Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Why did AMD waste all their resources on an architecture redesign?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why did AMD waste all their resources on an architecture redesign? - Page 2

post #11 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_2501 View Post
So um Bulldozer is not a bad product I guess, but it seems to be slightly slower than the existing Phenom II architecture for games.

I would rather have seen a higher clocked 6 core Phenom II made with a 32nm process with an integrated 69XX series GPU at a much cheaper price than a comparable intel chip paired with a similar video card.


Who cares about temps, just as long as you can cool with a monster heatsink and high CFM fans? I wouldn't have minded a 250W TDP as long as they made a heatsink big enough to accommodate it.

They used up so much manpower and capital with a complete architecture redesign with not much to show for it. It looks like they could have used that to build a better budget gaming chip. Just my $0.02. And yes I am an AMD fanboy.

The problem is the cost. Would you pay more for the same or less performance over the cheaper one?

X6 1100T is $190
 
≡ Snowbaru ≡
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i7 3930K 4.9Ghz Asus Sabertooth X79 EVGA GTX TITAN 1250Mhz KPE/Hybrid BIOS (SOLD) NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Founder Edition 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
32GB Samsung 30nm 2400Mhz OCZ Vertex 4 Samsung 850 EVO 13000GB HDDs 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EKWB Custom Watercooling, XSPC, Bitpower, Primo... Windows 10 Pro x64 (1607) ASUS PG278Q G-SYNC (2560x1440) Logitech G910 Onion Spark 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Gold Fractal Design Define S Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
AudioOtherOtherOther
Logitech G933 Xbox One Controller Asus RT-AC68U Hitron CDA3 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
Other
5HP 
  hide details  
Reply
 
≡ Snowbaru ≡
(17 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i7 3930K 4.9Ghz Asus Sabertooth X79 EVGA GTX TITAN 1250Mhz KPE/Hybrid BIOS (SOLD) NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1080 Ti Founder Edition 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
32GB Samsung 30nm 2400Mhz OCZ Vertex 4 Samsung 850 EVO 13000GB HDDs 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
EKWB Custom Watercooling, XSPC, Bitpower, Primo... Windows 10 Pro x64 (1607) ASUS PG278Q G-SYNC (2560x1440) Logitech G910 Onion Spark 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Gold Fractal Design Define S Logitech G502 Logitech G440 
AudioOtherOtherOther
Logitech G933 Xbox One Controller Asus RT-AC68U Hitron CDA3 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
5HP 5HP 5HP 5HP 
Other
5HP 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pursuinginsanity View Post
Yeah, I'd rather win the lottery than have to work next week, too.

You're new here so I shouldn't be so mean, but to think they could have shrunk a Thuban AND added an "integrated" 6970 is beyond laughable.
Ok yeah maybe they couldn't have put a 6970 and a thuban together even with a 32nm process shrink but it looks we could have gotten a gpu vastly more powerful than the Radeon 6550D on the Llano. Something that would be comparable to a 6770 at the bare minimum.

I would like to be able to play most games at reasonable frame rates with an all in one APU, at a cheaper price than a comparably priced intel chip + GPU.

I could care less about TPD as long as a huge heatsink and high rpm fan can cool it.
post #13 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_2501 View Post
So um Bulldozer is not a bad product I guess, but it seems to be slightly slower than the existing Phenom II architecture for games.

I would rather have seen a higher clocked 6 core Phenom II made with a 32nm process with an integrated 69XX series GPU at a much cheaper price than a comparable intel chip paired with a similar video card.


Who cares about temps, just as long as you can cool with a monster heatsink and high CFM fans? I wouldn't have minded a 250W TDP as long as they made a heatsink big enough to accommodate it.

They used up so much manpower and capital with a complete architecture redesign with not much to show for it. It looks like they could have used that to build a better budget gaming chip. Just my $0.02. And yes I am an AMD fanboy.
Basically because their CPU division is a shambles and the company has either no leadership or incompetant leadership when it does.

The thing is, AMD must have known for some time that Bulldozer was a complete flop. So knowing this they should have done the following:
1) Only released 8 core BDs as a marketing ploy on desktop.
2) Only released 6/4 core BD's in server environment.
3) Die shrink thuban to 32nm and keep this as mid range offerings on AM3+.
4) Die shrink deneb to 32nm on AM3+ socket as lower end products.
Dizzy Stuff
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[i5 2500k] [Asrock Z68 Extreme 4 Gen3] [VTX3D Radeon 6870X2] [4X4 GB G.Skill RipjawsX @ 2133Mhz] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
[Corsair Force 240GB] [Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB] [Liteon iHBS312 Blu-Ray Writer] [Noctua NH-D14] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[Windows 10 Home 64bit] [BENQ XL2410T] [Roccat Isku] [Corsair AX850] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[Antec DF-85] [Roccat Kone+] [Roccat Sense Adrenaline] Onboard 
Audio
[Corsair Vengeance 1500] 
  hide details  
Reply
Dizzy Stuff
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
[i5 2500k] [Asrock Z68 Extreme 4 Gen3] [VTX3D Radeon 6870X2] [4X4 GB G.Skill RipjawsX @ 2133Mhz] 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
[Corsair Force 240GB] [Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB] [Liteon iHBS312 Blu-Ray Writer] [Noctua NH-D14] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[Windows 10 Home 64bit] [BENQ XL2410T] [Roccat Isku] [Corsair AX850] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[Antec DF-85] [Roccat Kone+] [Roccat Sense Adrenaline] Onboard 
Audio
[Corsair Vengeance 1500] 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by djriful View Post
X6 1100T is $190
on a 45nm process, but I'd venture a guess it would be cheaper on a mature 32nm process.
post #15 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armand Hammer View Post
Basically because their CPU division is a shambles and the company has either no leadership or incompetant leadership when it does.

The thing is, AMD must have known for some time that Bulldozer was a complete flop. So knowing this they should have done the following:
1) Only released 8 core BDs as a marketing ploy on desktop.
2) Only released 6/4 core BD's in server environment.
3) Die shrink thuban to 32nm and keep this as mid range offerings on AM3+.
4) Die shrink deneb to 32nm on AM3+ socket as lower end products.
They hired their CEO in August, it's no a secret.

People are just blind.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-760 @ 3.91 1.4v/1.3v BIOSTAR T5 XE CFX-SLI GTX 460 SLi 850/1900 1.1v 8gb DDR3 @ 1860 
OSMonitorCase
Windows 7 Pro 1920x1080 HAF 912 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-760 @ 3.91 1.4v/1.3v BIOSTAR T5 XE CFX-SLI GTX 460 SLi 850/1900 1.1v 8gb DDR3 @ 1860 
OSMonitorCase
Windows 7 Pro 1920x1080 HAF 912 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 56
that's amd for you, they make a new design it usually ends up being fail until Intel copies it for its next super awesome design.
Silent Dominator
(28 items)
 
Classy Lady
(26 items)
 
TUF Inside
(18 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
Silent Dominator
(28 items)
 
Classy Lady
(26 items)
 
TUF Inside
(18 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_2501 View Post
So um Bulldozer is not a bad product I guess, but it seems to be slightly slower than the existing Phenom II architecture for games.

I would rather have seen a higher clocked 6 core Phenom II made with a 32nm process with an integrated 69XX series GPU at a much cheaper price than a comparable intel chip paired with a similar video card.


Who cares about temps, just as long as you can cool with a monster heatsink and high CFM fans? I wouldn't have minded a 250W TDP as long as they made a heatsink big enough to accommodate it.

They used up so much manpower and capital with a complete architecture redesign with not much to show for it. It looks like they could have used that to build a better budget gaming chip. Just my $0.02. And yes I am an AMD fanboy.

Why not wait for optimizations? This is a totally new way of running a CPU you know.
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Project_2501 View Post
So um Bulldozer is not a bad product I guess, but it seems to be slightly slower than the existing Phenom II architecture for games.

I would rather have seen a higher clocked 6 core Phenom II made with a 32nm process with an integrated 69XX series GPU at a much cheaper price than a comparable intel chip paired with a similar video card.


Who cares about temps, just as long as you can cool with a monster heatsink and high CFM fans? I wouldn't have minded a 250W TDP as long as they made a heatsink big enough to accommodate it.

They used up so much manpower and capital with a complete architecture redesign with not much to show for it. It looks like they could have used that to build a better budget gaming chip. Just my $0.02. And yes I am an AMD fanboy.

"Note this is Speculation on My Part"

Why did AMD change the architecture of BD so drastically from Stars, one only has to look at Fusion for the answer. The whole chip is modular in design, want a more aggresive front end, pop it off and pop in a new one, want to redo the alg/alu units, pop new ones in.

Want to remove the FPU and replace it with a gpgpu, well no you have a nice modular chip where you can build x86 outside of the gpgpu.

thats likely why AMD did this.

Welcome to the Beta for the haswell answer.
post #19 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obakemono View Post
Why not wait for optimizations? This is a totally new way of running a CPU you know.
it was delayed for what? 3-4 months? There are no excuses.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-760 @ 3.91 1.4v/1.3v BIOSTAR T5 XE CFX-SLI GTX 460 SLi 850/1900 1.1v 8gb DDR3 @ 1860 
OSMonitorCase
Windows 7 Pro 1920x1080 HAF 912 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-760 @ 3.91 1.4v/1.3v BIOSTAR T5 XE CFX-SLI GTX 460 SLi 850/1900 1.1v 8gb DDR3 @ 1860 
OSMonitorCase
Windows 7 Pro 1920x1080 HAF 912 
  hide details  
Reply
post #20 of 56
waiting is not what we want in tech world. Everyone develops simutaneously
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-2410M @ 2.9ghz Nvidia GT 540M 1GB DDR3 4GB DDR3 1333mhz 500GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 7 Home 64 1366x768 gloss 90w power brick Acer 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i5-2410M @ 2.9ghz Nvidia GT 540M 1GB DDR3 4GB DDR3 1333mhz 500GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win 7 Home 64 1366x768 gloss 90w power brick Acer 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Why did AMD waste all their resources on an architecture redesign?