Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Lizard, 12 Oct 2011.
But can it run Crysis ...
sorry, had to be said.
Maybe AMD should start naming their chips after things inspire thoughts of speed, efficiency, and quality. If you tell me to build a Bulldozer, I'm going to build a big, slow object that consumes power, but does *one* thing really well. The CPU designers probably thought the same thing!
There! Don't blame the engineers, blame the marketers! If only they'd named the chip "light speed" or "Millennium Falcon" or something like that ... the engineers would have designed appropriately.
Such a terrible shame...
It's not just AMD fan boys who have reason to shed a tear, without serious competition in the desktop CPU market Intel effectively own a monoply- a terrible thing for consummers.
What incentive do Intel have to cut prices if the customer can't realistically buy anything else?
No, it's a true shame, competition is the backbone of consummer welfare...
Yeah, bit of an unfortunate name .
I hear that very well but still if intel go mad evil greedy I'll just quit computers & believe others will too so would be a daft move to try doing it truth is they need to keep cpu's affordable for the masses so they keep making massive money from so many consumers, they'd make more money from affordable parts than they would if it was only rich people buying it .
this is the most AMD bashing i have ever witnessed in a day in the last 28years of my life.
Though they kind of deserved it for over hyping BD, cherry picking and hiding behind benchmarks that pit their brand spanking new baby against a last generation £900 intel processor when everyone wants to know how it will perform against Sandy Bridge.
Bashing ? Since when is talking about real performance bashing ?
So let me get this straight, it's a brand new design that most of the time is slower than their (quite old by now) previous one while using more power despite the process shrink? How'd they managed that one?
The only decent results it manages to pull are from some very heavily multi-threaded work, and that's only because of it's eight cores. Had they kept the Phenom II architecture, shrunk it to 32nm process while adding two extra cores and/or extra cache to an X6, and the bump in clocks gained from the shrink alone would have pushed it to very competitive levels, don't you think?
You know what. I'm not so sure that it can
i'm so glad i didn't wait for bulldozer...
If you see BD as 'real performance' then Id like to have some of whatever your smoking. Clearly the CPU design team at AMD were smoking a lot of that stuff when they thought phenom was phenominal. and now it seems that the shadow of Incompetence has reared its ugly head again.
So.......If AMD designed this CPU primarily as a server CPU. wouldnt a more 'green' and power efficient Xeon be a better idea?? so what if its a little slower, it sucks up less juice from the mains
Lockon, i talk about how bad the "real performance" of Buldozzer is. I didn't understand how can you describe "telling how bad this CPU is" as "bashing" .
+1 to both
Its called 'bashing' when you are talking about how crap something is or can be. Ive read most of the views online and all of them give it pretty sub par reviews.
My CPU struggles a bit with crysis, so this thing probably can't run it very well at all.
Shame, I was really hoping Bulldozer would be a good comeback for AMD, simply so Intel would have something to fight against.
I really hope this doesnt make Intel go lazy with Ivy Bridge, as thats when I'm looking to build my next rig.
Guess my Phenom II 940 is going to have to hang in there for at least another 18 months till (I hope) AMD gets this sorted out.
Yep, that would have been BA.
Sad sad sad
Like so many others have said, this is a sad day for us lowly consumers. Maybe if there is a stonking price drop on the 4/6-core flavours then BD will have some value, but otherwise it's a dud.
All that makes a nice shiny new road leading to intel world! YAY!
Separate names with a comma.