• AMD Realizes That Bulldozer Has 800 Million LESS Transistors Than It Thought!
    94 replies, posted
1.199999999998 billion ....... 1.199999999999 billion ...... 2 billion. If someone was actually counting them(which they weren't), I could see where the problem is. All those 9s make you want to just go up to 2 billion.
Meh. I'm fine with my Phenom II 965.
You'd think that by having a computer do the designs for them they'd at least be able to count the number of transistors. Seriously, is that program incapable of spitting out a text file with the transistor count when it's done?
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;33552382]You'd think that by having a computer do the designs for them they'd at least be able to count the number of transistors. Seriously, is that program incapable of spitting out a text file with the transistor count when it's done?[/QUOTE]It just rounded to the biggest number :v:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w[/media]
[QUOTE=ItsMozy;33547768]This, but do you think Intel will see AMD as a serious competition with shit like this?[/QUOTE] This won't change anything, life isn't a cartoon.
Was this a top of the line CPU, or a midrange one?
It was their entire line of new processors.
eh. apparently the FX does about the same as the phenom. if thats correct then by upgrading my 955 to a FX-6100 im adding 2 cores and reducing power load from 140w to 95w. good enough for me.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;33547723]I do, guess what will happen to the prices of all Intel CPUs?[/QUOTE] AND Expect a new socket every year.
They designed the fucking die. How the hell did this do uncounted rounds in the CAD shop and nobody noticed?
Maybe the computer running the counting software had an AMD processor and miscounted. I kid I kid, I like AMD.
I was looking at a review, and I was baffled how Bulldozer had 2 billion transistors when Intel chips only had like 1.3 or 1.3 or something. 1.2 sounds like a more reasonable number. I didn't think AMD would just double the number of transistors that Intel used. [editline]3rd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=5killer;33553994]Was this a top of the line CPU, or a midrange one?[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it was the high end 8 core models. The 6 and 4 core models obviously have fewer cores so they had fewer transistors. I think all of the 8 core ones had the same number of transistors though. The lower end ones might have been miscounted too, but they didn't claim those had 2 billion.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33554620]AND Expect a new socket every year.[/QUOTE] I'm very sorry Intel makes large changes to their architecture that require socket changes unlike AMD that just adds more cores to their existing one. Intel doesn't do it for no reason, they add large features and improvements that won't work with older sockets. Like when they integrated the memory controller onto their chips a few years back, or the integration of the intel HD graphics on their sandy bridge chips.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;33556717]I'm very sorry Intel makes large changes to their architecture that require socket changes unlike AMD that just adds more cores to their existing one. Intel doesn't do it for no reason, they add large features and improvements that won't work with older sockets. Like when they integrated the memory controller onto their chips a few years back, or the integration of the intel HD graphics on their sandy bridge chips.[/QUOTE] Bulldozer is a pretty drastic redesign from what I've understood. If I'm not totally out in the woods, Intel has pretty much been building on the PIII foundation, with the Pentium 4 being the odd one out. I'm not totally sure, though, so don't quote me for it.
Now I'm split between buying the FX-4100 or the Phenom II X4 970. I don't want Intel, its too expensive for me. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] I think imma go with the Phenom
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;33557138]Bulldozer is a pretty drastic redesign from what I've understood. If I'm not totally out in the woods, Intel has pretty much been building on the PIII foundation, with the Pentium 4 being the odd one out. I'm not totally sure, though, so don't quote me for it.[/QUOTE] Bulldozer uses AM3+, which is incompatible with most AM3 motherboards. I was really expecting to be able to use Bulldozer with my AMD 770 chipset, but it's not going to work out. A few of the high end boards might get support, but most won't. [editline]4th December 2011[/editline] I'm still pretty satisfied with my Athlon II x4, so I can probably go another year or two before upgrading anyway.
Someone needs to be fired out of a cannon and into the sun for this blunder. [QUOTE=B!N4RY;33547723]I do, guess what will happen to the prices of all Intel CPUs?[/QUOTE] Nothing at all? You don't get good business with skyrocketed prices... not unless you're Apple.
-snip- bad reading, I thought it said 8 million, not 800 million.
[QUOTE=Zet;33571812]Nothing at all? You don't get good business with skyrocketed prices... not unless you're Apple.[/QUOTE] You have no idea how the economy works do you
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;33573307]You have no idea how the economy works do you[/QUOTE] Way I see it prices would basically stay the same because if they raise it, then yeah, even though people are basically forced to buy at a higher price, but then demand as a whole decreases, which means everyone loses, including other component manufacturers, which in return would increase [i]their[/i] prices so I don't think prices would change much (if at all)
That's exactly my point. Because if Intel monopolizes the market, people will have no choice but to adapte to the newer prices if Intel decides to raise the price, because there are no alternatives for the consumers.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33566842]Bulldozer uses AM3+, which is incompatible with most AM3 motherboards. I was really expecting to be able to use Bulldozer with my AMD 770 chipset, but it's not going to work out. A few of the high end boards might get support, but most won't.[/QUOTE] My average Gigabyte board supports AM3 natively but can be upgradeable to Bulldozer. I wish I could say the same for memory compatibility and overclocking though
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;33575835]That's exactly my point. Because if Intel monopolizes the market, people will have no choice but to adapte to the newer prices if Intel decides to raise the price, because there are no alternatives for the consumers.[/QUOTE] really? I'm basically saying that prices will stay the same. I thought you were saying all along that prices would increase because of this
[QUOTE=Jaehead;33575951]really? I'm basically saying that prices will stay the same. I thought you were saying all along that prices would increase because of this[/QUOTE] I'm not nessesarily saying price will increase, but it CAN increase if Intel wants to be greedy and there's nothing you can do about it.
How do you AMD proc users feel on performance with Battlefield 3?
[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;33576566]Runs perfectly fine on my Phenom II X4 955. In fact, I've never felt bottlenecked by my processor, to be quite honest - I'm not denying that there is better hardware out there, though.[/QUOTE] Do you play on high / max settings?
[IMG]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q71/laytonwoman3rd/headdesk.jpg[/IMG] Stop it AMD... I'm losing faith in you....
[QUOTE=seano12;33577096]Do you play on high / max settings?[/QUOTE] I have a Phenom II X4 955 BE, along with a 6970 I can play BF3 in Ultra with no problems.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;33576213]I'm not nessesarily saying price will increase, but it CAN increase if Intel wants to be greedy and there's nothing you can do about it.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. With Intel being the monopoly, making them the industry itself, wouldn't that give incentive for other competitors to enter the market? Obviously it wouldn't dethrone Intel, but if they did something so dumb as over inflating the price, the entrance of competitors would force them to readjust to avoid lost sales as demand goes down. So while at first, yes, they'd have a chokehold on your wallet, the thing is, it'll only motivate the market to equalize it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.