ronch wrote:Honestly, I don't know what all the fuss about Bulldozer is about. I just bought an FX-8350-based PC and it performs well enough and certainly moves things forward for desktop computing. I'm certain it''ll be a beast of a PC for 99% of folks out there.
If you thought about it harder I think the realization would dawn on you. You're an end user, and when an end user thinks only of the end user's context, then the failures of a product are often not going to be recognized. Also, you're on a Piledriver, which is an improved version of Bulldozer. But let's cover some things:
1. Sandy Bridge, including IGP, is smaller than Bulldozer/Piledriver. Ivy Bridge is even smaller still.
2. An i3 2120 or thereabouts is as fast as the FX-8150 in most "typical" workloads - gaming, general productivity, etc. That's just awful. BD looks great on heavily multithreaded apps, but those aren't the most common/typical workloads. Enthusiasts will often rebut this with anecdotes of their own personal computer usage, but that's irrelevant.
3. Sandy/Ivy have VASTLY
lower power consumption. Piledriver helped mitigate this a little, but really not all that much. This matters BIG TIME to OEMs who have to build thousands and thousands of computers and who are looking to save money wherever possible - that means power supplies, motherboard power circuitry, adequate cooling of the CPU and the entire computer.
4. At similar price points (especially for OEMs), all of AMD's chips were/are getting outclassed except at the very lowest price points.
So it's not that Bulldozer/Piledriver are horrible products for the end user (not saying they're all that good either), but they're pretty bad products for OEMs and system builders to work with, and they're even kinda painful for AMD to manufacture (low performance per mm^2 which translates to low price per mm^2 on sales); AMD's margins have suffered in epic fashion since BD launched. As far as being in business and staying in business goes, Bulldozer is a tsunami of hardship.