Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

First Linux Benchmarks Of AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
    AMD won 64bit extension battle because they had a very strong product, at least as good as Intels and they were selling it at a very competitive price thus quickly gaining market share. There were simply too many amd cpus out there for intel to ignore that.
    The reason AMD won the 64-bit extension war was that Microsoft backed it. MS and intel (at least back then) didn't exactly have a loving relationship. MS didn't like all the compromises that intel was insisting being put into windows and intel certainly didn't like the fact that MS at the time were going to be using a AMD chip in the first gen XBoX. Going AMD64 instead of IA64 didn't require a compromise be made with regards to their existing line where as IA64 required some major changes and legacy apps would have to run under emulation.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      The reason AMD won the 64-bit extension war was that Microsoft backed it.
      It may have been so, but the only reason they had that backing was the strength of their products. Today its clear who leads the x86 cpu development. Not AMD.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
        Today its clear who leads the x86 cpu development. Not AMD.
        Ya but I don't think that VIA can maintain that lead for long. :P

        Comment


        • #54
          The Gentoo FX-8150 user posted new results from GCC 4.6.1 - http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...GR-8150PBULL57
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            The reason AMD won the 64-bit extension war was that Microsoft backed it.
            Which in turn was a technical decision.

            Anyway, I was thinking of going with AMD's Bulldozer next time I ugrade but given what I've seen sofar it's been quite underwhelming. Still, I reckon I have atleast 1-2 years before I feel I've outgrown my core i7 and i5 and it will be interesting to see what the Bulldozer architecture offers at that time compared to Intel.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
              Still, I reckon I have atleast 1-2 years before I feel I've outgrown my core i7 and i5 and it will be interesting to see what the Bulldozer architecture offers at that time compared to Intel.
              Let's hope AMD is still around by then, they bet pretty heavy on BD and with their recent stock slide I can't see the release of BD doing much for their next few quarterly reports.

              Comment


              • #57
                Wuhu! https://twitter.com/#!/michaellarabe...74658283528192
                Michael Larabel
                http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                Comment


                • #58
                  @deanjo

                  Are you dreaming? Xbox 1 had a 733 MHz INTEL chip!

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    maybe they read here in the forum?

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Kano View Post
                      @deanjo

                      Are you dreaming? Xbox 1 had a 733 MHz INTEL chip!
                      No I am not dreaming Kano. XBoX 1 was originally supposed to have an AMD cpu (and early prototypes did) and what later became the nForce chipset. However intel came along and did their classic FUD campain at the time and convinced MS that the AMD cpu wouldn't be up to the task (thermal wise).
                      Last edited by deanjo; 10-16-2011, 11:21 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X