|
Setzer Gabbiani posted:Given all the bad press, I'm surprised the 8120 and 8150 are both sold out on Newegg It must be AMD fanboys. Regular uninformed people aren't going to be chomping at the bit to buy the latest CPUs anyway. Choice quotes from newegg, please note, these rated the CPU 5/5: newegg guy posted:Cons: Portal 2 is currently broken with this CPU. It BSOD's before the menu loads up another newegg guy posted:Cons: Hasn't put Intel out of business yet yet another guy on newegg posted:Cons: I own zero stock in AMD. You can see the trend. I don't like Intel's anti-competitive business practices either, especially back in the P4 days. So many machines were built with Pentium 4, when Athlon 64 was clearly superior at the time, but when it comes down to it, you have to recommend the best CPU for the money, and Intel is winning by every metric other than use as a space heater. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Oct 19, 2011 |
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
Setzer Gabbiani posted:Given all the bad press, I'm surprised the 8120 and 8150 are both sold out on Newegg They were only shipped 10 of each.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:They were only shipped 10 of each. Really? edit: there are over 30 reviews for each but that's not really evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
DNova posted:Really? No, I have no clue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:They were only shipped 10 of each. AMD bought the rest of the stock. Disaster control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Cool Matty posted:AMD bought the rest of the stock. Disaster control. So they're going to end up in dumped in the desert next to a bunch of copies of ET?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
rscott posted:So they're going to end up in dumped in the desert next to a bunch of copies of ET? Just when you thought they couldn't run any hotter... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
rscott posted:So they're going to end up in dumped in the desert next to a bunch of copies of ET? Yeah, right behind all those Apple Lisas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
Newegg is a hotbed of AMD fanboyism. Not that the A2's and Phenom2's were bad CPU's, but the reviews speak of them as if they're water-walking Jesus processors. For the most part, bulldozer will run all modern software and games acceptably, just not as well as intel parts. And the tardcore AMD fans are just fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Setzer Gabbiani posted:Given all the bad press, I'm surprised the 8120 and 8150 are both sold out on Newegg Remember the reason it was delayed in the first place? Yield issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Cool Matty posted:AMD bought the rest of the stock. Disaster control. Unit status: SHIFTED
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
newegg guy posted:Cons: Portal 2 is currently broken with this CPU. It BSOD's before the menu loads up What the gently caress would cause a problem like this? Did AMD leave out whole x86_64 instruction sets or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
ClosedBSD posted:What the gently caress would cause a problem like this? Did AMD leave out whole x86_64 instruction sets or something? Seeing as they invented AMD64, I can't see how. Probably related to the fault mentioned on the previous page. quote:The CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT bug check has a value of 0×00000101. This indicates that an expected clock interrupt on a secondary processor, in a multi-processor system, was not received within the allocated interval.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
ClosedBSD posted:What the gently caress would cause a problem like this? Did AMD leave out whole x86_64 instruction sets or something? BD just keeps better isn't it? Even the Phenom TLB bug wasn't this bad, at least it was extremely unlikely to affect consumer apps. Civil posted:Newegg is a hotbed of AMD fanboyism. Not that the A2's and Phenom2's were bad CPU's, but the reviews speak of them as if they're water-walking Jesus processors. For the most part, bulldozer will run all modern software and games acceptably, just not as well as intel parts. And the tardcore AMD fans are just fine with that. For AMD fanboys, it always boils down the same old tired arguments: 1. It's OK for AMD to suck because they are the underdog 2. Buy AMD unless you like sky-high Intel prices (People will buy AMD stuff if it was actually good, not poo poo like BD) 3. I'm been using AMD all my life (Irrelevant) 4. AMD is good because they are cheap. (They are cheap because they are simply not good enough...And they have no chip that even touches a 2500K in perf/OC/power/price) 5. AMD is fast enough for games. (Nope for CPU-limited games like SC2) 6. AMD has a better upgrade path (debunked for AM2/3, AM3+ makes that moot)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
Do you think that point number 2 has some validity to it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Do you think that point number 2 has some validity to it? Buying a lesser product just to keep it in the marketplace doesn't really sound good for anyone. Especially when AMD isn't even really getting good margins out of it. I'm optimistic and hoping that BD has correctable issues rather than core flaws, but I can't suggest buying it just on speculation of that. If my system died tomorrow there's no way I'd replace it with a BD at the moment. If you want to support AMD to keep them in the market, they make some nice GPUs, and their APU products might suit your needs depending on what they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Do you think that point number 2 has some validity to it? Considering that the 8 core bulldozer gets poo poo stomped in performance to intel i5 2500k and the fx8150 is $279.99 on newegg compared to $219.99 for the 2500k? Not really. Intel has some decent pricing in the lower edge, but even there its not like intel doesn't have Sandy Bridge based celerons that are like $80. It has been true here and there, but all in all not so much for the current generations of processors. Intel is the better price and performance at this point at least in the enthusiast/gaming world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Do you think that point number 2 has some validity to it? Only if you're the kind of person who replaces processors every ~2 years, which is where the extra costs in electricity probably start meeting the price difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Buying a lesser product just to keep it in the marketplace doesn't really sound good for anyone. Especially when AMD isn't even really getting good margins out of it. Maybe the government will fund them like solar energy companies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 17:31
|
|
|
Is there any info pointing to further AM3 chip tweaks, such as a new Phenom X4 or X6 GHz bump? I know back in May there was word that a new X2 570 was about to be released, but it's never appeared.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Intel -needs- AMD. If Intel becomes an effective monopoly, nobody wins. I can only imagine the fallout from Intel getting busted up like Ma Bell, jesus. Which is why I am praying to the silicon gods that ATI keeps on keeping on, and that those jerkoffs on Newegg keep buying Bulldozer chips like it's going out of style. It's completely selfish I guess and I am a bit of a prick for being so blatantly self-aware of how bad it is, but still, if I can't have a return to the glory days, at least give me an AMD with a marginal enough level of success to force Intel to remain competitive so that I can continue to build progressively better, faster, more efficient computers for competitive prices based around Intel hardware. I wonder if ARM and other less mainstream processor makers count for the purposes of regulatory considerations... Looking at the architecture, Bulldozer seems like it's just a total boner, I'm pretty impressed at the K10.5 (well, Llano, anyway) micro... It was discussed briefly earlier, does anyone with a broader perspective see any possibility that they might do what Intel did after Prescott and return to improvements made to an older architectural basis? I am trying not to remember just how long Pentium 4s were around and just how bad things got during that time period for the mainstream market; if even via sweetheart deals and anticompetitive practices Intel still managed to lose enough for AMD to enjoy 25% server and pretty much all the enthusiast market (apart from [H]igh clockrate lovin' enthusiasts), what is AMD going to do if they end up married for awhile to such an uncompetitive architecture? Agreed fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Intel -needs- AMD. If Intel becomes an effective monopoly, nobody wins. I can only imagine the fallout from Intel getting busted up like Ma Bell, jesus. Which is why I am praying to the silicon gods that ATI keeps on keeping on, and that those jerkoffs on Newegg keep buying Bulldozer chips like it's going out of style. Except, for the last few years, Intel has been pushing out better, faster, lower-power chips and AMD has pushed out the marvel that is the Phenom. Competition is nice, except in this case, it's Intel's interests to make better, faster, more efficient products so that they can sell things, regardless of whatever AMD does or doesn't do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
cstine posted:Competition is nice, except in this case, it's Intel's interests to make better, faster, more efficient products so that they can sell things, regardless of whatever AMD does or doesn't do. Yeah, but corporations(and most people, too) accomplish more when there's somewhat of a fire lit under their rear end in the form of competition. Look at the Netburst semi-fiasco - how long do you think it would have taken Intel to backtrack to the Centrino architechture and give us the Core chips if AMD wasn't pumping out cool, powerful inexpensive Athlon 64 chips? Hell, without AMD it might not have happened at all and we'd all be running BTX chassis and 150watt TPD chips, like Intel planned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
Hey, monopoly markets are fine. Look at how much innovation is going on in the ISP/telecom industry, we keep getting more and more bandwidth and better prices amiright guys? Hell, IE6 was so good microsoft didn't even need to upgrade it for years and years.
Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:Hey, monopoly markets are fine. Look at how much innovation is going on in the ISP/telecom industry, we keep getting more and more bandwidth and better prices amiright guys? Hell, IE6 was so good microsoft didn't even need to upgrade it for years and years. But I did get my speeds upgraded this year out of the blue? Only "competition" my cable provider has here is 3 mbps DSL. AMD's been as effective a competitor against Intel as DSL has been against cable for at least the last 2 years, which is to say, not very. And IE6 wasn't upgraded because Vista was supposed to be out in 2004 instead of 2006. Take a minute to remember back too, all the other browsers were crap compared to IE6 until Firefox finally went stable in 2004. IE 6 was the most standards compliant browser for several years even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
cstine posted:Except, for the last few years, Intel has been pushing out better, faster, lower-power chips and AMD has pushed out the marvel that is the Phenom. It's in Intel's interests to make money. They can do that fine if they don't have competition and people still need computers. They can make even more money, since they can charge more, do less research, and in general not really have to stretch their muscles much. Monopolies are poo poo, Intel didn't come out with this fantastic architecture until they lost a significant portion of their business basically overnight to AMD when AMD was putting Athlon XP and Athlon 64 up against Pentium 4 chips and kicking their rear end all over town for performance and power consumption in all markets. Intel responded by using their gigantic pile of money to keep Pentiums going out the door through arguably deeply unethical bundling practices and pressure on OEMs to overlook AMD entirely if they wanted to get some sweetheart deals (and in the meantime they had inner competition between the team responsible for the kickass Pentium M architecture that would eventually become the Core architecture, and the other guys who were desperately pushing up clock rates because they had a tremendously inefficient architecture and that was the only thing they could do to achieve marginally competitive performance, albeit at the expense of drastically higher power requirements and hilariously poor thermal performance). AMD now is in Intel's position then, except they're broke as hell by comparison. My hope is that they'll abandon Bulldozer instead of chasing it down the rabbit hole for the sake of it and work hard to push the K10.5 architecture further since it looks kinda promising. This is a bad situation for everyone, not just AMD and people who buy AMD "just because."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Hey more Bulldozer news http://techreport.com/articles.x/21848 Scott Wasson posted:Oddly enough, the benchmarks we selected months ago for our overclocking performance tests seem to be pretty well suited to the Bulldozer architecture. Thus, turning up the clock frequency allows the FX-8150 to put up some really nice numbers, tying or beating a Core i7-2600K overclocked to 4.5GHz in several cases. There are some pain points here, such as the difference in single-threaded Cinebench performance between the FX-8150 at 4.7GHz and the Core i5-2500K at stock (scores of 1.16 vs. 1.48, respectively). Still, had Bulldozer landed at frequencies north of 4.5GHz within conventional power envelopes, the competitive landscape might look rather different. Indeed, if GlobalFoundries can manage to refine its 32-nm fabrication process to allow such speeds in the coming months, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
trandorian posted:But I did get my speeds upgraded this year out of the blue? Only "competition" my cable provider has here is 3 mbps DSL. AMD's been as effective a competitor against Intel as DSL has been against cable for at least the last 2 years, which is to say, not very. That's great news to all at&t and comcast/verizon customers that get faster speeds and lower bandwidth caps! It's also nice that IE6 was so standards compliant that when standards compliant browsers came about none of those sites worked with them, and the later IEs have an IE compliant mode (that is to say IE6 wasn't standards compliant it's just that sites were forced to work with it).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:That's great news to all at&t and comcast/verizon customers that get faster speeds and lower bandwidth caps! It's also nice that IE6 was so standards compliant that when standards compliant browsers came about none of those sites worked with them, and the later IEs have an IE compliant mode (that is to say IE6 wasn't standards compliant it's just that sites were forced to work with it). Why yes when browsers more standards complaint than IE6 came out they were more standards compliant than IE6. How insightful! You do realize that the Microsoft plan was to have IE releases tied to OSes and that XP SP2 happening screwed everything up and delayed Vista right? Microsoft actually halted development of the next os for a decent period of time to revamp XP with SP2. IE7 was due to come out at the same time roughly that browsers on par with IE6 were finally coming out. Seriously, just because IE6 turned out to not have kept up with web standards for 10 years after its release doesn't mean that it wasn't the best at its time (2001) and for several years after. Hell, Bulldozer was supposed to launch in 2007 originally, right (not with the same name but the same concept)? AMD's suffering the same kind of problem MS did with IE, schedules go out of wack and all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-processor-release-22nm-3d-transistor,13753.html Ivy Bridge is coming early. In production now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-processor-release-22nm-3d-transistor,13753.html pow! right in the kisser A liver-destroying evening ahead for AMD employees (apart from the ATI ones). Everyone else, awesome new CPUs coming! HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-processor-release-22nm-3d-transistor,13753.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ivy-bridge-processor-release-22nm-3d-transistor,13753.html I hate to ask, but... How's that stock looking? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
A 22nm Ivy Bridge in the hands of the consumer this year is so far beyond what we could have expected, that Intel will just be miles out of reach of AMD, and they are already comfortably in the lead. Leap Ahead™, indeed. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:A 22nm Ivy Bridge in the hands of the consumer this year is so far beyond what we could have expected, that Intel will just be miles out of reach of AMD, and they are already comfortably in the lead. Tom's Hardware posted:According to Otellini, first Ivy Bridge systems should become available in Spring 2012. As Ivy Bridge is introduced and ramping up, Intel expects that its profit margins will improve as well. Consumers still won't see them till sometime early next year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:A 22nm Ivy Bridge in the hands of the consumer this year is so far beyond what we could have expected, that Intel will just be miles out of reach of AMD, and they are already comfortably in the lead. The article seemed to me to say that the first batch would go to OEMs, so systems and retail processors with Ivy Bridge wouldn't actually reach consumers until a few months into 2012.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
trandorian posted:Why yes when browsers more standards complaint than IE6 came out they were more standards compliant than IE6. How insightful! You do realize that the Microsoft plan was to have IE releases tied to OSes and that XP SP2 happening screwed everything up and delayed Vista right? Microsoft actually halted development of the next os for a decent period of time to revamp XP with SP2. IE7 was due to come out at the same time roughly that browsers on par with IE6 were finally coming out. I'm not sure you're getting it unless you were making a commentary on the differences between dejure and defacto standards. IE6 was purposely not standards compliant but because of it's market share all the sites had to code to its standards thus screwing other browsers with much smaller market share. AMD is also in a totally different position than microsoft because BD is not some vehicle with which it is going to change the cpu standards that other people are going to have to deal with later. If you only relate them by delays then I suppose BD is actually like half life 2 and all other products that suffer schedule delays. Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:I'm not sure you're getting it unless you were making a commentary on the differences between dejure and defacto standards. IE6 was purposely not standards compliant but because of it's market share all the sites had to code to its standards thus screwing other browsers with much smaller market share. AMD is also in a totally different position than microsoft because BD is not some vehicle with which it is going to change the cpu standards that other people are going to have to deal with later. IE6 was the most standards compliant browser when it was released, that's a fact and your Microsoft bashing doesn't change that. No browser was fully standards compliant before IE6 and in fact there's still none now that are compliant with everything. And there was none as compliant as IE6 was until many years after its release. Nor was "introduce proprietary support things" a Microsoft only thing, Netscape was especially bad with trying that, and adware Opera at the time had its own special things it supported. AMD is in fact trying to make the case that processors should be designed like bulldozer, modules of two integer cores sharing cache and an FPU. And of course throughout their history Intel and AMD have each tried to introduce new instruction sets and convince people to use them (MMX, 3DNow!) etc. Just because they're failing doesn't make it not the case!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
trandorian posted:IE6 was the most standards compliant browser when it was released, that's a fact and your Microsoft bashing doesn't change that. I'd have said KHTML was more standard compliant at that point, but you're right back then everything sucked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:25 |
|
|
trandorian posted:IE6 was the most standards compliant browser when it was released, that's a fact and your Microsoft bashing doesn't change that. No browser was fully standards compliant before IE6 and in fact there's still none now that are compliant with everything. And there was none as compliant as IE6 was until many years after its release. Nor was "introduce proprietary support things" a Microsoft only thing, Netscape was especially bad with trying that, and adware Opera at the time had its own special things it supported. Really? Opera 6.0 which was released a month after IE6 and supports CSS2 is less standards compliant than IE6?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 23:39
|
|