AMD Bulldozer Threading Hotfix Pulled
- Thread starter ThatBattlefieldGuy
- Start date
dugdiamond
New member
load of BS again
.... what happens in Q1 2012 ??? yes, you guessed it..... the FM mobos... which will made BD work more efficiently.
my best guess is that, these so-called patches are not for the chips themselves, but in readiness for the FM architectures.
.... what happens in Q1 2012 ??? yes, you guessed it..... the FM mobos... which will made BD work more efficiently.
my best guess is that, these so-called patches are not for the chips themselves, but in readiness for the FM architectures.
Solidarity
New member
I think things with bulldozer are getting beyond stupid now
yassarikhan786
New member
Was to be expected tbh.
Mr Muggles
New member
Anyone bought a BD?
This is embarrassing... It is honestly a slap to the face for pc builders who love new products and the furthering of competition. Instead basically lying and continuing to give miss leading info on behalf of their products. It really infuriates me to think they are still trying to feed us all a load of dog... And hell i do not even own a single AMD product and this is how i feel. I could only imagine the people who put there wallets and imaginations into this Bulldozer frenzy to only learn they would be yanked around like this.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
So their fanboys don't make the sorrowing journey back to momma before Q1 2012
SieB
New member
To be fair though this patch did not come from AMD it came from Microsoft so any failings from it are MS's fault and not AMD's.
That still doesn't change the fact BD is a failure, the thing that gets me the most is that they worked on this architecture for 5 years and they expect us to believe that in that five years they were not aware of this problem with Windows not recognizing the cores? Load of BS if you ask me, they knew about it but still failed to work around it and make it work with Windows and instead decided to ignore it, use it as an excuse as to why BD does not perform as they said it would and now they expect MS to fix the problem for them.
That still doesn't change the fact BD is a failure, the thing that gets me the most is that they worked on this architecture for 5 years and they expect us to believe that in that five years they were not aware of this problem with Windows not recognizing the cores? Load of BS if you ask me, they knew about it but still failed to work around it and make it work with Windows and instead decided to ignore it, use it as an excuse as to why BD does not perform as they said it would and now they expect MS to fix the problem for them.
it could be that they informed microsoft about it, and they were aiming for a different way to do things, they released the processors, and on their simulations, they were good, but microsoft, who probably said their software needs updating to fully utilise it, didnt rush, since they seem to be obsessed with intel at the moment...
i think amd have been set up
i think bulldozer is revolutionary
but i think the odds are stacked against them
they need supporting, and they need money for future R&D to keep bringing good products to market, i for one, am glad i invested in AMD, i dont want to see a one horse race, intel dominating would not be a good situation for the world, and apart from ARM, i cannot think of another chip maker that could give intel a run for their money.
SieB
New member
I don't want to see a one horse race either, competition is a good thing, it constantly pushes technology, keeps prices competitive and gives the end user more options.
BD failed, plain and simple. That being said though it is a step forward for AMD and it gives them something to advance on. This first round of BD didn't do well but hopefully AMD will step it up next year with Piledriver.
I don't think they will ever outperform Intel but I do think they are capable of giving them a run for their money.
BD failed, plain and simple. That being said though it is a step forward for AMD and it gives them something to advance on. This first round of BD didn't do well but hopefully AMD will step it up next year with Piledriver.
I don't think they will ever outperform Intel but I do think they are capable of giving them a run for their money.
I think the BD architecture will pan out when it is mature. Right now they couldn't keep putting R&D into this chip without releasing it. In a few processes I think we will see what BD should have been. Even then I don't feel it will be "king of the hill" like A64 was on release.
As far as AMD being set up or Microsoft favoring Intel, I find that as an excuse. I honestly don't feel this is the case and AMD simply messed up. The scheduler issue in Windows & Linux should have been identified 2 years ago, not after BD release. Is Linus favoring Intel as well?
It's not some conspiracy. It's an AMD failure. Maybe if they hadn't hyped BD so much it wouldn't be called a failure. Maybe if BD wasn't in development so long it wouldn't be a failure. Either way though, as it stands today, BD was a major letdown for everyone; Intel fanboys, AMD fanboys, and everyone in between.
fair point, but did amd not say that bulldozer's architecture was aimed at windows 8?
maybe they wernt aiming it at windows 7, or linux, or testing it on either, ...maybe their R&D department didnt test it on these current OS's at all ...which i suppose would show a level of incompetence ...however, if they're aiming it at the next gen of OS's, maybe it was just released prematurely ....before its time...
because i find the architecture to be more advanced than intel's latest, looking at how they've worked everything, even in TTL's review, it should kick some serious behind ....and maybe in windows 8, or after this patch, maybe it will...
I think we can all agree as mentioned in my post above i want AMD to succeed to further competition, those were my exact words. I just cant listen to someone saying its great. Yes it was something new, and thats great for one! Trying new things and moving forward, it would be one to fail and them not have given all this hype and said all these things about how great it would be. But they did, and it was literally a lie to peoples faces. A bald face misleading lie. Of course my opinion with the use of harshness. But im sure a lot of people agree with the way they are getting misleading info given to them
I think the Bulldozers main two problems are:
a) AMD expected SW developers to make their programs (generally, not only trivial multi-threadable stuff) scale better with numbers of cores/modules/threads when starting development on BD. Intel instead kept focus on increasing the single thread/core performance.
AMD was surprised by SB performance (i think we all were quite a bit), and their only short-term possibility to increase BD performance (to keep up to 2500/2600 SB) was to release their CPUs with higher then expected clockrates which further deacreased efficiency.
a) AMD expected SW developers to make their programs (generally, not only trivial multi-threadable stuff) scale better with numbers of cores/modules/threads when starting development on BD. Intel instead kept focus on increasing the single thread/core performance.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
Is there actually any good reason why they didn't just make an 8 core Phenom II? What was with this module nonsense? Nobody forced them to do it. It's like making a CPU run on water instead of electricity then wondering why Windows isn't reading it correctly.
And yes it was released prematurely, like calling a foundation a complete house then saying it's got potential. It's not a complete house.
Devs shouldn't have to. Intel CPUs run fine single threaded or multi threaded and so did past AMD - which were all about compatibility. Now they've gone from supporting dead architectures to spewing incompatible architectures that are fantasticly unharnisable.
And they should have prepared better for SB. A toddler could have googled leaked specs. What do their R&D team actually do all day?
It already has been a one horse race for years now, AMD copy Intel, they've never innovated a thing. It's only by AMD putting cheap clones at the mid to entry level market that Intel have kept prices of SB and the like modest. Look at SB-E, nobody is there to compete and the prices reflect that. 2500k would have been ~£250 and 2600k ~£350 if it weren't for OC'd 1100Ts and OC'd x58
Windows 8 performance isn't much better either. Maybe they meant Windows 9?
BD architecture is very interesting to say the least. I can't wait to see what it evolves into a few years down the road. I have high hopes for it. I used to call myself an AMD fanboy, but now I'm a realist. When AMD has something that piques my interest again, I'll be back. Until then I will enjoy the performance I am getting out of Intel.
