The new Bulldozer core is slower than mid-range Intel cores in most benchmarks and even slower than AMD's last generation Phenom II core in many of them.
AMD took the Intel settlement money and squandered it on its second rate designers and engineers, who managed to develop LESS COMPETITIVE chips with the money!
There ain't no excuses idiot. the flaw in your logic is that a company with 1/20th the market cap of Intel actually needs to have the best CPU design in order to make money. They don't. If BD comes in as comparable to the i7 2600K for less money then they will sell a ton of them. Period. And fusion will only increase their profits more.
You're a fanboy know-nothing, or rather, you're just nothing.
Sherlock, you don't know much about CPUs do you?
What clockspeeds to the Bulldozer server chips operate at compared to the desktop Bulldozers?
Therein lies the answer to your mystery.
On top of crap performance, Bulldozer has yield problems too. The low speed server chips are the ones being shipped because yields at higher clockspeeds are so bad. AMD figures it can't hurt itself too badly in servers, since it has almost o server marketshare any way. They have to sell the crap the produce somewhere, so they are dumping it where it will do the least immediate damage to their prospects.
I don't understand this.
Why would ra39999 share these terrible benchmarks with the board? He's a total fan boy. This article completely slams AMD new Bulldozer core showing that it trails Phenom II by as much as 42% in absolutely crucial benchmarks. Phenom II is light-years behind Intel's Core i7 and Core i5 Sandy chips on the same benchmarks.
Do you really think he's stupid enough to alert the board to the fact that Bulldozer is terrible?
I'm confused. It must have been an imposter that shares these. Any fan boy worth his salt wouldn't have blown it this badly. Unless, of course, perhaps he's a moron.
Um, explain these to me then buddy:
Explain that to me shortie. Two totally different scores for the same benchmark.
Come on, you're a genius right?
Your numbers are fake.
from your website
Fx-8150 score, 11642
P11 X6 1100T score, 14484
LOL, BD slower that old and obsolete P11.
AMD is Kaput, uttery finished, defeated, destroyed and hopelessly DOOMED!
read it a weep, then sell like HELL!
the B2 sample has to be a bulldozer FX-8150 sold. Its new owner has made an interesting comparison with the CPU: With a fixed clock of 4.2 GHz, it compares with a Phenom FX II X6, also at 4.2 GHz. Both processors are overclocked only by multipliers, therefore, the values are not distorted. The RAM frequencies amount to DDR3-1866 and DDR3-1600 FX when the X6 (the official rate, according to AMD would clock DDR3-1333). Interestingly, the Northbridge clock speed of the bulldozer is only at 2.2 GHz - AMD said so far of 2.4 GHz. Both CPUs are sitting on a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 with F5 BIOS, operating system Windows 7 SP1 x64 is used and a Geforce GTX 580 is out of the picture.
Whether Super Pi, Cinebench R10/R11.5, wPrime or Fritz Chess: The bulldozer is often beaten by the X6 shows the stalker-values are not due to the GPU limits meaningful. In the x-CPU test of the two Cinebench FX creates thanks to its four modules, respectively, eight cores almost a tie with the six "real" cores of the Phenom II X6, with single-threaded values is the predecessor chip delivers up to 42 percent. AMD's John Fruehe always emphasized the power per cycle of the FX was higher, but rowed the director of product marketing for server and workstation products back at the last time. Obviously, the Athlon FX-8150 one hit X6 1100T only because he more 300 MHz clock [and incidentally holds the world record] and provides a better turbo, four modules but do only as much as six cores. In comparison with previous benchmarks, the cache again to see the bulldozer measurements curious: The L3 values are better than the X6, the L1 and L2-results but significantly worse. AIDA, however, supported the bulldozer in August, the benchmarks are "fully optimized". Read why the value of L3, but higher than the failure of the L2, is a mystery to us.
Saw 'em. In fact, thanks to AMD fan boy ra9999 for calling them to the board's attention.
Now it's all making sense. The leak by the AMD insider explaining that the BAPCo pull out was marketing smoke and mirrors designed to help conceal the FACT of lousy Bulldozer performance.
Dunno about you, but when German and Czech died-in-the-wool AMD champions slam the new chips with solid benchmark data to back up their criticisms, I'd call it - total flatline for the FX series.
Look out below.
ra9999 actually thought those benchmarks was good news for AMD. LOL. Looks like AMD will be totally absent from server/high-end markets for the forseaable future. Expect shareholder lawsuits as well.