:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
http://www.overclock.net/gallery/dat.../IMAG03221.jpg
Like OMG I has one too :shocked:
Printable View
:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
http://www.overclock.net/gallery/dat.../IMAG03221.jpg
Like OMG I has one too :shocked:
I think, here is not much people, who has final revision of ES...Maybe nobody in this forum. Dont know.
Canihaz omgwtfbbq bulldozer?!?
Can we get cheez on the chips?Quote:
Originally Posted by richierich
Extra cheez is not compatible with OMGWTFBBQ BULLDOZER on AM3 sockets. That feature will be enabled on OMGWTFBBQAM3r2
Extra cheese will cost you extra. It's not an included topping.
What, no beer?
OH... beer cooled.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
i predict we have a few people lying to us here on the forum. I think chew* has one and i don't care if he says otherwise. I still think he has one if he says he doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
so chew* don't try to convince me otherwise
:rofl::ROTF::rofl::ROTF::rofl::ROTF:
If he has early silicon, I think B1 or earlier, we know those parts are really slow, ~K8 performance.
RussC
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
how much better can the memory get when jumping from thuban to BD, since both are still on AM3/AM3+?
is it even possible for amd to modify the memory section of the cpu to be up there with SB in terms of MB/s of read/write/copy?
i know the northbridge might not really control the memory much anymore, but does it still have an impact on the efficiency?
Well for one, official memory support is up from DDR1333 to DDR1866, a theoretical increase of 40% right there. Secondly, we know how NB-F affects bandwidth, and if it's up from 2000MHz to 3200MHz... That'll be another nice jump.
1866mhz means almost nothing
my new ram over 2000mhz is hardly 30% faster than ddr2 800mhz i have from 3 years ago, due to timings.
That isn't really the same as in this case where we're talking about the same generation of memory. DDR3-1333 at C7 versus DDR3-1866 at C7 will yield a large improvement. C7 DDR3 is available through at least DDR3-2000 speeds, so it's certainly possible to scale bandwidth a lot more than you're suggesting. It looks like you can even get DDR3-2000 @ C6 these days.
im interested in efficiencyQuote:
Originally Posted by Particle
right now the same speeds between thuban and SB is no where near the same results in memory tests. can BD jump that gap while still being on the same socket?
Please define what you mean by "efficiency".Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Since the memory controller is on the chip then theoretically there is no reason that bandwidth can't be higher and the latency lower on BD than it was on Deneb/Thuban.
There is no way to predict relative performance at this time.
how many MB/s you get when using a specified mhz/timing combinationQuote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
just looking at the bandwidth section you see top amd chips get 15000MB/s while SB gets 26000MB/s, when both are running similar ram.
i think there is an actual number for efficiency percentage in apps like sandra which tell you how much of your theoretical performance you are getting. ill look for a screenshot
And what do SB and Thuban NOT have in common? The memory controller. There's no reason for not being able to use a completely different memory controller with a given number of pins - remember that with the memory controller on the CPU the motherboard doesn't really come into play that much.
There is few main reasons for increase of bandwidth efficiency with Bulldozer CPU:
1. memory controller is improved, but, memory controller on K10 isn't bad, except relativly low clocked NB/L3 plane. With 3.2 GHz bandwidth efficiency can go up by 20% with fast 1866MHz CL7 RAM. Also latency will go down with fast memory and such fast northbridge.
2. Cache architecture. That is main reason why Nehalem and SB has better memory performance than K10. Now, L1-D cache is inclusive, because BD has large L2 cache, and larger L3, There is no need for snoop trafic between L1-D and L2. Now in L2 BD has copy of L1-D, from core0 and core1.
Also cache bandwidth is much improved.
3. Better prefetcher. L2 cache has non-strided and strided data prefetcher.
Load-Store buffers, and OOO Load-Stores are vastly improved. Now Bulldozer CPU is much more bandwidth hungry, and far less memory latency sensitive, just like Intel.
Of course, we don't know how Dozzers works and we have to wait to see real difference from older AMD CPU's. :)
Good summary list drfedja. We already know from analyst day slide that 20% is core level improvement in IMC while the rest of the quoted(50% memory BW improvement) comes from higher supported DRAM speeds,namely 1600Mhz Vs 1333Mhz for current opterons. So for zambezi we will have 1866Mhz vs current 1333Mhz(Thuban) and on top of this speedup we have the 20% that AMD is stating for improved IMC. In total up to 1.2x1866/1333=68% higher BW with Zambezi X8/X4/X6 running 1866MHz DualCh. memory versus Thuban X6/X4 running 1333Mhz DualCh. memory.
If you put DDR3 2000 with Thuban Core, you can't get more bandwidth than DDR3 1333 if you have 2 GHz NB only. But if you clock nb@3 GHz, and DDR3 @2 GHz, memory performance will be much better. Also, if CPU cores are clocked higher, memory bandwidth (efficiency) will be higher.
However, if you have better cache architecture and better uarchitecture bandwidth efficiency will be higher.
This slides ilustrates influence of ram frequency and NB frequency to memory performance scaling and everest read/write/cpy bandwidth.
http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//read.png
http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//write.png
http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//copy.png
http://hwbot.org/blog/wp-content//latency.png
Guys the box Brian holds and the box the guy from PCGH holds have the same writing on it lol what did some of you expect by blowing it up and enhancing it?
You said it yourself. It isn't the memory speed that makes the difference so small. It's the memory controller in K10 that is to weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
K10 has good memory copy, but not much good write and read.
Some price information, not sure if this has been posted already.
The FX6110 is more expensive than 2500k, and the FX4110 is right below it. The FX81xx is actually _more_ expensive than the 2600k. Knowing AMD, they probably wouldn't make it more expensive if it isn't faster. Looking good so far!Quote:
llano
E2-3250 = 70$
A4-3350 = 80$
A6-3450 = 110$
A6-3450P = 130$
A6-3550 = 150$
A8-3550P = 170$
Bulldozer priced similar to sb.
FX4110 = 190$
FX6110 = 240$
FX8110 = 290$
FX8130P = 320$
PII's are expected to have 15-20% pricecut.
That's probably what they pay per 1000 units, retail will likely be more
FX6 and FX8 have more cores than 2600k tough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Core count doesn't really matter in terms of pricing. Performance has historically been used so long as they aren't cutting dangerously low to die cost.
FX6 has 3 modules and 6 threads, FX8 has 4 modules and 8 threads, while the i7 2600 has 4 cores and 8 threads. what are u trying to say?
the high price for the 4110 suggests that it does very well with turbo to push the limits of the power envelope
basically for 95W you can get 6 fast cores or 4 really fast cores, otherwise we would have seen it priced way lower than the 6110
1.272v for full load with turbo on!!!!
btw you might want to be careful with that, we can measure the pixel count and see how long the extra ram was used to determine how long the test has been running,
and what % is left and get a pretty good estimate of the total time it would take to finish, then convert to a score
lol :rotf:Quote:
Originally Posted by manicdan
@liberato87: that is a FAKE. and no, im not just thinking it could be, i KNOW it is.
I never said it is official (nobody can say that). IMHO it is the screen nearest to the reality (other screens : vcore too high, frequency too low )Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
also in these days we ve seen some photos hosted on that site with crosshair V and AMD "strange" boxes. so I think it maybe true!
Tell us what do you know about that! thanks!
this is a complete photoshop, it was meant as a joke. i know the guy who faked it from a german forum.
I was wonder How they got firefox before the start quick start icons.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
by the way bulldozers has already been noted to have a 2.4ghz North bridge speed.
so I take it we all believe it has a 3.2ghz Hyper transport?
And 2600K is on average just ~4-5% slower than 980x while being 4x or more cheaper. Meaning cores do little on desktop,except in few select applications. Microacrhitecture,how it behaves in real world workloads and actual support in applications all play a major role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
source?Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
i dont know how to recognize a fake but
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/9440e01/
and this is my screen analyezed
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/e34fb4d/
i think the result is the same.. and I not need to do a fake for 7.12 cinebench lol
That's normal, they aren't quick start just pinned.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Image posted by liberato87 is a 100% fake. Because it is already known that in CPU-Z string HT-Link/Rated FSB for Bulldozer must be EMPTY. Author of CPU-Z have posted the real CPU-Z image for Bulldozer in his article: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/833-...bulldozer.html
Also it was confirmed by one of the testers (who already received Bulldozer) in his blog. Unfortunately he already deleted the entry, which had some additional info about Bulldozer memory controller speed and power consumption.
Any screenshot that has CPU-Z showing some kind of HT-link frequency - is fake.
PS For the abovementioned screenshot - also please look at how the model's right hand can be seen through Windows Task Manager window. It's clearly shifted to add more cores. ;)
i AM the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by liberato87
On the server side shanghai cpu's already had an higher HT than NB speed. Where was this 2.4GHz NB speed mentioned? Must have missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
A module is not analogous to a core with hyperthreading.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
If it has a 2.4 Ghz NB speed then it will have a 2.4 Ghz HT speed...Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
HT 3.0 as 890FX boards have currently is good for 5.2 Ghz or 2600 stock...
A module is exactly analogous to a core with hyperthreading; if they price it the chips in the same price range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
If they don't want a module to compete with a hyperthreaded core, then they will price their chips accordingly. Otherwise w0mbat was completely correct.
But then you were also correct in that performance and pricing is more paramount anyway. When people point to an Intel part that is 4x the price and 15% faster they are not looking at a real world solution.
I guess until we see actual performance AND prices we won't really know much. (I'd love to see the 2M/4T BD compete just fine against a 4C/8T Intel chip... but I would expect more to see the 2M/4T chip competing more with the Intel 4C/4T chip. I guess we'll all probably know in about a month.)
IPC is not the same between any generation or any company
back when cpus were all one core, the GHZ didnt matter since the time when AMD was ahead, they did it with lower clocks. (2500+ running at 1.8ghz for example)
prices are set 90% of the time, by performance relative to current offerings of the total chips features, which has now expanded to single threaded, few threads, and highly multi-threaded performance
No...Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Module is just a term to explain how AMD shares parts between physical cores.
One module has TWO physical cores...HyperThreaded threads have nothing to do with TWO PHYSICAL CORES
Of course AMD can price an 8 core to SB's 4/8...but wombat wasnt talking about competing, he was stating that basically thats what AMD's modules are.
It's almost like buying a pack of batteries in twos instead of buying individual packs of batteries with just one battery inside...you save some space the packaging takes up. That's all a module does.
8 cores, 8 threads. There is no option to turn "HT" off, and single threaded workloads are not going to skyrocket in performance like they would if you were running 4 threads on a 4/8 SB chip rather than 8.
For example if you ran 4 threads of HyperPi on Bulldozer vs 8 for the most part all threads 4 or 8 will perform equally. If you ran 4 threads of HyperPi on SB it would be significantly faster than if you ran 8 threads of HyperPi.
Actually the ONLY thing that needs to be considered when wondering if a module is analogous to a hyperthreaded core is the intentions of the architects for both companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
If they were creating their design for basically the same purpose then the designs are exactly analogous.
The questions of whether one design is more elegant or performs better or costs more are actually secondary. (And your last example means absolutely nothing; although is does display the reason Hyperthreading is not an optimal solution.)
Module design intentions: Save die space vs conventional core layoutQuote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
HT design intentions: Make use of unused CPU cycles, because of stupidly long instruction pipelines
Two can play that game:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Module design intentions: Increase throughput for the amount of space used in the die.
HT design intentions: Increase throughput for the amount of space used in the die.
(And the use of stupidly long instruction pipelines has always been a bad way to increase performance anyway; if you accept your "intention" as being true you are also saying that hyperthreading was created to resolve a poor design.)
a module is not a dual-core. otherwise it would just be called dual-core and not module.
thats the problem here, we have something that hasnt been there before and we try to compare it to something that has been there before.
yes, a BD module has 2 int core. but other units, that a dual-core would have twice too, are shared. so a module is something between a single-core and a dual-core.
intels HTT isnt even near being a dual-core, but there are some units doubled compared to a "normal" single-core.
my problem is, that ppl are comparing 1 BD module to 2 SB cores and thats not right too. lets just say that its like comparing a cat to a dog. they both got 4 legs and a tail, but still they are different.
prepare for car analogy:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
SB is a coupe
BD is a sedan
both hold 4 people, one just has more room for them to get in or out.
both have 4 wheels, one looks faster being smaller, and probably is faster when only having 2 people in there, but the other can hold the 4 people comfortably as its used.
and no this is not suppose to make perfect sense, lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
DEPENDENT ON PRICE it might be much more logical to compare a module to a hyperthreaded core than it would be to compare a module to 2 hyperthreaded cores.
So what is logical to compare might not be the same as what they plan on competing with. It will all come down to performance.
If a module performs almost identical to a single hypethreaded core, then I would expect them to price the chips accordingly. But in the same light if a module performs at least 85% as well as 2 hyperthreaded cores... then I would expect them to also price it accordingly.
BTW: It doesn't matter that the chips are different; people are going to compare based on SOMETHING. I would personally use performance/price. But we'll have the performance at all cost people comparing other things.
How about just comparing the performance at the same price point? :rolleyes:
This eternal argument of cores/threads/modules leads us nowhere, especially without ACTUAL BENCHMARKS.
we can say this it should be at least faster then phenom II clock pre clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Well tbh it would behoove AMD to market a Module as a core, with 2 threads inside each module...........Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Why?
Because more often than not it will get compared to an equivalent intel part with 4 cores........which happens to have 8 threads.
Just like HWbot where wprime rankings are based on the amount of cores not threads due to it being a "feature".
Amd needs to term this as a "feature" or they are still in the same boat they have always been...........competing with 8 threads less in an 8 core benchmark........when socket 2011 hits.
Touting the claim "worlds first 8 core cpu has minimal short term returns"
Touting performance claims AMD's 4 core solution = or better than intels current 4 core parts " long term gains"
I still say the first company to figure out how to stack cores ( cascade them if you will ) so 2# 3 gig parts = a singlethreaded 6gig core finds the honey.
Whether that is physically possible I have no clue however thats what I think will change the processor world forever.
4 threads less. Socket 2011 will be limited to hexcores for the time being.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Also AMD will have 5 module desktop variants in 2012, should arrived within 6months of s2011 intels.
It comes around to what I said about chip developer/designer INTENT.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Q: How many threads did the developers of the Intel chip with 4 hyperthreaded cores plan to optimally service?
Q: How many threads did the developers of the 8 core AMD chip, comprised of 4 cores, plan to optimally service?
In both cases the number of cores (or modules) is not as important as the number of threads the designer planned to support.
The problem still lies in the fact that because of this most reviewers are going to head to head it not based on pricing but based on flagship multicored parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Bulldozer will go head to head with gulftown, 8 threads to 12 threads yet the review will get spun as a 6 core part beating a 8 core part in multithreaded performance if 8 cores is not enough to beat 12 threads which based on my personal calculations is going to be close.
The flip side of this is they will also compare to a cheaper sandy part which by my estimations will lose in multithreaded.......however IPC wise at same clocks lets face it, sandy bridge is going to be a tough nut to crack.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
AH... I predict that you are correct. That is exactly what might happen. Less knowledgeable people will be deceived.
In the past this has happened so often that I just kind of accept it and laugh at the people that will base their opinions on what the people screaming the loudest will be shouting.
But that is just the way things will be since there a MANY MANY more Intel advocates than there are AMD advocates. So we can expect people to award the fictional and pointless "crown" based on things that mean nothing. So in other words nothing has changed for a few years.
In his blog, CPUZ creator used older than available build of cpuz so that doesnt prove anything.Until he confirms the same can be said of the newest builds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daimler
Marketing as 8 core is what will sell more of them, same reason why people buy 2gb graphics cards even though they have a 1280x1024 screen.
Bigger is better, or so they think. Tbh it's only intel fanboys who try to spin the whole "4 cores is better than your 6 cores" argument anyway.
well, a FX8 is kinda close to a 8-core cpu and if the i7 2600k is faster that does indeed say something. it may be 8 threads vs. 8 threads, but its 4 int cores vs. 8 int cores.
we just have to find an point where we can say "yes, a module doesnt equal 2 cores but it equals xxx". i think the 1.8x thats floating around for CMT is quiet good.
Nvidia and ati have vastly different approaches to their chips, the fact that ati has more shaders doesnt mean shader per shader it has to be faster.People seem to understand that.
So whats so hard to comprehend about this ?
Intel has bigger cores, more powerful ones, AMD has more of them but theyre less complex.Easy peasy.
Only metrics that matter are:
Chip size @ same process node
Performance per watt
Performance per $
But what all those 4/8/12/whatever cores/modules are for if you run single threaded application on them? They are wasted. You guys seem to silently assume that all of the algorithms your shiny new amd systems will be chewing up are easy scalable, multi threaded ones. There are only several classes of computational problems which show such a property. And in this regard amd is clearly suggesting now and then that they emphasize multi-core efficiency and put it above IPC performance in their BD architecture.
And this is very wrong. This is wrong especially because single threaded performance is exactly what their current offering is lacking in comparison to the closest competitor. This is a mistake today and will be tomorrow.
WTF? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by piquadrat
How the hell do you know that Bulldozer's IPC will not be better?
How many applications are single-threaded today? lol. So many more programs are programmed for more than 1 thread now. Dual-cores have been around for so long. Same with quad-cores. Now where do you think the future is headed? And even then AMD has said there will be an IPC increase over K10.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by piquadrat
I think what the poster was trying to say is AMD has no issues hitting high clocks, it has no issues getting more cores in a chip so what it really needs to focus on is IPC and in a big way.
If they got the IPC up to snuff even 2-3% less than intel........they wouldn't need to keep adding cores, the performance would work across the board including multithreaded, later dates they could add more cores as needed.
Intel's strong single thread performance has a lot to do with their turbo setup. BD looks like it will have a very agreessive Turbo feature... and we won't know for sure how it does till we see real results.Quote:
Originally Posted by piquadrat
Thats not what matters though..........
Maybe this will shed some light on what i'm trying to say.
Apples to apples cores/threads.
core i5 2500K 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 5.9 = 5.109
Amd phenom II x4 955 4 cores / 4 threads wprime at 6.6 = 5.516
Bottom line IPC carries over to multithreaded performance............
I would argue that the case of a single threaded program with no multitasking OS is just as rare as the case of the MT program that scales perfectly with extra cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by piquadrat
Every modern OS has many threads running in the background. And when you run a single threaded program a multicore processor lets you run other programs without taking cpu resources from the first program. Most people people won't fall in the extreme single core or extreme multicore case but rather somewhere in between. Where they fit in that spectrum depends on what applications they use and how they use them.
I'm glad that Intel and AMD are taking different approaches because designing a processor that is optimal for that entire spectrum of computer usage would be highly impractical. If you are running a single threaded program and can't do other stuff at the same time, say benching with superpi, then Intel's processors would probably be the better choice. Or if you are running a MT program that scales with cores or running a large number of simultaneous processes, such as encoding or many VMs, then AMD's processor might be the better choice.
I think it is a huge flaw of logic to expect one processor to be the best at everything. Not all programs are the same, not all algorithms are the same, and not all users are the same. IMO, it is good that there will be some diversity in the marketplace so we can pick the processors that are best for what we need them to do.
I think there's gotta be a balance...it depends on the architecture design.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
If we have a core that is 10% slower than Intel's but hits 5.5 Ghz on air then it is easily competitive...not only that but you then see higher Mhz and average user is tricked like in P4/A64 days. I think its more about single thread performance as a whole and not just IPC, even though more IPC looks nice on paper depending on how you look at it.
Besides the fact that plenty of programs are multithread and that 95% of the users could do with a dual core, you need to understand that BD is a server chip.AMD share in server is very low (around 7% can't really remember the precise number) and server chips have great margins.AMD has around 29% share in desktop and they are ok with that but in notebooks they are at ~13.5% so they are bringing in Llano and in server BD.Quote:
Originally Posted by piquadrat
The problem is currently what we have is a cpu that clocks less for normal temps.........and when it is cranked even 700 mhz higher cold than competitior. It's still losing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Llano imo is a smart move for AMD, most users don't need all that cpu power, and don't want to buy a high priced vga.
Enter builds that can be done with vga excluded, and built into cpu, something AMD can beat intel at in laptop or low end desktop.
Bulldozer I can't comment on, and I doubt we will see to much even at our around the 7th pertaining to it.
I still think they need to fill that niche with a high IPC moderate cored cpu however.
That's less than 15% higher then 5.9Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
by my math that was only close to 12% over 5.9.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
honstly bulldozer seems to have a lot less missed IPC pre clock then K10.
which mean it has higher IPC then K10.
At least compare same gen competitor chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
i5 2500K
FX4000
Oh my god...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendork
I think I'm done posting in this thread.
Technically you can compare i7 920 to AMD Phenom II 940BE, or if you feel that those are not "same gen" then 955BE, the Phenom II chip is gonna fail hard to the intel chip stock OR overclocked even on LN2 to the 920 despite the fact that its BCLK limited.
Now what are we supposed to do, compare a chip released several months ago to a chip that doesn't even exist in public yet? :rolleyes:
...and I'm the furthest thing from an intel fanboy.
FX 4000 is not out nor do I have accurate numbers nor do I intend to guess.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendork
My compare was of what I could apple to apple core per core thread for thread.......
Do you think if i chopped 2 cores off thuban it would be any diff?
Yes i'm very interested how 4 core bulldozer will stack up in the same compare.
Tbh tired of benching intel............
Llano I can do the compare on soon......but I already know the outcome, it's deneb with an IGP tossed in......
Do they really?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
What is better: 5% higher IPC or being able to clock 10% higher, within the same power budget and die area?
In case of BD, if the single threaded workload is mainly integer, it will be able to benefit from an aggressive turbo (possibly doing speculative execution with the help of the second core of the module too), if the workload is FP (and not AVX), it will be able to utilize both halfs of the FlexGPU, running two instructions in parallel, if possible. I am therefore not particualry worried about single thread performance. Yet. :)
Tbh your not missing out on much, not to many buttons you can push which is why I prefer clocking locked parts or AMD stuff cold. I rarely sell my cpu's unless i have duplicates and I sold my only 5.5 gig 2500K chip......that should say something.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I'm tired of benching Thuban over and over...(exactly why I should have bought a 2500k to play with)Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
I fired up the Windsor 5600+ tonight, was gonna put the H70 in ice water...board is dead, bricked it after I flashed the bios and I dont have a spare chip.
Interesting. You have any working AM2 boards or spare time by chance? Otherwise I cant hotflash this one because I dont have another board to do it with.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
How about 15% higher IPC as well as being able to clock 10% higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
SB at stock makes Thuban overclocked look like a childrens toy.
When AMD first came on the seen they never tried to be better, faster. What they offered was an alternative. Now the market is more "diverse" Diff cpu's for diff tasks.....I don't expect them to make a better cpu in that category, But i sure would like an alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
Maybe not in the very begining, but AMD definetly tries to compete with Intel from a performance standpoint...Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
The Athlon was the first CPU to break the 1Ghz barrier, and the A64 actually handed P4's their lunch before C2D came out.
It may not happen this round, but there are some pretty bright engineers at AMD... :yepp:
What ever happened to Cyrix anyway.... :p:
Cyrix was bought by National Semi in 1997. Was then later sold to VIA ~1999 or 2000.
Just Googled it.
RussC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
That was really intended to be a rhetorical question... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
Cyrix seemed to be the company that just wanted to be an alternative and not actually compete. Hence, they disappeared.
Thanks for the info though! :)
The actual owner of Bulldozer used the latest CPU-Z version available and had HT-Link missing too. He explained it as some technical difference between Phenom and Bulldozer and cautioned that if you see screenshot with some digits there than it's not Bulldozer.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
So it is out of question - HT-link must be blank or it's fake.
1. Find maximum multiplierQuote:
Originally Posted by chew*
2. Benchmark
That's about all there is to it. No more comparing (for example)
200*13.5
225*12
270*10
300*9
to see which gives you the best balance. Going cold gains stability but not speed. It's all just press a button and hope for the best.
Now will be the first native octa-core and new "modul" design. It will be about die size and performance efectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
I *think* Intel already has eight core chips in the high end server market. I know there's a thread here somewhere about the upcoming ten core chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
ok, first in desktop :)
Bulldozer is the first 8 core die (as opposed to putting two 4-6 core dies on one chip)
Can someone tell me, why Daimler's post was deleted? Were those shots fake? :)
Sandy is being Bulldozered. At last ^_^
enjoy:
http://i.piccy.info/i5/84/46/1524684/screen1_500.jpg
http://i.piccy.info/i5/92/46/1524692/screen2_500.jpg
PS Post restored. Had to clear some things up.
PSS Can't confirm that this is 100% true, but it's from blog of a real Bulldozer owner here: http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/05/wow-enjoy.html
oh, ok.
Without a cpu-z and a rev version even if thats not a fake its pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daimler
Your not going to be able to extrapolate any correct data from silicon that any endusers has at this point in time.
This whole thread is about fakes. Totally pointless...
Also, trusting OBR would be quite short-sighted to say the least.
zalbard nah, at least we have something to argue about till the official release and benchmarks show up. ;)
7.37 in Cinebench 11.5 is BD????
I get 7.14 on 1090T @ 4Ghz/2.6NB.
1090T @ 4.2 gave me 7.42!!!!!!
No way will BD be the same performance as a thuban lol!
Besides - I heard today, that BD is being delayed :( :( :(
You don't even know what speed cine was run at..........Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomee
Delayed?
It was never to launch the 7th.........thats Llano........people are getting there dates/info wrong/mixxed up.
1. you are comparing your extremely OC´ed CPU to one where u dont even know the clock speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomee
2. no, BD is not delayed.