You mean you have several bulldozer ES?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Printable View
You mean you have several bulldozer ES?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Yeah, the specifiaction in CPU-Z usually never include that much codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
I wish :DQuote:
Originally Posted by undone
Ok, So AsRock confirms it, BD can work with AM3 boards. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomee
That leaves BioStar the only one left that hasn't said anything about what they are going to have out...
Though, I guess we can hold a contest to see which AM3 board goes up in flames the fastest with a BD installed. :rofl:;)
Kobaltrock:not with all AM3 boards! Its important! There is 2 conditions:
1)16MB big ROM flash
2)all mobo contacts for pin must be electricaly active
And there is not AMD support! I think, not only for me will be better new AM3+ mobo.
I don't have time to read the next 2 pages at the moment, but all this talk of "really, no 'Dozer bench leaks yet?!" makes me assume that no one has seen these? o_0 Which if not, is surprising I think >_>
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...er_linux&num=1
Granted, it's not the desktop variant, but from my understanding the 'Dozer CPU modules are going to be the same between everything. It'll just be small tweaks to certain areas (likely the HT Link for the SMP cross-talking [if you will]), but the only big big difference is the amount of cores the C32 and G34 have since they both have got over 1.25x and 2x the amount of pins available, respectively. Valencia might be able to run 10cores, but AMD probably figures they should keep it down to 8C(max) to make buying the G34 worth the investment :P Because we're getting 8C on 942pins with DDR3-1866 Dual Channel, and C32 is 1207 with the same :\ Those ~260 pins really all for the SMP Hyper Transport?
Speaking of HT quick... Why the hell is AMD upping the Link speed to gain a higher MT/s, instead of just friggen just using the 32bit that all our NB and HT have supported since it started getting used, ditching the damn 16bit?! *sigh*
From Wiki:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1303744528
Sucks when there is an available ability that doesn't get utilized! Th... that'd be like, disabling perfectly good cpu cores and selling it as a down-cored model of a the same CPU!! Oh... wait... NM :P lol But seriously, I don't get why they keep with 16bit when 32 is right there :|
Read this quick while posting:
My friend said his reads as a Phenom II FX something, which is in line with what the releases are going to be, even though his is an Opteron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
All I know is that the CPUID reads fine for this E350 Zacate on the Specifications line in CPU-Z 1.37 (rrrreally old), and a program called CPUMSR (even older). So CPU-Z doesn't care too much about that, but where my friend is getting that FX reading from, I'm not 100% sure. I'm trying to squeeze a CPU-Z SS from him :D
I'm not sure, but I think this was posted in the news last month, and the conclusion was that the systems had too different specs to be of any use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Something like one was running at 640x480, the other at 1920. One had twice as much RAM as the other etc.
Can't find the link..
Yes, the graphics cards and storage were also different. It was a useless bit of info.
Sure you guys have seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr7kr4kimeM
If you havent, some nice short videos restating things we already know :D
So I was poking around the ASRock eXtreme Tuning Utility, hoping to maybe figure out a way to edit it or add in an entry to get it to work with the E350M-1 board, first file I've looked in though turned up something of relevance to the thread...
Everything runs off XML files, which are for basically each individual board to state limits, MOSFET controllers (or whatever) and the sensor IO, among other things. For the 890FX-Deluxe3 that just came out, with AM3+ support, it says:
Looking down the list more and I see...Code:<Item Conf="890FXD5.xml" Name="890FX Deluxe5" Index="21" IesConf="L6717.xml"/>
So apparently the 990FX will either be such a minimally tweaked chip that it is, as some of the past SB have, just a drop-in for motherboard manufacturers. Or not at all and just rebranded as is what has basically been said/hinted at. What that means is, it would seem at least, is FlanK3r doesn't have to worry about any performance issues with the AM3+ boards that are out there right now. :) I mean, it's just speculation right now, but appearss as though at least one of ASRock's boards will be mostly the same as far as the finer details are concerned, since that profile to overclock everything points back to the 890FX D5. Likely will be layout and heatsink changes, just to mix things up. Especially considering the Deluxe4 and 5 show very litter difference in terms of component locations across the board, which only shows minor layout difference versus the Deluxe3. Biggest one is the change from VIA audio to Realtek :\ The only difference in the profile that I don't know what is for, is the "Index=##" part, which changes from 21 (890FX) to 45 (990FX) :shrug:Code:<Item Conf="890FXD5.xml" Name="990FX Deluxe4" Index="45" IesConf="L6717.xml"/>
Anywho... While I'm on the topic, I also came across some info on undocumented APU graphics models, their designation, Crossfire compatibility with a discrete card, and what Radeon model that APU+GPU Crossfire will be redesignated :up: That was in one of AMD's programs :D ('spose I should type up that info I was going to and publish it... Just cuz I wanna feel 'spechul' and get it online before anyone else! :rofl: lol)
EDIT: Can't say they're not coming out soon :D They've apparently gotten into the hands of someone who is providing the AIDA team with info, I suppose for the sensors and the like.
Quote:
AIDA64 Extreme Edition v1.60.1369 Beta
preliminary support for AMD K12 (aka Llano) processors
preliminary support for AMD K15 (aka Bulldozer) processors
I can pretend...
This is a fake image btw.
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6559/bulldozer32.jpg
beep: why do u think (1.57.3, myabe better support)?
You should already know why :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
I so hope to god that Bulldozer performs remarkably well and go head to head with intel again, it would be such a welcome change in the microprocessor world. ~15% faster per core than K10.5 would make the 8 core BD very competitive indeed. Here's hoping its faster still :)
4x 2048???etc? Others, I dont really know :(
Nope, thats the correct cache structure, at least I think so, so keep guessing :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Where do you think I got that image from?
Eng sample name suggests it's 2.8GHz [3.6GHz Turbo] and faked pic has 3.2GHz :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Anyway I'm looking forward to next couple of weeks, it will be fun sorting fake info from somewhat legit one :yepp:
That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't display the Multi or HTT, so it could be overclocked for all we know :p: But 3220, according to what I'm seeing, is correct for 3.2GHz; 2.8GHz would be 2820.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
My guess is due to it not reporting how many multiples for the cache there are, IE:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
8 x 16KB
4 x 64KB
4 x 2048KB
But, I'm just basing that off what it reports for my Bobcat and in all likelihood isn't right :\
Unless it's that engineering samples show up as single core, and that is why it doesn't indicate their cache multiples, thus 8 then being incorrect...
(doubt the Processor #1 being shaded is your reason, as again my Bobcat's is and it's dual-core)
No, my pic shows a 3220 model number :) tech docs state that as a 3.2 Ghz CPU with 3.7 Ghz Turbo ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Here's that APU Crossfire and 990FX data I stumbled across that I said I would do a writeup about :)
http://pro-clockers.com/industryrevi...ain-sight.html
The specification really throws me off here, none of my AMD ES chips have anything which remotely resembles that. I look forward to seeing TRUE ES pictures :D
True, but lets assume current beta BIOSes are not allowing OC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
I was talking about this section of CPU name:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
ZD322046W8K44_36/28/20_2/8 A
This is my speculation, but to me it reads 3.6GHz Turbo. 2.8GHz Stock. I'm not sure how to interpret 20_2 and 8 A.
Once again my speculation :)
What sort of specifications are you referring to? (if you're allowed to say)Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Is it something that AMD can change in different ES chips so they can trace the source of leaks?
Week and batch maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
much info here also:
http://translate.google.com/translat...%2Findex6.html
Nice 2good4you :D Thanks :up: