The 4 core part for G34 is suspect. Wasn't 8 cores the lowest count for that socket?
Printable View
The 4 core part for G34 is suspect. Wasn't 8 cores the lowest count for that socket?
All benchmarks prior to launch will not be representative.
All benchmarks that did not come from AMD will not be representative.
Anyone that says they have bulldozer for sale prior to launch probably does not have them and I would not trust it.
Period.
JF-AMD stated on the semiaccurate forums that interlagos would be four through sixteen cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by DedEmbryonicCe1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
....And the countdown continues :D
Between AMD's fusion parts and BDers, let's hope AMD is not capacity strained or we could be waiting for CPU's for a long time.
Who is gonna to order one and test it?:D
Posted on fb by AMD Nordic: "What could this be?"
I guessed The lid of the cpu tin can, but other good guess is : Belt buckle :)
Attachment 119615
Really cool that's what :D
maybe new heatspreader for FX CPUs :D
I see news delay again
Not so efficient maybe :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
yeah, it needs a bit of sand paper :DQuote:
Originally Posted by andos
if AMD is going to offer some CPUs with a corsair H50 like cooler, that tin lid would be the perfect way to package it all together.
The water cooling thing was only ever a weak rumor. Didn't AMD actually explicitly deny that they were going to consider it?
Edit:
Yes, here's the quote from an AMD spokesman, "At the moment there are no plans to do so."
Some Danish computer builder (Sharkgaming.dk) is having a contest going on about winning a Bulldozer based computer throughout this month. Seems they've already got the products(The CPU's), and have build the machine already. It's some kind of promotion to kick off their sales of the Bulldozer based systems they're gonna have. Contest ending around 20th September. They seem confident about the build.
There are a few different people across the web pointing to a nearing release of information. Whether or not the hardware will follow is unknown though...
EDIT: At least for those not under NDA ;)
Gotta be a lid for cpu. Who still wears big giant belt buckles like that nowadays? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
Dang , I want one now ! :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
Is Sept 16 the REAL Launch Date ? Nobody other than AMD know ;)
"AMD FX Bulldozer Chips Start Shipping This Week" http://wccftech.com/amd-fx-bulldozer...shipping-week/
ahead of the Sandy Bridge-E Lineup in Q4 2011 (Early October) with 3 Debut processors.
Looks pretty unreliable and old.Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD_Freak
As far as I know I didn't see any decent leak with GHZ and turbo overview of BD opteron so how can you state the specs are wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Not directed at me but Informal was right. Two days ago that link was showing 16x64KB L1 Data cache and 16x64KB L1 Inst. cache plus 16x512KB L2 cache which was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Now I see they removed these details.
Yes,what Lightman said.The specs were complete copy/paste from MC.
OK this is old (relatively speaking), but I also was gone for all of July and w/o intarwebz, so I easily could have missed it...
Accord to CPU-World, there are 12-core parts (I only bring it up since it was mentioned a page or two ago): Opteron 6234 - http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldo...%20series.html
This page shows the Opty 6274 having an ETA for 1200+ chips of November 1st :eek::( http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/...BKU8925P.shtml
...haha, and the desktop launch was supposed to be a quarter ahead of server/workstation...
ah sry didn't see that in the link off course now.....Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
If you have followed the news you would have known that desktop parts are rescheduled for a while now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Server launch date and specs have been solid for many months.
Since both launch dates are not known well, any rumour on the internet posted about sources from a certain BD part tends te get mixed.
Socket G34 will get 16, 12, 8 and 4-core partsQuote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Socket C32 will get 8, 6 and 4-core parts
Haha, hang in there JF-AMD, the launch is near :up:
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/11...aunch-faq.html
Socket C32 will not have 4-core bulldozer, the 4-core socket C32 are still Lisbon parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
this thread is starting to remind me of this :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raNM0UvR_Bo
JF-AMD,is BULLDOZER still in the 60-90 day window like in the last slide,or will this period be extended?
Deleted out of frustration.
AMD brought the 60-90 days timeline for availability on June 1st AFAIK so they missed it already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex-Ro
Quote:
Q. When are you launching? Why don't you release the date?A. When we launch, we launch. I will not comment on dates, I will not comment on schedules. We do not release dates prior to launch, at most we give quarter granularity. Giving the date out will stall demand. We have a business to run.
So from this post what is the conclusion?Quote:
Q. Why don't you release benchmarks before launch? You could steal so much business away from the other guy?
A. Again, releasing benchmarks before launch will simply stall sales.Believe me, if the competition thinks they are out of position, will they just sit back and say "oh well" or will they react? .
Well no benchmarks are release before launch because performance is not what expected it will only stall demand before even launch. Intel if they want now at a raise of a finger they release IB and SB-E in one month.
All the post sounds just like JF-AMD have smoke something.
After at least 3months of delay and some good lies on the way, you could tell to consumers: When we launch, we launch...
Yea,they have a business to run,maybe laundry or smth,not making CPU's....
Releasing benchmarks before laung will simply stall sales if those benchmarks proove that the product is thrash,otherwise releasing good numbers will stall Intel sales...
I was going to argue against that until I saw who wrote it :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Thanks for clarification, I can only guess the reason is lack of demand?
Doesn't he mean that if they release info now it will stall sales of older hardware, in other words if everyone knew a powerful chip is just round the corner, the rest of AMDs phenom II chips will never be sold or sold at a loss over the next few years? I know the enthusiast end of the market will be in the know with the fact BD is coming but for the rest of the normal level market, the people that shop at PC world etc, they will be none the wiser. Just like if you go to a high street computer store, you see last generation graphics cards at the same price as the newer more powerful hardware available. They must still sell plenty of old tech to un knowing customers or they wouldn't stock it. What do you guys think?
JF-AMD http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/11...aunch-faq.html. Perhaps it just me, but this guy comes across as arrogant and sarcastic.
You would probably come across the same way if you would have to deal with garbage in his inbox daily ;). It's not an easy job and on top of that he is not even payed to do this online stuff...
He can't comment on future designs, so why does he even attempt to answer anyone who's asking questions? Seriously, he should stick to answering questions about current AMD CPU's and his life would be much rosier.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I doubt that anyone here cares about current Opterons lineup. You could have a ton of raw processing power with a pair of Magny Cours but there is not any real life scenario where you could even actually use it on a Desktop enviroment that doesn't include some Synthethic Benchmark, and you're losing no less than 500-1000 MHz (The Opteron 6180SE is the fastest, 2.5 GHz part with Magny Cours) against a Desktop part, and overclocking will be hard if not impossible considering that you will have no BIOS support to do so and must use Software tools like a Clockgen for the Base Clock limited by a very low Multiplier, and I doubt Dual Socket Motherboards deals good with high Base Clocks. With the exception that you can somehow go beyond 6 CPU intensive Threads a Thuban @ 4 GHz would be better, and much, much cheaper. Otherwise you could go for a Dual LGA1366 with a pair of Xeons E5520 or higher and have both Dual Processor, the advantage Sandy Bridge vs K10 performance and power consumption, extremely high end Single Threaded performance, and at least one expensive Motherboard that was capable of overclocking them by BIOS (An EVGA it was I think).Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
A good guess is that Bulldozer could launch earlier for Servers than Desktop, I suppose that we could happily annoy JF-AMD to get info from him if that happens. Besides, I DO expect that any sort of high hype or anticipation would really stall current Servers sales. On the Desktop there is always people that pays inflated prices for old Hardware in supermarket computers and the like, but anyone willing to spend over 4 or 5 digits of dollars in just Processors should do even minor research, and if there was a major launch nearby, wait for it. If Bulldozer proves to be impressive and no one wants the current Opterons, JF-AMD wiill have to use Magny Cours as cotton inside his pillow.
I was merely stating that for JF's own sanity, that he refrain from talking about future products. I'm sure he's pretty tired of answering the same questions over and over again on many different forums. I'll bet you he's looking forward to the NDA lifting.Quote:
Originally Posted by zir_blazer
I ran fopr XS forum and for AMD FX :). Hope, it will help for launch soon. Lol, I looking worse, than after race :)
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/4862/s6303567.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4334/s6303616x.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/5985/s6303618.jpg
If you translate the text in the upper left corner of your picture from spanish to english you will have BIG surprise my friend. :eek: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Particularly when you see the way folks treat him. It's funny watching layman try to explain marketing to a marketing director.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I don't know how he deals with it, honestly. People are so rude to him constantly and bother him with total nonsense.
haha :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmrios
nice find
It is just you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
So the mythical Unicorn has still not appeared huh?
Man, I tell you this is beyond ridiculous! 4 years now and still no Bulldozer WTF AMD! Im a big AMD fan as most of you know but I could not wait any longer 3 months ago when my server needed upgrading due to parts failure. Come back 3 1/2 months later and still no sign of these darn chips anywhere......why?
B.T.W ...who's bright idea was it to redo this forum in this ghastly face lift and IN non functioning manner....yet another BIG....W.T.F!!!:shakes:
At least you have your nickname in red. It is almost impossible to read other peoples nicknames in this forum color. dark grey nicknames, grey forum background :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
These quotes from JF's FAQ seems to confirm my anticipations, or lack of there of:
The way he try to mock people who care about IPC and single thread performance makes me believe he is trying to justify bad performance in these areas. We know frequency range, so IPC is important! And single thread performance is important to everyone who isn't building a server. It doesn't matter if you have a million cores, if single thread performance matches a K6-2 you won't be able to play any games today, just using windows would suckQuote:
Q. Is IPC higher on bulldozer? All I care about is IPC.A. IPC is simply a measurement. What if IPC was 2X what it is today, but clock speed was 500MHz. Is that what you want? You are getting double IPC, right? IPC is only one measure. The people that are telling you IPC is the only thing that matters have an agenda. Taking only one measurement, out of context, is like trying to say that a person's weight is all that matters. I weigh 195. Does that make me fat? Does that make me skinny? It is impossible to say unless you know my height. IPC is like weight - it tells you something in context to other factors, but is meaningless on its own.
Q. What about single threaded performance?A. See above. Also, if all you care about is single threaded performance, might I recommend a lovely, inexpensive single core processor for your system?
IPC will be low, maybe lower than Phenom II, and that goes for single thread performance as well. Their recent statement of 35% more performance with 33% more cores was the first clear warning of this, that's down from official numbers of 50% more throughput last year. I haven't seen any trustworthy benchmarks yet so this is all speculation, but since all the fuzz is about Llano it doesn't look like BD is the winner in AMDs portfolio. I mean even Llano was a disappointment, you can get more gaming performance at the same price with an AM3 board, Athlon II and a cheap graphics card. Llano is good for laptops and ITX systems, but if that's all AMD will be good at then it looks bleak.
By the way, I'm old AMD fanboy, and i guess I will buy BD after all since i think competition is important, but that's not the best of reasons to switch to the latest CPU.
I'm calling BS on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
there was no mention of core count from amd, when that was said.
No, they just said that the upcoming Opterons would be 35% faster than the current ones. And that's on similar, or a tad higher frequencies. And as we all know upcoming Opterons has 33% more cores. And of course they are comparing top models and not some lower end BD. If I say my new car is 20% faster than the old one I mean that my new car does 240Kph instead of 200Kph, not that it actually does 300Kph but I was only driving 240Kph when I made the comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
was not a comparison to single chip but whole family and whole family ranges form 4-16 core.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4941471Quote:
No problem found so far with the Bulldozer OC Contest currently in progress.
I saw this answer coming, that's why I made the car analogy. In this business, all companies, has always talked about their fastest product. There is simply no sense in making claims based on average performance for an entire line of products. What if they decide to release a lot of models with 4 cores, is it only 5% faster? Or if they only release on single version with 8 cores is it 50% faster? If they compared the way you're saying then the result would differ greatly depending on how many low end models they intend to release. If intel releases a lot of different ULV models i7 around 1.5GHz, would that suddenly make Phenom II faster than i7? No of course not, Phenom II would still get it's ass kicked then you compare the high end models.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
It's never been compared that way before, what's the reason they would do that now?
IPC will be higher, which also JF stated earlier, but not by how much, and that you'll see on launch!
I think even if IPC is the same while clocking a ghz higher and having four more cores, its not that bad. I still think it will be higher though.
I agree, the recent comments havent really been that encouraging, but im still eagerly awaiting the first real leaks and products to hit shelves.
I thought he was providing a response to those that think if single-threaded performance isn't high enough in comparison to Sandy, then it's a failed product; irregardless of how it performs in other areas. I've seen people, on various forums, make such a claim.Quote:
The way he try to mock people who care about IPC and single thread performance makes me believe he is trying to justify bad performance in these areas.
Even if that was 12 to 16 core comparison, IPC will be higher 8 cores and less.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
CMT is CMT for a reason, AMD compared it to HyperThreading for a reason, and I believe chew* was right when he said desktop parts will function more like a 4 core that can execute 8 threads.
In multi-thread, I actually expect Thuban level performance from well coded programs.
At first glance the longer pipeline and higher Frequencies makes Bulldozer sound like a NetBurst inspired thing with lower IPC that current K10 that could be as big as a fail as Prescott was, hot and ugly. If wasn't because JF-AMD insistense on the "IPC increases" topic (Refer to Hans de Vries signature :D), I would be dubious about what the hell Bulldozer is. But that very JF-AMD statement, plus the fact that the current trend on performance per Watt means that no one sane enough would design anything like Prescott, makes me believe that Bulldozer could end being quite... Interesing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
At the bare least you have a bit higher performance per clock, and you also have a bit higher Frequencies. Even if it doesn't beat Sandy Bridge it will come dangerously close.
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...Twc6Msj2d0jwcA
Don't know if it's been posted yet.
It was found that the scores were copy and pasted from another article on that site:Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
http://www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=cpu_intel_sb_turbo
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=15
As such, it's likely 99% fake.
I'm confused. While I agree, this looks dubious ... how does copy and pasting archived data from a prior article make it a likely fake? The scores for SB are taken from identically configured CPUs, i.e. it as C&Ped from a 3.0 GHz base CPU and quoted as such in the compare. Reviews often pool archived results otherwise it would be inefficient to re-run every bench for all comparable CPUs anytime a single new product is released.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryR
It seems the guy was incorrect about the article being faked, he changed his post:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=15
LOL. Seems it's just copied data.
Well, that does not mean that it is not fake either. A high profile product launch like this always generates wackos and dorks trying to reach across the interwebble to perform the cyber equivalent of a purple nurple. As a general rule, it is best to not lend much credence to anything 'leaked', the best data will come from reputable sites that have received actual shipping product to review in which case the data published will be known when all NDAs are lifted.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryR
Would prefer to see an official date launch for AMD's Bulldozer because so far we haven't heard anything, and it sucks being kept in the dark for so long.
Isn't it really simple? If AMD can come up with something that is competitive in some benchmarks, easier to bench and more fun to tweak ... I'll get one. If it's not competitive, a :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: to bench and no tweaking options at all ... I'll probably still get one.
The IPC doesn't really matter for overclockers, I guess. In the end, it's all about the performance you can obtain with certain cooling. Why would you need to have superior IPC if you cannot get the clocks up. If you get 50k Vantage with Bulldozer at 6G or Sandy at 5G, but there's more room for frequency improvement on Bulldozer, you'd pick the Bulldozer.
When Deneb came out, it was competitive with Bloomfield in 05 and 06, but needed much higher clocks to do it. Who cares ... it was competitive :D
I can understand why AMD might not want to announce to the world an exact date like Sept 19th.
They want people buying as many of their other CPUs as possible. I've seen many folks buying "tide me over" CPUs in the past. AMD may want that to continue as long as possible. If people know an exact concrete launch day, I'd imagine AMD's other CPU sales may drop off rather well as said date approaches.
that's what jf said and it is not hard to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacklash
Well,Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
The latency results for simple sequental access show that prefetching is disabled in this ES....
In Sandy Bridge preftching reduces the L3 latency by a factor 2 or so. Latency reduction
is responsible for most of Sandy Bridge's IPC increase over Nehalem.
Regards, Hans
no sense...because 45nm Thuban with die size 380mm = 32nm 315mm FX? What about than at theoretical Thuban at 32nm with higher clocks and lower die size than FX? No, it must be better in good optimalized programsQuote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
So pretty much what JF-AMD was saying. A lot of the ES chips have features disabled on purpose.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hans de Vries
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
What logic are you using?
Since we know the frequency range you should also know the fastest BD has a rather big frequency advantage compared to intel i7 series.
1 thread -> +400MHz (10%)
2 thread -> +500MHz (13.5%)
3 threads -> +600MHz (16,6%)
4 threads -> +700MHz (20%)
From that point the differences get smaller between them.
ipc was said to be higher then K10 multiple times, so it should be somewhere between C2D and infinity.
if ipc is lower then FX4 and FX6 have no reason to exist. since the rumoured FX4 and FX6 models have no clockspeed advantage compared to deneb/thuban.
Also it is impopssible to deduct ipc/application/clock for BD from current known designs.
That`s my point of view too. If we forget the speculations about weak performance for a while it seems to be a good reason for AMD not to announce Bulldozer`s release date. I am very tempted to buy a Phenom II X4 955 BE for as low as 90 quid myself, especially when some online stores bundle it with a new Deus Ex game. In my oppinion that indicates they want to get rid of them in anticipation of a new AMD`s arrival. I will wait and see from trusted reviews if it was worth waiting for, but I understand that some weak individuals would already opt for 955 BE ;-).Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacklash
Well i bought 1100t to warm my socket for bulldozer.
So, we are one week past AMD's worst case scenario for BD's availability but they don't feel like communicating about the delay :clap:
I suppose AMD must be removed from the reliable sources list for AMD's products launch dates :rolleyes:
1. Who cares about stock frequency ? Phenom II used higher frequency card against i5 750 and while they managed to equal it at stock it still was beaten badly when overclocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
2. FX4 and FX6 have very simple reason for existance- saving partially faulty silicon from garbage bin and turning it into some cash (absolutly obvious when we look at ugly TDP those chips have)
I believe stock is what matters... when you talk oc you have absolutely no reference for BD. its more like, who cares about overclocking? overclocking, or the possiblity of it does not break or make a product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
you mean those ugly TDP ratings equal to those of SB?
Michaelius
:shakes:Quote:
2. FX4 and FX6 have very simple reason for existance- saving partially faulty silicon from garbage bin and turning it into some cash (absolutly obvious when we look at ugly TDP those chips have)
how can you sell something worse than your older product and cost probably more, everyone would buy Deneb instead.
are you saying TDP95W is ugly, SB has the same TDP so It must be ugly too, right:ROTF:.
Shouldn't they release a native 2module too, I don't think they would have enough chips just from faulty 4module if they need to sell 3modules too.
I'd assume something like huge majority of people who read this site or [H] or other forums ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
Last non overclocked CPU i runned was PIII 500 :D
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
I never said it will be worse than older cpus (that would be amazing engineering achievement to make something slower than phenom II architecture in 2011). Even if only IPC increase comes from bigger cache it should be faster than Phenom II.
And seriously do you even understand basic concept of performance per watt ?
95W TDP on SB is great because it has performance to match it.
Yet FX4 comes with 95W TDP compared to 125W for top-end FX8 while offering half it's performance.
PS. Radeon 5770 says hello. How do you sell slower card at higher price point ? Simply you just stop producing 4870 and 4890 so there's no competition from your older better product.
TDP is a limit. You should read it ≤95 W.
Michaelius
Yeah I understand It, but this is the first time you mentioned it, I can't find anything about it in your previous comment :cool:Quote:
And seriously do you even understand basic concept of performance per watt ?
95W TDP on SB is great because it has performance to match it.
Yet FX4 comes with 95W TDP compared to 125W for top-end FX8 while offering half it's performance.
And wouldn't you say BD FX 8120 is way more awesome than SB because It has the same TDP yet it should be faster in multithread.:up:
i didn't hear anything about stopping the production of deneb:DQuote:
PS. Radeon 5770 says hello. How do you sell slower card at higher price point ? Simply you just stop producing 4870 and 4890 so there's no competition from your older better product.
yeah, I have the same opinion yet you can still find people who think the IPC will be lower than the previous generation. :shrug:Quote:
I never said it will be worse than older cpus (that would be amazing engineering achievement to make something slower than phenom II architecture in 2011). Even if only IPC increase comes from bigger cache it should be faster than Phenom II.
Who cares, compare power consumption instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
FX4 = 4 cores, SB = 4 coresQuote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
what's the problem here?
Also, AMD's TDP != Intel's TDP
5770 has more/better features (does Direct3D 11, has lower power consumption, eyefinity, better crossfire scaling), the same performance, and overclocks better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
And it's not supposed to be faster than the 4870. The 5870 is.
I would go with a 5770 over a 4870 and overclock it.
FX4 would only offer half the perfornance in case of massive parralelism. on average it would be around 25-30% slower. (maybe less). Or in the facinity of i5 2300-2400. all that within the same TDP. Given FX6 can be made with same clocks in same TDP, FX4 could very well consume considerably less than its TDP also (just like SB does).Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
So i see absolutely no basis for low performance/W ratio for BD.... except ofcourse the major issues with the 32nm process... :)
Michaelius is trolling, don't fall for it.
A) The vast majority of the market cares about stock performance.
B) OC performance isn't known, but if he-who-shall-not-be-named is to be believed, it can OC well. And he's pathetic at overclocking, for what it's worth.
C) TDP != power consumption.
It's best to ignore the bait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
Hehehe....I like that. Can I sig it?
Unfortunately, yes you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
A. It says "Extreme Systems" in the top of my browser not "Average joe rigs". if I'm building rig for my uncle I'm giving him parts that will perform at stock ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
B. It better be considering 2600K can score 1Ghz+ overclocks easily using AC for 24/7 operation
C. Yes and your point is? It's still an indicator of real world usage. If they could stick lower rating on it then they would. Also SB TDP is given for situations when GPU is used alongside CPU part
And lol i guess i must be hitting some nerve with my arguments when the best you can do is try to call me a troll.
@ Apocalypse - yes typically Intel parts with same tdp have lower power usage in real world benchmarking even if official definition would suggest otherwise
@ Teskatlipoka - there were some rumors that AMD will phase out phenoms II very fast ;) http://www.guru3d.com/news/amd-to-ph...henom-ii-fast/
Nope, it's not all I could do. I could have responded in depth. But it's not worth the time when it is fairly clear that your only purpose is to "hit a nerve".Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
A) Irrelevant to the market success of bulldozer.
B) Unknown, until we get our hands on it.
C) Wrong, TDP is not an indicator of real world usage.
And that's about all the effort I'm going to put into it when your intent is so clear.
Mats You are right but I can't compare a product versus another when its still not released, only TDP is known.
You're missing the point though. Sure, overclocked performance matters to most (but not all) of us here, but we as an overclocking community might account for what...10, 1K trays of CPUs? Like it or not, we're a barely significant niche which you're overstating the importance of with your sweeping statement that assumes what matters to us matters to a significant degree overall. It doesn't. I think that's what he is trying to tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
5770 replaced 4770 (5770 is faster)Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
5870 replaced 4870/90 (5870 is faster)
Your comparing a mid-range to a high-end part. Also if the 4870/90 was ever cheaper than a 5770 (I don't think it was) it would have only been to deplete inventory.
"13W" D525 http://ark.intel.com/products/49490Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelius
"18W" E-350 http://products.amd.com/%28S%28h2ine...ookieSupport=1
http://techreport.com/r.x/zacate-vs-...power-peak.gif
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20401/5
I'm not making any illusion that I'll find any BD chips available sooner that Q1 2012. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun