I did... I was charged somehow and touched my 3850 at the xfire port, I felt a zap and the card never booted again... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Printable View
I did... I was charged somehow and touched my 3850 at the xfire port, I felt a zap and the card never booted again... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
I've never killed anything with static, except for floppies.
But I've heard of people killing whole pc's by touching the case, static discharge, because they had bad wiring in there house.
Oh and I was told along time ago that the old slot baised pentium's would die on the shelf if left that way.
I've hurt chips in the past by running them at higher voltages.
But the damage wasn't much.
It's easier to hurt a cpu then it is to break one in :|.
That's why instead of just jumping to a certain voltage and playing with it, I take baby steps.
All it takes is a few steps higher then what it really needs, running it like that for a long time and getting it hot, and the overclocking potential starts to get lower and lower ever so slightly.
And btw, what's this omg 1ghz turbo core stuff about?
You can increase by 1ghz with turbo on the x6's if you wanted to...
Omg turbo core in effect on all cores at once, lol, turbo does that now anyways :).
It's just another pwr state...
A 1055t for $99 would be cool...
I don't get all the rabble about "High frequencies? It must suck." That doesn't make any sense since we've already been told that BD is more efficient than K10. It's not like BD is going to be a P4 strategy version of K10. It's just going to be the result of better timing design in this new architecture.
gpu usage is hard to measure with AMD cardsQuote:
Originally Posted by AAbenson
because of how simple sharders may not be utilized fully, its very possible it could be gpu limited still and not just pinged at 100% usage
even with my 4850 ive seen 60% usage is MANY cases, while my cpu is 6 cores and turbo up to 4.3ghz and definitely not cpu limited for what i was doing. only a few games ever pushed my gpu past 90%
if you really want to test it properly, tell you computer to not let it reach max clocks, and if your cpu limited it should decrease fps at a near linear rate.
Yes. You definitely have to take GPU utilization numbers with a grain of salt. It's not as accurate as task manager showing you CPU utilization (which is itself also a close estimate, not an absolute; food for thought).
However, BC2 does chew on a CPU. You'll get good performance increases going from 3.6 to 4.0 and 4.0 to 4.4 GHz even if you're using something from the previous generation such as a 5850.
just cause there are a few exceptions it doesnt mean that hes wrong. even a 3ghz x4 can fully utilize a gtx 580 in 90% of the current games.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAbenson
It also depends on what the game does on the gpu. Doesn't bc2 do occlusion detection on the CPU?
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
with all the comment about it only being as fast as I7 it's going to be said sooner or later.
I don't think anyone is expecting for something as disastrous as the original Phenom, I think people are expecting something more akin to something like Phenom II which was decent for a company with the resources AMD has. I think with all the framework with current CPU's, it is hard to gain single core performance because the biggest improvements have already been implemented. Sandy bridge for example isn't as impressive an improvement clock for clock as nehalem and nehalem was as impressive as core 2 duo vs P4 architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
I think expecting something that's going to beat for example ivy bridge for example or even match it clock for clock core for core is super unlikely. It would be the biggest improvement of all time, bigger than core 2 duo vs p4. Ivy bridge is supposed to be 20 percent faster and with sandy bridges lead over phenom II it would have to be a monster gain that is pretty much impossible.
I used to love AMD for their processors but they have continued to disappoint over and over again. Their overclocking ability is less consistent than Intels which make them less fun. Unless your working with LN2 i guess or liquid helium with the most recent processors. They are so much slower clock for clock too. So that why I wouldn't set my expectation too high for bulldozer as well as a lack of anything to show. Intel shows things months ahead of time because they are confidence about their processors, AMD just seems less confident.
20% faster is within the same power envelope(SB vs IB). I would be surprised if we saw 5%(overall) higher IPC with IB. I expect IB will bring clock improvements and power draw decrease which is in line with a shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Bulldozer is not only going to be made on 32nm (vs 45 in Deneb's case),it is going to be clock optimized and power optimized design. On top of this it should bring certain IPC improvements ,mostly in fp code. It will be a step up from deneb,that's for sure. I personally expect it will outperform SB in well threaded code . In poorly threaded code BD has other features which will help so that it doesn't trail SB that much as Phenom does today.
Well, so YOU seem to be expecting something disastrous, just not AS disastrous as phenom I (i guess the first TLB bug version, B3 was not that much worse than Q6xxx) :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
And by "people" i think you mean intel fanboys, because normal people have pretty high expectations of bulldozer, its such a radical departure, first brand new architecture from AMD for years, and all that on brand new (for AMD) process.
Going further in your post.Such a small company like AMD with the resources thay have, had surpassed intel before, so its not like ypu present it ,like its impossible ;-).
NOBODY expects it to beat/match ivybridge clock for clock or core for core.
Ivybridge is a year away, and on a new process, which wont be available for AMD at the same time.And more importantly, definition and inner workings of amd`s "core" and intels core are such radically different for bulldozer that you cant make comparisons like that.Whats going to be important is performance per $,and/or absolute performance.
At this time, it seems first BD is going to be competing with 4 core sandybridge.With 8 cores and big turbo, it seems like it has a chance.
As for intels confidence, they were confident of a netburst architecture with rambus memory.And where it got them ?
EDIT:
And by the way, isnt ivybridge just a shrink? Shrink doesnt bring big or huge IPC gains, mainly minor ones.
Be realistic people. Something like 5 weeks from release and theres still no performance numbers for Bulldozer, don't ignore whats staring you in the face and thats BD won't be the miracle chip people are praying for like A64 was. I'll go on record right now and say whatever AMD intend as direct competion for the 2500k to be about 10% slower than the 2500k. If the gap is larger, that won't surprise me either. Nomatter which way you slice things, theres absolutely nothing to even suggest BD is equally as efficient as SB, nevermind better. Anybody remember me saying BD could be released for AM3 if AMD really wanted to albiet with a few exclusions but AMD kept saying "oh no BD must have a new socket and chipset".... yet now BD will essentially be released on the AM3 platform just with the AM3 socket itself so marginally modified you wouldn't even notice if you didn't know about it.
Haha, I love this.
When there's a silence and somebody wants it to fail, then it's a bad sign, they got nothing to show for etc.
When there's a silence and somebody wants it to succeed, then it's a good sign, it's going to be even better than everybody expected and they don't want to scare the competition, because they could lower prices or w/e.
^^absolutely right, BD will still be horrible at superpi and thus will be a horrible chip
will BD have Intel Quick Sync equivalent?
I didn't say BD will be a horrible chip, just stop expecting so much from it because theres nothing to prove its weight.
Theres nothing to prove otherwise also :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ket
I am not expecting something disastrous. Phenom II was definitely not a disaster, It help AMD catch up alot.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I think it is easier to expect something like phenom II type improvement than expect a crazy improvement. How is expecting Phenom II performance increase vs phenom Intel fanboyish. It is pretty realistic.
I think expecting the second coming of athlon is fanboying and too optimistic. They have so much ground to make up at this point. As for some people not thinking thinking it will match or beat ivy bridge. Look at some people signatures or avatar. E.g Intel is about to get athloned. Phenom II clock for clock,clock for clock is a bit worse than core 2 quad(very slight). So they need to make up for two or three generations. If they can match sandy bridge that would be great but this is a huge endeavor. New Architech dont always pay off. Look at phenom and to a lesser extent the 6970 and Fermi. AMD's track record for CPU's isn't the best lately so its hard to expect a blockbuster.
A Intel fanboy will say BD will disappoint like Phenom I because they are not saying anything and keeping everything under wraps.
I dare to contradict your statement: there is no book on how to release a product, and the fact of the matter is that AMD really needs to prove that they can still release high-end chips. The CPU world has been onesided for far too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ket
The K series have been around for about a year and where a reaction to the Amd Black series so don't think that this as a worry about BD but a hedge for the PII unlocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
it will be Threads vs Cores again.
what I mean is it will be 8 threads on Intel Vs 8 cores on AMD.
Ket: srry, but my 1100T Thuban beating your 5 GHz 2500k in rendering (R11.5, 3DsMax,POV Ray, practical Cinema 4D)...Dont forgot at it. In render is stock Thuban very good comparsion too with 2600k (without R10, it is not good optimized for x-cores)
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...90X/3dsmax.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...990X/cine3.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...0X/povrayx.png
not so sure about thatQuote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
.BD will be stronger when less than half the cores are used up (more power when a module has only one core running), so its tough to consider BD as just a plain 8-core chip.
i believe that BD will beat a 2600K by about 20% on average in multithreaded apps. but when it comes to low thread counts (1-2), i havnt the slightest clue what would happen. and in medium thread counts (3-4) i think it will be about tied.
AMD fans: listen to the Intel fans! Why? Because you have nothing to lose! Just listen, but don't buy an Intel yet..
If BD is a failure, you won't get disappointed, they told you so.
If BD is a success, you'll be very surprised! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Why does everyone put so much worth in SuperPi? I mean for crying out loud, its not like it's serving you cheerios in the morning upon rising:rofl:
Not Good at SuperPi makes for a terrible chip????? Funny I am typing on my 3 year old Phenom 940 BE at STOCK and this processor handles anything you throw at it just fine!
I expect Bulldozer to be on par of SB or slightly below in single threaded applications, while it might excel at multi-threaded workloads. If you consider that fanboy talk is your choice. ;)
Bulldozer will fit into AM3/AM3+, while Intel will be cashing in on different sockets (same crippled chipset). No matter how many customers will see the light when it comes to motherboards - we will have competition again to lower prices especially at the (higher) end of the scale.
superpi is the dead horse of a benchmark we all like to keep beating at. i hope you saw the sarcasm in my post :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
What qurious63ss said. The first K series (the 655K and 875K) were both launched in 2Q'10, I believe primarily as a response to the plethora of AMD Black CPU's, with the 655K launch price ~$220 ($216per unit in lots of 1000). You can see the explanation of this and the launch price in this review from last year. http://techgage.com/article/intels_c...ed_processors/Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
I don't believe this has anything to do with BD or SB.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48499
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=48750
You see, phenom I vs phenom II AT SAME CLOCKS AND CORES wasnt that much of a improvement really.What it did bring to the table tho, is clocks, much more of it.And later, cores, 50% more of it.So if you take a look at it YOUR way, its a small decent improvement.But from where im sitting, its pretty much a big one (add higher clocks ,more cores,ddr3,higher attanaible NB speed).Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
However going back to your first post, you were clearly making it to be a little better than phenom I .Not my choice of words :).
Getting back to the point, JF told us that BD will have HIGHER IPC than PHII.
We know from lotsa different sources that beside that it will have:
-More cores
-New instructions
-Higher memory throughput
-Higher clocks
-Big turbo boost
So if youre trying to tell me, that this cpu is going to be just a "bump" from PHII.Thats very unrealistic.Keep in mind tho, im not talking bout the superpi.
Because its quite concevaible that its gonna be just 10% faster at that.Thats possible.Im not working with or playing it tho.
As for the "expecting too much" ,youre saying people here have unrealistic expectations for BD.Well 20% higher IPC on ivybridge is hard to believe also :shrug:.
Mayeb i should clarify as to what i would consider big upgrade:
-Up to 5ghz overclockability
-10-15% ipc gain
-Core gain (thats a given right now) which gives me 33% more power vs my current X6
-New instruction sets which give me additional boosts here and there (transcoding, pcsx2 etc).
+High speed DDR3
Im expecting all this to give me 40-50% more cpu raw power than my current setup.If its not going to deliver that, im waiting for socket 2011 and examining it.
Phenom II at release was DDR2 only AM2+, we knew AM3 was coming but there was a small wait... some CPU's struggled above 3.6-3.7 Ghz and 2400-2600NB and also had trouble around DDR3-1600.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Same design, AMD managed to push in 2 cores, run speeds 400-600 Mhz higher on both CPU and CPUNB, and gain about 400 Mhz DDR3 with just a stepping change or two...
Bad thing is that Phenom II X6 is slower IPC than Phenom II X4 but hits higher clock speeds...
x6 has exactly the same ipc as x4.
cache.. less l3 per core
BD will be 40-50% higher speed than and x6 1100? Mmm, while that would be real nice, I dont' believe thats the case.
RussC
Add two cores. That's 33% right there, so you are saying you dont think they could find 7% either in clock headroom or CPC?Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
You've got to be kidding me...
8 Cores at 3.5 Ghz /3.9 or 4.0 Turbo is 46% faster at the same efficiency of Phenom II X6...
This is not true ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
given little Bobcat is only a few % slower than K10 in superpi, maybe BD won't be so bad at it any more either :p
..not that it matters to anyone with a clue.
Anyhow, I believe the only thing that will spoil Bulldozers launch would be SB-E hex core, OR a failure to reach the frequencies we're assuming it will launch at.
A 4M / 8core BD should dispatch a 2600K enough in MT apps to 'crown' it as faster. IF the target frequencies are met, in particular the 4+Ghz Maximum Turbo (as per the leaked doc) I'd also expect it to be a competitor for the 990X, both MT and Single threaded.
who said anything about linear scaling?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
i still run applications along with a lot of other people on this forum that require x87. go down to the WCG section for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
essentially superpi is slow single threaded matrix multiplication, which is quite useful for a lot of things. an upgrade from superpi would be something like LinX although i cant find any reviews that anything like it.
edit: here are some benches. similar outcomes for the euler3d app along with superpi, myrimatch, etc show that AMD has a weak spot for scientific computations.http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/15
You could consider that it might be in the OEM's best interests not to leak benchmarks. You know, they have the same partners who still have SB systems to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ket
All I care about is that Bulldozer better Bulldoze, or it's a bust.
I don't want to compare bulldozer to ivy bridge yet because ivy is still not existant. But I honestly just find it hard to believe how the 2600k would trash BD like so many predict. Sure we can talk single threaded performance all day, but how many games and apps still rely only on 1 thread? Plus let's not forget one crutial detail - Zambezi will pack 8 physical cores at 3+ ghz stock. I don't see how 2600k will be better with half the cores at anything other than single threaded. Sure the 6 cores will rock. But discarding BD vs the 4 cores i7 seems a premature decision to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Sorry I must disagree. Unless AMD pulls something out of the bag, this chip will be priced high in the server market, while low in the desktop market (relatively speaking).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Single threaded performance is very important, as core counts of 8 will not be utilised in the desktop arena. Unless you suddenly think gaming systems will stop being console ports, or an insane amount of grid computer users suddenly appear.
I doubt very much if AMD is top of the tree when it's out in the desktop area, the server market is a completely different situation.
I dont like this AMD' silence. I dont know if its just me... that's why im not putting to much expectation on this.
damn it this thread is like facebook i keep checking it but nothing useful is on here
And done :rofl::up:Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
People will see what they want to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by pipoo
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7...deadpeople.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Lol
Cant sleep, CPU's will burn me?
More like 0% in desktop-specific applications, or even -1..3% because of architecture "tweaks" in order to accomodate more cores, the same way Thuban is a bit slower per clock than Deneb.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
On server parts sure, Bulldozer will be very nice, up to 16 cores per socket in a decent TDP looks like a winner, but on desktop i doubt it will even get close to SB, unfortunately.
Proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
We did a quick test on this, you can find it here, but i'm sure there are more out there.
That comes with the use of power gating and TurboCore / TurboBoost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
That would be assuming BD's arch. is the same as denab/thuban, everything indicates its as far from anything x86 we've seen up to this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
While I do agree completely, I was just trying to point out that more cores do not mean higher average performance on desktop CPU's due to the usage model.
Turbo Core on Thuban, TurboBoost and power gating on Intel CPU's ;). (next gen AMD will also have power gating, but that's another story)Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
Your completely right, people do need to take note of your results when we run into more pasting of cores to the same arch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
Not everyone has the same usage model. Single core isn't everything, even on the desktop. Many people run multiple apps at once, it's called multitasking and has been around for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
It is quite likely that we won't have a simple X processor is better than Y processor scenario with BD. It hasn't been that way in the past and nobody should expect it now. Even A64 vs P4 there were plenty of specific applications where a P4 was the better choice.
People will have to choose which processor to buy based on what kind of apps they use and how they use them. If you run a single threaded app and you run only one app at a time, then SB might be the correct choice. If you run multithreaded apps, or multiple apps then BD might be the better choice. Either way, we can be sure that the reviews won't match any particular user's usage model very closely (except benchers'). You will have to use your brains to figure out how the numbers really apply to how you use your computer.
The only reason I think the newer cores are slower then each last gen core is because of the timings they use in the romsip.
They do this to make it so it clocks higher and stays stable.
But in reality they don't put much time into it, there's over 2x the performance still in there yet to be used but we can't access these timings because the rom that contains them is inside the cpu core it's self.
If they went back to using tables that someone like me could see and mod, or if they switched to a dynamic table that any user could adjust inside the bios would we see a dramatic increase in performance.
I know it's a fact because of the pathetic ram bandwith we get on all of the newer amd's.
And when a user like me signs up for the amd dev program, and asks about it by email to the dev's, the dev's are dumb founded.
So I gave up trying to find the info, and haven't tried since.
I'de gladly sign an nda if I could get the info I needed to make our systems faster and more stable.
Quote:
AMD Service Notice:{ticketno:[....]}
From:
"TECH.SUPPORT@AMD.COM" <TECH.SUPPORT@AMD.COM>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
....@yahoo.com
Dear Customer,
Your service request : SR #{ticketno:[.....]} has been reviewed and updated.
Response and Service Request History:
Itīs a very complex issue, so we recommend you to contact your technical center and require for the proper information, please access the website below.
http://support.amd.com/us/contacts/P...alSupport.aspx
Regards,
In order to update this service request, please respond, leaving the service request reference intact.
Best regards,
AMD Global Customer Care
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
This email is a direct result of your contact with AMD Global Customer Care and not part of a campaign. There is no need to unsubscribe to this email as you will only be contacted again if you directly request another service from AMD Global Customer Care.
The contents of this message are provided for informational purposes only. AMD makes no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy of the contents of the information provided, and reserves the right to change such information at any time, with or without notice.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Original Text
From: ....@yahoo.com
To: TECH.SUPPORT@AMD.COM
CC:
Sent: 05/12/09 21:12:51
Subject: SIP, BUI, SROM
ello. I'm a programmer in asm, I dev bios'es and intergrated operating systems as a hobby. I need as much info as possible on the SIP protocol, BUI and SROM. I'm willing to sign a nda if need be, if I need to do that then ask me and I'll send my addressing info's via email. To give you a better idea of exactly what info I need: db 0x69, 0x41, 0x24, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x19 ;11X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x25, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x19 ;11.5X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x25, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x19 ;12X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x26, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x11 ;12.5X+ db 0x69, 0x41, 0x23, 0x00, 0x00, 0xFD, 0x26, 0x22 ;5X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x24, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x26, 0x21 ;5.5X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x25, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x26, 0x19 ;6X db 0x69,0x41, 0x26, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x26, 0x19 ;6.5X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x20, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x16, 0x19 ;7X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x21, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x16, 0x19 ;7.5X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x21, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x16, 0x19 ;8X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x22, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x16, 0x19 ;8.5X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x22, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x19 ;9X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x23, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x19 ;9.5X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x23, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x19 ;10X db 0x69, 0x41, 0x24, 0x00, 0x00, 0xED, 0x15, 0x19 ;10.5X Those are the mulipliers, the actual sip. I have a hard time tweaking them to perfection. I can adjust the amount of sip tables. I'm having a hard time making then adjustable on the fly though... The main prob I have is when I adjust one multiplier in one fsb table, another fsb table needs adjustaing afterwards. It's a real pain. So I really need as much info as possible on the actual data within. Bit's and bytes, I need the mappings. I'm working with a nvidia nfii chipset that has it'sbui right next to each table. It's unlikely you'll know anything about that so no biggy. Also there is a few more things cpu wise that I wanna know. some systems, plus all newer systems the sip is no longer static in the bios image. I would like toknow how to read the default sip that's built into the cpu it's self. Also howto redo it on such system, an example in assembly would be great... If I could adjust it on the 790fx platforms I could increase bandwith quite a bit... Especially for those that run tCR of 2t. I go under the nick of NEO, and I make custom bios'es for diff board's once in a while. I don't disclose code usally, if I do it's small pieces to explain this or that to someone. Like I said before, I'm willing to sign an nda if need be. I have the ability to assemble my own bios from scratch for the most part. And to recover it, take measurements and etc. So any kind of examples, or docs or whatever, just know that it won't end up killing a system of mine lol, it's no prob ;). Pretty please :) .... Looking for maybe tech doc # 21902. At the very least... Anything that can actually explain the mapping of the sip table of the athlon -> the athlon 64. Thanks
That review only prooves that clock per clock per core performance has gone down, not that the performance per clock has gone down. Why don't you have one bar with all cores activated to see performance? (I don't read romanian and am too lazy to get google to do a bad translation for me.)
otherwise, IMC at Thuban is more stronger. Performance increase with 3 GHz NB at Thuban is really easy (u need only 1.27-1.35V at CPU-NB) and for rendering etc is very nice impact.
But it has less performance on the same clock as denebs cpu nb.
The term "usage model" generally defines the main type of applications most of the users run. If 90% of people use the PC for watching youtube videos, 40% to play games and 0.2% run on 3DStudioMAX and Sony Vegas at the same time (made up figures), the weight of multitasking performance in the usage model will be almost zero; Intel Clarkdale is the perfect example for this, while it wasn't fast not even at launch and it sucked in heavy multithreading (memory performance was bad), it was a great solution for the mainstream market because it focused on multimedia content and poorly threaded apps so it sold very well even though it was fighting the best AMD platform in the last 5 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Sure, some users need more than that, but that's why there are niche markets and products. For a CPU/platform to be a success, it needs to shine in the bulk applications the users will run, not to hunt rare scenarios where it beats the competition just to claim a victory.
Bulldozer isn't made for people who are playing flash games and are watching youtube. Llano is aimed for them. Bulldozer is made for people who actually pushes their computer a bit. And you seem to be talking about the sales of the product. At this forum we don't care to much about sales, we care about perforamnce. Of course sales might be nice if we are wishing a company well, but it's hardly our main interests right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
Do YOU want a computer capable of more than Youtube and a few tabs at the same time?
Personally I run a minecraft server, have tons of browser windows with even more tabs, might be doing some multithredaded calculations that can take days, and maybe want to play GTA IV once in a while. I bring my quadcore to its knees on a daily basis.
EDIT: Can you name a few single threaded programs where you suspect Bulldozer to be to slow for the average users you are talking about? I don't know if there are any commonly used single threaded programs left where performance in modern CPUs actually makes a difference anymore. Theoretical but unnoticeable differences in Microsoft Office isn't really a deal breaker.
I dont think so....yes, its slower in superpi 32M with the same stings (Chew* tested it), but not in normally mutlithread programs. R10 is not so good for comparsion, because every run with R10 u can get +300points up and sometimes down! R11.5 is more better optimalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by eXa
Yes, those are made up figures. But working with that, I'd suggest that the 90% figure probably wouldn't even notice the difference between something like high-end SB or BD and something lower like llano/lowend SB. Most gaming is casual gaming, and CPUs are a wash there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
I am simply pointing out that lower single core performance isn't necessarily the penultimate indicator of useful desktop performance. Who multitasks? Almost everyone, I'd wager. Just some more than others. Will more cores be more useful than more IPC/clocks? That depends on you. Unless you somehow fancy yourself as the perfectly average computer user (to whom BD doesn't matter anyway), how average users use their computers isn't really the point.
Just think about it this way: IPC/clocks can be used by much more apps (and more common ones too) than more cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
I sense you are trying (maybe uncounsciously) to rewrite what I said just to fit your optics better. "Games" turned into "flash games", "poorly threaded" turned into "single threaded" etc. Gaming performance will be a scenario that is pretty important for a CPU and wich would not benefit at all from more than 4 cores but scales ok with better thread performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
I don't know of any games that need more then an x6 and the same goes for emulation.
But when it comes to video post processing, the more cores and more mhz the better.
I've seen a couple avi synth stuffs that cripples the x6.
Which apps are those though? Many apps are single threaded simply because CPU performance isn't critical to their use. And the apps that can use more cores will get a more significant boost out of that than out of extra ipc/clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
This goes along with my point. Do you game? Do you encode? Do you do both? If you do both which do you do more and which matters most to you? Etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by NEOAethyr
Arguments about market share and what average computer users are doing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with me or you as individuals.
No, I didn't rewrite games to flash games. I added flash games to the youtube kind of people. I didn't mention gamers specifically since I didn't think they were essential to the discussion, I put them in the category of people who as I said "pushes their computer a bit". I thought you talked about the youtube guys mainly. And Bulldozer isn't aimed for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
But we can break it down to these main groups.
1. Ordinary users, using Office, youtube, flash games and simple browsing and occasional games.
2. Gamers.
3. Advanced users.
Bulldozer isn't aimed for number 1, Llano is, and might be a much better option than SB here. So these people aren't a problem. For the guys at number 2 Bulldozer has the potential of boosting performance with its decoupled FPU. So even if the games won't use all 8 integer cores they might be boosted by all 8 FPUs. Combined with very aggressive turbo I don't think you should count Bulldozer out as an alterantive for these guys. For the guys that fit in number 3 Bulldozer seems to be a perfect fit. 8 cores performance when needed, or fewer boosted cores when the situation changes. And if you want fewer threads there will be quad and hexa core Bulldozers as well. Most likely with higher frequencies and much lower price. I don't doubt these will compete very well at their price point.
So I honestly don't see the problem here. For all we know BD will have more cores, higher IPC and might even have a decent frequency advantage over Phenom II.
Sorry, you are very wrong here. Bulldozer is aimed at servers. If for any reason it's multicore strength is useful for desktop, then that is where it will be aimed on the desktop; but that's not the primary goal of bulldozer.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Your Thuban is raped by the 2600K ...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Have you really tried SB platform :confused:
I lost interest in this discussion when I got to the texbook marketing press release vocabulary:
Edit, @FlanK3r : Thuban is on par with Lynnfield in those apps and WAY behind Sandy Bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
We are talking Zambezi, you should know that from reading the thread. I don't think there will be much AM3+ servers out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
Besides, Bulldozer is made with both desktop and server in mind. AMD don't have the resources or sales to develop chips made exclusively for servers. BD will be the base for all AMD desktop chips for maybe a decade, Llanos successor will be Bulldozer based. They can't make any tradeoffs in desktop performance. Of course AMD has designd a chip that will work good in both desktop and servers, but they still had desktop in mind when they were designing it. Or do you actually believe they would go with the K7-based processors another decade or that they have another completely new design around the corner? Was K8 server or desktop?
you make it sound as if most apps were well threaded and its rare to have apps that dont scale with more cores :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
http://i716.photobucket.com/albums/w...s/applause.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Your argument makes perfectly sense! I see you are right, BD is useless for desktop and has no selling point. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
Or... Can you please stop attacking my choice of words and present some arguments for your point of view?
Could you point out where I am wrong? Your arguments against Bulldozer works perfectly fine at a "traditional" 8-core. You seem to think that just because it got 8 integer cores it isn't good for poorly threaded applications and only is an alternative when you are running lots of threads all day long. Do you say the same about 4C/8T i7s? The difference isn't all that big you know. We are not talking 8 complete cores dragging down frequency and low thread performance as you may think. We are talking 4 modules with beefed up FPUs and extra integers. With advanced energy saving and Turbo these few percent extra die space won't hold the cores back much in frequency in low threaded situations.
The whole point with Bulldozer is that it's flexible and with just little extra diespace can run twice the amount of threads. And in the same time can utilize almost everything when running few threads.
Is 4C/8T i7 just hunting rare scenarios? Or is it simply a good quad core with some extra die space made to make it more capable in the increasing amount of multithreded applications that is out there? Would your argumentations against Bulldozer sound the same if it was marketed as an quadcore with extended HT?
I love these discussions ... no one as the single clue about what BD is going to be ... and that creates such a frustration on users that you guys end just "shooting bullets in the dark" and being "agressive" with each others ... All this, because you are just speculating about something you are completely "on the dark" about how it will perform ...
I must say that you keep comparing Thuban's blablabla ... this is a new architecture ... and it's kept on the secret of the gods for some reason ( good, bad or just beucase they decided to keep it secret no matter how good or bad it is ) ...
So yes... you can continue to feed a bottomless discussion where no one has really good arguments because, at this point, there AREN'T any ...
Or you can really create a good discussion not based on SB vs BD ... with architecture analysis ... and theoretic arguments ...
Oh well ...
Im stumped on the way some people are "sure" that BD will be a weakling.All information we as a community have points to it being a fresh and new "all bases covered" attempt at the cpu.
Of course thing CAN get bad, phenom I was a good cpu on paper, but it had been plagued by low clocks and TLB bug.However information we do have now points to it being somewhat comparable to sandy bridges available at this time (ON AVERAGE) .Probably a bit more powerfull multithreaded and a weaker single threaded but with more aggresive turbo to offset that.
So where this "its gonna fail" coming from ? Phenom I ?Intel had failed 1ghz PIII, it had netburst it had rambus, it still has itanium, chipset problems in i820 and lately in p67.Both Companies had their share of fail.
I really welcome good multithreading, because thats where wolrd is going for one ,and second im a power user, i do multitask heavily, and while i dont see a difference between game running 100 or 200fps ,i like to do all my threads fluidly.Besides, if theres no reason for 8 threads, so why 2600k ?
Nobody in their right mind expects BD to surpass sandybridge clock for clock with a core for core.Lets just get it out there.It doesnt mean thats going to be a weak cpu tho.
I assume that is a variation of the quote :
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
And it applies to any fanboy (we have both types in this thread).
- Office does not seem to need any significant cpu at all, you can remove it from list of single for single cpu as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
- Flash games are multithreaded now (from flash ver 10.1 i believe), particularly in Opera they use more than 2 cores.
- Same for simple browsing. Developers use worker threads in JS or regular web sites, and you even don't notice that. Chrome opens (usually) tabs in new process. You can always open Opera new process manually. IE9 is highly multithreaded. All that used in simple browsing.
- occasional games. It is like occasionally playing Crysis, right? OK, the more cores the happier it is.. Or flash games, again, more that 2 threads utilised in Opera.
Bottom line: forget about single core (and even dualcore) at all!
Your choice in words (basically making an advantage of turbo or multiple offerings in the market, even if the same applies to competition's products) proved, at least for me, that it would be very hard to change your mind about this, and the discussion will go beyond the boundaries of rationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
First argument from a fanboys is :
Calling others fanboys and that he can't have a solid discussion with them... even if all he did was post an entry calling others fanboys & not having arguments what so ever ... Oh well... Another one bites the dust.
As for my 2 cents...
My thoughts are that BD will be a solid bet for a user that uses heavily the hyper threading ...
Even 990x can't be immensely superior to the SB ... SB was a work of art for the mainstream ... So... can't imagine the BD "trashing" the SB. But i'm sure it will be a viable competitor with a much stronger capacity for HT rendering ...
As for gaming... let's face it ... i believe it won't be the best performer but will deliver more than enough cpu raw performance for games... enough performance for you not being affected with cpu bottleneck's for sometime ...
I would still look back at this leaked slide(from this perspective I'm fairly confident it's not a fake one):
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9vgJ1nwu_x...+benchmark.jpg
Many people came to a conclusion,primarily from C11.5 numbers,that Zambezi will have very strong FP units.A total score of almost 11 pts tells us that per one single FMAC(in shared MT mode) we have roughly 30% more computational power than one whole Thuban core,roughly at the same clock.When Zambezi doesn't see load across all cores,FMACs can be "paired up" (per module) so that in single or poorly threaded fp workloads we have a lot higher fp resources,on top of those 30%. Now on top of all this comes new Turbo boost in poorly threaded workloads.All things summed up,at least in legacy (or FMA tuned) fp code,Zambezi will be a big step up from today's cores,yes even versus SB.
What is unknown is pure integer core performance.I'm hoping for at least 10-15% IPC uplift,in non-MT workloads.Turbo should be aggressive here,even with all cores loaded so we can expect another 10% from added Turbo headroom(4.1Ghz rumored Vs 3.7Ghz on Thuban today).So effectively 25% uplift versus Thuban 1100T is not out of realm of possibility.
He specifically mentioned rendering, have you never looked at Thuban rendering benchmarks? Did you really need to come into an AMD thread to tell someone that Intel "rapes" AMD? With the added bonus of being wrong at the same time?We still have people this pathetic on this forum? :( This thread really shines an ugly light on some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
trollolololol. g-bye.
Well, it's hard to have a solid discussion if an AMD official says 33% more cores brings up to 50% more performance => roughly up to 12.5% improvement in performance per core vs. current generation, and here we are talking about beating Sandy Bridge in desktop applications :).
i think some people need to not make it so personal, otherwise bans could be coming...
for those arguing about BD in desktop single threaded uses, i feel sorry for the people who buy an octo-core cpu, when they really just needed a duel-core, and could save themselves a few hundred dollars. for gaming, its quite easy to expect the turbo from 2-4 threads will be strong enough to keep it up there with SB. just take thuban gaming scores, add 10-15% for IPC, add 10% for clocks if 3 cores or less (4.1ghz/3.7ghz), 24% if its 4 threads since thuban can only turbo 3 (4.1ghz/3.3ghz). were looking at 25 to 46% increase in gaming performance over the best thuban vs the first BD. (how well can SB turbo with 4 threads running?, i only know max turbo is 3.8ghz, but i have no clue what cases let it reach that) *these numbers are based on stock expectations and have no bearing on OCed results that are way to much guesswork to predict.
That's throughput server performance.You also fail to understand that when everything is loaded up in Orochi,due to shared design we have roughly 25% "penalty".This is average number since AMD stated BD shared design offers an average of 80% performance of CMP approach(hypothetical BD with no shared resources). To muddy the waters even more we have an aggressive new Turbo ability which will be more useful in desktop due to nature of workloads there. Then you have FMAC(floating point unit) vs integer IPC etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
My point is you cannot use the "50% more throughput" statement to accurately extrapolate desktop performance.
Ooops.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipsetu...an-attitude/17
http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipsetu...an-attitude/18
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/17
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...ridge-review/7
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...k,2833-15.html
http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors/...w/Render-Tests
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...&limitstart=14
wasnt it 180% the performance of a regular BD "core"?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
1 full core + .8 core = module performanceQuote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
*ignores IPC differences, do no compare with old architectures*
These simple tasks don't require a 8 Core BD. Probably works fine on any CPU capable of 4 threads out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
The first step out from rationality is when you stopped using relevant arguments and started with this Ad Hominem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
I don't say that turbo or multiple offerings is an advantage over the competition at all. I just say that these are aspects you have to consider when you talk about BD. And that an aggressive turbo might matter more to AMD than to Intel. I also say that there is no reason to believe that BD will be significantly worse than competing products in the same segment in poorly threaded applications. This seems to be a misunderstanding based on how many cores it has. No one uses this argument against 4C/8T i7, so why use it against BD?
Why won't BD fit the same market as quad core i7s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
Has anyone actually made these claims or is this just a straw man?
AMD slide stated 80% of CMP approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
http://images.anandtech.com/gallerie...DA-6_575px.jpg.
This is CMP approach(of hypothetical BD):
http://images.anandtech.com/gallerie...DA-5_575px.jpg
80% of 100 is 80,or 25%(1.25x) less. This is an average number though,so the penalty can be as low as 5% or as high as 40%,we simply don't know. My guess is that usually we will see a 10-20% penalty which will be offset by Turbo mode.This is for pure integer workloads. For fp ones we have over-provisioned FPU which will offer tangible increase in performance and which won't suffer that much in shared mode.
edit: the "throughput advantages ..." line talks exactly about this "penalty". Workload components won't suffer much when module is fully loaded.
yeah, the fact is, I dont see a 25% penalty there..Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
even 2 regular cores dont scale linearly, more like 1.95x..
edit: got it
20%? (sorry:p:)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
100/80=1.25 or 25% less. . If BD's approach achieves 80% of hypothetical non shared approach then we would have : ie. 200pts in some benchmark for hypothetical design; 80% of 200 is 160pts. Now hypothetical design is 200/160=1.25x or 25% faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by h0bbes
Aren't percentages sometimes so wonderfully confusing :p:
I looked at results you posted.Theres no "raping" there of 1100T.2600K is faster, 2500K depends, sometimes faster sometimes slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Micutzu
Only thing raping there everyone is gulftown.
Apparently yes :P It's all about the context (whose number's percentage you are talking about:P)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
No offense, but... what? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
200 is 25% faster than 160, sure. 160 is only 20% slower than 200, though. The numbers change depending on which number (the bigger or the smaller) you base the comparison on ;)
Edit: Simply put, the "faster than" or "slower than" establishes that the second number is always the one used as a base amount, so you can't make the calculation the other way
x/y=z
y/x= reciprocal of z
2/1 = 2
1/2 = reciprocal of 2 which is .5
.8 and 1.25 are reciprocals of each other.