Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
did you get this from someone who signed an nda???
if so can you share with us on its legitimacy ????
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
did you get this from someone who signed an nda???
if so can you share with us on its legitimacy ????
That one is from OBR, but in case you don't trust him (can't blame anyone not trusting OBR) few posts earlier Bingo13 posted this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
I think we all know how credible Bingo is ;)Quote:
I can match that but with 8GB.
Then OK, now I just wonder which data are reliable, the 4.9GHz overclocking or 2510mhz DRAM, is it still initial or late ES?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Just remember that the multiplier on retail versions is likely to be lower, as the program only calculates OC % based on frequency inclease, not multiplier changes (so don't expect 3.7 GHz 8 core retail versions - not at launch at any rate). So the screenshot really only just shows that you can have a lot of fun overclocking BD. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
but the reason i made that post was because it was flanker ... and the way he worded it was that he knew someone who was under nda or he was himself .....
so that's why i asked
I think youre simplyfing it.As it all depends, in general all extremes are not healthy for a cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
For instance i had a A64 with only 1.2v passively cooled which was pretty much always at 60-70C, and its kickin to this day.However if you put 1.6v into a phenom II, even good watercooling wont stop it from deteriorating (if you keep it at this voltage constans and put a strain on it).
On the intel side its even worse, i OC`ed my friends core2duo xeon (65nm), it had big ass cooler which kept it at 50C max, however increased voltage deteriorated it in just a year, it was running 3.3ghz, now it barely does 2.3.
The key relation for me is median, between voltage and temperature, if i need extreme measures to cool a cpu, that means voltage is too high for 24/7 operation.Of course benching is another matter, as its just shorts periods of time of higher voltage/temperature.Anyhow, not one of my personal cpus broke or deteriorated keeping it all in some balance.
However getting back to BD, of course whats healthy and whats not, relation between temperature frequency and voltage it all will be determined later.
However if lets say retail BD is able to hit 5ghz stable 24/7 and Sandy is the same at this moment.Its ok, but not as good as i hoped.Its pretty much certain IPC of sandy is higher, so BD needs more clock.
I was under impression SB`s arent really hitting 5ghz fully stable, all i saw was cpuz screens, or 3dmark runs (thats on air).But you prolly know better.I didnt had the opportunity to build SB system yet.
Flank3r hinted that he knew it for fact so... It's starting to look better for AMD (if even OBR thinks it's anywhere near decent...). I'm eagerly waiting for performance numbers since I want BD to be my new build when I get back from Down under after Xmas.
XRL8: right...example, my workstation with x6 1090T, I found maximum stable clocks. It is 4300 MHz aircooled, 1.478V, more voltage doesnt helepd me, but temps are under 60 C. Its OK, I believe it. But If Im not benchmarking, I have saving profile 3975 MHz, 280x MHz NB with 1.31V at CPU and 1.26V at CPU/NB. And still is more performance, than I ussually need :-). Or at second main PC I have utility Phenom mrTweaker, one state is 1.275V and 3 GHz and second state 1.475V and 4 GHz at x4 970 BE (with newest version man can make think 3 or 4 P-sates).
I might take it wrong but are you hoping to hit 5GHz on 8 cores stable for them to sit idle and run single threaded workloads to allow SB outperform it?Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I agree SB ST performance most likely will be higher at the same clock than BD's, but BD strength should be MT. AMD focus for BD is on MT and scalability.
I see it like this:
if BD really can hit 4.8-5.x GHz on AIR stable for all 8 cores under load then it's great and will have amazing performance in MT. Scaling 8 cores to that speed is harder than 4. Just look at Intels SB vs Gulf. 6 core monster scales up to 4.4-4.6GHz on AIR.
When ST performance is your goal I bet you can squeeze extra few hundred MHz out of BD max MT clock.
Youre comparing it as if 8 BD cores were fully comparable to 4 intel cores with HT.They are not, its different approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Gulftown is based on older tech than SB, and less (probably much less) mature process, so again i dont see it as viable comparison.
AMD positions 8 core BD`s to 4 core SB`s , so thats where comparisons have to be made.Its more like 4 modules vs 4 cores.Or 8 cores vs 8 threads.
One AMD core is much smaller than one SB core.So its pretty much destined to have lower ipc.Thus it would be expected of them to reach higher clocks.
And its been known for some time that BD is architectured as high speed cpu.So its not unreasonable to expect it reach higher clocks.
I hope for fully customizable turbo.If i can set 8 cores to 5ghz, then maybe 5.5ghz in single/dual threaded work.That should help.But its yet to be known how turbo v2.0 works.
Yet you don't have a problem comparing BD versus SB overclockability, not to mention BD 4 module will be bigger than Gulftown 6 core and way bigger than SB 2600K. If 4.8-5Ghz is possible then AMD did an excellent job and we should be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Why should i have a problem comparing mature 32nm of intel vs unknown 32nm of GF ? Its about whats available in the market for comparable price.Quote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
What i read 4 module BD is ~250mm2 ,Sb is 216mm2 , so thats not a huge difference.But getting back to the point.Its irrelevant how big it is for a consumer/enthusiast/oems.Price, and power consumption.Thats what matters.
Price/performance/power consumption.And im just hoping BD is comparable.And secretly i hope BD is going to be better than SB.
Zambezi 8C should be closer to 290mm^2 than 250mm^2.
Sorry, but this doesn't wash at all.
AMD will position itself against a comparable Intel chip. The amount of cores/modules is irrelevant compared to the results that it gives.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
That statement is actually quite incorrect. SB cores are larger because of the overhead of HT, while BD can be relatively smaller due to the sharing of resources wihin a single module. IPC in this respect has nothing to do with core size.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
This is down to the pipeline really, not the size of the core.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
True, the BD cores are known to be higher in speed, due to the longer pipeline. However, this is a brand new chip and is an unknown with regards to speeds reached. I highly doubt you'll be seeing 5ghz in ST, let along MT.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I think you're taking the BD chip as some sort of messiah for AMD. What it is is a very capable MT chip. If its IPC is anywhere close to Intel, and the speed of the chip can exceed intels offering, then they'll have a good solid chip for the next 4/5 years to work with. I am not holding my breath on this, as I still see AMD as a low-med type of company (GPUs of course a separate issue). I do think it's MT performance will be quite spectacular due to the amount of cores it can have. Desktop wise, I still feel Intel will have the upper hand (something that a lot of fanboys will find quite distasteful to hear).
Uhm, thats what i said.AMD isnt positioning this above SB ,its not aiming at SBE,AMD positions this against 2600K (the highest AMD FX).Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
And while amount of cores/modules is irrelevant/The results are.They can however differ very greatly (one app a win for amd ,another for intel etc.)
While Core size isnt some defining metric, its logical to assume amd wont pull any miracles, if core is smaller than SB (and it is) than its safe to assume it will be weaker.
HT and sharing resources is another thing, and more relevant to the MT tasks.Thats why we cant expect stunning superpi performance ;-).
Ergo, i dont agree that core size has nothing to do with performance that can be extracted from it :P.
As for the speed, yes pipeline is longer thus its a high frequency design, however the smaller the chip the easier it is (its smaller than thuban thats for sure)
Well, im already seeing 4.8ghz from three sources.So i dont think that 5ghz from retails isnt possible.Its not even a stretch,and thats MT.Quote:
True, the BD cores are known to be higher in speed, due to the longer pipeline. However, this is a brand new chip and is an unknown with regards to speeds reached. I highly doubt you'll be seeing 5ghz in ST, let along MT
No im not.If that was the case, BD would have 8 comparable to SB cores with greater overclockability, and i dont think thats even possible.Quote:
I think you're taking the BD chip as some sort of messiah for AMD. What it is is a very capable MT chip. If its IPC is anywhere close to Intel, and the speed of the chip can exceed intels offering, then they'll have a good solid chip for the next 4/5 years to work with. I am not holding my breath on this, as I still see AMD as a low-med type of company (GPUs of course a separate issue). I do think it's MT performance will be quite spectacular due to the amount of cores it can have. Desktop wise, I still feel Intel will have the upper hand (something that a lot of fanboys will find quite distasteful to hear).
However it can be "smart" enough chip to be comparable in ST, and have upper hand in most MT.
Desktop wise, theres really small amount of apps, that need ultra strong x87 FPU performance.From top of my head i can only think of superpi and pcsx2.
In the rest differences, while may be there, are just academic.In games, we are pretty much always GPU limited after certain threshold.
And now games are moving to MT.Everything is slowly moving to MT.Sysmarks and similar software are pointless benchmarks for 99% of population.
And so on.Only MT performance still matters much.Multitasking, compression, encryption, video encoding, seti and similar software.
@Informal
Last i read, there were estimates of ~250mm2.Maybe im wrong tho, could you point me to a source of this 300m2 estimate ?
Uhm, thats what i said.AMD isnt positioning this above SB ,its not aiming at SBE,AMD positions this against 2600K (the highest AMD FX).Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
And while amount of cores/modules is irrelevant/The results are.They can however differ very greatly (one app a win for amd ,another for intel etc.)
While Core size isnt some defining metric, its logical to assume amd wont pull any miracles, if core is smaller than SB (and it is) than its safe to assume it will be weaker.
HT and sharing resources is another thing, and more relevant to the MT tasks.Thats why we cant expect stunning superpi performance ;-).
Ergo, i dont agree that core size has nothing to do with performance that can be extracted from it :P.
As for the speed, yes pipeline is longer thus its a high frequency design, however the smaller the chip the easier it is (its smaller than thuban thats for sure)
Well, im already seeing 4.8ghz from three sources.So i dont think that 5ghz from retails isnt possible.Its not even a stretch,and thats MT.Quote:
True, the BD cores are known to be higher in speed, due to the longer pipeline. However, this is a brand new chip and is an unknown with regards to speeds reached. I highly doubt you'll be seeing 5ghz in ST, let along MT
No im not.If that was the case, BD would have 8 comparable to SB cores with greater overclockability, and i dont think thats even possible.Quote:
I think you're taking the BD chip as some sort of messiah for AMD. What it is is a very capable MT chip. If its IPC is anywhere close to Intel, and the speed of the chip can exceed intels offering, then they'll have a good solid chip for the next 4/5 years to work with. I am not holding my breath on this, as I still see AMD as a low-med type of company (GPUs of course a separate issue). I do think it's MT performance will be quite spectacular due to the amount of cores it can have. Desktop wise, I still feel Intel will have the upper hand (something that a lot of fanboys will find quite distasteful to hear).
However it can be "smart" enough chip to be comparable in ST, and have upper hand in most MT.
Desktop wise, theres really small amount of apps, that need ultra strong x87 FPU performance.From top of my head i can only think of superpi and pcsx2.
In the rest differences, while may be there, are just academic.In games, we are pretty much always GPU limited after certain threshold.
And now games are moving to MT.Everything is slowly moving to MT.Sysmarks and similar software are pointless benchmarks for 99% of population.
And so on.Only MT performance still matters much.Multitasking, compression, encryption, video encoding, seti and similar software.
@Informal
Last i read, there were estimates of ~250mm2.Maybe im wrong tho, could you point me to a source of this 300m2 estimate ?
Besides, about 20 % of SB is graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Hans Devries arrived at a 300 mm^2 estimate from comparing common elements between the photoshopped die shot and that of Llano whose die size was known.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
More recently, at the 2011 ISSCC conference AMD published 3 papers on BD. One was specifically about the module and it quoted 30.9 mm^2 for a single module. Another paper had a complete unadulterated and non-photoshopped die shot, from that one would estimate 285 mm^2 or 297 mm^2 depending on whether AMD considers the VSS gating block as a count in the total module area. Regardless, Hans was pretty close.
~30mm^2 more than Deneb, thats great for 4 more "cores" regardless of IPC.
2 module BD's should be around ~160mm^2 then, they really did manage to shave off a lot of die with the new shared design.
LOL @ all the assumptions
¨Need some software for benchmarking and support AVX instruction (bench x264 4.0 has it?)
I remember seeing somewhere some benches of SB in Linpack with and without avx.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
here, found this: http://www.numberworld.org/y-crunche...n_history.html it supports avx on non intel cpus
Edit
http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/#Download
for downloads ;)
Googlish:
http://translate.google.com/translat...-sonuclari.htm
BD 8C@3.2 GHz
http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer...a_dh_fwv3u.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer..._dh_fxm49k.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer..._dh_fx45nz.jpg
http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer..._dh_fxwvg5.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer...a_dh_fj16j.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer...a_dh_fo52u.jpg
http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer...a_dh_fj30p.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer..._dh_fxm2wj.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/bulldozer..._dh_fxocqe.jpg
power consumption
idle ~2600K 97W
load -10W than 990X
Turbo
4C up to 4.20 GHz
8C up to 3.60 GHz
Memory subsystem is all over the place. Look at the latency of L2. double of that of my thuban.
And superpi again :shakes:
At least it is kicking my thuban @3.9ghz by 3k points in cinebench 10
and loosing in PC mark to my 3.9ghz thuban by 100points
and about the same as 4ghz thuban at chess benchmark
and wins by 2fps in physics score on 3dmark11
Is that QR Code on the CPU?
If so, any1 here have QR Code Reader Software on their mobile so we can decode it?
Doubt that. At least my phone doesn't pick up anything :)Quote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
CPUz doesn't support BD in version 1.57.1 only in 1.58. So these so called BD benchmarks are probably fake.
that's the first thing I noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBreezyBB
they believe their is a problem with B1's L3 cache.
if you look you will see it's write cache that is the slowest part here not just L3 cache all the way threw write cache is too slow.
why in the world would they run cb10 and not cb11.5
The 2D code on AMD CPUs is semacode (datamatrix), not QR. You can get them read online from images if you're interested. That's why I always chuckle when people blur numbers or barcodes but leave semacodes untouched.
Take this Thuban for instance, which is my old 1055T.
http://www.pcrpg.org/pics/computer/cpu_stepping.jpg
Isolate the code and feed it into something like this: http://www.2dtg.com/decode.html
9316895C00278_HDT55TFBK6DGR
They contain the serial number and product codes. I took a look at the one in the German article, but the code is badly scratched. I can't get a clean decode. Revision: I'm almost certain the semacode has been purposely sabotaged. It contains intentional formatting mistakes that can't be caused by scratches. Clever.
It's already mentioned in optimization manual that was released in April. Also AMD promises to fix this in BD version 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414.pdf
Quote:
The following performance caveats apply when using streaming stores on AMD Family 15h cores.
• When writing out a single stream of data sequentially, performance of AMD Family 15h
processors is comparable to previous generations of AMD processors.
• When writing out two streams of data, AMD Family 15h version 1 processors can be up to three
times slower than previous-generation AMD processors. AMD Family 15h version 2 processor
performance is approximately 1.5 times slower than previous AMD processors.
• When writing out four non-temporal streams, AMD Family 15h version 1 can be up to three
times slower than previous AMD processors. AMD Family 15h version 2 processor performance
is comparable to previous AMD processors.
• Using non-temporal stores but not writing out an entire cacheline may cause performance to be up
to six times slower than previous AMD processors.
Those who only post benchmark but with masked 2D code on ES chips are obviously either fake or initial ES, no doubt.
turbo not worked good, I thinking...This superpi is near 3600-3700 MHz max. OBRs results with ASUS board are better (and the same CPU)
OK, I suddenly realized, that Cinebench R10 score is similar to that OBR posted before, higher than Thuban 1090T about 50% and 980x about 15%. IF this is real perhaps those other benchmark like superpi & R11.5 cause some bug during test and result in crappy score. Wait & see some result about mature ES chips or retail chips.
no, its not simillary. OBR had 27 700 in R10 with UD7 and the same chip, superpi 15.4s there is only 24 400 and 19.5s
And what clocks OBR used during this test with UD7 ? Stock ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
At stock, BD is nearly the fastest x264 CPU there is.
At 1st pass, 980x and 2600k do about 95-105 fps, whilst BD does 135 most likely because this pass has less TLP and allows for more turbo.
2nd pass where things get more threaded, 2600k does 36 or so, 980x does 48, and BD scores 45 here.
Probably using all threads and can't consistently turbo, and pass 2 favors Intel a bit more.
EDIT:
Also wins in Fritz.
2600k - 13,017 // 12834 (another source)
2600k at 5.2 - 19288
870 - 11,995 // 875k does 12450
980x - 12,733
1100T - 11,219
BD - 14197
I tried as well. I wasted quite a bit of time trying to recreate the code from the donanimhaber pictures on the last page but the combination of photoshopping and strategically placed watermarks was too much. Even accounting for the obvious errors like there not being a solid line along the left side (filled those in, a thin dark line is visible along the left side where some dots were erased) I have too many errors for a decode. That is not too surprising as I can see other spots with a faint smudge (one just above middle/center) where a dot was either erased or it is an artifact around the edges from the copy->pasting they did. If it weren't for the watermarks the other photos could be used but they are no help other than the obvious differences in the lower left corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Is Fritz multi-threaded? 980x little slower than 2600k, seems Fritz doesn't use more than 4 threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Olivion: the same clocks as donanimhaber
Fritz uses >4 threads. i5 750 scaled to 870 clock speeds = 9 355; with Hyperthreading it's 12k or so.
Good newz ! Hope that's true ... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Do you have a source for x264 bench?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I remember doing extensive benching on that benchmark some time ago with my x4. And I found that CPU NB clock OC gives biggest boost to that benchmark.
In 1st pass my x4@3.8ghz was kicking hard i7-920@3.8ghz. Wasn't winning but close. 2nd pass was a bit different story, thou still not far from i7 because of my tight timings and high NB clocks.
It's the same DH "preview".Go to gallery ,there are 12 images there,one is x264 benchmark.
People keep saying that.Thats just not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBreezyBB
FULL BD support was brought with 1.58.It supported BD earlier.
http://wccftech.com/official-bulldoz...aurthor/20986/
Thats CPUZ creator showing a screenshot of his BD with 1.56.Also 186W isnt sign of a "fake" .Its just what cpuz shows for now.
Thats B1 stepping they got there.Probably clocks are not f-up anymore.There isnt previous confirmed B1 if i recall correctly (OBR MAY have one tho, he hid it well)
oh, thanks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0x,2584-8.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
FriTz for a 980 is is > 18000... looks like you took your score from some site that was doing a thread for thread comparison.
ah my bad i miss that.. DH says more tests coming..Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
reference x264 results..
http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulle...d.php?t=508846
Here is thuban 3.8ghz
In pass 2 it uses 96% of CPU, and pass 1 leaves one core out.Quote:
Results for x264.exe r1913
==========================
Pass 1
------
encoded 1442 frames, 139.77 fps, 3913.31 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 138.15 fps, 3913.31 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 138.37 fps, 3913.31 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 138.55 fps, 3913.31 kb/s
Pass 2
------
encoded 1442 frames, 36.72 fps, 3960.06 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.94 fps, 3958.73 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.51 fps, 3959.39 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.87 fps, 3959.50 kb/s
The chips stepping is right in AIDA, they blocked it on cpu-z lol at that failure OR-B1Quote:
Originally Posted by sergiojr
why does/would turbo be use on all 8 cores ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
I though it was just for single thread and up to 4 core maybe 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
fritz does use more then 4 threads I test it on My thuban at 4.0ghz and 3.0ghz Nb with 2000mhz ram I get around 13,000 relative speed is about 27.5Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
scaling isn't linear that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Scaling is definitely Not linear with SMT or CMT designs and, in multithreaded designs, it is OS dependent especially between Vista and 7 where 7's scheduler is much better.
Because it could.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Older Fritzes didn't support >12 threads, or they ran every CPU at 8 instances.
Clocks sound decent so far. I expect IPC to be wildly variable compared to K10 but hopefully it will have a significant increase on average.
what do you mean wildly variable compared to K10?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
I mean two things. First that the types of code in which BD does well will be different than the type of code in which K10 does well. Second that there will be more factors that affect the actual IPC achieved at runtime when compared with K10. I'll gladly elaborate on either/both points if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Solus Corvus I would like to hear both points after all nothing new is known about BD so why not.
Ok. My night is winding down for now so I'll post after I get some sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
Article at donanhimber states that CPU they used is 3.2ghz, but it has 3.6ghz turbo ON ALL 8 cores :) ,and 4.2Ghz at 4 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy
So in reality cpu ran 3.2->4.2ghz in those tests, depending on the software.
DH's ES has no Turbo working,or not properly working at least.It's quite obvious when you look at super pi result(lower than what that Czech guy posted by exactly 1Ghz :19s @ 3.2Ghz for DH ES and 14.5s @ 4.2Ghz for "blogger's" ES).
The said blogger had the exact same problem with turbo when he was using GigaByte board, turbo on Asus board was working fine.
But AIDA shows 4.2GHz: http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...onuclari_8.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
However, there are more than one way to throttle SuperPi performance, e.g. memory configuration.
I made a quick search for results to compare:
BD ; 2600K ; 980x
3dmark 2011 P6265 ; sorry, couldnt find score of a stock 2600k with a stock 580 :/ ; P6383 (990x)
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...3dmark-11.html
Fritzchess 14197 ; 12834 ; 16046
http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcon...44&pageid=7680
Pcmark 3045 ; 4750(ssd) 3232(hdd) ,too much variables to put much faith into this one
http://www.benchmark.pl/testy_i_rece...ona/14341.html
Cinebench 10 24434 ; 23102 ; 25881
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-10.html
SuperPI 19.5s (dubious score as 1090T does better) ; 10s ; 11,6s
http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7...-bridge-review
x264 136/45 ; 99/36 ; 96/48
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/13/
Comparison Aida64 screens
BD
http://img.donanimhaber.com/thumbnai...5d8a05_600.jpg
1090T
http://i51.tinypic.com/p0y1f.jpg
2600K
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-co...8P67-2600K.png
Deneb
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4774/cachememr.png
Cache write speeds are bad, im worried its gonna be the case with final too.Theres some info about "fixes" coming in BD ver 2 (komodo).
The ver 2 means Engineering Sample ver 2 not komodo.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
These are just ES scores,not final.So until you see retail score so bad in memory benchmarks(as in AIDA),don't put so much faith in these results.
As for BD ver2 it's actually Komodo,not ES version 2. Komodo is known as BDver2 in some compiler suit updates as Dresdenboy showed us many months ago. It is a souped up BD(Orochi) with new ISA support and some tweaks(probably similar to Deneb=>Llano ).
So that's OBR who has given screens to donanimhaber ?
That's the thing he says in his blog :
http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/07...are-obeti.html
That guy always full of nonsense, how can he prove the chip which DH have is from him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Well taking this into account:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
It would make much sense that AIDA write scores are lower.Thats a B1, B2 is going to be retail (if not even B1) if they want to keep schedule.Quote:
http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/47414.pdf
The following performance caveats apply when using streaming stores on AMD Family 15h cores.
• When writing out a single stream of data sequentially, performance of AMD Family 15h
processors is comparable to previous generations of AMD processors.
• When writing out two streams of data, AMD Family 15h version 1 processors can be up to three
times slower than previous-generation AMD processors. AMD Family 15h version 2 processor
performance is approximately 1.5 times slower than previous AMD processors.
• When writing out four non-temporal streams, AMD Family 15h version 1 can be up to three
times slower than previous AMD processors. AMD Family 15h version 2 processor performance
is comparable to previous AMD processors.
• Using non-temporal stores but not writing out an entire cacheline may cause performance to be up
to six times slower than previous AMD processors.
I mean, AMD ITSELF states that its going to be slower in some cases :-/ .Not like its going to be huge thing, other scores prove that it isnt affecting HUGELY performance.
It's single threaded when you do the cache and memory bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy
I know. This was an answer to informal regarding SuperPi (also single threaded) and his assumption of a not functioning turbo.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
It could be that Turbo was working,but I still think something was borked in that regard. If indeed it was obr who gave the screens to DH,then the results don't make sense since his previous scores are way better than DH's.
AMD Bulldozer FX-8130P and FX-8110 Processors Available For Pre-Order :hm:
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/11064/
Well i could take a pre order too.Does he state shipping date ?
That's way cheaper here :Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
http://s.taobao.com/search?q=amd+fx-...q-amd+fx-8130p
:D
Lol, thats are some samples only for slaes, not retails
Anybody know if there are other than 8130P samples out there ?
I was thinking recently about it, and it may be not the smartest thing for me to buy highest 8C model at start cause two things:
1.In few months AMD`s process is going to get better (higher clocks, less volts), evolution of deneb shows that.
2.Am3+ is only for a year
3.Maybe 4 and 6C versions are going to be unlockable :-)
if what i hear is accurate, all being unlocked
then i will probably pick up the quad core since i just need it for gaming.
Sell them on Amazon and you wont take to much of a hit (depending on how long youve held on to it) that is what I plan on doing when the next socket comes out, assuming you like in the US that isQuote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I was thinking about unlocking cores/modules ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
i doubt there will be unlocking on BD
I dont think so..
Orb claims DH faked all those benches.
My magic ball also tells me the same :D All these leaked benches are Fake until proven otherwise. :p:
He implies that that they MAY be fake.In another words he said nothing.Again.When he announced before some "scores" he put out a meaningless article about SLI on amd fx, plus some blackened screenshots,which gave only the information that BD is goin g to be weakish in superpi(duh).
I belive guy only teases and doesnt want to give out any meaningful info.
There is todays review of C5F mobo with some OC at FX CPU, no results, but screens with clocks
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/za...dozer?start=11
^
^
^
interesting
Who cares about Scores now :D it Overclocks well that's what i want to hear :clap: but still we don't know if that is true or not yet!!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
1.39v @ 4.4GHz is good, but it is odd that they erased the processor name. Any chance that is not made-up name 8130p?
8130P is not made up.Just because it may not reach retail doesnt mean its made up.
Also.
Donanimhaber reports that BD got pushed to october ,like OBR said some time ago.
4.4ghz on default voltage.Not bad.
Wow, if its really a delay till Oct., then they missed the "back to school" season. I guess I was right on that one. If I was betting, thell miss this year now. Are we gonna see a PII 985 or 1200T now!
RussC
release date push back to october
i read from News section
I read that too ...Quote:
Originally Posted by PatRaceTin
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci/...r-bilgiler.htm
Don't believe what you read on OBR's blog or from Donanimhaber. AMD said it was on a 60 to 90 day schedule for BD release and that was in early June at Computex. I'm still looking forward to a September launch.
Probably 90 days for release from the factory, and another 30 days for shipping in stores.
An why should AMD be trusted after the big lie in our face in june whey they sad the Bulldozer is not delayed?
No they said PIB (on the shelves) in 60-90 days.That's all.Server got pushed in a bit,desktop pushed back a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Just a heads up to this then
Texas GamExperience - July 16
that on [H]ardOCP.
which is Saturday.
whats that have to do with BD????Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
BD will be there. Real people will actually get a chance to play games on a BD system. I'm sure we won't get any meaningful information (ie...numbers) from the event, but at least a few lucky peeps will get to give the new CPU a run through.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullCracka
@anandshimpi anandshimpi
@GettCouped there are no BE Llanos yet, all mainstream - you'll have to wait until late August/early September for a BE Bulldozer
hi guys
anyone knows if there will be a voltage limit to ddr3 which could be used on bulldozer?
I mean if there will be some ram that would not work on bulldozer (like on sandybridge that there is a limit dont?)
I've old ram with good micron chip that run at 1.8v and I wanted to know if I will able to use that also on bulldozer.
I always red of a 1866mhz support, but no voltage specs.