel CPUs anyway.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Sean_W

AMD are going to hurt for a while until something uses their arch and cores better. We know some benchmarks and apps are heavily optimised for Intel CPUs anyway.

So you think there will be a move by developers away from the chips 80% of people are currently buying to capture the Beefdozer owner market and exploit the power of the Beefdozer?

Why would anyone do that?

The Beefdozer isn't likely to be a big seller given the reviews, buzz and popularity/performance of SB products. If you were a developer would you spend your time and risk your company optimising for the Beefdozer?

Joe Microsoft: "We at MS welcome the Beefdozer! Office 2012 has been designed with Beefdozer core design in mind, those lucky few who ignored the reviews will see much greater performance!"

Gabe Newell: "I have been waiting for an eight pipeline core with shared caches! Now I can finally begin Half Life 3!"

The installed user base of Phenoms, Core 2 quads, i5s and i7s is HUGE. How many apps make use of 3-4 cores? If devs won't optimise for a ginormous existing user base, why would they optimise for the Beefdozer? I'm thinking for the useful life of this product, the apps tuned for it will be few and far between. (if any)

[K007]

Worth watching. He sums it up perfectly when it comes to cost and performance.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by K007

Worth watching. He sums it up perfectly when it comes to cost and performance.

Only worth watching if you want to see how NOT to compare CPUs.

We all know "CPUs" perform pretty similar when benching shooters at 1080P with AA/AF. That's because the GPU is the limiting factor.

CPUs are tested at lower settings to test the CPU.

Now you can use higher settings if you use multiple high end GPUs and you want to illustrate which CPUs provide better scaling, like they did at AlienBabelTech and proved the Beefdozer couldn't push Crossfire as well as an i7 or Phenom II.

All that video shows is that Linus doesn't understand benchmarking. This is like saying "A GTX560Ti is a much better deal than a GTX580 because they both perform the same at 640X480 0X0X!".

[K007]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Only worth watching if you want to see how NOT to compare CPUs.

We all know "CPUs" perform pretty similar when benching shooters at 1080P with AA/AF. That's because the GPU is the limiting factor.

CPUs are tested at lower settings to test the CPU.

Now you can use higher settings if you use multiple high end GPUs and you want to illustrate which CPUs provide better scaling, like they did at AlienBabelTech and proved the Beefdozer couldn't push Crossfire as well as an i7 or Phenom II.

All that video shows is that Linus doesn't understand benchmarking. This is like saying "A GTX560Ti is a much better deal than a GTX580 because they both perform the same at 640X480 0X0X!".

He is more interested real world applications and what most people will be playing their games on..

I am sure he will do some xfire/sli results as well. He makes a valid point about costs.

Hmm i am not sure when he said that comment about the 560Ti is better deal than 580 at 640x480 res...doesn't sound like something he would say...

then again...your a class A Troll....

[nekrosoft13]

Originally Posted by K007

Worth watching. He sums it up perfectly when it comes to cost and performance.

lame video, ncix sponsored just to sell cpu that no one want

[Sean_W]

Originally Posted by Rollo

So you think there will be a move by developers away from the chips 80% of people are currently buying to capture the Beefdozer owner market and exploit the power of the Beefdozer?

Why would anyone do that?

The Beefdozer isn't likely to be a big seller given the reviews, buzz and popularity/performance of SB products. If you were a developer would you spend your time and risk your company optimising for the Beefdozer?

Joe Microsoft: "We at MS welcome the Beefdozer! Office 2012 has been designed with Beefdozer core design in mind, those lucky few who ignored the reviews will see much greater performance!"

Gabe Newell: "I have been waiting for an eight pipeline core with shared caches! Now I can finally begin Half Life 3!"

The installed user base of Phenoms, Core 2 quads, i5s and i7s is HUGE. How many apps make use of 3-4 cores? If devs won't optimise for a ginormous existing user base, why would they optimise for the Beefdozer? I'm thinking for the useful life of this product, the apps tuned for it will be few and far between. (if any)

Nobody optimised for Quad-core CPUs 5 years ago so meh, it takes time and stop being an idiot and saying "Beefdozer".

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by K007

He is more interested real world applications and what most people will be playing their games on..

I am sure he will do some xfire/sli results as well. He makes a valid point about costs.

Hmm i am not sure when he said that comment about the 560Ti is better deal than 580 at 640x480 res...doesn't sound like something he would say...

then again...your a class A Troll....

1. I said that his results were pointless because they don't test the CPU, much like running a game at 640X480 would not test modern GPUs.

2. Look at what happens when you test with two 6970s, as I suggested:

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/amds-...-arrives/all/1

Notice how in the games where they use a single 6970 the Beefdozer, i7s, Phenom IIs mysteriously score exactly the same? Then look at the CF benches next to them and the Beefdozer falls flat on it's face, just like it did in all the reviews that were not done by Linus where they didn't use settings that take the CPU out of the equation.

If I'm a "class A troll" this forum should hope more like me post here. You posted a meaningless and misleading (for gamers) review of Beefdozer, I pointed out why it's meaningless and misleading and then backed my argument with a link to an independent website corroborating my position.