AMD's Bulldozer a bust

AnandTech - The Bulldozer Review: AMD FX-8150 Tested

"Unfortunately the same complaints we've had about AMD's processors over the past few years still apply here today: in lightly threaded scenarios, Bulldozer simply does not perform. To make matters worse, in some heavily threaded applications the improvement over the previous generation Phenom II X6 simply isn't enough to justify an upgrade for existing AM3+ platform owners."

"Single threaded performance is my biggest concern, and compared to Sandy Bridge there's a good 40-50% advantage the i5 2500K enjoys over the FX-8150."

"AMD also shared with us that Windows 7 isn't really all that optimized for Bulldozer. Windows 8 is expected to correct this, but isn't expected to be out until the end of next year, at which point we'll likely see an upgraded successor to Bulldozer."

 

This sucks! D< I had high hopes for AMD, even though I'm a mild intel fanboy. We need variety, and I'm very much against Intel having a monopoly on this particular market.

Come on, AMD. Time to cowboy up!

Mr. Mysterious

 

To me it all depends on the pricing.
A proper Intel mainboard + a decent CPU aint cheap here in Norway, but still this sounds like AMD dropped the ball on Bulldozer.

 

For the price though, I think AMD is the way to go. I definitely want an 8 core processor and to overclock it. For the last 6 months I've been making do with a 1.7Ghz single core Athlon II.

 

A proper Intel motherboard + CPU isn't cheap in the States either. I've loved AMD for a long time, with all the desktops in my family's house being AMD-based (K6, then Athlon 64, then Phenom II X4), and I've only started using Intel because I started using laptops (Pentium T4200, and current i7). I was hoping better for Bulldozer as well, though considering that a decent AM3+ motherboard + CPU is still cheaper than even an Intel CPU (sometimes), I'd still look at AMD if I was building a desktop. Only reason I see to use Intel in a custom rig is if someone really needed all the power they could get, and didn't care for costs.

 

You really don't. The quad core i7 will use less power and be faster for the vast majority of applications.

AMD literally made a slower processor and then threw 4 cores on it.

 

And despite those extra 4 cores, it still doesn't come close to i7 quad in multi-threaded apps.
Which is very sad if you ask me.
I was hoping AMD would come out with something more competitive this time around.

 

The thing is, that a CPU that was released 10 months ago, with 4 cores, the i5 2500k, is equally good and beats the Bulldozer (which is 8 cores) in some scenarios. The power consumption of the FX 8150 is simply breathtaking bad, and the 2500k is cheaper.
And to add more fuel, the Bulldozer performs WORSE than previous generation from AMD. Single threaded performance is pretty bad, and AMD praised this like some godlike CPU.

AMD screwed the pooch on this one. Real hard

 

While I don't think it was a complete flop I still think they could have done better. Although it doesn't stand up to high end intel quads that's not to say that it's a weak processor. They should just try and reduce the cost further. If they priced it at £150 instead of £200 then it would be much more competitive. The problem lies with the fact that you can get a 2500k for less than £200 which will do better in the majority of situations.

Given that it's a completely new design for them I think they did reasonably well. Maybe the next generation will fare slightly better (especially power consumption wise, they chew through power like a hungry beast from hell from what I've seen).

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pm2DtdPW1I4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pm2DtdPW1I4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='560' height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

I've been noticing a couple things about Anandtech recently. They seem to be much more of an "advertising firm" than a review site any more. Secondly, like Tomshardware, they seem to favor Intel a little more than AMD. I'm not questioning if his review is genuine or honest, but those are things I have noticed with Anandtech as of late.

I still have hope that AMD will do well with future releases. I think they hit a homerun with Llano and I hope they continue that trend.

 

All I know is a mobile version of this chip would be terrible.

 

I'm rooting for AMD, but this news does not surprise me.
I would really like a cheap alternative to the i7 Quads. Until then, I will continue with Intel. Hopefully AMD will "WIN ME BACK" someday.


Also, that writeup says AMD is looking for a 10-15% improvement in their chips every year. Isn't intel already shooting for a 20-30% increase/year as of now? Not good AMD.

 

My AMD stock I bought at 7.39 last year was a terrible idea... was hoping the APUs and Bulldozer would allow it to hit 10 bucks so I could sell it....

 

Ivy bridge is right around the corner too. With 77W TDP. Sandy is 95W

TSE: Now it is around 4.8?

 

AMD is dead cpu wise. the only reason they exist is to prevent intel for monopolizing the CPU market. They may even be paid by intel, who knows. At least ATI is still cranking out good GFX cards

 

Excellent GFX cards But what if Intel entered the GPU market? Everyone would be doomed, lol

Mr. Mysterious

 

What a bunch of crap, but I guess Intel marketing has you by the nuts. AMD is a viable (low cost) alternative, and for the majority of users, you don't need a hexacore processor with 16GB RAM, and super ultra nvidia three-way SLI to surf the web and do email/video/chat.
The fact of the matter is, AMD's Llano graphic performance is far superior to anything Intel has right now, and will until atleast Ivy Bridge which is at best 5 months away. When did Llano debut? That's right, July. Roughly a full year before Ivy Bridge.
You can get a base quad core Llano notebook for $500, that comes with 4GB RAM. I'd be very hard pressed to find a comparable Intel quadcore notebook (new) for that price (I have yet to find one).

 

Well reviews are putting BD at slower than the last gen AMD product, more power heavy than the last gen AMD product, more expensive to manufacture compared to the last gen AMD product, and from what I've read AMD choose to make shortcuts during the design phase so that they didn't have to spend as much money on proper engineering and handmade custom silicon design.

...and I'm just talking about AMD here. Intel has a lower TDP, lower overall power usage, and better performance consistently across many benchmarks at similar price points to AMD.

Not good at all, AMD. Not good at all.

Some articles have speculated that after a few steppings the design might improve enough that it becomes competitive. With steppings they can improve power usage, heat, and overclockability....in the next few months. But to really improve performance per clock they've got to revamp the architecture of BD and that's going to take time and going to take money. We'll know for sure in probably the next 12-18 months if BD can be saved via a major revision.

Llano is/was an absolute success in the low-to-medium-end laptop and PC market; it competes well with Intel for sure. BD as designed today is nothing against a reasonable Sandy Bridge purchase.

 

They did. They failed.

 

Not this discussion again?!
You can get laptops with Quad core from Intel that RAPES Llano laptops for very little cash. And with a GPU that runs over the IGP of Llano and make it squeel like a little girl.

Like this one. 2670QM and GT540M for $750
Newegg.com - Acer Aspire AS5755G-9471 Notebook Intel Core i7 2670QM(2.20GHz) 15.6" 4GB Memory DDR3 1066 640GB HDD 5400rpm DVD Super Multi NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M

Llano is for *VERY* cheap people.

 

I wish AMD was better at keeping up with Intel to provide the industry with competition. They are years behind with CPUs.
Atleast admit that they cannot beat Intel and market their product with that in mind. Not boast like they will bulldoze the competition with their next CPUs when in fact it is worse than previous gen.

Thank god for ATI and the graphic division. If it weren`t for them, AMD would struggle. Not only GPU wise but also IGP with their CPU.

Wonder what will happen with Ivy. Will Intel keep up with AMD, and will AMD succeed in putting a faster IGP on the next gen CPUs to widen their advantage? Or will we meet a TDP limit sometime soon? And with Bulldozer being hotter than hell, what will be the next CPU for notebooks?

 

They tried and then did not launch it because it was that bad and late

 

Wonder how much money they spent on making the Bulldozer and how much they lost with all the bad reviews from basicly everywhere

 

They did?? Link me please?

Mr. Mysterious

 

The problem is that even a dual core i5 will match or surpass any AMD quad in most applications.

AMD is viable for low cost machines, but then so is Intel.

 

Anyone remember when the Bulldoser rumors first went into circulation? Seems years ago.

I just don't get it. How can a company spend so much time and resources on developing a product and result in something that performs worse than the earlier gen? It defies logic.

I still remember the glory days of Athlon 64. But Intel's Core architecture was a stroke of genius. I wish AMD would get as luck one day and come up with something groundbreaking. For competition.

@ Mysterious: Does Larrabee ring any bells?

 

AnandTech - Intel Cancels Larrabee Retail Products, Larrabee Project Lives On

 

Funny. Intel is much more expensive than AMD. Care to disprove me?

 

its called a celeron.

 

Hah! Good point, but I was thinking more along the lines of a core i3 or atleast a pentium dual core (even the odds a bit, comparing to the athlon x2/x4 or Llano). I'm only trying to make the point that AMD's processors are not junk, and are more than "good enough" for most users.

 

I don't care about power consumption, and my old desktop was an i7 860. I really want to get back in the saddle with an AMD desktop and for the price it is hard to pass up. And of course, overclocking it is a must.

 

It is when the quad-core i5-2500k and i7-2600k are within spitting distance, price-wise, of the respective 6- and 8-core AMD parts.

 

AMD needs to get their act together and focus on mobile PC and tablets this is where all the money is at in the very near future.

 

Llano seems pretty good for the netbook segment.

 

I'm sure AMD is doing fine in the mobile segment. I would actually like to have a 11-13" laptop for on-the-go sort of stuff with something like an AX series (or maybe a 10" with an E-350).

 

They have been. It's called Llano.

 

Why are people so upset that AMD Bulldozer does not compete with Intel? As soon as the pricing was announced about a month ago, we already knew that it wasn't going to compete with Sandy Bridge. It was priced more at the 2500K level and below. And with Sandy BRidge-E coming next month, Bulldozer will be aimed at value segment again. That's too bad...we need competition to drive innovation and keep prices in check. Right now, Intel is King and will be King for quite sometime to come

 

Because not only does Bulldozer not compete with Sandy Bridge, it doesn't even compete with Phenom II. Why buy a FX-6100 for $180 when you can get a better performing Thuban for $20-30 less?

 

The Thuban I don't think is really better. According to AMD, it sounds like bulldozer is going to be more future proof as win8 is going to utilize it completely.
The most biggest disappointment imo is the lack of performance in the single threaded application. Not only is it lacking in performance but it is so far behind that its hard to imagine AMD will ever competitively compete in that aspect.

 

it really is too bad.

 

Well there is a reason why Intel (as you say, monopoly) has the upper hand in this market..

I mean their products are simply better. Its stuff like this that makes Intel have the upper hand, its not a monopoly. A monopoly is when one company basically rules the product/service that people require.

Amd simply isnt trying hard enough.

 

Lol yes...which is why I am telling AMD to "cowboy up".

Mr. Mysterious

 

I honestly had hopes for bulldozer
this is truly pathetic on their part

 

So much bull in this thread. AMD is in the same position it has been since Core2Duo; a strong hold on teh low-midrange segment.

Walk into bestbuy, if you want a laptop to game with you have 2 options:

A Llano machine for $750 with an A8 (has a mobility 6620 on die) will be your best bet. The closest Intel machine with comparable performance is $200 more.

As biased and stupid as Anand can be, even they admit that Llano is dominating the mid range entertainment laptop market. The only "gaming machine" they found that came close to Llano has an i3 and a nvidia 520 in it.... which doesn't come close to the A8.

Anand is extremely Intel biased, just like most review sites these days, it's too compromised to be helpful.

 

Please elaborate on what you mean.

From what I know is that the sandybridge (if your referring to that i3) are very well equipped for gaming that the gpu ends being the bottleneck, and as you said AMD processors are just the low budget quality processors, going by the saying "you get what you paid for"

Intel in my eyes build their processors with "elegance" in a sense that its innovative (hyperthreading, turboboost, low power consumption etc) , not sure if thats the right word. Bulldozer has been in production for a while and yet this happens? It just begs the question on what were they really testing, ya know?

I view intel as reliability with performance and you can always find an intel processor on price range and performance as amd (sure not in retail if thats what your pricing is going by)

This was supposed to rival intels i7 series.

 

The difference is that they're not discounting as deeply as they generally do. Its price is currently higher than the Core i5-2500K which is a more powerful CPU for the vast majority of applications.

I don't understand your antipathy towards AnandTech, at least in this case. From every review out there, the chip consumes more power than Sandy Bridge and is priced rather high given its capabilities. It's also a much larger chip, even though it doesn't have any on-board graphics. AMD has been hyping this thing for years and it's not what people expected.

 

How about $100 more and will absolutely blow the pants off the system you're talking about?

CompUSA.com | A53SV-TH72 | ASUS A53SV-TH72 15.6 Black Laptop

 

My issues with AMD do not have to do with performance, nor price, nor 'branding'. Even though they were better than Intel in all areas for quite a few years.

My issues relate to program incompatibilities (from not being able to install programs at all to unstable/non-usable programs - from 2000 onwards for my graphics oriented workflow).

Also, chipset (AMD+nVidia!) incompatibilities from causing O/S install nightmares to features that simply didn't work on all systems across similar (yet not identical) machines.

With Intel products, no such nightmares - O/S installs were straightforward - everytime - and if the resulting installation was un-stable, it was usually hardware failure or user (installation order) mistakes.

The time and money spent troubleshooting AMD based solutions in the past was time that was simply wasted in a vast majority of the cases. No cost savings ever resulted from buying the cheaper/faster (AMD) alternative to Intel.

When they worked, the feeling was unmatched. The problem was though the niggling thought in the back of our minds - how long will it be stable this time?

I'm happy AMD is around and I truly wish them every success they can earn.

However, I'm rooting for AMD so that they push Intel to even greater pinnacles than they would reach for otherwise.

A stable system is worth far more than the cheapest, the fastest or the fastest AND cheapest system to me. Experience has shown me that AMD simply cannot (or will not?) deliver that kind of stability. At any price. Even with their latest platforms.

Go AMD Go!

(But I'll continue to purchase from 'old reliable'; Intel).

 

I dont understand why people root for AMD yet buy and install intel products. Amd was good years ago, now they are slowly being eaten away by the ingenuity of Intel.

Tiller I know you said that its going to push Intel to higher pinnacles but the truth is that they didnt need to look at AMD for that matter.

I mean what did AMD do that pushed Intel to create sandybridge and ivy bridge?

Intel has shown me that its the far more stable and reliable system over the years.

 

In my computing history, I usually had the opposite experience. The majority of my builds from year 2000 onward were AMD. They ranged from the old Athlon Thunderbird through the socket 939 and AM2, and the only incompatibilities I experienced were on motherboards with VIA chipsets. No problems with AMD or NVIDIA boards.

I only built a couple Intel machines, including one with a Pentium 4, which while stable, while much slower than my comparable Athlons. The other was a Core2 Duo setup with an nForce 680i motherboard, and it was a nightmare--instability all over the place. I did have a Socket 1366 desktop system, and it was very fast, but I never really liked it that much.

All that said, I would still go with a Sandy Bridge machine were I building a desktop or had the funds for an appropriate notebook.