Printable View
I think they should make something like an FX 4130P (I assume P = Performance) that has 8 modules, but only uses 1/2 of each to take advantage of all the potential bandwidth heh (John mentioned that on the 20Q blog, that a thread on each module would yield more throughput then two threads pers, but would produce more heat since modules couldn't shut down.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I'd consider buying that, if they'd overclock into the 4.5GHz area almost guaranteed :)
I guess this maybe the world's first official information about the version name lol. So called 8130, 8110 maybe fake.
http://motherboardnews.com/wp-conten...bytefxleak.png
old old old.Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
this one is so old and its one of the reason i posted the ASUS slide - cause it was the first document that kinda confirmed the naming scheme.
Ahahah... AMD did a really good job of keeping everything "secret". People are going in circles, coming up with "news" that surfaced some months ago ... just to keep this "speculation" running :)
Good job AMD ;) People are freaking out! eheheh
Agreed. People have hard time trying to figure out if a model runs a 3.6 or 3.8 GHz from a pshopped slide, without knowing the actual performance at all - TWO WEEKS FROM LAUNCH.:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
And before some smart guy once again says "NDA":
I know.
But still, impressive.
Guys you all forgot about HD4000 series launch and the 400SP news just a few days before the launch? Wasn't that "blogger"(now banned here and pretty much elsewhere) assuring the rest of us that 400SP is the correct SP count? Also don't forget the launch of HD6800 series and the "specifications" that were surfacing,none of which were true.
but its noice, because its the "Hype moment", more and more discussion in forums about BD last weeks
i remember quiet good. and i remember how everyone had proof that the slide nordichardware.com posted, stating 800sp + the right clks, was a fake. guess where that came from... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Not sure I like that, though, too much uncertainty and spam to go through...Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
this might be a catch 22 though,Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
if you have 4 threads on 2 modules, you get 10% less perf, but you might get 15% better power savings compared to having 4 threads on 4 modules. that extra power savings turning into higher clocks and might get you 10% faster speeds, resulting in the same exact performance in the end.
so the question will be, does 4ghz on the FX-8110 equal 4.4ghz on the FX-4110, and which one will consume more power when running 4 threads
Where's AMD Bulldozer ? - Sweclockers
Quote:
Although the boards are ready for launch, the engineers have not access to real production samples of Bulldozer-based processors. Instead they use scaled-down and locked "engineering samples" and the older Phenom II to function test the new models.
The situation has even gone so far that motherboard manufacturers are reluctant to launch the new models in June and is considering cuts in supply. Although it is still using the old Phenom II socket AM3, but this combination is more difficult to market.
Without a precise planning from AMD's site now requires manufacturers to the new processors will take until August or even September. It is dangerously close to Intel's launch of Sandy Bridge-E which has the potential to steal the limelight, at least among enthusiasts who put performance first.
this is why I was forced to build a Intel System for my server, Hardware failure dictated that I could wait no more for these phantom processors. Let alone the fact that the server side of Bulldozer will no see the light of day until Dec...maybe!
What a shock, if true.
RussC
I'm pretty sure someone else has said it, but if AMD has to significantly delay the launch of BD, wouldn't they have to inform their shareholders? :shrug:
As far as I know, they have not issued any warnings of a delay to anyone, yet.
Sounds like AMD secrecy is bordering on paranoid. :CTF:
Frankly, I am dissapointed on the fact that I had to resort to a Intel Build for my server. But, considering the fact that I have been waiting 4 years for this Unicorn it was more of a reality decision versus a paranoia one, just could not wait any longer do to hardware failure:(
Nice to see on that article that "they use scaled-down and locked "engineering samples" " for testing... :x
Oh boy ... my i7 920 is still "alive and kicking" ... i can w8 ... but for those of you who are reaching your psychological brake point of sanity while waiting for the BD ... this is rough news :x
Still... i'm really looking forward and i truly believe that this is going to be an hell of a chip ...
Intel did re-schedule the Ivy Bridge too ... ahahah ... paper launch really sucks, even worst when that paper is written with "invisible ink" ;) ehehhe
you know but you still think we are 2 weeks from launch... now that is what I call FUNNY :ROTF::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Does anybody know which site that linked to another site that linked to another site that got a rumor written in a forum that there will be a launch of BD? :D
Enron Of cpu's....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
IMO
it's because the boards aren't there is BS.
The board them self can take AM3 cpu's In fact they where slated to be out by March If I recall.
There isn't a problem with the cpus it's the licensing SLI doing it making boards late.
I'd like to also know why everyone is claiming the I7 2600K as high end ? When it's mid-range for intel. :/
So when is it? If AMD is serious with the Q2 statement I may be 3 weeks off at most, not a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
All I know is this, feel free to post some more recent info, I haven't seen anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Dunno what rumor you're talking about?:rolleyes:
If we are to believe this slide then we're getting new revisions by years end:
http://img.donanimhaber.com//images/...1a_dh_fx57.jpg
Also, there is supposedly some situations where having the work done on 2 modules rather than 1 can hurt performance. Shared resources can be an advantage sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
New models maybe, but I don't see anything about a new revision tho.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by halfwaythere
that is a slide from 2010Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
the main thing is missing on the bottom :) * see footnotes at end of presentation: Production schedules and naming is preliminary and subject to change:D
also old presentation... see aboveQuote:
Originally Posted by halfwaythere