Indeed, the budget market is where the money is (strange enough). Most OEM systems sold use 'budget' parts (which are very powerfull these days, a Sempron 3800+ is budget these days)
Printable View
Indeed, the budget market is where the money is (strange enough). Most OEM systems sold use 'budget' parts (which are very powerfull these days, a Sempron 3800+ is budget these days)
So I guess that 40% faster switching speed is really just zero. :fact:
What did you expect ? 40% greater freq ?Quote:
Originally Posted by lapdog
My bet is Brisbane isn't freq optimized at all , dumb shrink to get it out fast while the bulk of the resources were concentrated on K8L.
Brisbane is not 2*1Mo, If AMD use Brisbane to change The Fx, A lot of fan boys including me will not agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
For a lot of people cache is better than mhz :stick:
Even Brisbane clock @ 3.8ghz i will keep my opty 165 2.61ghz stock volt :cool:
i will wait for something more strong, FX on Barcelona and cf R600 :banana:
For moment, i perfer to work on my home water, with pro tools :toast:
i guess you forgot about history.. what did and do with the first 90nm parts? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lapdog
Ohh that was just me happening to be poking my nose and peering into as many pods as possible.....they have 'suspected' me of being an industry spy on a few occasions.... :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
FUGGER how about putting me on your payroll..... :D
It said the process alone would yield this improvement not anything to do with architecture(K8L.)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
No I did not expect 40% faster chips, just noticeably faster ones.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...103048,00.html
I don't think that anyone is expecting improved performace but definitely we all expext better o/c.
COME ON bringit ON.....:toast:
40% faster switching means less heat prduced, thats all. Performance will not change noticeably.
AMD process transition's never result in faster clocks.
at least not in my knowledge. clawhammer was better then winchester. then they got it right with san diego. 180nm was better then t-bred-a. they got it right with Tbred B and Barton. brisbane is probably not going to be better, but they will get it right with K8L. ;)
The problem is that Rev.G is a dumb shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapdog
Thus, the scaling problems that have plagued K8 from the beginning are still there.
Rev.H should be less hindered by those issues, though.
They are so suspicious?? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Afterburner
Next time take super small digital camera to work and make some pictures ;) .
If you will prove your spy skills in battlefield then I'm certain that Fugger will add you to payroll :D .
Does that mean no overclocking gain or no gain in performance between the two at the same speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
Well jokingly of coz but one can never be certain.... :nono:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Majority of the workforce are Malaysians and the rest from India / China. Items such as Ciggarettes / Thumbdrives / Cameras are strictly prohibited while Laptops are controlled items. ALL bags are checked. There are like cameras eveywhere so dont get caught snoozing or digging ur nose..... :stick:
:D :D :D
You gotta wait for their 65nm to be matured.
I was hoping for more than a soft launch actually. I suppose that a hard launch might actually hurt their revenue for the Christmas season in some ways, but it's not as thought the supply of chips is that great right now anyway (they do need to sell off all the 939 however). Much of their money will be derived from Dell over the BIY market now, so they may not have to release them yet anyway until Dell is ready to start using them in their systems...
Actually, they are only launching 65nm at 2.6GHz (!)Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
That's 400MHz below the 3GHz clock on 90nm FX-74.
2.8GHz 65nm isn't supposed to arrive until Q207.
Not so good.
Looks like high voltage. Wonder what die size will be?
get it out FAST? It's at least 6 months late!Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Quote:
Originally Posted by lapdog
It was a "trick" % improvement. the 40% was not relative to 90nm DSL strained parts, but theoretical NO STRAIN AT ALL parts. When you backed out the DSL over NO STRAIN advantage, it turned into something like a 14% improvement.
Something went wrong though, because 65nm is clocking about 13% slower than 90nm at launch.
It’s clocked lower ‘cos of AMD’s mix portfolio. They still do produce 90nm CPU’s, and using that tech for:
a) mass production of the server parts (proven tech is the only viable option for the server market)
b) for production of the niche parts, and Quad FX’s is considered niche, ‘cos of the market size for that platform.
65nm, and FAB36 are in mass production phase, and AMD will produce mainstream dies in it. And mainstream dies MUST work on lower stock voltages comparing to the niche parts!
I bet that Brisbane will surpass any 90nm Windsor, on air, and on liquid!
Word!I agree 100% with you man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Now we need to see some OC results,and fast :D.
Don't kid yourself. It's clocked lower 'cos it doesn't clock any higher right now. The schedule slip was an indication of process troubles, and the low launch clocks confirm it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Then surely AMD would have used a couple of hundred of them for the 4X4 previews, shaving a 100W of power consumption would have made the launch less disastrous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Do you know from personal experience that they are clocking lower? AMD wants to make sure that 65nm is a proven process with the mainstream. If they moved right in with the high end server/FX stuff, and there is problems in the process, people won't be happy. They can't ramp the clocks up higher on the mainstream stuff yet too, because it would be performing better then the FX series, Which would blow the whole point to even buying an FX. Look what happened with ATi and the R520, they released new tech with higher clock speeds on an unproven process, and they got tons of problems that needed to be worked out before they could even launch it. Even Intel did these kind of tactics. When they moved to the 65nm Presler core. Those parts weren't clocked any higher then Prescott, and no one doubted that they didn't clock higher then 90nm Prescott. Intel was testing out 65nm before they put C2D on full production. Simple as that. Also when Intel was going to the Presler core, NO ONE doubted that they could clock higher then the 90nm Prescott, but with AMD, tons of people believe 65nm is clocking WORSE then 90nm, even though Intel did the same thing with the same launch clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
EDIT:
@accord, yes it would have helped the launch, but 65nm is still an unproven process, If AMD sent out 65nm FX parts with defects, imagine what that would have done to the launch.