I would agree, but BD seems to need 8 cores to compete with (or lose to) 4 Intel SB cores, and it does so while pulling more power. It seems like a fail all around. Again, I'm very hopeful that it's an aberration and that we see different numbers on 10/12.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bryan Seitz > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] Leaked AMD Bulldozer benchmarks > > AMD it seems has decided to play to a different market. More cores, less > performance, better power utilization. > They do that pretty well right now but I agree, they need to step up their > game. > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:07:38PM -0500, Greg Sevart wrote: > > So, the NDA on AMD's next-generation Bulldozer chips expires on 10/12, > but > > this Romanian site apparently got ahold of a chip without having to sign an > > NDA. I've never heard of the site before, but apparently they're generally > > considered reputable. I genuinely hope that they are missing something, > > because if they aren't, I'm seriously concerned about AMD's status as a > > viable competitor going forward. Love or hate them, few can argue against > > the fact that AMD has been a positive contribution to x86 microprocessors. > > > > > > > > http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-preview > > > > > > > > We'll know for sure on 10/12, but I am most definitely not at all impressed. > > I wasn't expecting a Sandy Bridge killer, but this can barely duke it out > > with the previous generation Thuban, let alone SB. If the results hold true, > > the only real hope that we can have is that there is some common > constraint > > that can be fixed in a future stepping, similar to Thoroughbred-B way back > > when. > > > > > > > > Now, let's get a good back and forth and breathe some life into an > otherwise > > very slow past week. > > -- > > Bryan G. Seitz
