Don't worry about Bulldozer until it releases All these Engineer Samples are bottom binned....They are made to function but past functioning they have a lot of issues doing anything out of spec
Not necessarily fanboys. Some feed off rumors to justify upgrades...and some of us use the rumors for entertainment. We've all seen how people respond to rumors.
Some people also make hasty decisions based on rumors. I'm quite a skeptical person, so I rarely believe rumors. Someone is bound to stop waiting and immediately switch to Intel after seeing this thread.
You don't have to appease me or something, just because I own a Phenom 2 doesn't mean I'm butthurt by what you're saying. When I bought mine, Yorkfield quads were nearly 2x more expensive, and they obviously don't perform that much faster. So it was the sensible choice at that time. By this point in fact, it's rather stupid to buy a Phenom 2, partly because bulldozer is so close, but mostly because the i3 2300 just dominates in that price range now. My only point is that saying Yorkfield destroys Deneb in gaming just isn't true. It definitely performs better per clock, but the advantage is small. And it's not like Thuban is any better, it's just a Deneb with 2 extra cores that no game out there will use. In fact, they perform worse because of the bandwidth overhead that comes with having the extra cores. But this is all just side discussion, and isn't indicative of how Bulldozer will perform.
The only thing indicative of how Bulldozer will perform....are the UNBIASED reviews done when Bulldozer launches. So, until such time that Hilbert can post a review for Bulldozer....there's really no point in worrying too much about performance. It'll perform how it'll perform and there's nothing we can change about that.
Except overclocking it :nerd: And everyone has a bias, prejudice for everything...it's how the world works I predict Bulldozer will have a median launch neither exciting nor depressing
That's not entirely true. When it comes to processors, I'm completely unbiased. I buy processors based on price/performance/availability/compatibility. Currently, I have an Intel system. Come time for a platform change, I'll buy whichever processor offers the best performance/price.
:stewpid: Yep. Brand loyalty, i.e. fanboyism, is just stupid. Why cut yourself out of what could be awesome, just because you're too stupid to open your mind? I buy the best I can afford at the given time.
Everyone has bias one way or another, it's almost a fact lol. I'm slightly biased towards AMD because they are the little guys. However, even if I lied to myself, there's no denying that Intel's current offerings wipes AMD off the floor. AMD needs Bulldozer to succeed if they don't want to lose the upper-end of the market. No one really gives a crap about performance in the mainstream level as long as there's enough performance to get the job done at the lowest price. I haven't quoted an AMD gaming rig since late last year to be honest. deltatux
Yeah, i'm sure everyone has loyalty one way or the other, even if they don't admit it. When i was in my early 20's i was very AMD and ATI for the same reasons as above, i was very pro underdog and all that sort of stuff, but as i've got older i've realised that unless i have shares in the company its ridiculous to bother with that way of thinking, so just pick what suits my needs the best, which is why i was waiting for BD as i had a feeling it could be good, even if if part of me felt more sticking with Intel would be the safer option these days. Unfortunately i needed a new CPU right away, so couldn't wait for AMD and their next "strategic" move, so had to play it safe.
The closest I get to having any prejudice, has nothing to do with the products themselves, but rather the companies. Intel has been perfectly smooth. They've made mistakes and taken steps to correct those mistakes, but they haven't tripped over themselves. AMD, as of late, has been 1 stumble after another. AMD has been slipping out information on Bulldozer over the last few months, but aside from technical data that really means nothing at this point, there's been nothing to convince consumers to hold off. AMD even decided on a "strategic delay" of Bulldozer, which, to most consumers means AMD stumbled again. They're a processor company that seeingly has decided that graphics processors are more important. Llano is a great processor....for entry-level and budget. Unfortunately, outside of GPGPU functions, it doesn't really have much in the way of performance....but AMD sure talked it up a lot... I'm tired of marketing....give me a product that at least meets the hype that marketing tries to create. As far as the processor though, I honestly don't care what brand it is, as long as it performs and doesn't get gimped later due to engineering screwups.
That's frankly because AMD's graphics business actually do work, their graphics team in Markham, Ontario and in Texas (not sure which city) are excellent at what they do and quite frankly, their CPU division can't respond to the market as fast as the GPU division. You never see the graphics division ever had to delay on the reaction in response to NVIDIA, but the CPU division basically skipped when Nehalem came out. deltatux
Fighting on both fields (AMD vs Intel) & (AMD vs Nvidia) gotta be really hard for AMD. However AMD taking over Nvidia. AMD already holds 51%+ share in Japan and rising. Nvidia just can't afford to bring effective video cards that doesn't cost 250+$. 560 was a nice try, but still expensive. On CPU side, now it all up to Bulldozer. If bulldozer beats what Intel can offer... it would make AMD the most efficient CPU + GPU maker. And I think AMD would totally deserve it.
They practically fell on their faces when Conroe hit the market. I was all set to move to an Agena based Phenom when they came out, until the "TLB Bug" reports started showing up. At this point, AMD shouldn't be looking to simply...react. They had the right idea when the K7 architecture was developed. They weren't concerned about backwards compatibility....they were concerned with developing the absolute best product they possibly could. Yes, backwards compatibility is great from a consumer stand point...but, if you want to do more than simply survive you have to look ahead. AMD managed to beat out Intel from 1999 until 2006 when Conroe launched. There's no reason to believe they can't manage to pull off the same feat again. With the PhenomII and AthlonII, it's like they were trying to treat the processor market like the graphics market and simply over stretched. There's no reason to have the Sempron, Athlon and Phenom. Drop the Athlon branding....or Phenom branding....focus on whichever stays and gimp a few processors here and there to slap the Sempron branding on....and for god's sake, stop thinking about backwards compatibility with every processor design. Design the processor now, worry about compatibility later.
The whole x86 success story is because of backwards compatibility lol, the architecture family pales in comparison to non-x86 designs because of backwards compatibility. K7 basically was a pure RISC processor with x86 translators built on top of it so it can translate the instructions on the fly. It's basically a rebadged NexGen CPU after AMD bought out NexGen. The real success for AMD was K8, but then due to internal issues and Intel's illegal practices, everything for its CPU division went downhill. Now I'm really hoping AMD can bring back great products back to the table. It won't kill off AMD if they don't but it's in their best interest if they did so. deltatux
The TLB bug was so overblown, it's almost questionable as to why it was made such a big deal when it would never show up in 99% of applications and circumstances. It was about as rare as any normal CPU bug. It's not like Intel's CPU's haven't had bugs similar to that one that could cause a crash. But yet for some reason, those never get giant press attention.
The 0xF00F bug was a much bigger problem than the TLB bug. Seriously, it caused Intel to recall all of their 8086's when they first came out to fix said bug because they caused computational errors. deltatux
Exactly. Not saying it's a conspiracy, but it seems to me as though Intel took a cheap shot by "marketing" the TLB bug to boost their own sales of Conroe.
The Core i7 900 series has the same "TLB Bug"....but Intel's method for "fixing" the issue was guidelines on how to properly program to use TLB... Oh, and lets not forget about this recall of the Pentium 3... http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-245029.html Or....how about this article? http://www.zdnet.com/news/critics-may-demand-pentium-iii-recall/101485
