Originally Posted by Sapientia
No, you're mistaken.
IPS can be brought up through IPC or the frequency, as you said. And going from 4.8 to 5.3 does in fact make a difference. Just plug the numbers into your equation and see. The latencies are a flaw of its execution, and a major weakness of this generation, not a part of the bulldozer design. The longer pipeline IS a part of the design, and is not an inherent problem.
There are several ways to design a cpu/engine/whatever - it's up to the company to make sure it works. At the end of the day, they released a mediocre product. If it wasn't successful you can't really defend the approach. History is full of "almost really good" products.
Originally Posted by Homeles
Going from 4.8 to 5.3 would be a ~10% difference. That's pretty significant if you ask me.
Not that significant when you're already 10-15% slower clock for clock than your previous generation. That won't even be enough to compete with Sandy Bridge - yet alone Ivy Bridge. All you did was bump the mhz without addressing the other design flaws that are causing the mediocre performance. It sounds good on paper but realistically you'll end up with a 5Ghz chip that barely beats an i5 2400.
If you noticed the few times BD did manage a small lead were programs that loved more cores. The fact that people only focus on the FX-8150 is an indictment of the architecture. You shouldn't have to keep comparing your flagship 8-core to your 6-core previous generation or Intel's 4-core i5 2500k just to lose in half the benchmarks anyways.
Originally Posted by Oedipus
That doesn't mean people can't discuss why and how AMD gained market share.
Fixed that for you