Can AMD survive Bulldozer's disappointing debut? (geek stuff)

[DainBramaged]

AMD's long-awaited Bulldozer processor finally hit the market this week, and the Web has been flooded with benchmark results. One thing is clear: this won't kill Intel's Sandy Bridge, as some were hoping. Indeed, in some tests, Bulldozer can't even keep up with its predecessor. The launch of the Phenom in 2007 was similarly underwhelming—it arrived late, broken, and slow—but AMD managed to turn things around with Phenom II to produce a viable competitor to many of Intel's processors.

AMD's future success will depend on the company's ability to make lemonade from the Bulldozer lemons. And its ability to do that will be governed by the Bulldozer architecture: is it fundamentally flawed, or are the performance issues merely teething trouble?

It could go either way. With Phenom, the problems were fortunately not fundamental. The biggest single issue was that the cache used for supporting virtual memory was buggy (a problem known as "the TLB bug"). A BIOS fix to work around the bug and correct the processor's behavior was released, but it exacted a severe performance penalty. This bug was fixed partway through Phenom's life, adding another 10 percent to the processor's performance. In late 2008, Phenom II was introduced, boasting substantial improvements in clock speed and a much larger level 3 cache. The K10 architecture used in both Phenom and Phenom II was essentially sound; AMD just had to work out some relatively minor problems before it could achieve its potential.

Contrast this with Intel's Prescott Pentium 4s. Prescott was substantially modified from its predecessor, Northwood, with a much longer pipeline, larger cache, and new instructions. However, it didn't boast consistent performance gains over Northwood, largely because it never achieved the clock speed targets it was intended to reach. The lack of clock speed meant that the processor could never offset the penalties incurred by the long pipeline. The problems Intel faced with scaling its Pentium 4 designs eventually gave the company no option but to abandon the architecture entirely.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/10/can-amd-survive-bulldozers-disappointing-debut.ars

[EOTE]

1. I'm sure they will.

The Phenom II was a marked improvement over the Phenom. And AMD was fairly quick to get support for things like DDR3. AMD hasn't gone for the king of the hill performance chip for quite a while. Rather, they've been cranking out very affordable and relatively overclockable chips for a while. They haven't had the performance crown since Intel unveiled the Core2Duo, but they still offer a whole lot of bang for the buck. I've put together many systems for friends, family and coworkers featuring the Phenom II X2 560 (which unlocks to a true quad core 80+% of the time) and the Phenom II 840. At Microcenter, I'm able to pick up the CPU, a decent motherboard and 4 gigs of DDR3 for under $130. I can't get a similar deal on any Intel CPU/mobo. As long as AMD keeps offering deals like this, I'll be a customer.

[FarCenter]

2. AMD taps Papermaster as CTO

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/19/amd_taps_papermaster_cto/

[Rex]

3. I build systems with AMD and Intel

the 6 core Phenom II and Intel i7 run and get about the same scores on the Windows exp index using Win7 pro with same hardware inside. Should be interesting to see how they market the bulldozer.

[Lance_Boyle]

4. They survived Phenom, and Phenom 2, which were also both disappointing performers.

The ATI acquisition really hamstrung the company. Bulldozer is Phenom redux. Bulldozer 2 will likely improve performance, but AMD will (as usual) have to compete on value instead of performance. Bulldozer is terribly overpriced in comparison to the Intel offerings it matches on performance. On the bright side for the company, the lower-end APUs (E350) are still pretty exciting news in their tiny little niche.

[EOTE]

5. The Phenom 2 is hardly disappointing, especially considering the price.

You can get a quad core Phenom II plus motherboard for around $110. Or you can get a X2 560 for even cheaper and most likely get a quad core out of it. As you mention, they have to compete on value instead of performance. However, CPUs are so damned fast now, I'd much rather have a value CPU than a "performance" CPU. Almost every CPU made within the past 5 years is enough for a typical user, and I can guarantee there are extremely few computers with the CPU as the bottleneck now. Money would be far better spent on an SSD or a better GPU (if you're a gamer). My last 5 builds (2 for me and 3 for others) have been AMDs primarily because they offer very good performance for the money, especially when you consider motherboards. I never do more than around a 25% overclock, so AMD suits me rather well.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. It was and is disappointing in terms of performance compared to Intel.

Of course, performance is just an e-peen measure for the vast, vast majority of purchasers. Which is why AMD should continue to focus on value (in other words, "performance for the money"). Of course with Bulldozer Intel is currently beating AMD in terms of performance for the money. AMD may need to sell Bulldozer parts at a loss for a while to recapture the value market.

[EOTE]

8. Once again, the CPU is a bottleneck in maybe 1% of systems.

The rest of them would be much better off with a SSD, GPU or even memory upgrade. And when you factor in the cost of motherboards as well, there's no way that Intel is beating AMD in the value market either.

[Lance_Boyle]

11. Right now, in performance/dollar, Intel is beating AMD's Bulldozer offerings.

Here's a slashdot link aggregating 4 or 5 reviews that agree on that conclusion:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/10/12/0513244/amd-bulldozer-fx-cpu-reviews-arrive

[EOTE]

12. I said you need to factor in the cost of the motherboard as well.

Intel motherboards are MUCH more expensive keeping in mind a certain feature set. And yeah, the Bulldozers just launched, I'm guessing they'll get cheaper with the quickness. Right now I have no desire for a Bulldozer system, but the Phenom IIs offer a fantastic value right now.

[wuushew]

7. Exactly correct

Those Phenom II X4s are a great deal. I am very pleased with my 965 BE edition X4. Battlefield 3 will be the true test next week.

AMD is not going anywhere especially given how big ATI is in graphics.

[EOTE]

9. Sweet.

What GPU do you have in that system? Is the Challenger treating you well?

[wuushew]

10. Radeon 5750 1GB

I don't run extremely high resolutions (1680 x 1050) so I think I am fine for at least another year. Plus Steam has amazing deals on older games that are still sweet to play.

[EOTE]

13. Older games are where it's at.

I'm guessing your 5750 will do fine at lower resolutions with Battlefield 3. It seems to have an extremely optimized engine. That game looks amazing.