My guess still stands for 8150 @CB11.5 --> 8.75pts.
Printable View
My guess still stands for 8150 @CB11.5 --> 8.75pts.
Why should you care? Feel hit by the post of mine? There are 2 people in last pages that I meant and one of them was you. Quite amazing. Bullsh1t? Oh no. The difference is that I don't buy all for a dollar and knows whats lie and not (yeah JF will confirm under my post). But yeah please continue with the facts of your and your "reliable" friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Ohh thanks for the bright news! I don't think and I have the info to make me silent and not making fun of myself, especially with that attitude you have, but I understand why ;)Quote:
Are you aware that AMD has sent confidential datas to some press ? Do you really think that data directly from AMD are indeed faked data ? :confused:
Everyone here needs to understand that marketing =/= PR.Quote:
Originally Posted by maltrabob
The room was full of press guys, I was there. Anything that came out of the room was shared with everyone in the press. It was all captured on film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Yes, back in august there were all kinds of benchmarks on "final" silicon. I could not mention that we had not reached production silicon either.Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
The funniest thing is that I could give 2 people (an intel fanboy and an amd fanboy) the exact same piece of silicon and both could give you different benchmark results. Why would anyone assume that all of these fake benchmarks, if they were real, were actually on an optimized system? Couldn't you run a 4200RPM HD, 800MHz memory, and play all kinds of BIOS tricks? I know that I could probably get about 80% of the optimizations done to get the best performance out of a platform, but I know I could do 100% of the things that would sabotage performance. If you think about it, AMD is not releasing info, so the stuff that is floating around (if it is even real) is probably from people not friendly to AMD. And somehow everyone is trusting those results. Nobody ever questions the motives of the people supplying this info, but to be fair, because it is third or fourth hand (some guy I know who has a friend who has an uncle that knows a guy in...) how can anyone vouch for the results.
WTF AMD you're indeed EVIL:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Well you need to refresh your memory. Zambezi is launching soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
And no,I don't have anything in common with those guys. I'm just being a realist now,not an optimist who based his expectations on power point bullets.
Actually those sisoft numbers are quite good in SIMD department and not THAT bad in integer part,IF Turbo was off. If Turbo was on,then integer is abysmal (compared to Family 10h) and SIMD is still good. All this on "unoptimized" platform.And all this if the test is even real.Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
Huh? He already said BD is much slower than its perceived competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by metalazzo
Until we have real numbers on relevant benchmarks with the final product, I don't think we should be drawing any conclusions.
To be honest, this was a BIG confidence booster for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
No I needn't. Empiricism means nothing to me, history was history.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
There's a word that better than realist and optimist - neutral, and you could post less. And I will post less, everybody should post less.Quote:
I'm just being a realist now,not an optimist who based his expectations on power point bullets.
These days I'd love to silent myself but often couldn't bear some weird comments flying around my ears and eyes. I'm tired.
Maybe it likes to eat current for breakfast. Om nom nomQuote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
too bad we can't have everyone see the glass either half full or half empty
instead we get half screaming the glass is full and the other half screams the glass is empty!
where the hell is reality when you need it?
Quoted by JF-AMD
Quote:
Yes, back in august there were all kinds of benchmarks on "final" silicon. I could not mention that we had not reached production silicon either.
The funniest thing is that I could give 2 people (an intel fanboy and an amd fanboy) the exact same piece of silicon and both could give you different benchmark results. Why would anyone assume that all of these fake benchmarks, if they were real, were actually on an optimized system? Couldn't you run a 4200RPM HD, 800MHz memory, and play all kinds of BIOS tricks? I know that I could probably get about 80% of the optimizations done to get the best performance out of a platform, but I know I could do 100% of the things that would sabotage performance. If you think about it, AMD is not releasing info, so the stuff that is floating around (if it is even real) is probably from people not friendly to AMD. And somehow everyone is trusting those results. Nobody ever questions the motives of the people supplying this info, but to be fair, because it is third or fourth hand (some guy I know who has a friend who has an uncle that knows a guy in...) how can anyone vouch for the results.
I can't speak for anyone else around here, but I sure am upset that AMD can't even tell us when the NDA lifts. What financial damage is going to happen from releasing such a date? The NDA is under NDA, what a crock of :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Share a little information with your "loyal" customers for once. I would understand if you had no idea when you were going to release the product, but you must have a concrete date by now for BD's release.
Agree on everything you said. Including the second line :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ
The glass contains 50% fluid and 50% air. Hot air.Quote:
Originally Posted by radaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalazzo
I read somewhere 12th October.
because that date has probably changed as the release date has changed. the moment someone says the NDA is up, chances are it means the product is coming out in that next week. theres no need to feel hurt because they have a business to run. why not be happy they showed us what kind of air/water OC we can expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Partially agree on that. Organizing that OC event was public relations (the action of a company in promoting goodwill between itself and the public / the community etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
But then, setting a new world record and letting anybody know was marketing (the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer to the consumer, including advertising, shipping, storing, and selling). ;-)
The FX giveaway contest has this date too in the rules section :).Quote:
Originally Posted by rog
Maybe because you can't OC a CPU that's not available and even more because that CPU was supposed to be available somewhere between one month and a half ago and two weeks ago but instead it doesn't even have a launch date (not to mention availability :rolleyes:).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
so we go look at concept cars because we want them, and the moment they say its not going to be anymore than a concept we call them horrible names and buy the competition, but all AMD is doing is trying to get things finished up, and theres so many things going on here. new arch, new node, new company building these chips, its ALOT of risk. the fact that opteron is shipping means they wont just make this product go away like larabee, it will be here, people just need some patience.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
And do you know how much is "much slower" ? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by PerryR
Some new info from OBR. This is something interesting to talk about, IMHO:
"Little secret: In Windows 8 (Development Release) is not Bulldozer chip as "8 Core - 8 Threads" but 4 Core - 8 Threads! AMD went out with the truth ! ! !"
IF Windows scheduler thinks this is an octo-core, and the threads go to whatever core is free, then you could have 4 threads running on 2 modules, which is far from optimal performance. Don't you think? It would be better to treat the CPU as a 4c/8t, the same way Intel HTT works.
A core can be called a thread, but a thread might not be called a core. It depends on how 'big' the thread is. Some latest leak(despite the score) show that it only has 4.8x speedup in cinebench, if it's not a bug or crippled then the second integer core is much 'smaller' than expected, in this case I think it might be called a thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi64
EDIT: I won't assert anything cuz something we can see now is weird, not only the crappy benchmark, but something,...
It should read: Some crap/lies from *insert name here*Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi64
Maybe the driver being release has something to do with helping the scheduler with this issue and maybe the lack of a driver with all the other ES that have been benched are the reason for the low scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi64
Depends if you want to use Turbo mode or not. I.e. that feature might be interesting for OC, but not for the typical Joe Sixpack enduser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi64
@JF-AMD:
Just found that comment from the x264 lead developer, they are interested in hand-coding for XOP:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...43#post1507243Quote:
XOP: possibly, but I need SSH access to a Bulldozer to do such optimizations.
Contacts: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/about
It is an old message from June, but just in case if nobody @AMD knows him, still: Please help that guy.
I guess I do not need to tell you something about x264 and its importance ^^
Thanks
Opteron146