Bulldozers first screens

good point! - I auto presumed it was 3.8 as per other 'leaked' benchies ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

You don't even know what speed cine was run at..........

---

Or the number of cores used.
Which means it's also pretty useless in terms of comparing BD to SB even if it is real.

look at R10, here seems very, very good. 28 000points is simillary as 980x think...R11.5 its good, better than 2600k. But:
1) we dont know, if this fake or not
2)BD modul is not as 2 todays cores, it is better alternative to hyperthreading

Do those scores even match up properly? If it's 28k in R10 surely it would be higher than 7.37 in 11.5?

Also : OBR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

Do those scores even match up properly? If it's 28k in R10 surely it would be higher than 7.37 in 11.5?

Also : OBR.

---

Ditto on both things.

The R10 score is indeed slightly higher than a 980x (ie:http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-11.html), which is also almost exactly the promised 50% with 33% more cores (ie:http://www.overclockers.com/wp-conte...cb10-graph.jpg). While the 11.5 score is only an almost exactly 25% improvment over thuban... does it differ so much from R10? If that was a 6core BD on the other hand....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

Do those scores even match up properly? If it's 28k in R10 surely it would be higher than 7.37 in 11.5?

Also : OBR.

---

What's OBR? :)

By the way, cinebench 10 I get 21964p on thuban @3.9ghz
and cinebench 11.5 I get 6.85.

OBR is a person.

If I would have to guess,then I would say 3Ghz 6C Zambezi.But it may be lower clocked 8C too.Without the CPUz it's pointless.

Oh and if it is 6C 3Ghz Zambezi,then leaked Donanimhaber slide fits perfectly into the picture: C11.5 -> 7.37x1.33=9.8pts for around 3Ghz 8C.Or close to 10.5 for 3.2Ghz version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

If I would have to guess,then I would say 3Ghz 6C Zambezi.But it may be lower clocked 8C too.Without the CPUz it's pointless.

Oh and if it is 6C 3Ghz Zambezi,then leaked Donanimhaber slide fits perfectly into the picture: C11.5 -> 7.37x1.33=9.8pts for around 3Ghz 8C.Or close to 10.5 for 3.2Ghz version.

---

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/05...to-laught.html

lol, that provoked someone with bad english skills :p:

Maybe R11.5 is harder for FP unit?....

If OBR's scores are somewhat representative of final Zambezi 8C then it's not bad! I like the fact it's faster than SB and in some situations even exceeds Intel's most expensive desktop processors. This is a proper step up compared to what AMD can offer at the moment.
Having Zambezi dominating all benchmarks would be nice, but at the same time our wallets would feel the pain!

On another note, OBR stop being so rude! You've been banned on most forums already, soon someone will need to ban you from using internet at all :yepp:

cant wait till bulldozer gets out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0mbat

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/05...to-laught.html

lol, that provoked someone with bad english skills :p:

---

Haha now he spilled all of the beans :D. Ahh it doesn't really matter,results are coming out sooner or later.
Even if it is 8C model it's not bad. But nice to see him reading XS ;).

PS So now Turbo works in heavy FP workloads??Hmm right :).

After looking at the results from "older" CPUs,in both C10 and C11.5,I could see that C11.5 drastically improves scaling with more cores. For example(hardware canucks latest Phenom X4 review) : in C11.5 64bit test 1100T has exactly 50% better result than 3.3Ghz Phenom X4 (normalized for this clockspeed from the result of other X4 Phenom),while in C10 64bit test 1100T has exactly 37% better result than same 3.3Ghz X4 . As can be seen from this,C11.5 does scale much better with cores so the result for Zambezi should go up compared to relative score in C10 Vs 1100T,not down. But we see the opposite ,instead of score going up,the score goes down and scaling is somehow very poor in this test,negating any IPC floating point boost FMAC can give.

Cinebench10 summary(leaked fishy results from that "blogger"):
1100T gets 19164pts, Zambezi X8 @ not 3 Ghz(I assume it's more than 3Ghz then,say 3.2Ghz) gets 28074.This test doesn't scale THAT well with more cores and scaling penalty is 9%(from perfect scaling with more cores- 1100T is 37% faster than 3.3Ghz X4 instead 50% faster). Start from X6 score,apply 33% more cores and 9% scaling penalty and normalize for 3.2Ghz clock : 19164 x 1.33 / 1.09 x 3.2 /3.3=~22675pts. The difference between this score and what he got is IPC improvement+maybe some limited Turbo effect which I won't count since this is heavy FP workload : 28074/22675=1.23x or 23% IPC improvement per core( one 128bit FMAC vs 1 thuban core). Pretty good so far.

Now Cinebench 11.5 results summary:
1100T gets 5.91pts, Zambezi X8@ ~3.2Ghz supposedly gets 7.37pts. Scaling in this test is perfect as can be seen from hardware canucks link.Start from X6 score,apply 33% more cores ,no scaling penalty and normalize for 3.2Ghz clock : 5.91x1.33x3.2/3.3=~7.62pts. This is the hypothetical score of Zambezi X8 that would show ZERO IPC improvement in C11.5 Vs Thuban. Now compare with "blogger's" result of 7.37pts : 7.37/7.62=0.96pts or 4% IPC decrease per core Vs Thuban. Hmm,fishy indeed :). If the CPU would show similar performance gains Vs older generation(thuban) as in previous C10 benchmark, result should have been roughly : 7.62x1.23=9.37pts. This is for around 3.2Ghz clock,since he said it is not 3Ghz and I assume the worst case scenario for Zambezi (best case would be lower than 3Ghz). 3.5Ghz X8 then should have had a score at around 10.25 or in line with DH slide which had projected score due to non-finalized specs in late 2010.

But no, "blogger's " sample somehow sucks in C11.5 :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Start from X6 score,apply 33% more cores ,no scaling penalty and normalize for 3.2Ghz clock : 5.91x1.33x3.2/3.3=~7.62pts. This is the hypothetical score of Zambezi X8 that would show ZERO IPC improvement in C11.5 Vs Thuban. Now compare with "blogger's" result of 7.37pts : 7.37/7.62=0.96pts or 4% IPC decrease per core Vs Thuban. Hmm,fishy indeed :).

---

This is simple:
Theoretical max. 128b FMUL+FADD throughput of Zambezi w/o using FMA is the same as of a X4 per clock. So based on this it should perform lower. But CB is no synthetic benchmark (FMUL+FADD loop) and depends on a lot of other components. And as it is known it isn't that dependent on memory throughput due to data locality. So Zambezi's IMC shouldn't have much influence here.

I haven't seen JF-AMD around lately. He has been conspicuously absent. Maybe they'll tap him to be the next AMD CEO.

/speculation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dresdenboy

This is simple:
Theoretical max. 128b FMUL+FADD throughput of Zambezi w/o using FMA is the same as of a X4 per clock. So based on this it should perform lower. But CB is no synthetic benchmark (FMUL+FADD loop) and depends on a lot of other components. And as it is known it isn't that dependent on memory throughput due to data locality. So Zambezi's IMC shouldn't have much influence here.

---

Thanks for the input. If this is the case,why is then C10 version behaving differently? In this test we see a massive gain .And I doubt that Maxon guys completely rewrote the benchmark code. If you take a look at the link i posted(HW canucks),you can see that any perf. difference between ,say, 2600K and i7-875 is transferred from C10 to C11.5,by the digit(25%). I would expect similar behavior to be seen on Bulldozer too.
But who knows,maybe C11.5 is hitting some limitation in Bulldozer so that we have such a behavior in that test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

I haven't seen JF-AMD around lately. He has been conspicuously absent. Maybe they'll tap him to be the next AMD CEO.

/speculation

---

He is a bit busy. Loads of stuff to do before the bd launch. I mean, when we met for a pint in London, he was traveling non stop. 2 days in one country, two days in another. He mentioned his traveling plans, but I lost track of them as he mentioned so many cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Thanks for the input. If this is the case,why is then C10 version behaving differently? In this test we see a massive gain .And I doubt that Maxon guys completely rewrote the benchmark code. If you take a look at the link i posted(HW canucks),you can see that any perf. difference between ,say, 2600K and i7-875 is transferred from C10 to C11.5,by the digit(25%). I would expect similar behavior to be seen on Bulldozer too.
But who knows,maybe C11.5 is hitting some limitation in Bulldozer so that we have such a behavior in that test.

---

I've seen a discussion about the compilers used for compiling the different CB versions but didn't dig deeply into it. But this might explain at least a bit. Remember that while for SB the cache subsystem architecture didn't change that much while from 10h to BD it did significantly.

One could use CodeAnalyst or VTune to check some basic metrics of CB's code, e.g. percentage of SSE instructions etc.

New snippet from OBR:

Quote:

---

PS .. 7.6 (LL), 11.6 (BD) ... + Richard Huddy to Leave AMD ...

---

Take it as you want.

LL = Llano?

Yep, it is. But once again, I wouldn't completely trust the source. He's been wrong before.

I dont know, its impossible 7p in R11.5 for Llano (yes, its better optimalized than Athlon II, but still is too much, its at OC x6 Thuban)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

After looking at the results from "older" CPUs,in both C10 and C11.5,I could see that C11.5 drastically improves scaling with more cores. For example(hardware canucks latest Phenom X4 review) : in C11.5 64bit test 1100T has exactly 50% better result than 3.3Ghz Phenom X4 (normalized for this clockspeed from the result of other X4 Phenom),while in C10 64bit test 1100T has exactly 37% better result than same 3.3Ghz X4 . As can be seen from this,C11.5 does scale much better with cores so the result for Zambezi should go up compared to relative score in C10 Vs 1100T,not down. But we see the opposite ,instead of score going up,the score goes down and scaling is somehow very poor in this test,negating any IPC floating point boost FMAC can give.

Cinebench10 summary(leaked fishy results from that "blogger"):
1100T gets 19164pts, Zambezi X8 @ not 3 Ghz(I assume it's more than 3Ghz then,say 3.2Ghz) gets 28074.This test doesn't scale THAT well with more cores and scaling penalty is 9%(from perfect scaling with more cores- 1100T is 37% faster than 3.3Ghz X4 instead 50% faster). Start from X6 score,apply 33% more cores and 9% scaling penalty and normalize for 3.2Ghz clock : 19164 x 1.33 / 1.09 x 3.2 /3.3=~22675pts. The difference between this score and what he got is IPC improvement+maybe some limited Turbo effect which I won't count since this is heavy FP workload : 28074/22675=1.23x or 23% IPC improvement per core( one 128bit FMAC vs 1 thuban core). Pretty good so far.

Now Cinebench 11.5 results summary:
1100T gets 5.91pts, Zambezi X8@ ~3.2Ghz supposedly gets 7.37pts. Scaling in this test is perfect as can be seen from hardware canucks link.Start from X6 score,apply 33% more cores ,no scaling penalty and normalize for 3.2Ghz clock : 5.91x1.33x3.2/3.3=~7.62pts. This is the hypothetical score of Zambezi X8 that would show ZERO IPC improvement in C11.5 Vs Thuban. Now compare with "blogger's" result of 7.37pts : 7.37/7.62=0.96pts or 4% IPC decrease per core Vs Thuban. Hmm,fishy indeed :). If the CPU would show similar performance gains Vs older generation(thuban) as in previous C10 benchmark, result should have been roughly : 7.62x1.23=9.37pts. This is for around 3.2Ghz clock,since he said it is not 3Ghz and I assume the worst case scenario for Zambezi (best case would be lower than 3Ghz). 3.5Ghz X8 then should have had a score at around 10.25 or in line with DH slide which had projected score due to non-finalized specs in late 2010.

But no, "blogger's " sample somehow sucks in C11.5 :D.

---

im also still wondering the results, the CB11.5 ones are very reliable as you change cores and speeds, but the architecture change is the real mystery here. but i also dont understand what dres means when he says its the same as x4, since i thought theres 8 pipelines for everything, while only 4 if using avx, which older generation cant even do

the CB10 however i think its bad to compare with an x6 due to how weird it scales with cores. just watching the video you can see how many times one thread is done and has no where to go. i think if someone who has a 2P system, or atleast 8+cores, could test out what happens to the score as they increase the thread count from 1 to max. going from 1 to 2 would nearly double, but 2-3 would be like 40%, but then 2-4 is like 90%, just due to which threads finish early or fast and if they have a proper place to go after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

I dont know, its impossible 7p in R11.5 for Llano (yes, its better optimalized than Athlon II, but still is too much, its at OC x6 Thuban)

---

I think those are not scores but dates,like 7th of June is Llano launch date etc.
But we already knew this so he is just reposting known stuff on his blog.

Oh... ok... 07.06 and 11.06 ...

Ok ... It was just trying to understand those numbers... :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I think those are not scores but dates,like 7th of June is Llano launch date etc.
But we already knew this so he is just reposting known stuff on his blog.

---

Correct, these are dates.

I count days now and not years :D

11th is Saturday. Who launches their products on weekends?

Maybe it's just the date for NDA lift?They may present Zambezi at say Dev Conference or even at Computex.

edit:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=267500
Oliverda's post )"AMD to launch desktop Bulldozer "Zambezi" at E3 Show in L.A. (June 7-9)"

GB leak(June 7 listed as launch date):
http://motherboardnews.com/wp-conten...bytefxleak.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mechromancer

I haven't seen JF-AMD around lately. He has been conspicuously absent. Maybe they'll tap him to be the next AMD CEO.

/speculation

---

In the past 2 weeks I was in Munich, Paris, Edinburgh, London and Moscow.

Next week I am in boston.

Then off to Europe for 2 weeks of well-deserved vacation.

I would not want to work for a company that would want me as the CEO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

In the past 2 weeks I was in Munich, Paris, Edinburgh, London and Moscow.

Next week I am in boston.

Then off to Europe for 2 weeks of well-deserved vacation.

I would not want to work for a company that would want me as the CEO.

---

Hey there,

I would not mind you as CEO of AMD at all. You would possibly be the only CEO of a top tech company that speaks/discusses with its clients on a level basis.

Unlike that fruit company...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

GB leak(June 7 listed as launch date):
http://motherboardnews.com/wp-conten...bytefxleak.png

---

THX for this link! OMG looks like the spec even the naming scheme(range) aren't finally decided yet. The 8200 6200 4200 probably means they have higher frequency than 8100 6100 4100, right?
http://motherboardnews.com/wp-conten...bytefxleak.png

Another Screen:

http://www.hartware.net/media/news/51000/51791_1b.png

if is true ... is good performance

I think: 3.5 stock/ 3.8GHz TC1/ 4.2GHz TC2

Fishy. Font looks too antialiased (hinted) because of Photoshop's default settings.

Font is smaller, different than other entries. Really clumsily done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cesariuth

Another Screen:

http://www.hartware.net/media/news/51000/51791_1b.png

---

My grandmother can come up with a more realistic photoshop.

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

In the past 2 weeks I was in Munich, Paris, Edinburgh, London and Moscow.

Next week I am in boston.

Then off to Europe for 2 weeks of well-deserved vacation.

I would not want to work for a company that would want me as the CEO.

---

JF London was the AMD Emea CAB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by undone

THX for this link! OMG looks like the spec even the naming scheme(range) aren't finally decided yet. The 8200 6200 4200 probably means they have higher frequency than 8100 6100 4100, right?
http://motherboardnews.com/wp-conten...bytefxleak.png

---

how many post do i have to make to mention that those already leaked CPU specs won't exist :)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nex_73

3 weeks? Hmmm...Try 3 MONTHS, that's more like it...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0mbat

oh, so i should tell my colleagues to stop plannig the pr-event here in munich? seems they are way ahead of your schedule :p:
and take back the samples they send out to the press too?

---

---

And you work for? What samples, Zambezi?
Engineering samples =/= final BD (Zambezi)
Sure, maybe a paper launch now in June, but it will take a bit longer before you can buy the final silicone in a store...
But we will see, every day something new...
I still think middle August, so i will only get positive suprised if they manage to get it out sooner.
http://translate.google.com/translat...-amd-bulldozer

AMD Bulldozer Retail Availability Postponed to Q3 2011

Quote:

---

Keenly awaited by many computer enthusiasts, AMD's first desktop Bulldozer processors won't reach retail until the third quarter of 2011, even though the Sunnyvale-based company plans to officially unveil them in early June.

Previous reports have suggested that the Bulldozer announcement that is scheduled to take place on June 11 will be quickly followed by retail availability (June 20-24), but the recent report comes to dismiss these claims.

According to some Taiwanese motherboard makers that have talked to the Sweclockers publication, AMD is not yet ready to launch the FX-series processors into retail and the soon-to-be-released 900-series AM3+ boards will most probably be sold without any Bulldozer processors in sight.

The motherboard makers also stated that, although their solutions are ready for launch, engineers still don't have access to production Bulldozer processors and have to rely on scaled-down and locked engineering samples and on older Phenom II CPUs to test their boards.

As a result, some motherboard makers are even considering postponing the launch of their 900-series products until this situation clarifies, as selling such boards without any FX-series chips could prove to be rather difficult.

---

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-s...t-202051.shtml

Quote:

---

The motherboard makers also stated that, although their solutions are ready for launch, engineers still don't have access to production Bulldozer processors and have to rely on scaled-down and locked engineering samples and on older Phenom II CPUs to test their boards.

---

I call BS on this statement

AMD delay again

Rumors, upon rumors, upon rumors..... :shakes:

Seems like one website says something, and be it, Fudzilla, SweClockers or even our own XS forums, 10 other websites pick it up and run with it!
I've been a computer geek for almost 30 years and I don't remember ever seening anything like this before...

AMD is either very sly or very stupid I really can't decide which.
You would honestly think they would want to clarify things a little and stop some of this crazy speculation.
Then again I'm not a marketing guy, and maybe my own anticipation is coming into play here too.

If the FX series chips can give Intel's a run for their money it may be a good move.
If they only come a little closer I can only think this is going to hurt them....

I agree... all the people quoting this one translation from one unconfirmed source and taking it serious is kind of ridiculous. If we get a benchmark leak that looks questionable then everybody screams "fake" and ignores it. But this time we get a negative comment from an unknown source and many people accept it as true.

Personally when I read the SWECLOCKERS translation, I immediately thought that it sounded like a frustrated person at a motherboard maker angry because they can't bench BD before everybody else. (Actually it sounded like a child having a temper tantrum. But that is probably just the translation.)

In other words AMD has decided not to send out release chips until closer to launch because they know there WILL be leaks. But this is not really a big deal if the engineering samples are fully functional in regards to the socket specification.

Sure it is always better to have a chip to test, but MOTHERBOARD makers do not design motherboards based on a particular chip. They do it based on the SOCKET specification. But if they have correctly supported the specification and the board correctly supports the proper power levels then there should not be an issue and their engineering samples should have been sufficient for testing. Otherwise motherboard makers would never officially support any chips that are released after the motherboard is released.

(Although sometimes a lemon board is released like the MA790FX-DS5. But every motherboard maker has a few dogs in their past.)

DISCLAIMER: My statement above is not true if the "crippled" engineering sample had portions of the socket specification that did not work at all so it could not be tested. If it was only crippled to run slow but all socket features were functional then that is all that is needed for compliance/compatibility testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

(Although sometimes a lemon board is released like the MA790FX-DS5. But every motherboard maker has a few dogs in their past.).

---

You had to bring that board up didn't you. :rolleyes:
If you look in the dictionary under DOG MOTHERBOARD the DS5 would be pictured there...
What really sucks is the 990FXA-UD7 is a sweet looking board, just not sure I trust their new release boards anymore.

I hope your right about the disgruntled mobo designers, but even I am beginning to have my doubts about a Q2 release.

Even if they don't want to release performance numbers yet, I still wish AMD would give us a firm timeframe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

You had to bring that board up didn't you. :rolleyes:

---

Still got a sour taste over the DS5?

Yep... I hated that cheaper boards in their line were better supported and worked better.

I'm eyeballing the ECS board.

Quote:

---

The motherboard makers also stated that, although their solutions are ready for launch, engineers still don't have access to production Bulldozer processors and have to rely on scaled-down and locked engineering samples and on older Phenom II CPUs to test their boards.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stangracin3

I call BS on this statement

---

Heh, only that statement ? :ROTF:

The things web sites will do to try and generate more traffic.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobaltrock

Heh, only that statement ? :ROTF:

The things web sites will do to try and generate more traffic.:rolleyes:

---

well thats the most retarded one that was in the qoute

A delay isn't impossible, but I think we would have known this much earlier if that was the case.

It's some failed logic behind that statement about delays. If the motherboard makers really needed production samples and they have got none, they wouldn't be able to release their motherboards in early june. But since we all know there is finished motherboards ready to be shipped they obviously didn't need working production samples. And since they didn't need them AMD have no reason to hand samples out to possible leaks.

So, that motherboard makers don't have the chips don't mean anything. I don't say BD can't be delayed. But I do say that it don't need to be delayed for motherboard makers to have none.

Man I dig out this rumor from this thread just now, ignoring the made-up spec, looks like it maybe launched at June 20-24?(seems the last paragraph interpretate) OK I won't exclude the possibility that launch date is made-up too.

http://i.imgur.com/S3YHs.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

A delay isn't impossible, but I think we would have known this much earlier if that was the case.

---

Well its worth remembering that we are now discussing "delays" based on a RUMORED launch date.

It cant get better then this. :rolleyes:

That's what I'm trying to say, to me it sounds like BS.

I really hope AMD does not delay Bulldozer, want to see it in action already. This wait so so annoying.

Quote:

---

经过一次又一次的跳票，一份文档再次曝光了推土机的上市日期。从图片中我们看出，推土机架构处理器的产品准 备和产品生产的时间为2011年8月份，而正式上市的时间为2011年9月份。首批上市的处理器包含四款型 号，分别是八核心FX-8150/8100、六核心FX-6100和四核心FX-4100。

---

ZOL reported that BD will be mass produce in August, hard launching in September.

chili sauce: http://cpu.zol.com.cn/231/2310866.html

That'd be some seriously bad news, enough to make me build a sandybridge PC if true :(

i heard nothing about a delay but that doesnt have to mean that there isnt any. ill keep digging...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cesariuth

Another Screen:

http://www.hartware.net/media/news/51000/51791_1b.png

if is true ... is good performance

I think: 3.5 stock/ 3.8GHz TC1/ 4.2GHz TC2

---

Look at the 3.50GHz, then look at the 3.20GHz below it. The font is completely different;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0mbat

i heard nothing about a delay but that doesnt have to mean that there isnt any. ill keep digging...

---

Could simply be launch of models 8150, 8100, 6100, 4100, while 8130, 8110, 6110, 4110 would launch at another day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

ZOL reported that BD will be mass produce in August, hard launching in September.

chili sauce: http://cpu.zol.com.cn/231/2310866.html

---

At the first round we'll get four AM3+ CPUs: FX-8130P, FX-8110, FX-6110, FX-4410

AMD roadmap:

http://img.donanimhaber.com//images/...1a_dh_fx57.jpg


ZOL is talking about different CPUs which will obviously coming later:

http://2b.zol-img.com.cn/product/64/...ChlRAshEdE.png

The second slide says "up to 8 MB total L3 Cache" and "Zambezi Core" too, so it's just like a copy of some other fake we saw...2 or 3 days ago except presented in a nicer table? Jesus this is getting ridiculous now.

http://2a.zol-img.com.cn/product/64_...PlsN73Iouo.png

Where is the source about these pics?
Slowly feel there's some lurkers that create rumor, then LOL while watching those spreading all over the world. Why the hell amd kept silence?

If they aren't going to start production until August, I don't see how they'd do a real launch in September. It takes longer than a month just to bake a wafer during regular production.

Don't tell me that September is Bulldozer's launch, that is so long.

I wouldn't put too much faith in it. My point was basically that production start to retail launch needs to be longer than the timespan indicated here, which makes its validity questionable. There's a good chance it's BS. We know AMD is announcing the product in three weeks, and at that time they're certain to reveal when they expect retail availability. We'll find out soon enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0mbat

i heard nothing about a delay but that doesnt have to mean that there isnt any. ill keep digging...

---

I really hope that you're right and nothing changed in between

I am not worried, I think AMD is doing a great job of keeping this quiet. They most likely want to have all the Buz at the tech show, I mean look at all the talk going on everyone will be intrigued and waiting for the news. They probably want to make this the AWE moment be the best show at the event :p:. I have been trying real hard to ignore all the stuff being posted and just wait patiently. Not to much longer till we know if it is or isn't going to launch...

This is from last year:
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2010-12/13063_llano3.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charged3800z24

I am not worried, I think AMD is doing a great job of keeping this quiet. They most likely want to have all the Buz at the tech show, I mean look at all the talk going on everyone will be intrigued and waiting for the news. They probably want to make this the AWE moment be the best show at the event :p:. I have been trying real hard to ignore all the stuff being posted and just wait patiently. Not to much longer till we know if it is or isn't going to launch...

---

They're getting a lot of negative buzz right now. I'll wait until the end of June, but no later for BD. I'll go with an Intel setup if I can't buy an AMD BD processor by then. Tired of waiting now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

This is from last year:
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2010-12/13063_llano3.jpg

---

And it's likely a fake.
But at least it looks quite real and not so obvious as donanimhaber fakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

They're getting a lot of negative buzz right now. I'll wait until the end of June, but no later for BD. I'll go with an Intel setup if I can't buy an AMD BD processor by then. Tired of waiting now.

---

i think alot of us just want a date, if we knew how long it was then we wouldnt be so paranoid about any more delay rumors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i think alot of us just want a date, if we knew how long it was then we wouldnt be so paranoid about any more delay rumors.

---

Since everyone in here seems to be so excited over a piece of hardware I couldn't agree more. People in here needs a date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

And it's likely a fake.
But at least it looks quite real and not so obvious as donanimhaber fakes.

---

and this

http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2010-11/...pu_roadmap.jpg

?

and this

http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2011-03/13063_zambl.png

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Boris-

And it's likely a fake.
But at least it looks quite real and not so obvious as donanimhaber fakes.

---

The one I posted is real,but schedules can change.I doubt AMD had a slip of 3 months in their schedule.If they did ,that means they hit a bug or clock wall and needed a re-spin in order to fix it,which I doubt.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if all these 'leaks' are orchastrated by intel's investment wing (who've been implicated in stock manipulation in the past) and/or AMD shorts to affect AMD stock value. AMD finance message boards and tech forums are infested with intel shills and viral marketeers. It's glaringly obvious. Here's a couple examples.

Elmer Phudd the moderator is the biggest intel shill around. And now moderating an AMD finance message board?

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/sub...ubjectid=36138

Yahoo AMD finance message boards are a cesspool of intel shills (set your rating to 1 star to see any relevant posts).

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/AMD

The same guy necro-posing this thread in Anandtech forums is posting the same crap on Yahoo forums.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=24796

That's just the tip of the iceburg.

AMD has said repeatedly that performance numbers will only be revealed through their blogs. So are all these fake and unrealistic 'rumors' floating around just intel fanboys having fun? Doubt it. Is it designed to disrupt and manipulate stocks, cause uncertainty? It's starting to look that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if all these 'leaks' are orchastrated by intel's investment wing (who've been implicated in stock manipulation in the past) and/or AMD shorts to affect AMD stock value. AMD finance message boards and tech forums are infested with intel shills and viral marketeers. It's glaringly obvious. Here's a couple examples.

Elmer Phudd the moderator is the biggest intel shill around. And now moderating an AMD finance message board?

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/sub...ubjectid=36138

Yahoo AMD finance message boards are a cesspool of intel shills (set your rating to 1 star to see any relevant posts).

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/AMD

The same guy necro-posing this thread in Anandtech forums is posting the same crap on Yahoo forums.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=24796

That's just the tip of the iceburg.

AMD has said repeatedly that performance numbers will only be revealed through their blogs. So are all these fake and unrealistic 'rumors' floating around just intel fanboys having fun? Doubt it. Is it designed to disrupt and manipulate stocks, cause uncertainty? It's starting to look that way.

---

This just made me LOL litterally,you do know that intels big dog Ivy bridge chip just got delays to 2h2012 right?

Why would they delay there ivy bridge? because maybe they are waiting to see how well BD does against sandy. if sandy is a better performer they have no reason to put out ivy bridge yet since they will pick up sales from people that were waiting to see how BD will stack up against sandys.

Things get delayed from both sides,its not intels fault that BD is not out yet.It is AMDs fault that Ivy is backed up tho.There is no reason for intel to put out Ivy since there is no BD yet.They can easily sell a crap load of sandys while they wait for BD to hit the streets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

This just made me LOL litterally,you do know that intels big dog Ivy bridge chip just got delays to 2h2012 right?

---

When a rumor is start we just wait the rumor be clarify, or somebody may complain about the rumor, but when you continue discussing based on the rumors are TRUE, you may dive into flame war.
Don't believe in Fudo, nobody can sure whether IB is delayed, and nobody can sure amd is delayed, too.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo75

The second slide says "up to 8 MB total L3 Cache" and "Zambezi Core" too, so it's just like a copy of some other fake we saw...2 or 3 days ago except presented in a nicer table? Jesus this is getting ridiculous now.

http://2a.zol-img.com.cn/product/64_...PlsN73Iouo.png

---

oh look now we see some other info, do i still need to say in every thread that those BD xx10 and BD xxxxP are fake? gues not anymore, we have a new rumor :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

oh look now we see some other info, do i still need to say in every thread that those BD xx10 and BD xxxxP are fake? gues not anymore :D

---

Sincerely waiting you to comment on the delay rumor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if all these 'leaks' are orchastrated by intel's investment wing (who've been implicated in stock manipulation in the past) and/or AMD shorts to affect AMD stock value. AMD finance message boards and tech forums are infested with intel shills and viral marketeers. It's glaringly obvious. Here's a couple examples.

Elmer Phudd the moderator is the biggest intel shill around. And now moderating an AMD finance message board?

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/sub...ubjectid=36138

Yahoo AMD finance message boards are a cesspool of intel shills (set your rating to 1 star to see any relevant posts).

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/AMD

The same guy necro-posing this thread in Anandtech forums is posting the same crap on Yahoo forums.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=24796

That's just the tip of the iceburg.

AMD has said repeatedly that performance numbers will only be revealed through their blogs. So are all these fake and unrealistic 'rumors' floating around just intel fanboys having fun? Doubt it. Is it designed to disrupt and manipulate stocks, cause uncertainty? It's starting to look that way.

---

They are all part of the same crowd. chipper/terrace/chipguy and Savantu has a few alts along with Jumping Jack (who I've seen parroting Savantu word-for-word on the techreport) and Paul Demone is pulling the strings in the background.

Ok don't get paranoid guys,focus on the Zambezi/Scorpius :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

oh look now we see some other info, do i still need to say in every thread that those BD xx10 and BD xxxxP are fake? gues not anymore :D

---

You know, you could just say straight out what you know, maybe somebody would listen then.... Anyways, how do you know this pic or your own source are better than the previous "leaks"?

Gotta admit, this newer naming scheme better, will more clearly differentiate the 125W and 95W models... but the "old" one wasn't bad either, if there's going to be similar clockspeeds on both TDP versions, with a "P" to note the difference. If the "new" scheme means none of the direvatives of the basic 8 core model is going to have its clock as high as the higher TDP model, then I guess I am fine with that. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if all these 'leaks' are orchastrated by intel's investment wing (who've been implicated in stock manipulation in the past) and/or AMD shorts to affect AMD stock value. AMD finance message boards and tech forums are infested with intel shills and viral marketeers. It's glaringly obvious. Here's a couple examples.

Elmer Phudd the moderator is the biggest intel shill around. And now moderating an AMD finance message board?

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/sub...ubjectid=36138

Yahoo AMD finance message boards are a cesspool of intel shills (set your rating to 1 star to see any relevant posts).

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/AMD

The same guy necro-posing this thread in Anandtech forums is posting the same crap on Yahoo forums.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=24796

That's just the tip of the iceburg.

AMD has said repeatedly that performance numbers will only be revealed through their blogs. So are all these fake and unrealistic 'rumors' floating around just intel fanboys having fun? Doubt it. Is it designed to disrupt and manipulate stocks, cause uncertainty? It's starting to look that way.

---

http://tof.canardpc.com/view/4a8733d...6944edcf0c.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

The same guy necro-posing this thread in Anandtech forums is posting the same crap on Yahoo forums.

---

Epic typo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

You know, you could just say straight out what you know, maybe somebody would listen then.... Anyways, how do you know this pic or your own source are better than the previous "leaks"?

Gotta admit, this newer naming scheme better, will more clearly differentiate the 125W and 95W models... but the "old" one wasn't bad either, if there's going to be similar clockspeeds on both TDP versions, with a "P" to note the difference. If the "new" scheme means none of the direvatives of the basic 8 core model is going to have its clock as high as the higher TDP model, then I guess I am fine with that. :)

---

i hope the TDP thing is accurate and used. back with older generations the turbo was simply a set number. so we had cpus using like 110w marked as 125W cpu, but with BD i hope this means that if you take the same system and swap out the 8110, 6110, and 4110, and run the same app on all of them, we get very similar power consumption on all of them.

srry, but Intel make delayed chips no first! With Clarkdale architecture we seen more than 1Q delayed than was first plans (it was first 32nm chip for INtel). NOw, with IB we can see next 1Q delay, its new 22nm...1Q with new technology is not so tragic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthShader

You know, you could just say straight out what you know, maybe somebody would listen then.... Anyways, how do you know this pic or your own source are better than the previous "leaks"?

Gotta admit, this newer naming scheme better, will more clearly differentiate the 125W and 95W models... but the "old" one wasn't bad either, if there's going to be similar clockspeeds on both TDP versions, with a "P" to note the difference. If the "new" scheme means none of the direvatives of the basic 8 core model is going to have its clock as high as the higher TDP model, then I guess I am fine with that. :)

---

I didn't state that these weren't fake... al I mentioned was that these new leaks also mention different naming schema :cool:.

did you see a P anymhere on the new slides.

You only know for real when you know a real source, not one that once and a while gets some info by accident or if really lucky or just isn't sure what he got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by undone

Sincerely waiting you to comment on the delay rumor.

---

who says this is a rumor or true? few days more to find out.
You know the fun part, I already read some news threads where they now also mention LIano mobile and desktop is delayed.... or maybe the june launch will be the server BD launch i.s.o the desktop version.

time to start the rumor :)

Makes you wonder if the lack of any types of REAL benchmarks with only 2 to 3 weeks until release are due to a supposed delay. :shrug:
Perhaps no one has working final silicon right now. That would be scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

...if sandy is a better performer they have no reason to put out ivy bridge yet since they will pick up sales from people that were waiting to see how BD will stack up against sandys.

Things get delayed from both sides,its not intels fault that BD is not out yet.It is AMDs fault that Ivy is backed up tho.There is no reason for intel to put out Ivy since there is no BD yet.They can easily sell a crap load of sandys while they wait for BD to hit the streets.

---

So you're the one who'll cut his own face to spite others? Intel's shareholders will bloody murder the people in charge if they found out that they are holding out on new tech which will potentially give them higher margins per chip. Well, smaller chip mostly translates in reduced cost and the shareholders love nothing more than a bigger share of the pie.

Now BD... i know someone personally... i guess that person wouldn't mind giving out the date of the launch... let me see what i can dig up! However, it is a different region and i guess the availability dates may not exactly be the same as in US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Makes you wonder if the lack of any types of REAL benchmarks with only 2 to 3 weeks until release are due to a supposed delay. :shrug:
Perhaps no one has working final silicon right now. That would be scary.

---

I'm sure some have working silicon, not final however.

I hate to say I told you so but......I told you so ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tifosi

So you're the one who'll cut his own face to spite others? Intel's shareholders will bloody murder the people in charge if they found out that they are holding out on new tech which will potentially give them higher margins per chip. Well, smaller chip mostly translates in reduced cost and the shareholders love nothing more than a bigger share of the pie.

Now BD... i know someone personally... i guess that person wouldn't mind giving out the date of the launch... let me see what i can dig up! However, it is a different region and i guess the availability dates may not exactly be the same as in US.

---

You do know intel makes its money from the server market right,like a 8 billion dollar profit last year from there server side.

Those chips are 1300 each.Intel is selling sandy just fine and will wait it out.I mean they did just put out sandy to begin with and we have been waiting for BD for over 5 years.Do you honeslty think there investors will murder them for waiting 3 months longer to come out with Ivy? what about the money they lost in the sandy recall that they rushed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

I'm sure some have working silicon, not final however.

I hate to say I told you so but......I told you so ;)

---

you just mad you ain't got one to play with on LN2.

I want to know what calendar AMD is using cause the one I got in the retail store I work in says it's already Q3 :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

i hope the TDP thing is accurate and used. back with older generations the turbo was simply a set number. so we had cpus using like 110w marked as 125W cpu, but with BD i hope this means that if you take the same system and swap out the 8110, 6110, and 4110, and run the same app on all of them, we get very similar power consumption on all of them.

---

This is fine in theory, but in practice clock speed doesn't scale linearly with power, and you simply can't get above some clocks without bumping up the voltage too much, and I'm sure AMD is not keen on overclocking all it's CPUs above spec just so their power consumption matches.

I know about 2 people with good working samples. But this is all, what I can to say :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

I know about 2 people with good working samples. But this is all, what I can to say :)

---

Get them drunk and give us NUMBEEEEERSSS!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

I know about 2 people with good working samples. But this is all, what I can to say :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danielkza

Get them drunk and give us NUMBEEEEERSSS!!!

---

Yeah!, 4-5 sips of absinth....you're czech, you know best...;)

And some Gold Strike too ...
Everyone i know makes a bad face when i talk about Gold Strike, so i guess everyone got drunk with it ... ehhehe

It's a good mix ... Absint + GoldStrike = Easy BD :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

I know about 2 people with good working samples. But this is all, what I can to say :)

---

All I want to know is faster or not than i7 2600K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skratch

This just made me LOL litterally,you do know that intels big dog Ivy bridge chip just got delays to 2h2012 right?

Why would they delay there ivy bridge? because maybe they are waiting to see how well BD does against sandy. if sandy is a better performer they have no reason to put out ivy bridge yet since they will pick up sales from people that were waiting to see how BD will stack up against sandys.

Things get delayed from both sides,its not intels fault that BD is not out yet.It is AMDs fault that Ivy is backed up tho.There is no reason for intel to put out Ivy since there is no BD yet.They can easily sell a crap load of sandys while they wait for BD to hit the streets.

---

Ivy's launch has nothing to do with what AMD has going on, Intel's isn't going to sit on a new process/fabs that cost billions of dollars in R&D, they need to turn that R&D investment back into profits ASAP. From what I've read FinFet is no piece of cake to make, Intel has been working on it for eight years already, when its ready to mass produce they aren't going to wait on anyone, doesn't matter what AMD or anyone else has.

In the meantime, If BD starts to cut in on Intel's share they would just make some price adjustments (price cuts). I'd love to see a CPU price war! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

you just mad you ain't got one to play with on LN2.

---

Yes that must be it ;)