WTF they pushed the voltage to 2.04v!!!:eek: Did they trying hard to get that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Printable View
WTF they pushed the voltage to 2.04v!!!:eek: Did they trying hard to get that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
http://www.corsair.com/cases/graphit...ower-case.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
Poor performance? :S
Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk
if you believe orb
you believe I have 18 inch dingdong =_=
obr is still laming with a B0 stepping ES CPU:
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2011-08/13063_obr1_rs_2.png
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2011-04/13063_1_2.jpg
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2011-04/13063_2.jpg
mod: oops... I was too slow :)
So the guy in the vid is obr?
Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Evantaur
You people do realize that posting stuff from OBR is not allowed on XS? Just a heads up.
Some people just don't get it and keep on pissing us with his crappy stuff again and again :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
i just wasted 1.32 minutes of my life and CPU time then :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
i wish it was talk like a pirate day already!
I almost destroy my LCD when hearing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evantaur
I have video's proving he's an idiot, but who needs proof of that :ROTF:
wow so the old crappy B0 is able to get 6.5ghz from a guy whos trying to make it look bad. cant wait to see what B2 does in the hands of our crazy members
i wnat to see C0 in my socket. :yepp:
Attachment 119308Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
seems it is possible. :yepp:
Q1: Why should an A1 Stepping be better then B2 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullCracka
Q2: Why should CPU-Z show the Phenom2 logo?
Q1 could be answered in the best case with nasty deactivations from AMD to control leaks. But Q2 is not solvable. CPU-Z should show one of these logos:
Attachment 119315
Note that these screens were just a test with an AMD X2 240 and a virtual machine to see CPU-Z's behavior.
Anyhow, the Phenom2 logo is definitely wrong -> fake.
Opteron, please look at the CPU-Z version...
Who knows the true performance of either? All we have is dubious leaks to go buy. Nothing's certain.Quote:
Why should an A1 Stepping be better then B2
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
on that same site is says when translated. bios and power supplies were to blame for earlier revisions. or something like that the google tranlations is very very very bad.
there is also some hidden info on that site that can only be seen if you register and post.. ....................... have not tried though.
Example: "Bulldozer and then check the performance of eight threads can not pay would in 9000, the main reason for the test problems is power supply and motherboard BIOS issue, bulldozers high demand for power, and now the BIOS only 60-70% of shipments performance only."
Doesn't make much sense...PSU has nothing to do with performance throttling, unless it means motherboard PWM which would just blow up or throttle CPU clock.
BIOS I can understand...but would again throttle CPU speeds, which should show in monitoring progs
its probably just a really badly way to translate that the 800 series boards were not good enough for BD
Have peeps seen these?
http://translate.google.com/translat...r_fx_8150.html
Whats the score here?
This was posted 2 days ago i think. It looks fake, 223 TDP doesn't sound right at all. also it's obviously an old ES since CPUz is showing 8130p not 8150p, IMO.
shows FX-8150P getting a 6.87 score in CB 11.5.... what does i7-2600k get stock? 5.48? is that correct?
Attachment 119324
edit: so this score = i7 2600k score
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...600k-review/14
if this will be real, than is not much good. Because PII redesign x8 at 32nm and simillary clocks could be 100% better!And die size would be the same. (Thuban 1100T working behind rendering only at 3300 MHz and hit 5.95 points, this FX worked at 4200 MHz and achieve "only" 6.87 with +900 MHz clock and +2 more cores...So, wtf?:confused:)
PS: Thuban at 3.9 GHz has 7.02 points....
Thanks for sharing your thoughtsQuote:
Originally Posted by TheBreezyBB
Good comparissonsQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
From your point of view, looks like this must be another cripple / fake resultQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
It better be!
I dont know, it may be not fake...Maybe still BIOS problem or microcode or maybe real performance. Who know....
If it is real, Then AMD are shooting themselves in the foot, by releasing an under-performing CPU, that is not what everyone wanted to be! I for one don't think this is real.
hey I found the die is very different compare to the earlier one, isn't it? (L2 cache become smaller or the core bigger? L3 significantly bigger than before?)
http://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploa...r_Die_size.png
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/n...ie-diagram.jpg
it looks like the green pictures are just taller than the pink version which looks nearly perfectly square
so how they came to the measurements may still be wrong
Do you think AMD will be releasing a chip they call high-end performance desktop CPU and which brings back the FX name again if it was slower than the predecessor? One hint about performance is the rumored retail price.Just compare this price of roughly ~300$ with Thuban 1100T price of 190$.IF you count in that usually the new stuff is priced a tad bit higher ,the difference is from 40% to 57%. Performance should be in line with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBreezyBB
For reference look here:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-14/moyenne.html
AMD needs a chip that is 38% faster than Thuban @ 3.3Ghz,on average, to take the performance crown (until SB-E comes). I believe they will do just that(as literary have the chip that is around ~1.30x-1.5x faster than Thuban in client workloads).
the other screen is showing a high voltage for lower clock speed. 1.414 for 2.8ghz and 1.296 for 4.2ghz. -_-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
what if that was only 4 cores on bulldozer ?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullCracka
it's right your sign yet n00o00o0o one cares to look.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
everyone else no it's less IPC then phenom II, yet they have no real proof of it.
That would a nice score if it was only 4 cores :)
I wouldn't be suprised if BD FX8 doesn't run far away from X6 in fpu intensive applications. Given the BD shares it fpu they will have lower core scaling then x6. If you compare it to a deneb at 3,7GHz which gets 4,35points. There is a 50-60% speedup for the same number of fpu ex-units.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
not saying those numbers are correct, but i wouldn't expect magic for the part in which they made compromises with BD.
Keep in mind Cinebench is very FPU dependent as with all 3d apps. That being said we know BD only has 4 FPU's.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Well if it doesn't have decent integer performance and lousy FP performance, then what does it have?
:shakes::shakes::shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
that's only in 256 bit mode is there 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
in 128 bit There are still 8 of them.
it was also said that a single core can use both 128 bit FPU if needed.
LMAO :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
I see, and since cinebench does not support AVX yet I't would be running the 128bit x 8 configuration.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Each floating point unit has 4 pipes. The first two (pipe 0 and pipe 1) contain the units that mainly perform FP arithmetic such as ADD, MUL and FMA, while the other two pipes (pipe 2 and pipe 3) perform the other AVX, SSE, and MMX instructions. When compared to 10h processors bulldozers FPU is more specialized and balanced.
Perhaps everyone should consider that AMD did not release these benchmarks and they might not even be real. Nothing I have seen, to date, has been representational of actual performance.
Was considered and discussed from what I saw...............you have to realize speculation is all we have to hold on to after numerous BD delays and poor performance rumors, not to mention the 90 day mark announced at Computex is hitting next Tuesday and not a peep from AMD. If BD is ever released or official performance data is released the speculation will stop but not until then. These delays are not looking good and no word from AMD, so the speculation will weigh on the negative side of performance until AMD proves otherwise in my opinion. Even you left doubt hanging with "might not even be real. " .Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Beside, what else is a bunch of hungry sharks to do after missing several feedings. I guess we could go eat elsewhere, experience the taste (beside hype and false promises) and talk about the food there. AMD should be happy this BD discussion still exists and everyone didnt jump off the AMD ship............ although the time is nearing.
good answer ! AMD say nothing. The only thing we have are rumours and no words from AMD, only silence ! It's time to give us real informations instead of "might be" !Quote:
Originally Posted by Naturecannon
It's not as if you guys are entitled to information about it just because you want to know. They'll tell you when they're good and ready, and that is absolutely both their right and their prerogative.
then it is as well to say nothing ;)
well his hands are pretty much tied... those flaming torches are not helpingQuote:
Originally Posted by Seth-01
Wouldn't you?:rolleyes: No one here can tell if they're real or not, for one reason or another. Even if it's real, it doesn't have to be representative for the actual performance of the retail product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Naturecannon
Give him a break, you should be thankful for having JF here. Most people here are totally clueless about BD anyway, me included.
ok ..... then how many does it cost for informations ??? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Evantaur
:ROTF:
Pretty much. Plus, he's here voluntarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Granted, but if AMD truly has something spectacular, it'd be a smart move to start showing off some performance numbers given the proximity to the release date. The amount of excitement seems to have really died down. That's not to say I'm neither excited or optimistic about it, just the silence does not look good. Intel moving SB-E to a 2012 launch date I think is the only thing helping right now, which if they are bluffing and release it when originally planned... Well, I'm just thankful the chances of that are slim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
BD top chip at launch is going to be 10% slower on average than Intel's 2600K. I've said it and I stand by it. There has not been enough IPC improvements to overcome Intel's SB. It will do fantastic inQuote:
Originally Posted by flyck
multi thread programs, but not so good in programs that utilize one or two threads.
Yeah, because the "actual performance" is lower than what we've seen. //Sarcasm Nothing to say otherwise from AMD so I'll assume horrible performance and not get any high hopes. LOL.... BD = failure if it's not as fast or faster than Intel 2600K.Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
in what benchmark? single thread both maxing out turbo, 4 threads? 8 threads? overclocked or stock?Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
How about you quit acting like you know everything and acting a fanboy. Wait until the damn product is released before coming to conclusions please.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Nobody went around talking about Conroe like you do Zambezi so I suggest giving it a rest, no? You might be suprised that AMD has a competitive chip, or maybe you are just afraid of AMD being competition.
1100T @ 4ghz scores the same as a 2600k stock in pcmark i think it is. we all know 2600k is 3.8 turbo at stock so how bad is 1100T again? BD is gona smoke them all. i use to think 6 months ago that BD would land between 2600k and 990x but i think different now.
all things being equal for even 1100T and 2600k gpu ram ect..... in games there is what maybe a 10fps difference... still dont see how that is getting smoked,killed, omg loook at that intel go.
heres a really good one >>> but i have a i7 .... ok. then they show you cpuz @ 4.5 and you see there cheapo ram (not that ram makes much diff on a 2nd gen i7) and some 5350 or a 450 or lower gpu and they think that there system is pWn or someother term they have learned.
ok done with my rant and letting out my AMD koolaid. LMAO
I'm a fanboy of my wallet. I have no allegiance to AMD or Intel. I won't "give it a rest" until AMD releases some numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Hey Beep, he is fully entitled to his opinion, as are you and as is everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Freeloader, you do come across like you are always throwing your dummy out the pram though.....
tell us what we don't know about BD
AMD reveals new details on upcoming Bulldozer chips
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/...e_skin;content
lol probably less than that, it's the GPU that makes the difference. my P2 x6 runs every game I throw at it smoothly, even at stock 3.2ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullCracka
I rarely convert audio or compress files, or do anything very CPU intensive I mostly game, so if you gave me both systems with the same GPU I probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
Personally, I prefer not to put all my eggs in one basket. Makes for less of a mess later on.Quote:
BD top chip at launch is going to be 10% slower on average than Intel's 2600K. I've said it and I stand by it.
What kind of logic is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
-10% on average it cannot win any multithreaded application!
Because if it would win by 20% in multithreaded you won't reach 10% slower on average.
So you probably mean -10% on low threaded applications? Well guess what, AMD has 10-20% clockspeed advantage on anything using 2-4 threads. (which is the majority of the desktop applications). Even phenom2 with l3 at 2.6GHz would be competitive in those applications with that clockspeed advantage. So i see no reason why FX8 8150 wouldn't be competitive in those applications. It will be a different matter for the FX4 and FX6 which do not have such a clockspeed advantage between 2-4 threads. FX4 (~2%) (FX6 has 2-10% for 2-4threads)
I'm not worried about BD performance at launch at all. It will competetive in performance and price. But the high clock design could mean that AMD is hitting a performance ceiling pretty soon. How much further can they take the stock speeds? 5Ghz turbo? At one point they will have to start adding power through extra cache or improvements of the core itself. We know that a 2nd and 3rd generation BD are being prepared but it will be interesting to see what road they are going to take there. What we don't want is 4-5 years of AMD on the same arch with not much room for growth.
Bulldozer as 18 FO4 design will have 1,3x clock speed of Llano on the same voltage.Quote:
Originally Posted by v0dka
Let's see:Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
2600K on average gets 213.4pts. 1100T gets 165.8pts. 10% slower than 2600K for 3.6Ghz Zambezi would mean 213.4/1.1=194pts. This in turn is around 16% faster than 3.3Ghz X6 Thuban according to the chart. Note that Zambezi has 9% clock advantage.
So basically you expect that Bulldozer design,which is a:
-whole new uarchitecture,with many bottlenecks from K8/K10 removed and better utilization of execution units,new redesigned int and fp pipelines,
-33% more cores,
-13% higher Turbo core clock : 4.2Ghz vs 3.7Ghz (which now runs across 4 cores and not only 3),
-higher default clock of 9% (3.6Ghz vs 3.3Ghz),
-somewhat higher IPC in integer/fp(as per AMD)
-better power management
to run slower than Thuban 1100T. Do you see the problem in your logic? Zambezi will not be only 16% faster than Thuban. Turbo core ALONE will get you there,disregarding the effect of 33% more cores or improvements in the cores.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the BD "core" smaller than K10 core? How much of a performance impact could that have (single threaded loads)?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
It's not smaller. Llano core is 9.69mm^2 without L2. BD module is 19.4mm^ without L2. If you look only at integer cores then we have 3.84mm^2 for BD integer core and 3.3mm^2 for one Llano integer "core" (or part of the core that does integer execution). Also,if we look at a BD module without the second integer core and without L2 and compare it to one K10 core on 32nm we have : 15.58mm^2 vs 9.69mm^2.In this case (mimicking the scenario of single thread execution within the module),we have all the resources that are shared being used by this single core.This means using the much faster FPU and much better prefetching and branch prediction abilities of the frontend ,all for the single thread.
This is the last of OBR
http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/08...monthyear.html
What happen with this guy? :confused:
who cares?
I belive that posting stuff from OBR is not allowed on XS..
Attachment 119357Quote:
Originally Posted by cesariuth
what different
B2 / C0 stepping
Yeah, he's pathetic, but PLEASE POSTING FROM THAT SITE!!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT HIS BS AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.
He's an attention whore and all you do by posting links here is helping him...
STOP MESSING UP THE TREAD.
MODS: Isn't it possible to get certain URL's replaced with smilies, just like when i write :banana::banana::banana::banana:? Can't you just put that O-word on the same list?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
i find it interesting that he takes a quote from this thread, then we quote him quoting this thread, lol
That's because we're bored, and he's frustrated because he's banned. :D
I'm not fond of John from AMD (not as a person because I don't know him, I'm sure he's a cool guy outside of AMD), but to actually call John out as liar of the month is a new low even for **R.
Indeed, it was out of line.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Little update with an actual photograph of that pathetic pety ego addict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
http://www.maltrabob.com/obrulez.jpg
Nice one maltrabob :D.
Hi Guys,
About OBR, I can tell you there is some genuine BD entries in the CPUZ Validator Database right now and none of them looks like the one he published. Especially regarding the construction of the PSN.
A good proof for what he says should be to validate a dump, even unpublished. If he let me check this dump, I will be able to confirm or not.
Of course he is entitled to his opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
However he is shoving it in peoples faces as if his words are the bible...
Not in the last two or so posts, but still.
As far as OBR goes, I can't believe moderator hasn't stepped in yet but then again this discussion seems to be moving in the right direction for the most part :p
@xsecret
Doesn't OBR only have early ES CPUs that are probably stolen somewhere down the line? ...B0 CPU can't really be called a representation of performance like he wants it to be.
Vapor can't be serious. Am I seriously expected to find out all banned XS members and consult the list every time I want to post a link to outside information? I didn't have any clue OBR was previously an XS member until this whole thing for instance. I was just lucky enough not to have posted anything I guess.
Mmmmm. I'm reviewing CPUs since 10 years and I never saw a huge performance gap between any B0 ES CPU and the final, retail step of the same CPU. Changes in features and OC abilities for sure, but not in raw performance. This said, the validator database contains many BD steps, from the first A0 to the latest one (with final PSN), and none of them looks like the PSN on his screenshots.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I'm genuinely confused now, considering OBR's results often put Bulldozer at Thuban level performance...Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
What's wrong with the bible? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Not wanting to get in a religious arguement, nothings wrong with the bible, but people that believe it's correct generally try a bit hard to persuade others about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
I'm joking with you...relax. You fail to see my sarcasm in most of my posts. Just learn to ignore me when I rant. I'm still standing by my 10% comment though. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
There is a difference with Bulldozer though.With microcode AMD can tweak and turn off various features of the core.Remember the Barcelona TLB erratum and the BIOS patch that came out to fix it? Now imagine similar thing with Bulldozer,where you can tweak on a much deeper level and imagine that there is nothing wrong-they can enforce many things through the BIOS-from memory accesses to prefetching .Note that Bulldozer also has numerous clock domains that can be controlled.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
PS I'm not saying retail Zambezi is now going to magically post some insane numbers.It may very well be slightly faster than what we have been shown. But the only problem with early B0/B1 numbers is that these samples perform usually lower than Thuban (or barely faster). For a FX name baring design with 300$ price sticker,I doubt it will be slightly faster than 190$ 1100T :).
I don't know what to think about OBR. This could be 100% fake, but some of the informations he published are true. For example the launch date. At this time, the press NDA disclosure is planned for the 06 Sept while the retail launch is planned for October, between 03 and 15. The exact date is not yet defined, but it's really October. In the opposite, there is some clear fakes in the pictures he released. The values displayed by CPUZ seems wrong and doesn't follow the current BD dumps I have in the database. He could have a different CPU, but that's unlikely. A single submit from him could be a great proof of everything. I can guarantee I will not pass any informations from him to AMD. I was the first to leak K8 results on the Internet, so I know what I'm talking about :D But there is some more disturbing fake I spotted in his pictures. Like this one (hard to explain, so here is a small picture) :Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
http://temp.x86.fr/obrfakeornot.jpg
I don't buy the microcode argument. I don't think you can help performance that much.
Didn't some site post that B0/B1 steppings were prone to HTT Flooding under load?
Not sure what you'd do to make it run stable, but I bet the BIOS is putting some clamps unto the core/cache.
That's what I call real informations :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
The rumored October launch date is leaked out from a UK site first.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
I don't really give a buck about all the pre release results and speculation...
The only scenario if Intel SB-E stuck @ 53X average like 2600K....BD that (most definitely) can scale to 6Ghz+ with cold will be the obvious choice for benching this coming winter:)
Time to dust off your venom pot and put the single stage back in the drawer. Lol
Here we are again with yet another piece of confusing information. This is the printscreen of a cached document that shortly appeared on his blog on Tuesday, 17th May 2011: www.maltrabob.com/Obr_popel3.jpg. It reads:
"My bad: I was mistaken ... big time
I was expecting that AMD BD was going to be a fiasco, I was mistaken and declare that it is not. After many years of inferior performance the time has come for some revenge ... Intel is going to be surprised I guess! That`s why Intel is likely to plan Core i7-2800K and similar ones ..."
Unfortunalely I wasn`t fast enough to capture the whole article but I managed to read it all. In general, it was saying that BD is not going to disappoint.
He is like a little spoilt brat with some personality disorder :/
Gee, i wonder how long he left it out there for.... Fair dinkum, this bloke is a wack job.Quote:
Originally Posted by maltrabob
Think about this for a while:
8 core = 300$
300/8 = 37,5$ per core
compare to todays price on 6 cores:
1100T = 190$
190/6 = 31,667$ per core
37,5/31,667 = 1,184
So, 18,4% higher price per core - would this be also the average performance increase we can expect per core?
If so, for 8 core (33% more cores)
1,184*1,333 = 1,578
58% performance increase compared to 1100T when full load on all cores?
Remember the rumors about 50% more performance with 33% more cores? It seems it's likely are true...we can only hope :)
(you also have to account higher clock speeds and support for new instruction sets)
Here's my analogy.
OBR is some pissed off dweeb that can't get AMD review samples legit because he can't keep his mouth shut. For some reson he blames his contact in his local area when in reality it's his own damn fault.
Someone is selling him chips but the joke is on him, it could be AMD themselves, but they are sending him some preety rotten samples, either his contact for chips is burning him and laughing all the way to the bank or AMD is doing it just to have a good laugh.
The term having more money than brains applies here.
As far as JF and his comments towards, well......JF is server not desktop. Not only is OBR out of line, he's an idiot in this sense, when JF makes a comment it is based on his knowledge of server side not desktop.
so let me get this right. in one of the posts above he is praising amd but in all of the others he has been kicking amd in the nuts?
wtf sound like he has multiple personality disorder. All personality's will be listed below
The mean, crazy drunk russian in favor of intel
The psycho, crap spewing psychopath in favor of intel
The bully on the playground that has failed a grade or 3 so he is taller than anyone else in favor of intel
The kid scared of the bully that never tells anyone what has happened and the one time he does its just a tease in favor of amd