Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Linux, Open-Source Affected In AMD Cutbacks?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by del_diablo View Post
    Have we looked at the same Benchmarks? Because the ones I have seen you notice that one very heavy CPU workloads involving many heavy threads, Bulldozers beats the i7.
    Its a server product, and people seem to forget that.



    Ehm, no. Stock prices are not a measurement of anything, its just a matter of raw speculation based on raw speculation.
    The way I see it, its capitalism at its finest: They fire people instead of cutting the managments and the stock holders payouts.
    You've nailed it, sir. Seriously, I can't believe all of the FUD that's coming out of his mouth, especially considering that he's a moderator for this website. It makes me wonder if Intel signed him up for their "The Way It's Meant To Be Benchmarked" program, it wouldn't be the first time they've tried to corrupt the media, benchmark vendors, or OEMs to unfairly skew public opinion in their favor.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leeenux View Post
    You've nailed it, sir. Seriously, I can't believe all of the FUD that's coming out of his mouth, especially considering that he's a moderator for this website. It makes me wonder if Intel signed him up for their "The Way It's Meant To Be Benchmarked" program, it wouldn't be the first time they've tried to corrupt the media, benchmark vendors, or OEMs to unfairly skew public opinion in their favor.
    FYI, I am a stock holder if AMD stock, second of all FX is not a server processor, third the last (and only) intel processor I owned was an 8088-2 (which was swapped out for a NEC V20, then followed by a TI 486, Cyrix 150+, K6-3 450, Athlon 600/850/1700, AMD Windsor 3200, X2 4200/6400, Phenom 9850, Phenom II 955, Phenom II 1090T), fourth financial results are published pubically, look them up for yourself.
    Last edited by deanjo; 11-06-2011 at 09:33 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by locovaca View Post
    Except it's being marketed as a non-server product, and people seem to forget that.
    Bingo, exactly it is marketed as an Uber desktop processor. Can anyone here actually claim that it is remotely worthy of the FX branding?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Can anyone here actually claim that it is remotely worthy of the FX branding?
    I can.
    Given the right workload, it sure does.
    The "Bulldozer is a failed architecture" mantra from people claiming they are computer litterate is REALLY getting on my nerves. How short-sighted can one be?
    Was the whole marketing of BD good though? Hell no. Pushing the 8 cores aspect was a major blunder.

    Anyway, cut down on the wisecracks, dude, seriously...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    They are having a hard time. Read their financials and take a look at their stock price
    Actually take a look at their P/E, It was around $4 last I checked, which is insanely low for a tech stock. You normalize it to $10 and you'll see that the company is doing well, it's just in terms of stock prices the investors just aren't believing it

    Normalized, we should be looking at somewhere around $14 a share
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 11-06-2011 at 10:43 AM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
    I can.
    Given the right workload, it sure does.
    The "Bulldozer is a failed architecture" mantra from people claiming they are computer litterate is REALLY getting on my nerves. How short-sighted can one be?
    Was the whole marketing of BD good though? Hell no. Pushing the 8 cores aspect was a major blunder.

    Anyway, cut down on the wisecracks, dude, seriously...
    How can you seriously call it an FX when it barely beats it's predecessor x6's in most loads? Sure under certain workloads it does excel with a bit of improvement but it is nowhere close to being to the original FX's where they mopped up the floor in pretty much every workload.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    How can you seriously call it an FX when it barely beats it's predecessor x6's in most loads? Sure under certain workloads it does excel with a bit of improvement but it is nowhere close to being to the original FX's where they mopped up the floor in pretty much every workload.
    Sandy Bridge barely beats Nehalem under plenty of circumstances. Nehalem barely beat Core2 under plenty of circumstances. Bulldozer beats Sandy Bridge under plenty of circumstances, and/or at least effectively ties it, unless you view benchmarks as a competition, where winning by 1fps is a victory, rather than being a tie within the margin of error.

    I'm not sure why you're trolling so hard about Bulldozer being a failure when it's anything but a failure. Michael's benchmark article illustrated that under the typically well threaded Linux workload, that it's extremely competitive vs Sandy Bridge, why you insist on saying it's not is quite suspicious. This is a website about benchmarking Linux, I couldn't care less about what Tom's hardware thought of it under Windows.

    PS: Most of the time the server CPUs and the desktop CPUs, and sometimes even the laptop CPUs all come off of the same wafer, it just doesn't make sense for AMD to create separate desktop and server chips when the desktop market is in terminal decline. So Bulldozer for desktops is a server CPU. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Otherwise, please stop spreading FUD about it, you're going to hurt your own stock prices.

  8. #28

    Default

    Exactly, and as far as being sold s a high end desktop 8 core CPU is because it still is. This isn't '95 and it's not a 486 clone with only 16Mb of ram, I and anyone else interested in it are going to be running a good dozen apps at the same time natively in Linux and at least a dozen more in at least 1 VM.

    I know in my case Firefox, Pidgin, Songbird, Vuze, Gimp, LibreOffice, F@H as well as VirtualBox running Haiku and ReactOS are pretty much never not running. I'm often transcoding DVDs and Blurays to WebM usually while playing a game. Having 8 cores just makes that all run that much smoother and would be much closer to how anyone looking to buy any high end desktop chip would actually be using it daily and not these unrealistic benchmarks where you're running just a single app at a time.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,196

    Default

    Frankly I agree with deanjo. He's being honest, I couldn't see any FUD there. BD's about equal to X6 in many loads, yet more expensive and using more power under load. How does that spell "good"?

    I actually postponed my purchases a couple of months to see how BD ended up. Guess what? Now typing this on an X6.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leeenux View Post
    Sandy Bridge barely beats Nehalem under plenty of circumstances. Nehalem barely beat Core2 under plenty of circumstances. Bulldozer beats Sandy Bridge under plenty of circumstances, and/or at least effectively ties it, unless you view benchmarks as a competition, where winning by 1fps is a victory, rather than being a tie within the margin of error.
    Is intel marketing their entire line EE editions? BTW I do not consider 1 or 2 fps a victory.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •