If it turns out that IPC is lower, will terrance be reinstated with an aplology and JF be banned because he blatently lied to this community?
This is just hypothetical
Thanks................
Printable View
If it turns out that IPC is lower, will terrance be reinstated with an aplology and JF be banned because he blatently lied to this community?
This is just hypothetical
Thanks................
Here's hoping the design is different for desktop.....But, not much from what I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by maltrabob
To much annoying and frustrating comment behind this thread. I have stated before pls everyone don't only focus on benchmark, there's too much you should care about, guess why amd delayed and delaying, why those naming scheme and scheduling changing suddenly, if these chips on roadmap aren't even retail, why bother?
I Predict that the 8150/8170 will be able to reach 5.3ghz on air with a decent cooler,
turbo core on the 8170 is 4.7GHz, and that is with a stock air cooler. (stock water-cooling is just a rumor)
Most of this may just be speculation and most of it may not! I'm sure most is not and most is! But one thing is for damn sure; The more I read this thread, the more, and more I am doubting AMD! I really hate to say it because I've been an AMD fan since 1998 and have NEVER purchased anything Intel(save for EEEPC), and am really not looking forward too.
I can see this going REALLY bad for AMD if they don't produce just short of a miracle..
Ahh that just takes me back to the netburst days. Yeah lets clock it higher and higher and to hell with IPCQuote:
Originally Posted by halofanman
With the Bulldozer arch being radically different it's perhaps not so surprising that performance improvements over Family 10h are very hit and miss.
Still something doesn't add up. Before the Interlagos was "scaled down" clock-wise( from roughly 2.8Ghz base to 2.3Ghz base we will have now),integer and spec fp rates were listed at roughly 48% and 77% better than 2.3Ghz MC system. This would lead us to believe integer performance per core and clock was slightly better (~3%-counted in non-perfect scaling with more cores and more clock and 80% scaling AMD lists for integer cores) while FP performance was noticeably better,between 15 and 20% per clock at same core count.
The sisoft results for 6282SE suggest 2.5Ghz base clock and 14% better integer and 76% better fp throughput than 2P MC @ 2.5Ghz.
We are left with few possibilities:
1) 6282SE/6220 results are not real.(ie. they are fake) This may very well be the situation here :).
2) 6282SE/6220 results are "kinda" real. The problem is the Turbo is not working. I'm personally leaning towards this. We have 2.5Ghz in both integer and multimedia tests(and for both platforms 2.5Ghz). This equates to 7-8% better per core result in integer and 32% better per core result in Multimedia. 80% scaling in integer throughput was used to calculate how much better per core is Bulldozer : 232/0.8/16=18.12Gops for 1 BD core @ 2.5Ghz Vs 202/12=16.83Gops for 1 MC core @ 2.5Ghz;for fp it was simpler, just divide the result by number of "cores" for both and you get to 32% faster for Bulldozer per core(or per FMAC if you like :) ). Note that 6220 posts almost identical results as 6282SE,of course adjusted for difference in core count and clock(2x less cores and 20% less clock speed).
3) Results are not fake per se,but they are not accurate(bios/platform/CPUs are not final). It means we can't use them as reference point for anything. This one may be true too.
Number 1 and 3 are the ones we might consider the most. Number 2 is there since the results are there,but hinges on hope that Turbo was disabled.
What if IPC will be lower in some cases and higher in others?:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Why not :
4) 6282SE/6220 results are real and close to shipping performances.
?
that would just be bad,and i hope thats not the caseQuote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
Found this over at H. B2 Stepping. If this is correct the 2500K should be on par with the 8150
Anyone with an X6 care to run Cinebench at 3.1Ghz for us for a comparo?
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5932/r1151.jpg
X6 3.3 GHz : 5.8
And I can confirm I have the same score with a final platform.
If you now have the processor, haven't you signed a NDA?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
Hmmm..
Motherboard and what bios & microcode AGESA version?
What chipset drivers version?
What SB driver version?
OS?
HT Link/NB Freq?
Mem Freq and timings?
hehe, lots of questions there... ;)
4% multithreaded IPC difference in Cinebench R11.5 vs Sandy Bridge.
3.6 Ghz FX-8150 vs 3.4 Ghz 2600K, they should be near equal. 4.2 Ghz Turbo vs 3.8 Ghz Turbo, AMD should win.
Some of the benchmarks look bad, I agree. Less than Thuban performance in Cinebench looks bad, I agree. Getting really close to Sandy Bridge though, quite impressive. The AMD processor has no IGP so I can see why they are priced a little lower than Intel 2500/2600K. For those of us with discrete GPUs, I (pray) hope we get a platform win.
Yes this could be true too,but it doesn't bode well with integer throughput- at all. If this is true then each Bulldozer core is 11% slower in single thread mode (without the scaling penalty!) and close to 40% slower per thread when you just count in pure performance per thread and per clock : 202Gops 24C MC @ 2.5Ghz Vs 232Gops 32C Interl. @ 3Ghz(2.5Ghz base and Turbo working=>3Ghz) ; 202/24=8.41Gops per core @ 2.5Ghz vs 232/32/1.2=6.04Gops per core @ 2.5Ghz; 8.41/6.04=1.4x or 40% slower. That's why I think Turbo wasn't enabled for integer tests at all. Floating point test won't trigger turbo anyway so it's relevant for that segment of performance (which excels versus MC by the way: 32% faster per core at the same clock with effectively having 50% less FPUs,on paper).Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
If the 6220 results didn't have Turbo enabled,then compared to this poor showing we would have different picture.
2P 6220 @ 3Ghz and no Turbo . Integer: 138Gops,MultiM. : 315Mpix/s (15% slower than what 6282SE effectively gets with same core count!) . 1P,which equates to Zambezi 8C @ 3Ghz without Turbo would get 138/1.95=71Gops and 315/1.95=161Mpix/s. (if we take 6282SE results we land at 180Mpix/s !).
Leaked Zambezi at 2.8Ghz (with Turbo to 3.3Ghz for all int cores?? ) got : 54.64Gops and 147Mpix/s. According to above ,this is 40% lower in integer benchmark than Opteron 1P @ 3Ghz if you count that Zambezi had Turbo on or 21% lower per clock if Zambezi's Turbo didn't kick in. For fp the difference is between 3 or 14 %,depending which Opteron you take for comparison (6220 or 6282SE).
Now for FX 8150 @3.6Ghz with 3.8Ghz (assumed) Turbo for all cores we would have : 71x3.8/3~=89Gops and 161x3.6/3=193Mpix/s ( or 216Mpix/s if you take 6282SE results as reference point).
For reference 1100T @ 3.3Ghz gets : 65Gops and 115Mpix/s. So if Opteron numbers are true (but ran without Turbo) 8C FX8150 should be : 89/65=1.37 or 37% faster than 1100T in multithreaded integer benchmark and 193/115=1.67 or 67% (or 216/115=1.87 or 87%) faster than 1100T in Multimedia(AVX/SSE) benchmark. Per core and per clock this boils down to : 11% faster in integer (80% scaling counted in for Bulldozer and adjusted for clock difference of 3.8Ghz Turbo for 8150 and 3.3Ghz def. for 1100T) and 15%/28% faster in AVX/SSE test ( depending which Opteron you take as reference,6220 or 6282SE).
So if Turbo was off for the opteron results, Bulldozer does look pretty good.For throughput benchmarks it is between 35% and >65% faster,depending if it's pure integer or FP/SIMD.
Have you been looking at Best Buy, or what? hahahQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Anyways, the OS part is moot if you're talking about pre-built, especially laptops. So you can't factor that in at all.
I didn't look through every one, but a number of these Radeon models are ringing bells for me with being the ones integrated into the APU. I never did look at how my discovery panned out compared to what AMD really ended up releasing, but not everything matches up on there either. So, if it's dedicated or not is a toss up: Uber Long NewEgg Search Link
This is the only one that comes up as specifically stating it has a dedicated card though.
All but 2 of those aren't under $700 :\
Wonder if maybe the software-designed core layout might be partially to blame? I expect what you said to be pretty much the case though.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
1100T @ 3.1 with turbo off yields 5.4 for me, but that's with the NB at 2.8
Depending on the specifics of the NDA, you are allowed with in the contract to say a certain amount. Specifics like everything you're asking, pretty much a no-no. Saying something like "Yea, production sample A vs Pre-production D yield the same results", well that's a bit vague and doesn't exactly reveal much. Not to say it ISN'T in the NDA as something that can't be talked about though. *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
Which is where you'd want to do it at, along with DDR3-1866 if at all possible, too. I mean, if you really want to remove all variables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Well if Opteron 6220 results are true ,as xsecret claims,then C11.5 result should roughly follow the same route as the Sisoft's MM benchmark.I say roughly since I have no idea what is the ratio of memory and SIMD instructions in these tests. If it does have similar ratio,then instead of 5.24pts one should have 1.67x the result of 1100T if he would to run C11.5 on FX8150 @ 3.6Ghz.Or in numbers : 9.85pts.
9.85pts is dangerously reminiscent of this (early slide detailing Scorpius platform and Zambezi advantage over Thuban in 3 benchmarks;slide was from Dec 2010 and was pointing roughly at 10pts in C11.5 for 8C Zambezi @ unknown clock).
well, the problem is, one integer "core" might indeed be weaker then one thuban core. But one module might be stronger. taken into account the thubans are benched at faster clocks, they may have same ipc per clock overall 4 core vs 6 core..
assuming bd has 0.85x the ipc per "core", it would equal 1.53 (0.85x1.8 scaling factor) ipc per "module". now 1.53x4 = 6.12, so it might be a bit faster then a six core thuban clock for clock.
given it is designed for higher clocks, i could imagine this very well.
the thing is the "core count". bulldozer as an 8 core has less ipc, as an 4-core it has 50% more ipc. Finally, ipc doesnt come out of the blue but from execution units and decoder/prefetch efficiency. AMD should have launched it as a 4-core and all would be good...
only question remaining is then, when will the 0.85 and when will the 1.63 be used. I think, for desktops like for servers multithreaded workloads are importnat for "snappiness" and "smoothness", whereas benchmarks dont need that much flexibility..
I think you rrrrrreally need to move on from comparing everything to the server variants. They might be mostly the same, but I suspect there is enough of a difference for them to perform rather far apart from each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I also suck at math, but that link says 1.5x greater than 1100T, which if you use XSecret's 5.8 score you get 8.7m not 9.85. Which goes right back to comparing server stuff, as now even comparing unknown systems brings in way too many variables I think, especially when it comes to BIOS versions between board makers.
i think here the turbo clock is shown?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence
No.The link says 1.78x higher than Thuban in render. Check again.It's the middle bar (yellow) one. It represents Render performance . You can see it being roughly 1.78x higher than 1100T's. Media performance (first bar from the left to right) is based on PCmark's subtest called TV and Movies(this one is mostly single threaded and in this one Zambezi is around 15% faster). Last bar is the one showing 1.5 or 50% faster and is based on 3dMark06's CPU subtest. It fits good since this subtest doesn't scale that well with cores,but scales good with clock. Just read the footnote,it's all there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
And yes,in that sisoft suite,8C Zambezi without turbo would perform nearly identical to 1P BD Opteron 8C without turbo and at the same clock. On this I based my math and double checked it. You can compare Lisbon (2P 6C Opteron and divided by 2x) scores to Thuban X6 at the same clock and see it for yourself.
You should be aware that Zambezi Turbo mode is not that simple. There is 2 "main" levels of Turbo. For example, a 3.6 GHz base CPU can reach 3.9 GHz with all cores used as long as TDP remain under a specified value AND can reach 4.2 GHz in single core mode. So, depending on the usage on a 8-threads application, you can be at 3.6 GHz or 3.9 GHz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
9.85 seem a little high doesnt it?
i would expect around 7.50 to 8.00 tops(best case scenario)
and a more realistic score of 6.50 to 7.00?
then again i dont know this stuff too well:D
I actually used 3.8Ghz in above post.So Turbo for 8150 is figured in.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
Also I was under impression that when you have 8 FP heavy threads,like in the Multimedia benchmark from sisoft or Cinebench,there won't be any turbo engaging and chip will run at default (3.6Ghz).
In any case,the Opteron SSE/AVX results completely disprove the FX8120 score of 5.24pts in C11.5. It doesn't make sense that in one FP heavy benchmark Zambezi kicks Thuban's ass (like in sisoft one,where 8150 @ 3.6Ghz is being 67% faster than 1100T) while in other it is practically slower than same chip or barely faster (6pts for 8150 according to xsecret and Chinese leaks vs 5.91pts for 1100T).
If Sandra uses AVX in the MM Benchmark, that's not strange. Thuban doesn't have AVX and all benchmarks using it are 10 times slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So going from 3.1Ghz to 3.6Ghz do these 2 CB scores seem to be inline with reality?
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5932/r1151.jpg
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/1...f7b6nmnfy7.jpg
Why do you think that AVX is so much powerful than SSE? Thuban Core and BD module can execute same number of raw FLOPS. AVX and SSE are vectorised packed FP instructions. BD module can execute one 256-bit AVX which contain 4DP FP operations, same as two 128-bit AVX or SSE. In some cases 256 AVX can be faster, but how much? Two times...Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
CB scales perfectly with frequency. 3.6/3.1*5.24 = 6.08. Something is wrong here with this results or frequency of CPU's isn't accurate. Actually I think that is much lower than CPUz's readings.Quote:
Originally Posted by radaja
@ rajada
yes.
13% increase in performance over 12.5% increase in base clock speed. Factor complex turbo in and it seems logical to me.
Yes, AVX would do nothing, but FMA could be the big difference. SiSoft normally always programs special code for each CPU, thus on Bd, it should use XOP&FMA.Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
I don't know if you have followed bulldozer trheads but actually bulldozer has teh same throughput in all 3 modes: legacy SSE,AVX 128bit and AVX 256bit. This is because the way AMD designed their FPU(or FlexFP as they call it). You have 8 of these FMACs in 8 core chip. All of them are 128bit wide. 128bit AVX usually carries very little to no performance benefit over standard SSE(think 5-10%). This is even seen in Zambezi leaked Sisoft numbers:Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
Attachment 119979
As you can see 11% faster in 256bit AVX mode than in legacy SSE (128bit) mode.
With bulldozer,when you go to 256bit AVX you may even incur a small penalty ,but this is not the norm(compiler patches state up to 3% penalty and AMD encourages devs to use AVX 128 instead the 256bit one).
So point is: AVX(both 128 and 256bit) brings nothing or close to nothing since Bulldozer has same peak flops in all 3 modes I listed.
The only difference is FMA recompiled software which can bring additional 2x performance over AVX 128.At least this is what AMD listed in their HPC documents from last year. I can't find the pdf but I can link to a recent presentation which included a slide on FlexFP.A picture is worth a thousand words :) :
Attachment 119978
As you can see,same peak flops in all 3 cases. I rest my case :).
BTW the leak that I linked above showed that Zambezi @ 2.8Ghz had 132mpix/s for SSE score and 147 for AVX.I already showed that Opterons score better than this(10% higher than Zambezi). There is no Turbo in heavy FP/SIMD mode mind you. If you use 132 score as base and not 147 (AVX one),you get for 3.6Ghz : 132x3.6/2.8=170mpix/s vs 115 for 1100T. That is 48% better and based on Zambezi leak(not Opteron's score). 1.48x 5.91pts (Thuban score) =8.74pts. This is still miles ahead of what you claim and Chinese show. Again,remember that these numbers are based on SSE score I linked above (so legacy SSE code that Cinebech uses too).
I agree, but we don't know how SiSoft works with FMA and XOP turned on and off. We will know when we get BD on the bench table. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
Yes, but what is the module count ? For 64 DP FLOPS you must have 8 SB cores and 16 FlexFP's. That slide is BS, because there is no CPU with 32 BD cores, or 16 BD modules. Interlagos has 8 BD modules or 8 FlexFP's which can execute up to 32 DP FLOPS, or 64 SP FLOPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
If you compare 8 core Xeon and 16 core Interlagos that slide make sense.
No, there is 16% increase in clock speed and 13% increase in performance. Gap is too big between increase of frequency and performance or scaling is too bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
@drfedja
We already have Sisoft numbers for SSE and AVX/FMA. Sisoft uses AVX and doesn't use FMA since the speedup with AVX 256 versus SSE 128 is 11% (147/132.3).
Yes, if that numbers are correct. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
Well they are correct in a sense that they show us what code path Zambezi runs(AVX and not FMA). Also they kinda align with both opteron 6200 series sisoft results. 2P 6282SE gets 585 @ 2.5Ghz which equates (with perfect scaling of 4x) to 147 or 164mpix/s @ 2.8Ghz (11% higher than 8C Zambezi @ 2.8Ghz). 2P 6220 @ 3Ghz gets 315mpix/s ;with perfect scaling => 315/2=157.5mpix/s or @ 2.8Ghz 147mpix/s (exactly the same as that Zambezi @ 2.8Ghz). So we can say now that results of the Zambezi sample are true for SIMD and kinda off for integer test.
It can't "clearly be" something and "roughly", all at the same time. Nor can it also "say" when no where are there words stating it. :P I get that you've taken the 1.5x bar and lined it up to get 1.78x, but it's a marketing slide. It's meant to look good, not be mathematically accurate lolQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
I know I'm sounding like a total dbag, which I apologize for, but I'm just trying to point out all the work you're doing for something that wasn't meant to be taken so literally (by dissecting and comparing) :\ I know where you're coming from though, with doing what you're doing being mentally stimulating, as I get that way with stuff.
Well yes it is a marketing slide(doh) but the bars are not drawn just for fun. There is clearly a ratio. 1.5x is for the last test. You can see the color for the individual test. Media benchmark (PCmark) shows the least advantage of the 3 and AMD didn't write "up to 15% in PC Mark TV and movies" for obvious reasons. Also note that it says " performance estimates and subject to change. This means they had no idea what clock speeds they will be hitting with retail chips when the time comes. Maybe they expected 4Ghz stock and now we have "only" 3.6Ghz.
But still my point stands. We had these performance projections from December last year. Rendering showed the greatest improvement. Now it(Zambezi) shows lower performance with the latest ES floating around.
PS You don't sound like a dbag at all. You just need to read up more :). I said 1.78 since nobody knows exactly how long that bar is.It's longer than 1.7x and shorter than 2x. The last one is the only one listed with solid number,even though everything was a projection back in that time.
All i see is crippled chips. Who knows, integrated chip to enable FX performance on a given day?
If a FX-8120 scores less than a 1090T, then what would be the point of the new chip?
Just release an ironed Phenom II and call it Phenom III or Phenom FX.
less latency/more L3 (8-10MB)
1MB L2 per core
DDR3 1866/2133 controller
add SSE4.2 / AVX / FMA / etc
Magically --> 20-25% IPC with more or less the same arq, a monter gaming/mt machine.
10points CB11.5 on a Phenom 8 core
Phenom III X4 3Ghz $149 ~ Phenom II X4 980 3.7Ghz
That should give SB a run for it's money.
Really, what would be the point?
I know this is probably old news to most. But wanted to show my findings just to verify any speculations:
Can be seen here on the AMD giveaway contest rules!Quote:
4. Entry Period: The Contest begins July 21, 2011 at 12:01am Eastern Time (“EDT”) and ends October 12, 2011 at 11:59 pm EDT (the “Entry Period”). Entries that are submitted before or after the Entry Period will be disqualified. Sponsor’s computer will be the official timekeeping device for the Contest.
Yeah we discussed that few days ago. They changed the date from Sept. 9 to October 12. This is in line with Q4 launch or as it was rumored : early October.
Has amd stated whats coming first? Server or Desktop? Opteron's 6200 is scheduled to arrive on 10-11-11 on BLT so we should assume the desktop chips a week or so later?
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/...er_id=!ORDERID!
all we know is server is shipping for revenue and will launch Q4,so said JFQuote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence
he also said this in regards to BLT on ETA's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
The Sandia Processor Arithmetic Benchmark is not a pure integer benchmark, but a aggregate score of the pure integer Dhrystone benchmark and the floating point focused Whetstone benchmark.
IPC should be higher in all cases on a new architecture. No excuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
It generally makes a lot of sense now that AMD delayed desktop and pulled in server chips. Because desktops depend heavily on IPC and single threaded workload, and if BD is very weak at both they need to tweak for maximum clocks they can to offset this. But for servers it is not as big of a problem so it became the new priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Had BD been a spectacular product it would be in our computers already. I doubt any delays were due to bugs, but rather due to attempting to get clock shigher to make up for poor ipc.
I thought servers were more important than desktop? It makes perfect sense that they would get the product to a place that would, more than likely, produce the most revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
I'm not sure about bugs or higher clocks being the issue, I think GF didn't produce a enough quantities; hell, from what I understand, the demand for LLano has been overwhelming.
When you're not able to increase the IPC on your current ľarch, you must use faster clocks to increase the performance. In order to use faster clocks, you need an high throughput engine and remove all bottlenecks in your frontend. Sometimes you need to do some horrible things to achieve this like putting your L1 in Write-Through while trying to amaze ppls with "ultra high bandwidth" FP/SMD units... even if you're not able to feed them correctly with your decode/dispatch unit in all cases. Finally, you'll get a decent CPU, but only at very high frequency and with a LOT of power to dissipate. Worst of all : when your process is not able to give you high yields, you must launch it at low freq.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Say hello to Netburst....
...and Bulldozer ?
best amd bd post ever :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
Well hypothetically, terrance would need to be reinstated and JF wouldnt have blatently lied, LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by AKM
We will see very soon for sure.
I think many people are going to be dissapointed as they have too high expectations, the second respin of the chip that is touted for late Q1/2012 should show the real prospective performance of AMD's new architecture......
No. They've been already done and been sent out to testers. And they're crap.:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
http://www.bug.hr/_cache/bcf715ee2a6...8f8ed6aa70.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by haylui
Really? I don't recall AMD acknowledging that they've handed out the final product to testers for evaluation. Must have missed it.....Quote:
No. They've been already done and hand out to testers. And they're crap.
Umh, no. It might be crap for all I know but the other part isn't correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
Attachment 119992
No, this is too slow....the same score has x6 1075T at stock setings in x64 OS....
I honestly don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. Blt obviously has good information about prices because its right on with tank guys figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by radaja
Unfortunately Blt doesn't give a date expected for bd but when they do I have a feeling it'll be very close to accurate
Sorry for nagging but it's better to keep silent these time, yes those result are crappy but you still have no evidence to say that they're not true or intentionally crippled.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Since I won't bother those benchmark, and first is to worried whether the release is on time or not. According to anandshimpi there was lots of revision coming these weeks, even none of them can affirm which will be hard launch.
While that score may indeed be true we should better wait for the real thing to come out. So far the leaks are kinda mixed bad- ranging from bad to kinda good(like opterons and their own sisoft scores).
He wasn't banned for making an unpopular prediction, he was banned for being a troll. Right or not makes no difference as far as that is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Here some prices:
http://www.cpu-world.com//news_2011/...ries_CPUs.html
http://www.extremetech.com/computing...y-bridge?print
AMD’s FX Series will be very, very cheap: the six-core FX-6100 (i.e. three Bulldozer modules [4]) clocked at 3.3GHz, with a Turbo Core boost to 3.9GHz, will retail for just $155. The eight-core (four-module) FX-8120, clocked at 3.1GHz and boosted to 4GHz, will retail for $185 — and the 3.6GHz/4.2GHz FX-8150 will retail for $230. Each Bulldozer module has 2MB of L2 cache, so the FX-6100 has 6MB of L2 — and its eight-core brethren have 8MB. All three chips have 8MB of L3 cache.
JP.
I am all for price drops, but if this is the case I doubt AMD is just trying to capture market share. There has to be similar performance to what is mentioned in this thread to make the 8150 be priced at the 2500K. Even the 940 BE got released at $300ish I think. Really doesn't follow any kind of pricing scheme by the looks of it. I would rather have AMD be ahead and have the 8150 cost $400. Oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
no 4 core price, any speculation on that?
If you check out the cpu-world and what it says there, Zambezi 6C is actually 188$ ,not 155$. I have no idea where xtremetch pulled those numbers from. We know that one guy that has his own store (tankguys) said he will be selling 8150 for 260$, 8120 for 234$ and 6100 for 205$.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
http://www.shopblt.com/cgi-bin/shop/...&sitem=BLA5134
BLT posted SKU which means launch imminent:)
Rumors about a new world record 8.3GHz+, more info tomorrow :D
Another super Cedar Mill Celeron? Or something exciting pertaining to Zambezi? :)
is the LN2 event tomorrow?8.3Ghz would be a nice start:DQuote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
nex: some joke?:)
I've understood Bulldozer was going to be quite the speed demon but a new world record? I am eagerly awaiting more news regarding this!Quote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
Nope, from sweclockers FB-channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...01711536_n.jpg
Translate: Sweclockers tomorrow 15:00 (GMT+1)
Quote:
-- Overclocked to 8 -- MHz - New Guinness World Record
A bunch of renowned overclockers beats world record with a processor from the next -- the bar is raised to as much as 8 -- MHz
Nice!!Quote:
Originally Posted by nex_73
omg! Nice
Netburst Lives!!!!
as cool as these clocks might be to you xtremists, i just want to know typical 24/7 water OC
Oop's i just reread JF's Bulldozer Pre-launch FAQ and i guess it wont count:ROTF::ROTF:
Im just kidding
Quote:
Q. I saw a world record OC on xyz website. Is that how bulldozer will OC?:A. No. All OC's posted before launch will "NOT" be representative of actual BD OC's.
radaja: rofl :D
hope its true, with the supposed new stepping in q1 2012 giving better ipc along with AMD's recent history of process improvements (6ghz -> 7ghz on 45nm) this thing might not turn out to be worse than amd athlon x2 after all ;) 10ghz by 2013? :D
No ETA on arrival tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
AMD on Twitter has announced that it will reveal a secret tomorrow at IDF
"Our adrenaline is pumping from holding in our BIG secret! We'll be spilling the beans tmrw at #IDF2011. Stay tuned!"
http://twitter.com/#!/AMD_Unprocesse...80895834128385
The preliminary Bulldozer benchmarks are making me nervous. I can't imagine AMD would design a chip that loses to it's previous lineup. An 1100T crushes BD if those numbers are true LOL. Why would a site risk their credibility by releasing such dismal numbers.
How is this netburst? Just because it is designed for high clock speeds doesnt mean it will be a "netburst". Much of the shortcomings of the Netburst architecture have been addressed in the BD architecture so claiming BD to be a failed product before we even know real numbers is just silly. All the P4 was was a high clock architecture with no IPC, Bulldozer is a high clock architecture with a decent amount of IPC to go with it and lots of cores on top. Whether it will truly be good or not we will have to wait and see, but just because it is designed for high clock speed doesnt mean it is going to fail hardQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
High Clocks, Low IPC.. Sounds like Netburst to me :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
Where are you getting the low IPC part from?
\Quote:
Originally Posted by repman
Every single ES leak out there. B2 8120 loses to an I5 2400 in Cinebench by 5%
i never said failed, i was just pointing out the really high overclock they supposedly got. and if somehow BD can get like 6ghz on air, then no one will really care about the lacking IPC if they can just OC it past SB. (i doubt 6ghz on air will happen, but we dont know)Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
This pretty much sums it up. If BD can overclock like SB it'll be a winnerQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Attachment 120017Quote:
Originally Posted by hatter
Tomorrow is INTEL DEVELOPER FORUM and AMD is going to reveal something there?
Amd is going to bust out BD on LN2 for 6Ghz then Intel is going to bust out Ivy Bridge that does 5Ghz on a Passive HeatsinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
Hahhaa, AMD must have something HUGE planned.
I hope it's not just an 8GHz BD on LN2. I mean that's great for enthusiasts, but it's not like everyone here is cooling their rig with a LN2 pot.
then amd will up the multiplier to 8ghz and intel will up the multi to 6ghz, where its locked :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence
Takes BD 8Ghz to match IB at 6Ghz anyway :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
They must have just ONE good chip to play with. Cause we sure as hell ain't seeing anything!
8 Ghz BD on LN2...Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
6.6 Ghz Thuban on LN2...
4.1-4.2 Ghz Thuban on air/water...
X.X-X.X Ghz BD on air/water?...4.2 stock, so I'd take a stab around 4.8 if I were to pull a number out of my mind
So if we don't have an LN2 pot installed on our computers, we aren't enthusiasts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontl1ne
I don't really care what BD will do with LN2. I'll never get the chance to use the stuff. Air and water are my concerns!
Kindly restrict your trolling to Intel section... We're here in "AMD" section to read some bits and bytes about the new processors which are to come out sometime soon... If you've nothing worthwhile to add, please do not be a nuisance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence
To admin and other staff: Sincerest apologies... but i guess someone had to herd the trolls to the barn...
On topic. Bring out the news already... why would you deprive us of our sleep... 8+ ghz is good, and i'll conclude on LN2. However, if it manages even close to 6 on air/ water, it would be quite something alright. Personally i don't overclock much. I do love how AMD platforms are better specced for the same money, and by a mile, and if you're on a budget... unless you have some specific use in mind, AMD is the obvious choice, which i recommend to people who ask advice on such matters. However, if anyone from AMD is paying attention, in India, your dealers resort to price gouging (on purpose... hint, hint!), thereby positioning Intel's processors are better value. Sometimes, AMD is plain screwing up... which can't help you gaining market-share in any manner. When i bought my old system, C2D e6600 & e6750 were priced cheaper/ same than a X2 6000. Just saying...
On the architecture... there seemingly are bottlenecks that people are pointing to, but i guess, programming has not even started to use all the cores on a processor much, leave alone hitting a bottleneck (excluding specific server usage). All in all, i expect nothing less than 10-20% due to improvements in the prefetch, and some other improvements, at the same clock. If there's anything less... i'll guess that will have to be explained as some snag (aka TLB of Phenom), which will explain Charlie's statement WRT improvements in Q1 2012, with a new revision. I also think that it may have something to do with specific patches to be written for the OS to enable usage of all the improvements brought in by the new instruction set(s). AMD did write one such for Linux in the July this year. Next year, Win 8 is to be hitting shelves, which may bring a new SP for Win 7 & Vista (may be). Too many questions...
Great post! Did you do that for "For Sale" section access?Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi
Called humor my good manQuote:
Originally Posted by tifosi
Sorry mate... it is getting a handful to distinguish between trolls and harmless banter :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence
Once again, apologies for ruffling feathers :(
I did not know about a section called "for sale." :eek: my activities here are limited to news/ cpu and gpu sections :PQuote:
Originally Posted by m411b
It is obvious unless AMD screws up big time like TLB on Phenom, BD will see some gains (at the same clock) in the range i mentioned. Intel also gained a whole lot in Nehalem and now SB, so why shouldn't AMD with BD? Now, precisely how much, it is anybody's guess. I merely posted my views on all that i've read so far.
Hell, I would. Where better to lay the proverbial smack down, particularly if there's the chance the product is incredible? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
No need to be sorry. All good bro. Even tho im a SB owner im still getting an FX-4100 to play with and give to the lady as her new rig..... After some DICE runs ofcoursr.Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi