When something is posted as false from either side people want to correct it.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Ivy was NEVER supposed to be out in 2011
Printable View
When something is posted as false from either side people want to correct it.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Ivy was NEVER supposed to be out in 2011
http://semiaccurate.com/2011/06/02/b...d-not-delayed/
Charlie says server and desktop were switched.
Now this was what I'm talking about.An actual news article!Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
Thanks for posting :).
You cannot compare 2 different arch's together clock for clock, its about price, performance and diesize and price to manufacture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Example : If one companys 4Ghz product is equal at performance and runs same TDP with another companys 3Ghz product but 4Ghz product is cheaper and has smaller die size and costs less to manufacture then 4Ghz product is better, at 3Ghz that 4Ghz product would be slower but whats point of not running product at its designed frequency?
BD is whole new architecture exept that socket didnt change much, you cannot compare it clock for clock with intel products because its designed different way.
Product must compete at its intented price range, cores/frequency doesnt matter anymore at this generation.
Special would be higher performance than INTCs best processors ie 980x/990x. Its quite obvious to anyone who follows this could see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Again, if u follow this, at the projected price point of Zambieze 8c, its a mid-line CPU. Not a 990x killer, sorry. Go read the threads in the AMD section from the people who are more intimately involved with this. Its obvious that BD is not a INTC killer. If it was, AMD stock would be well north of $10 right now. INTC knows perfrectly well what performance BD has.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
Right, the i7-2600k is a mid-line CPU at high $200 range.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
RussC
Man, this Bulldozer is becoming a joke real fast. If Intel rolls out the LGA2011 stuff by the end of the summer, releasing the BD won't make any sense, it'll practically become a silicon version of Duke Nukem Forever except that DnF is actually coming out this month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuadDamage
you make SB-E sounds like a sub $200 product;
remember: not all people could afford high end product.
and AMD doesn't position BD against SB-E, they position it to the i7-2600k at max.
:up::up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
Comparing AMD's BD delay to Intel pushing back Ivy 60 days is just silly..Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
One is artificial, a result of marketing and timing for spacing out products.
The other is a companies lack of ability to produce high performing chips, on time, w/o any problems.
Should take your own advice...Isn't that what you all are doing already? BD is an unreleased CPU and countless comparisons are made to 2600k and other RELEASED CPUS by you all.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Foot in mouth more? :clap:
While absolute max performance isn't everything the later BD comes to market the more likely that 2600 is going to be replaced by a faster skew and its price pushed down which in turn affect amd's pricing before they even get the darn thing out of the warehouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
All else aside getting BD to market in a timely manner would allow them to close the gap and compete with higher ASP's but in the end they may have to focus on competing on price again.
Coming from the same site 3 days before :Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge both delayed a bit
Semi-accurate right ...
Did you even read today's article? Nope, you didn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Sure I did ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
But to be honest, I don't give any credits to S|A. Too much BS ...
:) dancing in the aislesQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
I call BS, and HARD.JF said TODAY in amd thread that server BD is still Q3.So server one isnt pulled in.And while JF may be misinformed about desktop, im sure he knows about server solutions!Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
You know, when a launch date moves by just one month, from August to July, then it's still Q3, right? Lets see what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
I do not know where you read 990x on my quote, but I'll give you this one to mke you happy :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
In the article it says:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
If that was the case, server would launch in Q2.And it will not according to the guy who works for the server department in AMD ;).Quote:
If this looks like AMD did not actually delay anything, just flipped them around, that is about it.
What youre saying is maybe they pulled server in from farther along in Q3 to closer.
Well ,we dont know that as we never had exact date for server.My guess is desktop is gonna launch in two months with widespread availablity in 3 with the server launch.
It really depends on exactly when server was due to launch. Q3 ends September 30th, 2 months earlier is July 30th.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Q2 ends June 30th. 2 months later is August 30th. Both dates are in Q3 and both have been switched by 2 months so *if* this is what happens there has in fact been no "delay".
BD can launch Q3, both server and desktop and the net result would be no delay.Quote:
I call BS, and HARD.JF said TODAY in amd thread that server BD is still Q3.So server one isnt pulled in.And while JF may be misinformed about desktop, im sure he knows about server solutions!
The incredible level of pendantic commentary on this is good enough reason for why AMD only mentioned 2011 on their official roadmap btw. It's a joke how highly scrutinised this has been.
I think BD will have to push very hard if its aiming at the 2600K, 6+ cores or not.
Considering there is only really one SB i7 (same chip, locked/unlocked multi) at the moment with the rest being i3/i5/Pentium/Xeon chips its hard to say that they're aiming to beat that.
Intel more then likely has more standard SB (& K's) i7's ready to release once BD makes its way out.
And you can compare different chips and different arch's, that's what synthetic benchmarks are for.
-PB
Considering every 2600k is doing well north 4.7ghz on air,intel can easily put out a 2700k,2800k,2900k and 3000kQuote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
They cant, because intels stock cooler doesnt perform well enough, temperatures would go too high with stock cooler and TDP would sky rocket, ofc they could launch tray versions of those cpu's where it would not matter.
really? do you have any proof what so ever in what you just said?Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
Exactly, they can just up the stock clocks, refine the cooler to shave off a couple of degrees and away you go and this is without anything like cache upgrades etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
And in all honesty, what systems out there in the real world, using 2600K's, would be using the stock cooler?
No retail machines would be (Acer, HP, Dell). The only users that get K series are overclockers and they all use 3rd party cooling on these chips.
-PB
Yes because i have tested it my self, depending invidual cpu you cannot get over 4.2Ghz with intel stock cooler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
Mine does that 4.2 with intel stock cooler, with Megahelms its going easy over 4.6Ghz, temps are getting too high with stock cooler, they need better cooler.
Also Intel need to clock cpu's lower than what they could do, they need after all last full warranty leght.
What they can easelly do is ramp up clocks by 200mhz without changing anything so 3.6 or 3.8 ghz is easelly doable for them while having turbo at 4.0 or 4.2Ghz, there is just that TDP, they need up it a bit :)
Many systems use 2600K and stock cooler, many system builders use that combination and majority of 2600K's are sold as boxed, some people dont think about cooler since they aint overclocking but they take 2600K just because of its few bux cheaper than non-K at least in here where im living, K is 5$ cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
You are doing something seriously wrong.I have gone threw 5 sandys looking for a 56x chip and all did well over 4.7 ghz on the stock cooler.Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
I can show you a hand full of 2600ks doing 4.5-4.6 and most doing them at stock voltage.
Almost every single review site got 4.6ghz reviewing sandys and all with stock cooler.
Im on stock cooler now and hitting 4.7-4.8ghz with no issues and the case fully closed.
here is my thread on my first sandy doing 5 ghz on stock intel cooler
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=266408
Its about my sample of 2600K, aint exactly best chip, requires to keap low temperatures where other 2600K's i have tested dont mind bit higer temps, they do go over 4.8ghz with good air cooler but never tested them with stock cooler, only this one cpu i tested with stock cooler.
my worst 2600K samples does 4.8ghz lol and it doesn't even use cpu pll overvoltage
To what systems are you referring to as people only buy K's to overclock and nobody overclocks on stock coolers.Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
As for price, those K's would have to be on a sale price as their batch price is significantly different;
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4854/unledppz.png
Back on topic;
Fact of the matter is, Bulldozer will have to be something special if its to compete with SB-K overclockability and memory bandwidth.
Are there any confirmed specs for the server chips that will now be shipping sooner then the consumer chips?
-PB
http://translate.google.com/translat...6941618&anno=2
AMD claims there's no problems with Bulldozer, and the delay is because of strategic reasons, i.e. they want Llano to be in the spotlight first.
I want to believe. :rolleyes:
my AMD Thuban at AIR got 5 GHz too. Some validation etc doesnt nothing...I said in other therad. I have/had 3 SB retails and no one hit 5 GHz stable. One 4.7 GHz, second 4.8GHz and the best of them 4.9x GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by sin0822
Info from Intel:
here is a 50% chance that a user will reach 4.5GHz speeds without reaching the multiplier wall, while there is a 20% chance for 4.7GHz, and a 10% chance for 4.8GHz to 5.0GHz. Finally, there is about a 2% chance the user will be able to overclock past 5.0GHz.
Why not? E series is very good, Llano is A series, perfect for family PC and notebooks, because there will be notebooks with great "IGP" performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
Because they knew perfectly well when Llano would be out, and said in a quarterly conference call that BD would come early summer. And now suddenly they change their minds because of strategic reasons. Did they not consider these reasons before they went about telling the investors that BD comes out Q2? Normally AMD would not even comment on rumors, but since they got the chipset out the rumors of bad performance lead to diminished sales for mobo partners, so it's better to just claim there's no problem than not comment at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
basic principle : if you have a good technology product about to hit the market you let people know.
what we got from AMD for the last 12 months is:useless Slides,rumors,denials of rumors,NDAs,no comments - all the while the competition(Intel) has really good products...not even Apple does crap like this anymore.
:rofl: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Thats just not true.Dude, if desktop was planned for Q2, and theres nothing in exchange for that.Thats a delay not a switcheroo.Im getting what youre saying about the closeness of some dates, but the fact remains.BD desktop is delayed by one to two months IN THE BEST CASE.And server solution is not being pulled in by the same amount if at all (i think not at all).Quote:
BD can launch Q3, both server and desktop and the net result would be no delay.
And this statement about it "all being about llano" ,implying they have BD ready, but dont wanna steal the thunder of glory from the llano, is just absurd.Thats different market segments, it doesnt help AMD`s stocks, investors .Just no sense at all.Executing IN TIME and delivering competetive products is what they need (and desperately).
If they would launch Llano and BD in two weeks, how much good pr that would be?
Look, we have top to bottom line of new excellent products based on top of the line 32nm process, WERE BACK BABY! (crowds cheering, people buying stocks, its like a beatles concert)
But this , this looks like a pr nightmare.
This only if they are talking about 2600k cooled with Intel stock cooler for shure...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
From what we see around internet, 99% of the 2600k's overclock past 5ghz... (with proper cooling and voltages of course ...)
my not and I have very good CPU coolers think (V6GT, NHD14+MX2/mx3/mx4 paste)
Shock, the biggest Amdfan/intelhater got worse than average results with a product from a company that he hates, I will alert the media!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
From Dresdenboy's latest twit:
Maybe this is the clue about 2.5Ghz ES clock rumors AT heard from mobo partners? The ES above is 2.6Ghz with 1GHz TC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy
Looking at the ES clocks we can assume that retail parts may end up in 3-3.2Ghz base clock for 8C with 1Ghz Turbo(4-4.2Ghz in singlethread int/fp or MT integer workloads).
Actually that's me, and I wouldn't take an SB for free unless it was to jump on, or burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
he may pick the worst samples just to tell people SB cant get past 4.8ghz :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16541&page=23
so much offtopic here.. move this thread to intel section :D
Me too can't decide if it's an AMD Bulldozer thread or intel SB thread. The title says Zambezi which is a codename for desktop Bulldozer and majority of the posts are discussing i7 2600K overclock-ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomasis
According to this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18897
That 5ghz was using sub ambient temperature. I have a hard time believing you used chilled air cooling on Thuban and Intel and achieved such low clocks for the intel, while crazy results for the thuban. Its very widely known SB OC better on air than Thuban. 5 ghz is exceptional for Air on thuban. IF I google 5ghz and thuban and air, threads where it is your chip popping up shows how rare this overclock actually is.
thuban really loves lower temps
I did suggest that when we saw first pics of BD samples popping on net, only 1 person on XS paid attention ...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=322
Anyway I'm with Dresden on this ;)
Massman isn't just anybody in the OC world and you know what the main problem is? what OC is really stable depends on user expectations :)Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
very typical when few fanboy enters the room and it seems we have a few new ones " scratching the head to figure out which :D" , only when its good for them though,for example the praising stopped very fast on the HD GPU performance and it will never be mentioned again once LIano is officially launched.... oh yes i forgot they did compare.... with Brazos a 18W TDP rated netbook APU :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ubuntu83
when its released and if it is better they will automatically start mentioning SNB-E and other stuf, but fail to mention that it will also cost double the price of mobo and cpu :)
with 5 GHz at Thuban it was not chiller, but simply aircooler (onlky opened window, but ...I must show you foto. He has very strong core 0.... [http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/94/windowj.jpg/]http://img94.imageshack.us/7084/windowj.th.jpg[/URL]
My PC workstation is right (no my benchtable behind). I can open window only at left side as you see and not much, because here is next PC station :). In PC think was hotter, 10C was in room, not at core!
Back to BD thema
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...postcount=2705
This thread is getting way off track. If you enjoy your privelge to view Xtreme News, please stop with the argueing and keep the thread on topic. :up:
This will be the first and last warning ;)
my second link (in my last post) is to thema, watch it ,-)
for me max stable = 1 less multiplier than max achieved, becuase of cold bug and it gets too hot at 4.8ghz or 5.2ghz, but can bench all day at 47x and 51x
Nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Binaries
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPU-Z version 1.56.4
Processors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of processors 1
Number of threads 8
APICs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor 0
-- Core 0
-- Thread 0 0
-- Core 1
-- Thread 0 1
-- Core 2
-- Thread 0 2
-- Core 3
-- Thread 0 3
-- Core 4
-- Thread 0 4
-- Core 5
-- Thread 0 5
-- Core 6
-- Thread 0 6
-- Core 7
-- Thread 0 7
Processors Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processor 1 ID = 0
Number of cores 8 (max 8)
Number of threads 8 (max 8)
Name AMD Processor
Codename Bulldozer
Specification AMD Eng Sample, 1D26246W8K44_36/26/22_2/8 (Engineering Sample)
Package Socket AM3+ (942)
CPUID F.1.0
Extended CPUID 15.1
Core Stepping
Technology 32 nm
TDP Limit 149 Watts
Core Speed 1400.0 MHz
Multiplier x FSB 7.0 x 200.0 MHz
Instructions sets MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, x86-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, XOP
L1 Data cache 8 x 16 KBytes, 4-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L1 Instruction cache 4 x 64 KBytes, 2-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L2 cache 4 x 2048 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L3 cache 8 MBytes, 64-way set associative, 64-byte line size
FID/VID Control yes
Min FID 7.0x
P-State FID 0x14 - VID 0x0B - IDD 12 (18.00x - 1.412 V)
P-State FID 0xE - VID 0x0E - IDD 10 (15.00x - 1.375 V)
P-State FID 0xA - VID 0x16 - IDD 10 (13.00x - 1.275 V)
P-State FID 0x7 - VID 0x1B - IDD 9 (11.50x - 1.212 V)
P-State FID 0x4 - VID 0x21 - IDD 8 (10.00x - 1.137 V)
P-State FID 0x1 - VID 0x26 - IDD 6 (8.50x - 1.075 V)
P-State FID 0x10C - VID 0x30 - IDD 6 (7.00x - 0.950 V)
Package Type 0x1
Model 00
String 1 0x0
String 2 0x0
Page 0x0
TDC Limit 96 Amps
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 0
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 1
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 2
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 3
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 4
Attached device PCI device at bus 0, device 24, function 5
Btw, does Bulldozer support AVX? I won't mind to wait a bit if it includes it.
The ES that the CPU-z creator has says it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by jogshy
yes bd supports avx. when ever it arrives it will anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by jogshy