Jump to content


Recommended Posts

From what I understand AMD decided to focus on their ability to scale up the number of cores in a processor with bulldozer, and their next generation they will work on optimizing the per core performance.


I have a feeling that the optimization step was a hell of a lot more difficult than the scaling (or scaling a newly optimized core), so the believed they leave it up the (hopefully) smarter future AMD to solve the problem. All options being equal though, I think AMD made the wrong choice in their design order. As it has been said, the single core performance is what most gamers care about. AMD would have made the right choice if game programmers whole-heartedly strived for multithreading with efficient parallelization, concurrency and in their games.


The problem that always comes up is reality, which for our present case is this: if you gave the programmers a choice between driving a nail up their nose or working on the parallelism and concurrency of their code you would run out of nails.



It is really difficult to say what gaming cooperations will come out with, but I don't see AMD making any advancements with their processors. It took them years to come out with the architecture they did, and the one and only thing killing the processor is the architecture itself. AMD is using a shared cache system so what is really happening is you have an two processor cores and they share cache. Each one of these core teams is refereed to as a module. A module can be thought of as a hyper threaded core since they both in essence have the same capabilities. This made the BD a glorified intel i7 950-960. In fact if you overclock the i7 950 a little bit, you still crush bull dozer even with its ridiculous 4.2ghz turbo mode.


So basically AMD has spent the past untold number of years coming out with something that rival old technology. These processors aren't something you can refine overtime. AMD needs to sit their butts down and come out with a whole new architecture rather than simply fix the ones they have now. Otherwise, they don't stand a chance and probably be out of business in a few years.


(((((((((((((((((To all that don't believe me, https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:AMD


Click to expand the chart to 5 years (that way it will cut back the data that was represented by the stock crash). The stock was trading at 10 dollars just 2 years ago and even with the release of BD it did nothing for the stocks. In fact, it went down when BD was released and has only gone up a dollar because of business practices. Intel's stock however remains stable. So if any one want to argue that AMD will never go out of business, read it and weep)))))))))))))))

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...