<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Bulldozer server benchmarks fail to impress</title>
		<description>Discuss Bulldozer server benchmarks fail to impress</description>
		<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:45:06 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.fudzilla.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_k2/24948/10" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>dieterD says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34570</link>
			<description><![CDATA[words like "Bulldozer" and "fail" is only thing what AMD could expect if they can not beat they own old arhitechture - wtf did they expect?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dieterD</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:20:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34570</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jay says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34567</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How do you expect AMD to compete with Intel? intel will jump to 22nm, AMD is just started on 32nm. Power efficicency plays a major key in servers. AMD should've ditched 32nm altogether...and focus on 28nm. 32nm yeilds aren't good enough either for them anyways!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:11:53 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34567</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Vizeroy says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34565</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That's why synthetics are currently the only way to evaluate a server on max usage scenarios. All other benchmarks, I saw, are just rubbish, because no one will buy a server to just use 1/2 of a CPU when there are 2 sockets or more in the system. The TPC benchmark is quite rubbish, because they don't have rules for the server setups. Because of this HP went in with highly overpriced SSDs and way more storage than on the Xeon system. The Xeon SSDs aren't even available to buy. W/o rules you have to look very closely beyond the benchmark scores in size 30 letters.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Vizeroy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:58:10 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34565</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Vizeroy says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34564</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You realzie that they didn't cancel them for fun. They cancelled, because the production process wouldn't yield good enough.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Vizeroy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:49:33 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34564</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34563</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You find me a pure server bench that utilizes eight cores or more. Outside of largely useless synthetics, there just aren't any that I can think of. What has been driving core count increases in server CPUs are high levels of vitualization, not applications that use large numbers of cores. Bulldozer's problem isn't that it doesn't beat Westmere, it's that it doesn't convincingly beat Interlagos. It's either slightly faster than Interlagos or significantly slower and at a higher power/thermal budget. Forget about beating intel, AMD has to beat their old stuff with it before they can even think about competing with the big boys. Bulldozer has double the transistor budget of Westmere-EP and is slower. AMD should start binning high TDP CPUs as "Prescott Editions".]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 06:32:19 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34563</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>saneblane says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34554</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I like Amd, but the problem is, Amd doesn't like itself. Bulldozer was a fail, i can't argue against that. Let's just see what Southern islands has to offer because ,they just cancelled most of their 2012 apu's, If their was such a thing as a self destructive company, Amd would be the one on the most heroine, i mean this is as self destructive as it gets.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>saneblane</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:03:43 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34554</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>eddman says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34553</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sorry, but that's one of the stupidest wishes ever. Then what? You want an intel monopoly where they'll release new CPUs every 5 years and ask 800$ for a midrange one?!! @Vizeroy Yes, bulldozer does much better in a server environment, but it's still not as good as xeon, though I'm sure they'll do just fine, as long as intel don't decide to cut prices. Calling anand's review an intel marketing is just not fair. They are really some of the best hardware related websites out there and I haven't seen any bias in their reviews. If you think they made a mistake in their benchmarking choices then how about leaving a comment on their reviews.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>eddman</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:31:44 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34553</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Vizeroy says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34550</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Naterm, I like the better product, regardless if it is Intel of AMD. In Desktop there is currently no way past the i5 / i7. I still need to find just one server benchmark on comparable systems, which shows Xeon as the better CPU. Name just one, which is really relevant in server environment and uses more than 8 cores. The reviews from Anand and Ars Technica are Intel marketing at best, but far from reality. Which kind of Benchmark do you prefer? Cinebench? That's something not used on Servers. Database benchmarks, like the ones from Anand, which only use 8-12 of 32 cores? Name one legit review and I'm satisfied.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Vizeroy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:05:47 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34550</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Naterm says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34549</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We get it Vizeroy, you like Bulldozer for some reason. The problem is, how is Bulldozer's performance any better than adding another four cores onto Interlagos? It isn't, in fact, it's worse. Per-thread performance goes down the toilet. AMD gambled and it did not pay off. Real benchmarks? You mean SPEC fp and int scores? Synthetics? Oh, and AMD hasn't been competitive with intel in the desktop, mobile, or server space in years. Intel is still slamming out better products like clockwork.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Naterm</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:53:25 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34549</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Kryojenix says:</title>
			<link>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34548</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I guess the future will be in ARM.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Kryojenix</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:45:48 +0100</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/24948-bulldozer-server-benchmarks-fail-to-impress#comment-34548</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
