under 20 most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomasis
Google tells me it's 14c right now
Printable View
under 20 most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomasis
Google tells me it's 14c right now
OBR blog updated.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-akwVH9ffv6...600/edited.pngQuote:
Googlish:
For kids in the forum: I'm not saying there's always something else from the beginning, I argue that performance is poverty and IPC rose only moments (units per cent), that in my posts that you read your own performance projections, and God knows what, is your business. My general opinion of the performance has not changed, find the first and last post. The fact itself is unchanged at 4.6 GHz Ocing stabiulní for Spi ...
So he admits BIOSes are crippling the FX performance but "his opinion has not changed"?! That guy has no idea what he wants...
Until FX launches and we have a review from some relevant hardware website,this guy is blowing smoke out of his ass with those BS ES numbers.He is just seeking attention,that's all.
Not to mention he sold an BD ES over the web,an illegal thing to do.
to anyone wondering, he "whited out" all the results ,even the last one is partially whited out.
@informal
He said bios works badly on gigabyte, on msi it just doesnt work at all.And on Asus it works perfectly...
However this shot could be from gigabyte.He didnt say.
One guy that update his blog frequently, to 'leak' secret, buy things from others, make flamebait in the message, everything indirectly prove that the guy doesn't have any trustable clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
EDIT
B0 chip with no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I looked at multithreaded results at anandtech.If 4 BD modules behave in multithreaded situations similarly to two PHII cores.BD would win pretty much all scores with 2600K,sometimes with a big margin.
Thats just PHII cores at 1333mhz mem.If you add faster memory,new instructions, you have somewhat more boost.That leaves us with a cpu that is faster than current sandybridge in multithreaded situations.Just as expected.SuperPi with a statically set cpu frequency would look bad in that case, cause it doesnt use neither MT in any way, nor new instructions.But its useless as a real world scenario thing.
Could you please stop bringing some OBR stuff in here? The guy has always been a total joke like when he came and said the retail Q9600 G0 was a crappy OCer compared to the ES and that he tested two of them on two different mobos, then later on he came and said his bad results were due to faulty ram sticks (he edited out the faulty ram part afterward, probably realizing how dumb it did make him look). Who needs computer hardware lecture from someone who can't even spot faulty ram sticks?
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news....aspx?pageid=1
AMD Insiders Speak Out: BAPCo Exit is An Excuse for Poor Bulldozer Performance
Quote:
When asked about core performance, surprising information was that a Bulldozer core versus the existing cores in Llano will result in minimal improvements overall.
Well...that's disappointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
LoL the same Theo Valich who "brought" us Reverse Hyperthreading? World has not been the same ever since.
Guy is full of it and HE knows it.Unsuspecting masses don't,unfortunately.
BTW He "saw" the Bulldozer Vs Sandybridge "integer" scores from "internal" AMD document in which BD supposedly destroys SB at the same clock,but fails in floating point.Another BS article written by that guy.
XS need to stop posting vaporware from this guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
In some other forums people(haters/negative guys/need a excuse to justify SB) take their cinebench numbers like the bible wich means that top FX 8000 cpu performs worse than my AII X4 620, even when costing 5x more :rolleyes:
ah Theo Valich...I remember that name from somewhere in the "slag AMD" annals of time. whatever. my focus isn't on desktop but on server. consequently, I could really care less about Zambezi as a consumer exercise. ;)
Hate to be the devils advocate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendork
but the numbers hes posting are the best of all the other leaks.He also confirms that most mainboards have bios issues with BD (which i find a bit worrying).
He also shows that even that early BD sample overclocks very well.
As for the single thread ,B0 may have low clocked uncore.Which can give for example weak gaming scores.Just a theory.
Anyhow, its not like we have many leaks to choose from, the other ones posted crappy numbers and silenced.
YAY Another long post due to not reading the thread for 2 pages lol [/sorry]
I think the biggest thing you're forgetting is that those are all G34 Server related performance numbers. I've yet to see anything from AMD on Bulldozer talk about it in context of the consumer desktop chips. While yes, it's the same architecture between them, I have a feeling that it won't run on HT3.1 specs for 990FX. We all know what going from just 2000MHz to 2600 or 2800MHz can do for performance gains (I've been doing a lot of AIDA benching with my 1090T if you've not seen anyone show the difference). So not only is that something to consider, but also that those numbers might actually be in relation to server-oriented tasks. 50% more performance for serving content over the web or crunching simulations for what-have-you, doesn't necessarily equate to 50% more performance for gaming or raising your EP [e-peen] level when playing MMOBUC [benchmark, upload, compar] on HWBot lol Seriously though, who knows how it will pan out for us :\ OBR's memory scores in AIDA are rather odd (see: low), especially considering it's at 1866 :\ The L1 comparatively seems to be rather low, L2 is alright and parts of L3 seems quite low. Mem write is bad, with read being the only significant gain. Though I've gotten close to that with 1090T @ 3.2/3.6T with NB@2800 with 4x2GB DDR3-1600 8-8-8-20 1T 26 5-5-5-8-7-6-2-4-4 110ns (yea, those sub timings aren't JEDEC but I can translate if anyone cares).Quote:
Originally Posted by Apokalipse
UGH, tell me about it :mad: But, I guess that's the benefit of being a valued tester (it's the only thing that makes sense given what's happened...)Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Well I had asked my friend who has the dual Interlagos if he knew of what the 8100 FX models would run and that was before the leaked prices came out, which he had said "they're saying* low $300-400" [*general corporate 'campfire talk' from people privileged to know/access that info, I think he means]. So while both my info and the original can't be confirmed, I think it's a fair bet we'll see them arrive at those prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I think you're talking about just OBR in that msg, and if so then I think that's probably rather accurate lol Who knows, maybe he's something like the lead QC person at one of the big mobo makers and since AMD has gone through 2 steppings now, working on their third, those are the old test samples. BUT perhaps he is also and INTELamer and is 'sabotaging' the results lol [Disclaimer: OBR, if you read this, I'm speculatively joking, so don't get all bent out of shape lol]Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
BIOS issues on 990FX boards I assume was/is implied? I mean, I know it's the same chips and all, but some boards ARE new designs and so more than likely a fresh BIOS. Especially considering they are UEFI now too. Boards like the 890FX Extreme4 and 890FXA-GD65 though I'm quite certain are carbon copies of the 890FX variants. Doing a back and forth between the GD65 shows that the only difference layout-wise is no Clr_CMOS jumer installed on the 990FX model, some adjustments/additions to silkscreened labels and the change on the heatsinks from Blue to Black (though it does look like the 990's heatsink is a hair smaller). Then again these boards are likely to be simply ones that were already made for BD, but when things originally got delayed they just released them as a silly stop-gap under the 890 branding. Because the board model on the GD65 both say "MS-7640 VER: 3.0" heh Wonder if flashing the 990's BIOS (with it's 990 model number strings) on the "890" version will soft mod them to a 990, giving those owners SLI capability...?Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
STOP! NOBODY POST FOR A SECOND SO THIS REPLY IS CURRENT!! lol
Because let's just ignore the fact that Nvidia and Via also decided to quit.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
Is Nvidia "angry about their GPU's being sub-par to Intel"? lol......
Will be interested to see your opinion once/if you get one, and when you can talk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_graham
a 32nm part running at 1.5v...gimme a break
4.6xxxGHz @ 1.5xxxxV not look good
I assume that it has been read out correctly. If that is a modified base clock (original should be 3.2GHz) I'd like to know if any turbo modes had been switched off.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatRaceTin
I think yes...but
1)u can nnot compare 32nm INtel and 32nm AMD. Look at AMD history...65nm Phenoms has about 1.45V as safe voltage, but Phenoms II at 45nm 1.55V! BD is still SOI with HK!
2) its ES
Few months have past, still no meaningful info, sigh.
Dont worry, litle baby-monster will come out of AMD in few months :)
The ONLY thing that I've got going for me with the whole Bulldozer thing, is I'll be on Vacation here from Jul 8 to Aug 5, so when I get back then Dozer will hopefully be out in the next couple days! :D
GOD I hate this, but it better be for a damn good reason AMD! If you make it worth our while then I think you'll be unanimously forgiven -_-
even for the current AMD cpus 1.55v is borderline degrading.
with or without SOI no way the new 32nm generation AMD cpus wont degrade at 1.55v...thats prolly just a suicide shot just to show that 4.6ghz is doable on the Bulldozer
Screenshot still shows 186W as TDP :D Which means that the chips would be like Power 7 chips? 5 Ghz+ at launch?
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news....aspx?pageid=0
I think Charlie should may be say something about this... could it be that Intel is paying bsn, or someone else is misleading them, plain and simple. Think about it this way... Intel is the only chip manufacturer there on BAPCo, rest all have left. If you take out credibility of someone, you don't have to discredit what they're saying.
We have on one hand, a guy with SR2 rig, 'Rintamarotta!!!' ding ding ding... who's claimed in an earlier post that it would easily best 990X. On the other hand we have people who're saying the opposite. The again we have OBR who's just being a total tool... as he could share some information as long as he hasn't signed a NDA(even a gentleman's agreement), i think that's fairly ok.
Well ,maybe B0 ES`s have this abnormally high voltage, sans 186W max TDP rating.Cpuz creator has one.Its not weird for ES to have high leakage.
The 186W TDP is CPUZ error I think, look at HWiNFO, it says ~125W
new one supports bulldozer now 1.58Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
True? No?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...to_4_6GHz.htmlQuote:
An overclocker from the Czech Republic has managed to obtain an engineering sample of AMD FX-8130P microprocessor code-named Zambezi that is powered by Bulldozer micro-architecture and overclock it to 4.6GHz.
What you would say if i would say Zambezi ES can do 4.6Ghz with 1.4volts wPrime 1024M stable?
IF true, I would be pleasantly suprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
I want these chips to do at least 4.6-4.8 24/7...5 Ghz while a stretch I'd like to see these chips do a year from now.
wow! It can be very good. 4.6 GHz with 1.4V is not bad. Oh, guys, I have new one CPU ,-)...A bit oldschool, A3200+ s939 :), my first 939 CPU :)
You can not judge whether voltage is too high or low. This is a new architecture. Wattage is what matters.
I want BD to reach a 4.8GHz OC @ 1.4
I would say : Pics or didn't happened :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
not sure if i would care about the ES results, or the voltage needed, cause who knows what the retail samples will do
for me to be happy with BD, i want 5ghz done for 90% of us on air, and a little higher for water.
and it will be really interesting to see how well 4 vs 8 cores work with gaming due to sharing modules.
5ghz cinebench stable for retail would be awesome! there is room to improve from ES
Aren't you hoping for too much? :p:
Once core 5GHz on AIR would be very good achievement!
8 cores at 4.6GHz is simply amazing. Just project CB11 score using Thuban with 2 extra cores at that clock :) It should be better, but lets aim low!
I predict a pretty hefty IPC improvement here...
The Llano stars cores are ~5% improved over Propus, and if you threw all the cache of Phenom II plus some, made that cache faster, you'd probably be looking at a good 5-10% over Deneb.
That SHOULD mean easy guaranteed 10-20% IPC increase over Phenom II IMO...but we will see. ;)
You aren't being very reasonable. You're almost certain to be disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
ES = fab coldQuote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Retail = hopefully fab hotter
We will see if he is dissapointed or not.
Considering a simple Stars shrink to 32nm should do 4.6-4.8 Ghz I would guess (...forget Llano APU, though it is clocking well), I'd expect either 4.6-4.8 with 15-20% IPC improvement, or near 5.0 with not such a large IPC improvement.
if i have ~200$ to spend on a gaming cpu, after i overclock, which will be better a 2500k or 4/6 core BD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
the 6 core BD will have better IPC than the 4 core, and i wont really be concerned with TDP, so if they reach the same clocks, i expect the 4core to loose
but compared to the IPC and overclocking of SB, its tough to know how well BD will stack up compared to it. if i wanted 8 threads max perf, i expect BD to win obviously, but i care most about 3-4 threads
guys, relax....it is not possible at first SOI HK procces get 5 GHz aircooled Cinebench, thinking a bit. I think, real values are between 4.5-4.7 GHz.
Well it seems that most 2500Ks can hit 4.5GHz pretty easily. BD cores would need to hit 4.5GHz+ to match it. Cmon AMD, you can do it!!!
bud in multithreading has no change 2500k against 4-module BD....Remember...32nm first proces was about 4200-4500 MHz stable at Gulftown in 2010!
Air -
Thuban - A lowly 4 to 4.2 Ghz
Bulldozer - ????
Bloomfield - upwards of 4.2 Ghz :(
Lynnfield - Same
Deneb - Seem to be capable of doing a good 4.2-4.3 now, none of us buy new chips to test
Sandy Bridge - 4.6 to 4.8 Ghz
Water
Thuban - 4.1 to 4.4 Ghz
Bulldozer - ????
Bloomfield - upwards of 4.4 Ghz
Lynnfield - about same
Deneb - seem to be capable of 4.3-4.4
Sandy Bridge - say hello to 5 Ghz.
From Deneb, AMD needs at LEAST 20% IPC improvement to match Bloomfield...which in my opinion would make a lot of us happy.
Seeing how Llano performs with such little cache it has, I'd say were looking at 10-15% if they stuck with that architecture and added improvements with L2/L3 cache.
So, how do we find five more percent? ;)
You guys seem to forget that this BD cores are neither K10 based, nor a real cores.
This simple math just isnt going to cut it, the cores itself are much smaller than the SB ones, so dont hope that theyre gonna be in the same league.
From what i understood however ,amd will gonna try to boost their simple cores in light workload to achieve some parity.
Comparing BD cores to stars cores isnt really sensible too ;-) .Its a new architecture.
It is supposed to be high clocking one too.So i would expect 5ghz on high end air, at least if its going to win with SB.
Most probably ,depending on the workload, youre gonna see a BIG boost, and in another cases none.Thats probably the thing with superpi.
On the other spectrum you have truecrypt which uses new instructions , so its gonna have HUGE boost.
...
If IPC were to be worse than Deneb then Stars X8 shrunk with fast/loads of cache would be the answer.
Based on the cores in Llano they could potentially sell 10 core desktop chips with that design.
Shrunk stars (apparently the core gains ~5%) + 5% in cache improvements and look what you have, 10% IPC improvement. Llano has hit 4.6 already, and it has a f(l)ucking GPU on the die, so we could have possibly seen an 8 core based on stars cores doing 4.6 to 4.8 Ghz.
Obviously one would believe that Bulldozer is better.
Ill be happy when they finally release it and i can order it off of newegg
If you have the 8 core version (4 module), it will beat intels chips when 8 cores are utilised. If people want single thread performance, then Intel will undoubtedly have that area sawn up. If you're a gamer, then a 4 core intel will be a beter chip than a bulldozer.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
It's no wonder AMD are going for the server market, as these chips will sell like :banana::banana::banana::banana: off a shovel in the multi-threaded environment. Desktop wise, just buy what you can afford, unless you want the best, then get an intel.
Historically, node shrinks haven't worked magic for AMD. I know you haven't seen many shrinks yet, but that's just how it has been for them to date. The most lackluster shrink in my memory was when Thoroughbred cores came out on 130nm. They had trouble matching what 180nm had been doing at first.
HKMG may change things or maybe it will be a good node for AMD regardless. You just can't assume that a new node will mean a magic 20-25% frequency increase based on history, and that's my only real bone to pick here. People are expecting 5 GHz when even 4 GHz is a mixed bag? They're setting themselves up for disappointment.
Hasn't Llano already hit 4.6 Ghz? Thats why I made the post I made. ...and theres a GPU on that die soQuote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Bulldozer is high frequency design. Only limit for clocking 8 core BD@5 GHz is TDP. 3.8 GHz version has turbo core for half modules up to 4.8 GHz! That is stock frequency. Here is my calculation:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/2s9vot2.jpg
This is for only 20% of IPC improvement over Stars core.
some prediction for overclocking:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/34t5zyq.jpg
Uhm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Im old.
Palominos were pretty lackluster in overclocking department, 1.7-1.8ghz was really max what they do.
Thoroughbred-A had a problem, yes, it overclocked 1.9-2.1 and was hot.It was a failed design, AMD quickly had done Tbred-B, which overclocked like crazy.2.3ghz up to 2.5 on water.Had one DLT3C if i remember correctly, done 2330 on air.Than came the barton, which on the same node pushed up to 2.7ghz on water.My barton mobile did post on winter air at 2.95ghz ,My palomino 1700+ on the same board did 1.85ghz max POST.Dont tell me thats no difference.
However, if you want to poimt out failed shrink.
Theres the brisbane core.
65nm brisbane clocked worse than 90nm windsor, at the same time being slower clock for clock.
did brisbane have any 125w cpus?
I dont think it was able to clock high enough to fit in a 125w TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
They hit about 3100...that was, the 5000 BE, some hit 3.2, but they werent close to as good as Windsor F3s. 6400+ non BE was 125w....
I've got an idea. Stop speculating and just wait for the real deal.
Speculation is in out Blood BUT if you have something to chew on pls. pls. pls. give us a peak ;):DQuote:
Originally Posted by chew*
even they are speculating :shrug:
http://www.overclock.net/hardware-ne...x-8130-es.html
They are always speculating.
Hmm ok I will leak something. Unlike Intel's P67 launch. SATA works.Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
wohoooooo we have a leak :ROTF:
SATA works!!!
now is that SATA2 or SATA3?
990fxa-ud3 = best bet
@Rider Please belive me ... it is inconceivable that Gigabyte doesn't have a digital vrm,or buttons to start your system or to make an overclock or maybe a EFI bios or maybe a debug led.
By OBr Crosshair 5 is no1 right now. Belive me i had to be a gigabyte fan but right now I hate them. We live in 2011 not in 1990 :))
I have some idea :)...But u right, better is waiting, I only like not some bull*ts here :-/. Example post "1053", its impossible (4.8 GHz stock turbo clock).Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
I was primarily addressing beep. You do seem to agree with me in spirit though, noting the 65nm shrink's less than steller performance jump. The string of these shrink events are the history I base my generalization on. It's more historically accurate than someone expecting a major increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
My point isn't in regards to BD. I've been referring to beep's quote, "Considering a simple Stars shrink to 32nm should do 4.6-4.8 Ghz I would guess." It's a bad assumption based on history.Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
As for BD itself, we don't have any idea what frequency target the BD design had in mind during design, just that it should be higher than Phenom II. Hopefully there aren't any major problems with that goal, but if there are by the time the chips hit retail we'll likely see a later stepping fix them. I'm not worried about it. Also, 4.8 GHz turbo is old info. The latest rumors are that the 3.8 turbos to 4.2. Also keep in mind that these are rumors. We don't know any launch models with certainty.
4.8 Ghz turbo was fake from 1.4., unfortunately:). Example...SB likes hight clocks too, but we have stock models with 3.4 GHz and up to 3.8 GHz Turbo (95W TDP), potentially could be SB about 3.9GHz and up to 4.3 GHz Turbo with 125W TDP. So...4.8 GHz BD really not :)
If you read carefully you'll see that he's projecting OC performance of 4.8GHz. He also states 1GHz turbo for half modules engaged and 400MHz for all cores activated which seems reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
ive got a question ... how can turbo be only 400mhz when its 500mhz on the server platform on all 16 cores ????
As far as we know the Zambezi ES reach 3.2GHz+, retail version often higher than ES about 20%-30% in freq, so perhaps those spec on the wikipedia(8150,C0,4GHz) may be reliable however as a clue.
Well, his 400MHz isn't unreasonably high, that's what I was getting to. But I agree, some 6-800MHz for all cores if TDP allows is more in line with what I'm projecting.
Bad assumption based on history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
...they went from ~2.6 Ghz to ~3.4-3.7 from 65nm to 45nm, also added major power efficiency improvements, keep in mind Phenom II is the same core as Phenom it was a shrink with optimizations and extra cache...and look how much faster the same core is CPC.
Not sure why you would focus on a process two generations back instead of focus on the most recent. If we get gains at 32nm like we did at 45nm, then Stars would easily be doing 5 Ghz and have 5-10% better IPC.
Initial Shanghai has only 2.6-3.0GHz, later amd release 3.2-3.4Ghz Deneb, so if Zambezi higher than 3.5Ghz even with turbo it may not be a disappointment. Not to mention ES has 3.2Ghz clock, only ES.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Fastest 65nm was 2.6...
Thats what I'm saying.
Their maximum on 65nm was about 2.6-2.7 Ghz if they were to push frequencies and on 45nm the same core made it all the way to 3.7 Ghz.
To have the same freq. scaling they would need to start out with a 3.7 Ghz chip. Not that it matters with a different architecture...
As they managed a 2.5 multiplier turbo on half the cores for the 1055T, i'm thinking in the lines of:
Attachment 116863
still waiting for retail
I focus on the past because one data point doesn't make a trend. If this node and the next node both offer good gains in frequency when shrinking existing designs, I'd be inclined to say the trend has changed. Basing your prediction of a major improvement on a single data point when the last few before it didn't pan out the same way is being hopeful, not logical. Also keep in mind that I'm only talking about shrinks of an existing architecture and that I'm only commenting on node performance at introduction. AMD's processes always mature nicely. They just usually suffer a rocky start.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I think it will not be based on core usage, but on power consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
Beep I know what you try to say, but AMD's 65nm process was bad, therefore it is bad to reference to it and extrapolate process improvements between nodes. On another hand 32nm process introduces Gate First and HKMG which somewhat balances things out. I doubt though it balances things enough for basing any clock improvement extrapolating AMD's 65nm->45nm transition. Besides we initially had 2.6GHz Agena to 3.0GHz Deneb! The difference you're referring to is for both mature processes. When BD launches 32nm SOI won't be mature enough to fully extract available performance. I expect close to 5GHz stable OC from BD style design on fully mature 32nm process after 2-3 design revisions. Initially I'm hoping to be able to clock 1 core towards 4.8-5GHz stable. All 8 cores @4.4GHz would be sweet for me as well. On air that is :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Bulldozer ES vs Core i7-990X gaming showdown
CPUs overclocked to 4 GHz, SLI Nvidia GTX 580
Have a look here, it is at the bottom of that page: http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/za...-zari?start=11
Don't speak Czech or Google translate too gritty? Look here: http://www.maltrabob.com/BDvi7.html
Considering that we are still talking about engineering sample, the results are not bad at all in my opinion.
I wonder how many cores do those games use, if only use less than quad core then it's a good sign, because bulldozer module is not true dual core but somewhat weaker dual core, take the crappy ES bug especially frequency problem into account then Zambezi looks optimistic.
Ive got a feeling those games are gpu limited at these settings.Anyone has GTX 580 SLI to do a compare ?
Yes, but the ones above ~150 fps really start to show a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
AGAIN, OBR posted a Cinebench 11.5 stable screen at 4.67 Ghz. That thing has a GPU on the die...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
If it were stars alone on AM3+ I'd expect up close to 4.8 Ghz with some chips. Add four more cores? Okay, lets go with 4.6.
...
Because they are clocked a lot lower :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Wouldn't this be enough to indicate it's likely not a 'Dozer chip?Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...byte/bios5.jpg
1.4750V default, 2.0750 overvolted? :confused: :(
EDIT: Nevermind, I see what he did. Was showing max voltage for each. I'm going to assume that 1.4750 is also just the ES chip pre-set voltage to make sure it's stable. At least, I'm hoping that's the case.
I like how this came up after someone finally made a speculation about performance being 20% better then phenom II.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
when will allll this NDA be lifted!?
tomorrow :)Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
The NDA is under NDA. Good luck getting any information from AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
Where did you get this, today is Llano nda lift.As for BD, only krishna(or insert other deity here) knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by kam03
Ive been watching this thread and :rofl: at many of statements and have to agree with chew "I've got an idea. Stop speculating and just wait for the real deal. " I sure hope we wont need a BD to get us out of the hole you guys have dug with all the speculating and need bridge to make our way out.
If your enjoying it now, just wait till its released..lots of shouting for who was rightQuote:
Originally Posted by AMD_Freak
Not to mention the denial of fact from those who were wrong but refuse to acknowledge it.
Thats why i sigged two extremes ;-).Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
I however think that the truth will lie exactly in the middle.
Erm... I pulled it out from my ass :DQuote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
If you are referring to BDQuote:
Originally Posted by kam03
survey say's XXXXXXXXX wrong.
I give up.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
If Stars is "greater than 6%" better than previous stars, I'd expect at least 15-20% from Bulldozer would I not? Otherwise, Trinity would be a total waste of time in using Bulldozer cores for a measly 4% increase (if it were 10% faster) to be made up by 100 Mhz in clock. Not to mention Llano is L3 free, who knows what performance benefits that core would have with L3? 10%? ...oh wait, I'm not supposed to be logical.
/end my posting in this thread
Tin hats.
Time to talk about some funnier stuff.
I took the time to modify some funny chops people did in another thread into a short narrative.
http://chew.ln2cooling.com/Simon%20s...ver%209000.jpg
I want not be bad, but...:-)
http://vr-zone.com/articles/sandy-br...012/12816.html
Yea, and Ivy Bridge surprisingly got pushed back to March 2012 too (read that a few days ago, before SBe delay was mentioned). Wonder if it has something to do with Intel using PowerVR graphics core, having problems getting it to play nice or as powerful. That's all I can figure given it's occured not long after Sabine platform launch, and then SBe happens damn near the same time as Lynx platform launched >_> Intel somehow misjudge what AMD's graphics were going to be capable of? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Would it be over optimistic to think maybe Intels spys in AMD have bought back some info on BD performance so revisions are needed by intel so in Jan they can regain the crown that BD may take when it comes out? Any way, where are the lines drawn between hopeful > optimistic > over optimistic :rolleyes: