• AMD Realizes That Bulldozer Has 800 Million LESS Transistors Than It Thought!
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tigster;33578278]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.[/QUOTE] Silicon Chip factories aren't cheap.
[QUOTE=Coffee;33578304]Silicon Chip factories aren't cheap.[/QUOTE] I'm aware of that, there's obviously barriers to entry, but that doesn't make it impossible.
I'm quite pissed at AMD now, but it's not a massive grudge really. Sometime before Bulldozer was released, I purchased a Gigabyte AM3+ Motherboard and Phenom II X4 955 BE, with the intention of buying a better Phenom II sometime after the release of Bulldozer (as it would be expected Phenom IIs would drop in price) and then when the second generation of Bulldozer would be released (second generation is apparently on a different socket, but that doesn't matter) I would buy one of the best first generation Bulldozer chips. I was really hoping Bulldozer would of been a great improvement on the Phenom IIs, but sadly that's not the case. I'll still buy a better Phenom II later on, but when Windows 8 comes I'll upgrade to a new socket. In fact, the 955 itself might last me to Windows 8. It's a good processor, but if the need arises I wonder how much benefit would come out of overclocking it, provided I get better cooling for it.
[QUOTE=seano12;33577096]Do you play on high / max settings?[/QUOTE] BF3 is very graphically intensive, he would be bottlenecked by his GPU, not CPU.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;33579442]BF3 is very graphically intensive, he would be bottlenecked by his GPU, not CPU.[/QUOTE] Actually, I doubt you can find a game which is more CPU intensive than BF3. (Lets not include stupid GTA 4)
[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;33580201]Actually, I doubt you can find a game which is more CPU intensive than BF3. (Lets not include stupid GTA 4)[/QUOTE] There are tons of games that are more CPU intensive than BF3. Crysis 2, Deus Ex HR, Hard Reset etc are very CPU intensive and are practically unplayable on a dual core. But in BF3 dual core CPUs do very well. They have lower minimum framerates due to the CPU maxing out at times, but the average framerate is about the same as the quad cores. [img_thumb]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/458/bench/CPU_03.png[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/379/bench/CPU_01.png[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/440/bench/CPU_02.png[/img_thumb][img_thumb]http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/436/bench/CPU_02.png[/img_thumb]
I played and finished DXHR and Crysis 2 on a 2.53ghz dual core. Hardly unplayable.
AMD should just keep focusing on budget CPUs, they do well in that category.
their server opteron 62XX bulldozer line did well. not sure why their desktop line failed. then again, their opteron line uses 8 modules, 16 cores. looking at benchmarks, opteron interlagos were basically on par with xeon x5650's which are pretty high end.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;33582411]AMD should just keep focusing on budget CPUs, they do well in that category.[/QUOTE] Yeah really. My Athlon II X4 was an excellent processor for $100. I've moved on to a 2500k, but god damn, it could hold its own in most games. I will probably use it as a server.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33584436]Crysis 2 and Deus Ex HR unplayable on a dual core? What the fuck are you talking about, I can play HR on max, and Crysis 2 on high with 40+ FPS on my crappy E7300.[/QUOTE] You play Crysis 2 on high? That's amazing, high is the lowest setting you can select in Crysis 2. Until you post evidence your claim means nothing. I've posted substantial evidence showing the drop off of performance in those games running dual cores VS quad cores, you've presented NOTHING. I'd also like to add that 40fps average is not a good framerate, you'll get drops below that and it's likely those drops will lead to sub 30fps ranges. [editline]5th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zezibesh;33580802]I played and finished DXHR and Crysis 2 on a 2.53ghz dual core. Hardly unplayable.[/QUOTE] I did it with a GTX 260 and an E7500 but I had to turn off all the eye candy settings. Look above you, it's absolute evidence that if you turn settings up you'll hit a CPU bottleneck if your processor only has two cores.
I used to play all these games on a dual core (Athlon II), and I can definitely say that I had pretty major stuttering issues that are now nonexistent once I upgraded to a 2500K
[QUOTE=Coffee;33578247]I have a Phenom II X4 955 BE, along with a 6970 I can play BF3 in Ultra with no problems.[/QUOTE] Would combining a Phenom II X4 955 BE with a 560 Ti be a bad idea?
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;33578184][IMG]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q71/laytonwoman3rd/headdesk.jpg[/IMG] Stop it AMD... I'm losing faith in you....[/QUOTE] Irony is that he's crying in front of an Apple Cinema Display.
[QUOTE=seano12;33586047]Would combining a Phenom II X4 955 BE with a 560 Ti be a bad idea?[/QUOTE] I know fuck all about nVidia so I'm not the person to ask.
[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;33580201]Actually, I doubt you can find a game which is more CPU intensive than BF3. (Lets not include stupid GTA 4)[/QUOTE] Nah, BF3 is, as already shown, not the most CPU intensive game around. Even if it was, your GPU would be bottlenecking you before the CPU (assuming you went with a somewhat balanced build), simply because it is so graphically intensive. [editline]5th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=koeniginator;33582411]AMD should just keep focusing on budget CPUs, they do well in that category.[/QUOTE] In my opinion they shouldn't, the Phenoms might not have been the best CPUs around, but they kicked some ass, and the i5 750 wasn't [I]that[/I] much better. Bulldozer came around too slow, though, and I think it'll take them some time to make it as viable as the old architecture. [editline]5th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=seano12;33586047]Would combining a Phenom II X4 955 BE with a 560 Ti be a bad idea?[/QUOTE] It's not a bad idea, but I would probably push the budget a bit and get an i5 2500K. You could wait for Ivy Bridge as well, as it isn't that far away.
Shitty graphs? You mean graphs from a reputable technology website that has paid workers that do this kind of work for a living? Clearly a biased source that has no factual value whatsoever. I'm glad you've...enlightened me. Again you've presented no evidence and your reluctance to do so and movement to instead try and attack me by claiming I have some sort of unrealistic standards for performance is quite puzzling, although it's amusing to see you attempt to try and paint me in such a light. I will assume until shown otherwise that you're just unable to present a valid counter argument.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;33547776]They raise the prices on desktop cpu's and normal entry level pc's prices go up. That in turn drives people AWAY and over to the mobile market with the ipad and other tablets thus defeating the whole point of raising the prices anyways.[/QUOTE] Since when have things like logic ever stopped a company from doing the most stupid things ever in the name of making a quick buck?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;33587052] It's not a bad idea, but I would probably push the budget a bit and get an i5 2500K. You could wait for Ivy Bridge as well, as it isn't that far away.[/QUOTE] Yea, wait for ivy bridge. That shit will be too expensive.
I don't think prices will be affected so much as the push for better technology. Intel always would want to be researching better ways to do things if they had AMD competing. They could never rest with what they have since their competitor might beat them to some new innovation. Prices though are pretty much set. Dual cores cost so much, cheap quads so much, and so on all the way up the scale. Intel is not suddenly going to be able to charge 50% more, that would just kill their market and depress sales.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33594047][b]What's with all the big words? Are you trying to make yourself look better by using rarely used words like puzzling and enlightened? [/b] Seriously just stop trying, I can play these games just fine on a dual core and so can hundreds of thousands of other people, if you don't believe me try talking to other people playing the games on a dual core instead of typing like some arrogant nerd that thinks he's better than other people on the internet and posting graphs from random websites.[/QUOTE] ogod
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;33594140]ogod[/QUOTE] Is it too late to nominate Atlas's post to dumbest post 2011?
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33594047]What's with all the big words? Are you trying to make yourself look better by using rarely used words like puzzling and enlightened? [/QUOTE] This is gold, I literally started tearing up.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;33591884]Shitty graphs? You mean graphs from a reputable technology website that has paid workers that do this kind of work for a living? Clearly a biased source that has no factual value whatsoever. I'm glad you've...enlightened me. Again you've presented no evidence and your reluctance to do so and movement to instead try and attack me by claiming I have some sort of unrealistic standards for performance is quite puzzling, although it's amusing to see you attempt to try and paint me in such a light. I will assume until shown otherwise that you're just unable to present a valid counter argument.[/QUOTE] I read this post in David Mitchell's voice :v: Ontopic: upon further reading it seems AMD moved to a more automated system for designing their chips and the designs it makes are less efficient than those created by hand, apparently. [url]http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111013232215_Ex_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;33598524]Glad my post worked. If you fail, resort to complete idiocy so everyone laughs and you can sneak out the back door.[/QUOTE] pot, kettle
[video=youtube;RQWWbr6qKM0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQWWbr6qKM0[/video] Bulldozer performance.
[QUOTE=Acesarge;33599370][video=youtube;RQWWbr6qKM0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQWWbr6qKM0[/video] Bulldozer performance.[/QUOTE] Aww it's like an inchworm
oh shit :// i will have to wait for the fx-8170, anyone know any news of this and when it might come out?
[QUOTE=DEATHRUNE 2.0;33617092]oh shit :// i will have to wait for the fx-8170, anyone know any news of this and when it might come out?[/QUOTE] You're wasting your fucking money after we've told you hundreds of time the bulldozer is shit and gets the shit beaten out of it by a quad core, and the i7 2600k beats the shit out of it even further.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.