How did the AMD Bulldozer become the Faildozer?

[11Chad]

How has it earned that title?
Heating issues?
Power Consumption?

[GRATS]

it isn't about being the top cpu, it's about its price and performance.. anyone can build a cpu for $10000000 and make it better than everything else

[Michael Murphy]

- CJ - DSS eredeti hozzászólása:

The fact that the 8core isnt even a true 8core?

And all the problems that require a BIOS update or Windows Hotfixes to Fix.

pretty much sums it up.

That's BS, there are no problems that require windows hotfixes or BIOS updates. The BIOS thing was a problem that was solved in the first month, and was related to the motherboard, not the processor. As for not being a true 8 core, you couldn't be more wrong. Please take the time to review the actual architectural design, you wouldn't say it's not a true 8 core if you did.

It has a total of 8 integer execution units, with two integer execution units with their FPUs pooled together so that each FPU may execute two 128-bit floating point instructions or one 256-bit floating point instruction at any given moment. THEREFORE, the FX-8000s can execute 8 processes simultaneously. Meanwhile, I'd be looking at why Intel isn't offering 8 'real' threads with their processors.

GRATS eredeti hozzászólása:

_I_ eredeti hozzászólása:

they were designed with servers in mind
many vm's or lots of multitasking

most newer games use 2-3 cores, not many will make full use of a quad-oct core systems

when they were released they beat the pants off intel xeon in server settings
but couldnt compete with the i5/i7 for gaming, other than the price

and some pair a 125w cpu with a borad that cant handle it properly overclocked
using a weak power phase on the bord can start it on fire if it isnt cooled properly
or asus, gigabyte and asrock boards know their limit and underclock/undervolt the cpu to save the vrm's
(very few biostar, msi, ecs boards have vrm protection)

the 8150 will be close to the pii x4 965 for most games

Your first two lines being said, they still under perform less cored intels with server & multitasking & vm's =/

and even AMD's old chips out performed them

Incorrect, take a look at Phoronix's extensive benchmarking tests.

The Rolling Cheese eredeti hozzászólása:

Dirtman73 eredeti hozzászólása:

Because Intel fanboys have a habit of bashing anything not Intel. Bulldozer has its issues, but it's still a decent CPU.

nope :\ http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

The best AMD isn't even in top 10.

What I tell all my friends who build PCs. If you want quality and performance go intel, if you want something to get you by and on a rather tiny budget, go AMD.

AMD was awesome back in the day, but times have changed. Intel is just kicking AMD's butt in the modern era.

No, it's more or less, buy Intel if you like to fap benchmark scores, else actually use the money saved by going AMD to buy yourself better motherboards/graphics cards/whatever else you may need. In a real world scenario, there is no difference between Intel and AMD.

rotNdude eredeti hozzászólása:

It really isn't a faildozer, it just doesn't improve performance in gaming with the Intels when you look at benchmarks clock for clock nor does it do better than their previous architecture. It's a new architecture that hasn't received proper reviews for what it should do best at. The architecture is new with the integer units and it has had problems because of that.

'doesn't do better than it's previous architecture' is woefully inaccurate. The architecture is much more efficient, with the first generation of it with a slight flaw being addressed. In fact, my FX-8 performs much better than my Phenom II X6s overclocked to 3.5Ghz in a variety of intense tasks, and only a few minor programs do they match performance or perform slightly worse (to the point where its not noticable unless you benchmark it, these are single core games).

Mr-Mechraven eredeti hozzászólása:

Does it deserve it's "faildozer" title ? Yes and No. Yes because it was overhyped to be something it wasn't. And no because, depending on your needs the FX line of cpu's can be an affordable and very effective desktop solution.

That's unfair to the engineers who made the processor.

[rotNdude]

StickyCrab eredeti hozzászólása:

rotNdude eredeti hozzászólása:

It really isn't a faildozer, it just doesn't improve performance in gaming with the Intels when you look at benchmarks clock for clock nor does it do better than their previous architecture. It's a new architecture that hasn't received proper reviews for what it should do best at. The architecture is new with the integer units and it has had problems because of that.

'doesn't do better than it's previous architecture' is woefully inaccurate. The architecture is much more efficient, with the first generation of it with a slight flaw being addressed. In fact, my FX-8 performs much better than my Phenom II X6s overclocked to 3.5Ghz in a variety of intense tasks, and only a few minor programs do they match performance or perform slightly worse (to the point where its not noticable unless you benchmark it, these are single core games).

I did say in games and I also said it isn't a faildozer.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8

[Sora]

StickyCrab eredeti hozzászólása:

-snip-

I have to agree with you, My Phenom II x4 ~3.2ghz cant even properly run on windows 7 (requires windows XP drivers that BSOD the system) but my new Server i have sitting over in the corner running the new FX 8 series out preforms my gaming computer by one hell of a long shot.

Edit:
In fact I have been considering trading my Server to be my new Gaming system. and my current gaming system to be the server. Because of that out preformance.

[Michael Murphy]

♥ Sora ♥ eredeti hozzászólása:

StickyCrab eredeti hozzászólása:

-snip-

I have to agree with you, My Phenom II x4 ~3.2ghz cant even properly run on windows 7 (requires windows XP drivers that BSOD the system) but my new Server i have sitting over in the corner running the new FX 8 series out preforms my gaming computer by one hell of a long shot.

Edit:
In fact I have been considering trading my Server to be my new Gaming system. and my current gaming system to be the server. Because of that out preformance.

Don't know if serious....

[aaron551]

♥ Sora ♥ eredeti hozzászólása:

StickyCrab eredeti hozzászólása:

-snip-

I have to agree with you, My Phenom II x4 ~3.2ghz cant even properly run on windows 7 (requires windows XP drivers that BSOD the system) but my new Server i have sitting over in the corner running the new FX 8 series out preforms my gaming computer by one hell of a long shot.

Edit:
In fact I have been considering trading my Server to be my new Gaming system. and my current gaming system to be the server. Because of that out preformance.

err WHAT are you smoking????? I have no problems running Win7 ult x64 on my AM2+ PII X4 940 you shouldn't even be installing any XP drivers on win7

[_I_]

installing the xp drvers on a win7 system is most likely causing your bsods and instability
they make win7 drivers for a reason

[Granada]

AMD hyped the FX-Series as next generation competitor up to taking the performance crown. A "Bulldozer" with 8 Cores @3.6GHz, sounds like power, eh? Then they came up with CPUs at the level of Intels old 45nm Series (before SB) and also didn't even clearly beat their own 2010 Processors, but the biggest mistake (someone mentioned already) was imho to try to give people a run-around with idiotic and glorifying marketing. Clear announcements with valid facts could have saved a lot of AMDs reputation.