Printable View
Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
Now if it will only do WPrime 1024M stable and more curiously how will it compare to a 2600K 4c/8t @ ~ 5.8Ghz+ under similar cooling?
I'm looking forward to more info being released in the days ahead!
Oh and a little off topic but while I'm posting... congrats chew!:up:
Interesting reads here, but 3 questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
1.) why would AMD do such a thing (you wrote for better clock-scaling, that means higher clocks or better scaling?)
2.) can it be optimized further
3.)this contradicts somewhatQuote:
Write Trough means that every write to the cache causes a synchronous write to the backing store. Because L2 is slower than L1, L1 must wait for L2 to write out data.
or you mean this can be due to WCC? I am not a professional, but I would guess WCC doesnt take that long to preserve coherence... If anything at all, I'd guess the waiting of L1D for L2 can be a problem, but if stuff is written to L1D fast, and then some cycles later WCC writes to L2, I guess there will only be rare cases whereQuote:
The L3 is a non-inclusive victim cache (L2 data are evicted to the L3) with data transfered from L3 to the L1D of the expected core without being copied to the L2.
really matters...Quote:
The L1 is in Write-through, but you're not sure a data not in L2 is not the L1D of another core.
I guesswill first speed up things, thenQuote:
data transfered from L3 to the L1D of the expected core without being copied to the L2.
will need some time. All, to my eyes, depends on how this stuff is used, it can be faster in one case, and slow in the other... Mhm somewhere we came to that conclusion before :)Quote:
snoop traffic in order to keep the coherency correct
Maybe the problem is because of, one core might need to wait for WCC to complete to ensure coherency?Quote:
The L1 is in Write-through, but you're not sure a data not in L2 is not the L1D of another core.
Ahhhh btw... CONGRATZ FOR NEW WR :)
When will the first reviews come out?
How you can claim such things ? Are you chip architect of BD, or some experienced with low level code optimisation programmer to claim that the WCC is a joke or good enough patch for WT policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
So, on 10h is also non-inclusive, or exclusive, and K10 with L3 cache is faster than K10 without cache. Gain from such large L3 may be bigger if cache is faster, but K10 core run very well withot L3. Non-inclusive L3 isn't reason for low performance, especially in FP intensive, or integer intensive, number crunching apps like wprime or CB. With BD module there is 2MB of 16-way L2 cache which is enough for achieving acceptable performance levels. I don't think so that the SB will run so great without L3 cache. I also think that cache hieararchy of AMD K10 and BD is some kind of tradeoff for having good enough performance of low end, and APU products, like Llano and Trinity.Quote:
The L3 is a non-inclusive victim cache (L2 data are evicted to the L3)
L2 is mostly inclusive of L1D caches, so the data from L1D caches in most cases is in L2, because of WT and mostly inclusive cache policy. But to have complete picture of the puzzle, we need to know how they solved problems with snoop traffic and how much from for eg. core 0 must snoop core 1 L1D through the L3.Quote:
with data transfered from L3 to the L1D of the expected core without being copied to the L2. That mean high snoop traffic in order to keep the coherency correct. And snoop traffic is something really unwanted from a bandwidth/performance pov. There is a pardox here : The L1 is in Write-through, but you're not sure a data not in L2 is not the L1D of another core.
The question for AMD is what is the average hit rate of L1 copy in L2.
I told that before. For WB cache in opposite from WT, writes are not immediately mirrored to the store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
From RWT Article about BD architecture:
Quote:
Stores from both L1D caches go through the WCC, where they are buffered and coalesced. The purpose of the WCC is to reduce the number of writes to the L2 cache, by taking advantage of both spatial and temporal locality between stores. For example, a memcpy() routine might clear a cache line with four 128-bit stores, the WCC would coalesce these stores together and only write out once to the L2 cache.
that's amazing man, that mean we will see + 8.4 chips too for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
When the cpu will be launched, rumors point mid october now .. well not for tomorrow for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by mR Yellow
Chew*, happy testing others chips :p:, nice hand choice for 4th 8.4GHz+ chip! Only this 4th was the first! :)
If that's just four chips, I want to see the best chip of a batch. I'm pretty sure that hitting 8.6+ in the first two to three weeks after launch won't be hard and with time, breaking 9 should be possible.
:banana::banana::banana::banana:ing awesome achievement guys.
Well, if they don`t do marketing, who planned today`s surprise for them? On Intel`s day as well ;-).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AB-G...layer_embeddedQuote:
Originally Posted by PolRoger
Even if an FX8150 needs to go 6.5Ghz to compete with 5.8Ghz 2600K in 3Ds...it still better considering how easy to find 58X 2600K
but...its speculation still...Maybe not!
matla:oh, I forgot at Intel day :D, today is FX suprised OC day
Ok guys,clock speed is great and all but don't expect too much from FX (versus i7 or even thuban). That way you won't be that much disappointed. ..
AMD says up to 35% better performance from previous generation. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
You are now restrained optimist ? :D :cool:Quote:
That way you won't be that much disappointed. ..
I feel bad for Informal really, hes been on this case since day 1 with full focus and optimism but the latest leaks have broken his spirit (and mine kinda). It's sad really, but like he said, better to be positively surprised than having too high expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
thats for server, so its already going to have 33% more cores, if they are clocked an higher that means IPC went down, but if they are lower clocked thats great news.Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
but i think informal is just playing it safe.
it's because of that "Bulldozer engineer" xsecret. He's got us convinced it's a 4 core netburst with hyperthreading. So we have no choice but to expect it to be crap and hope for the best because he helped create that chip so he knows best. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1874555
i'm sorry for being OT, but does the above link indicate a processor oc'ing all its 6 cores to 7+ Ghz? I don't think so. I think it is mostly the fact that CPU-Z has all information and is showing all the information, i.e number of cores etc.
On topic, let us hope that BD has more to it than just clocks. When informal and all are losing hope, i wonder what remains for me...
mhm informal by what you write in your blog, even if ipc per bulldozer core will not or even slightly be higher then per thuban core, I think this processor gonna rock (dont care much if its slower the i7 on stock clocks given that OC numbers :D )
only question mark is at power consumption still.. though the shared design and clock gating should do its work..
hehe maybe we will thank xsecret one day, when we were all laying down depressed and then really the boom boom bulldozer breaks in with thuban ipc or more and 5ghz on air :)
I think they are clocked lower (Compared to MC).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
If we compare BD (Zambezi) to Phenom II: it has much much higher clock potential (for future CPU's, and it's design is something they can work on), and IPC should be higher. So going by that it shouldn't be a bad CPU.
If that is true, BD per core is faster than K10. BD-Interlagos Opterons is almost same clocked as Magny Cours. How much is 12-core Opteron faster than 8-core? For 50% more cores, 35% or something like that? :) There is no chance that Zambezi could be slower on average than Thuban. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
I know! ;)Quote:
but i think informal is just playing it safe.
That`s what I am curious to know as well. But since FX-8150 is stated to be a 125W one, it should be pretty ok considering it`s eight-core (or four-module).Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
That's the record with 6 active core and HT enabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi
yes, 3.6ghz/4.2ghz turbo 8core in 125W TDP seems not too bad... especially if these ipc numbers hold true.
BTW post no. 1000 :banana: time for an avatar :)
If I remember correct the first 8 samples tested did 8Ghz or more with LN2, also some very high on water. Clocks is good, and architecture is...
Like another said, "some" guys without mension any in here may be just great pay'd off by Intel who don't know whay they're talking about or have too much spare time. In here BD is kind of underestimated from guys who does'nt know. Even with an eventuelly game from AMD (ohh can it be?), they buy it like a child. Wait for release... It will not perform bad, but compared to whay you've wait and see.
Agreed. The only way i would give up Intel for BD is if it beat a 2500K in IPCQuote:
Originally Posted by Megacharge
It won't, nobody paying attention ever thought it would. So you can stop waiting and go back to playing with your Intel rig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence
First off save your attitude for someone else. Im waiting for BD so I can build my fiance a 4100 machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
That doesn't mean what you said isn't illogical. Performance is a combination of clocks and IPC. But you are saying that performance doesn't matter and you personally will stick with Intel if BD IPC doesn't beat SB. I'm saying it is illogical but if that is your criterion then you already have enough information to decide which product to get for your own personal rig. It was never in doubt, Intel is aiming for max IPC and AMD is aiming for "knee-of-the-curve" IPC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence
I go by what we know thus far. Not magic pixie :) . All leaks so far point to the same unfortunately. Yes they are all from Far East,but so what? If we get better data points maybe we can discuss it,so far this is all we have and it doesn't look very promising. And xsecret is not the only guy who is not an optimist (and he has real hardware like some other guys). Don't get me wrong, I wish Zambezi to succeed more than anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
Yes ,there is a chance all this is a "game" played by paranoid AMD: seed everyone(press too!) with sub par samples,play the frequency game card,price it very aggressively etc. But until this is confirmed with hard facts I choose to be realist. And what we know by now not only shows sub par (to Thuban) integer performance,but sub par SIMD performance too.. Yes it makes no sense to me either but that's the way it is.
someone at another forum pointed out that all the leaked cpuz 1.58 screenshots of BD lookQuote:
Originally Posted by xsecret
different than this WR cpuz screenshot,is this maybe because the leaked cpuz SS's are fake
because i looked at the FX8120 from VRzone and the chiphell ones and they are different.
EDIT:never mind i think i figured it out,with only one
module in use the cache changes in cpuz
with 8 core/4 module its
8x16
4x64
4x2048
8
with 2 core/one module its
2x16
64
2048
8
Firstly, congratulations to Chew, Macci, Et al for the excellent overclock. It sounds like these bulldozers can really clock easily. Now I'm really curious to see what kind of performance they have at "daily driver" stable clocks - interesting times ahead.
Some thoughts about this thread:
1) "It can't be worse because X"
Several people have said essentially that it can't be equal to or slower than previous products because that would be bad. That's a logical fallacy called an appeal to consequences. It's summed up as "If x is true then that would be bad, therefore x isn't true". Unfortunately there isn't a logical basis for this, it's all emotion.
To the obvious retort, "well then they could have just shrunk PII instead", I say it isn't that simple. What should AMD do if GF's gate-first process really does have issues? Let's say AMD got most of the bugs worked out in the early ES chips only to find out that GF probably won't be able to hit original clock targets and stay within TDP? It's far too late to do something like re-engineer thuban for 32nm. What they would do is release what they can achieve and tread water until the process is improved or a new one can be implemented. 8 cores looks better on the box than 6 cores. Not to mention the server world would be lukewarm to a warmed over thuban. Fanboys would be disappointed with either outcome anyway, but they don't care about TDP so BD would be more interesting than 32nm Thuban. Releasing BD is the best business move. It makes AMD more money right now because they know (or should anyway) that marketing can be just as important as having a top chip (Remember Intel in the P4 days).
2) "If it doesn't beat SB AMD is going out of business."
Nonsense, this is an emotional reaction. People have been predicting the demise of AMD for years. Remember Shintai predicting that, was it ~3 years ago, that they would be out of business next year? They have strong products in several market segments and their fundamentals don't show anything to be particularly panicked about. Interlagos should help with their margins a bit and give them a little breathing room. Enthusiast sector chips are still a question mark but even if they don't knock it out of the park on the first swing they will get more chances at bat with further product evolution.
3) "If AMD doesn't deliver this time I'm quitting them for good."
That's another emotional overreaction. It makes about as much sense as breaking up with your girlfriend if this one last batch of silicon chip cookies doesn't turn out perfect. And by girlfriend I mean the girl you are stalking. It makes sense if a product isn't up to par you will buy the competition's offering. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't consider any of their future products. If they do eventually make something that competes, or even dominates, it wouldn't make sense not to consider it. Buy what offers you the most performance in the applications you run for what you are willing to pay. Brand loyalty etc is illogical.
4) "IPC is low so it sucks."
Performance is a combination of IPC and clocks. IPC doesn't mean a whole lot by itself. What we should care about, and what I am personally waiting to see, is what kind of performance it has with a 24/7 stable overclock. That should be our basis for comparison as enthusiasts: BD average OC performance VS SB average OC performance in the apps we use.
5) "Chew's car"
Personally when I modify a car I try to play off it's strong points, unless it has some really glaring and easily fixed faults. When going for lowend grunt I'd choose, and did, a muscle car with a big block. Then further mods to play off that strength in lowend torque and accentuate it. For twisties I'd go with a 4 cylinder and play off it's ability to rev. If your car has good midrange and topend performance I'd get a higher numerical differential gear + engine mods to help it rev. The differential will help with lowend acceleration and get you into the high rev powerband quicker. This whole IPC vs clocks talk reminds me of the displacement vs revs talk in the car world - but performance depends on the combination of both and what you are trying to achieve. :)
Also I'd like to add...
If L1 WT was the reason for high frequency scaling, then they should have simply applied it to K12 (Llano) and clocked it to hell, no?
6 Stars cores on 32nm high performance process doing 4.6-4.8 Ghz maybe?
I wish I could say I expect more out of Bulldozer...but 8.4 Ghz is too exciting right now XD
No offense if anyone here made this claim, but I cringe whenever someone states something so ridiculous.Quote:
"If it doesn't beat SB AMD is going out of business."
Indeed. First the assumption was that it wouldn't clock high, now that it is proven that it does, some folks (unfortunately) are finding reason to still be disappointed. Oh, well.Quote:
I wish I could say I expect more out of Bulldozer...but 8.4 Ghz is too exciting right now XD
The worst part is people are doing it to themselves. I'm not a Buddhist but I think Buddha had a good point about suffering coming from desire and ignorance. By desiring something you can't have you are provoking angst within yourself. And ignorance is not seeing reality as it truly is. By making false assumptions and ignoring facts we feel anxiety later when reality doesn't want to cooperate.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryR
Best to be patient and let it come to you and accept it for what it really is, whatever that may be. Good or bad.
True. I'm personally not going to be disappointed either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
BTW, I'm really friggen excited now:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...er-system.aspx
Nice, and it says available "shortly".Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryR
So maybe the release date for BD will be September 19th as AMD said it would after all.
The WR Overclock screen had an image of some software I'd not heard before on it... naturally I looked for it, almost to no avail ;)
http://wwwd.amd.com/AMD/SReleaseF.ns...ToolsbyOSAMD64
Good gravy there are some nice utilities on that page! PSCheck is like K10Stat, but by AMD (and visually supporting X6 chips, among others like Trinity, Krishna, Orochi, Llano...)
System Access makes me wish I knew more about hardware access codes and the like, because it seems like it'd be the ultimate tweaking program I've always wished someone would release!
I'd go on, but I know you all are capable of reading lol
You tease! I noticed yer signature... can we expect spilling of some beans?Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
Time Magazine - AMD Breaks 8GHz World Record with Daring CPU Overclock
Read more: http://techland.time.com/2011/09/13/...#ixzz1Xtk2QGQX
AMD going $7+
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amd...cpu-2011-09-13
And you, you're paid by AMD for sayin' such bullits or what ? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
Are you aware that AMD has sent confidential datas to some press ? Do you really think that data directly from AMD are indeed faked data ? :confused:
Good find! Have we known about these tools and/or these pages? Would be nice to have access to all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Does anyone else get a "Dr. Who" vibe from this guy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Olivon: I know you've been around for awhile, but your location almost exactly matches his, as well as your deleted sig "Doc???@???".
Your comments sound very similar too!
I apologize if I'm wrong, but why exactly do you keep posting in this thread if your so sure BD is a fail?
Olivon
And you, you're paid by INTEL for sayin' such bullits or what ?Quote:
And you, you're paid by AMD for sayin' such bullits or what ?
Are you aware that AMD has sent confidential datas to some press ? Do you really think that data directly from AMD are indeed faked data ?
Are you aware that confidental data AMD has sent to some press are under NDA? Do you really think that data directly from OBR or Chinese guy can't be faked data ?
I hope you like it:D
I see that some of the "leaked" benchmarks have model number FX-8130P. Is the FX-8130P model number going to have retail availability or is it ES only?
Direct data from AMD? :confused:Quote:
Do you really think that data directly from AMD are indeed faked data ?
More in this link: http://www.nordichardware.se/test-la...srekordet.htmlQuote:
NordicHardware: "It says you reached frequencies "well above 5 GHz" with only air and sub-$100 water cooling solutions. Mind going more into detail about your ventures on air and water?"
Sami Mäkinen: "In terms of CPUZ MHz Ive seen virtually every CPU reach over 5GHz when using a good air/watercooler. I believe the highest result I saw with aircooling was around 5.5GHz CPUZ. This CPU hit around 7.8GHz on LN2."
Yup, maybe it's just me but I've been finding his and xsecret's posts a bit suspicious. Something just seems a bit weird with those guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveburt714
I hope the 5 Ghz Air/water is true...that would really be awesome...
What's weird is that they act like it's 100% certain. xsecret could perhaps know this but the other guy not. We will know soon enough what the real numbers are. Just wait and ignore any obvious troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megacharge
Do you all think 'they have a winner' if they only matches 2500k?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4949106
Look at MM's avatar WHAT A TEASE!!!:(
i don't trust these guys, they all come from the same place as 'Dr. Who' by the way so they're still suspectQuote:
Originally Posted by v0dka
So because Olivon and xsecret come from the same country, they're suspiscious ?
What reasoning is this ? :confused:
Moreover, xsecret is someone who is respected in France. And by HW manufacturers. Someone with real knowledge, not someone who tries to draw conclusions from Sandra sisoft "benchs" (no offense)...
With the last posts, I don't know who are the trolls here. :rolleyes:
No one's trolling, I get that xsecret is a role model for you, and that you look up to him and feel the need to protect him, but it just seems to some of us like he is trying too hard to paint a bleak picture for BD.. The way his posts are coming across just seems odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by metalazzo
Thanks metalazzo,
That's just totally crazy how paranoïd some people are ...
I just see you live in the same town than me, take care dude, you're maybe my brother, François's hidden son or even me dude :eek: :eek: :eek:
I'm flabbergasted how the logical has quit some guyz on this forum and Fanboyism is really the worst things in hardware forum :shakes:
You're exagerating quite a bit. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Megacharge
He's old and smart enough to defend himself. I just made a quick reminder for ppl who are too agressive and are trolling.
Maybe you (not you in particular) can imagine that xsecret who maybe was expecting something good from AMD (with all the ppt slides, architecture descriptions etc. saying a lot of marvellous things) is very disappointed by what he has seen or by what he has in hands right now.
I'm not exaggerating at all, that's how his posts have come across to me. As for his chip, maybe he got a bad one.Quote:
Originally Posted by metalazzo
easy question (?) - whom would you trust more:
xsecret, ... or movieman?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post4949106Quote:
I cheer good products. Blue,Green or pink, doesn't matter.
Now there are things I can't talk about yet but I can say I think they have a winner here.
I saw the benches...
How is it possible to have a bad chip ? You can have a bad chip for overclocking. But not a bad chip not functioning as it should.
He didn't say he had B0 or B1 stepping. And is AMD dumb enough to send crippled chip to reviewers ? I don't think so...
Even a P4 when oc' to the max produced decent bench results... Even a Phenom2 oc' with LN2 or SS has pretty good resultsQuote:
Originally Posted by r.p
Is he talking about 8150 stock frequency bench results ?
edit: don't misunderstand, I REALLY want AMD to success with BD. I am a long time AMD CPU owner. But with what I can read here or on another forum, I'm starting to lose confidence...
?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by metalazzo
:confused:
do you read the post? sure?
metalazzo It should be clear he meant default or he wouldn't say AMD has a winner.
I mean it's possible that maybe there is something holding his chip back, and that his ES may not be indicative of the final product.Quote:
Originally Posted by metalazzo
So AMD sent a chip to a reviewer, so he could violate the NDA? Seems a bit strange, IMHO. But maybe xsecret speaks the truth.....Quote:
And is AMD dumb enough to send crippled chip to reviewers ? I don't think so...
I don't think someone who is negatively to the point of pure negativisme to be negative can speak out about fanboyism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
You are correct that they shouldn't judge, or assume things because your bells ring that way.
I got K7, K8 and K10.5 processors so stop with that kind of assumption. When AMD makes crap, I don't buy their products that's simple to understand, no ?Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
So when I see ppls who give lessons which buy only one brand of CPU that makes me laugh hard ...
He didn't give any results.Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryR
And you prepare review as far as I know.
So I can't see where is the problem.
But why don'y you consider he has a final product ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megacharge
Isn't it possible that major reviewers received final product for them to prepare a review ?
Anyways, end of discussion for me. I don't want to lose my time fighting windmills.
Is this the most frustrating CPU release of all time or what? So many people are getting twisted and out of shape waiting for it. I used to come check out this thread every few days, but now I seem to be checking it lots of times daily. I think a lot of us need to chill out and just go do something else until it's released. Having said that, I will probably be back in an hour ;).
btw congrats Chew and the other guys that were part of the world record (Don't know how many of the other guys post here at XS). AWESOME to see.
I should remind everyone of what the general expectations of Bulldozer were before any rumours came out = Slower than i7 in single threaded workload, and faster in multithreaded.
From the leaks going out so far, on average, this seems to be the case still. So there is no need to fight over the extremes of that spectrum; nobody who claimed to have the chip said Bulldozer will fail completely!
Let us at least joy at the fact that there are no cold bugs and the CPU is voltage tolerant and overclocks very well - this fact alone puts AMD at a much more competitive position.
This is completely offtopicQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
(tss hiding behind : "I'm not a fanboy i bought product abz ..." that is like the worst escape ever).
Also i don't think buying a product gives you the right to be negative and call others who do the opposite of you fanboys. If you want to be a hypocrite don't be a hypocrite about it.
Indeed. But expectations have grown to big. Same thing was true with the 69xx serie. Everybody expected ownage. Right before release the number of shaders came out and some results. during first reviews it was viewed as it sucks because it isn't faster than the 580 etc. Most people were hating and name calling and other emotional crap. Only after some time most of the people realized.... this is a damn good product for its price and power consumption..Quote:
I should remind everyone of what the general expectations of Bulldozer were before any rumours came out = Slower than i7 in single threaded workload, and faster in multithreaded.
From the leaks going out so far, on average, this seems to be the case still. So there is no need to fight over the extremes of that spectrum; nobody who claimed to have the chip said Bulldozer will fail completely!
Let us at least joy at the fact that there are no cold bugs and the CPU is voltage tolerant and overclocks very well - this fact alone puts AMD at a much more competitive position.
What's ironic about this discussion is that people will never reach consensus. Even when BD is released some will say it's good some will say it's bad. Personal needs and preference will always play a role in that. It's all relative, which is basically what chew has been saying.
I do think however that people who haven't got a clue about performance form actual first hand experience should stop acting like they know something based on leaks.
I just hope the NDA lifts on the 19th of this month. I think that's one point everyone in this thread can agree on. :)
That, I will definitely agree with. Even if they don't have CPUs to buy until sometime next month, lifting the NDA now would be great.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
We can agree that you want that.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
We cant agree that all of us want that, I want it to lift now:rofl:
Launch should be imminent. We should know soon what's the deal with Zambezi. I'm still not expecting much,maybe slightly better than 2500K or on that level.
I read somewhere that end of nda is not before end of September.
Well that's 2 weeks or so,pretty close in my book :).
I think some people have known, but I for one have not and it is ALL new to me! I agree though, I was hoping the other pages worked too lol I'd be content with even only having gotten PSCheck haha I like the fact you have SO much control from Windows (hell, 1/2 that would be nice even from the BIOS!) since you are able to adjust power states, make new power states, and run tests. I have a feeling that running the "Random" test would be a very good way to test stability, either on it's own or combined with one of their system-load producing tools. If it can switch PStates under heavy load, I think that's a sign of stability :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ
While I've not really kept my nose in the wind with other CPU releases, I do suspect this is one of the more dramatic releases, at the very least only as far as the users are concerned heh And yea the rate of new posts have substantially increased! Where a month ago or so I'd only check back once or twice a day to read maybe 6 to 9 new posts, now just over night there are TWO PAGES!! :ROTF: I suppose we're not called Enthusiasts for nothing hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Ice009
Should see the thread on OCN, posted yesterday, now over 550 posts. Would probably be 1000+ but half of them were dragon ball Z over 8000 comments :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
holy crap i think i need to play around and maybe write up a review. i love messing with pstates and turbo settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
I hope you informed them it's supposed to be over 9000 ... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by El Gappo
I can tell you one thing folks. This level we are seeing from vrzone,coolaler was not the projected one 9 months ago. Something changed in the meantime and we now get "this". What changed is anyone's guess. The 2 benchmarks from vrzone ,3dmar06 cpu test and c11.5 are clear signs of this "change". 9 months ago,Thuban couldn't touch zambezi in both. Today Zambezi can't touch Thuban. Situation looks grim.
What's "this?"Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t...0/OVER9000.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by massman
You have seen "it". The vrzone and now coolaler posted same results. "This" means slower than Thuban or barely matching Thuban. And I use 8150 for comparison,not 8120. Granted there are some cases where 8150 with this level of performance will still probably spank 1100T,but nothing like the projections from December last year showed. Where is the double-sized SMT capable FlexFP performance? Where is the HPC improvement that is quoted for server parts gone? Remember we are left to think that even in legacy code server parts will be ~50% faster with same clocks as previous MC cores. This equates to around 10% better per core performance in SIMD workloads. All Zambezi leaks thus far show no such thing . On the contrary they show very poor performance of this "powerful double-sized FPU".Quote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ
Sooo when we can buy those buldozers?
I'm lost. Maybe because the thread is over 100 pages, lol. Which coolaler benchmarks are you talking about? Can you link them? Are you talking about those benchs with 760G (or some crappy chipset like that) or maybe I missed something?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The CB11.5 tests with that chipset were in the 5.5 points range o something like that, really low. But "he who shall not be named" got 6.9 points in CB11.5 with 8150 stock. Anyway, I don't like that score either but we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
I don't understand why you're still trying to draw a rational conclusion from yet again "just another leaked benchmark." The results are all over the place in terms of performance within the last 6 months. I thought we had decided that it makes the most sense to take these things with a giant bowl of salt until we have official results once the NDA is lifted?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I do believe he's referring to these:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andi64
http://translate.google.com.my/trans...p%3Ft%3D273646
Well you probably read it,but this level of performance is in reviewers guide(I hope you know what that is). 9 months ago, in some docs 8C Zambezi at 3.5-4Ghz was shown as 70% faster than 1100T. There is your discrepancy. Now 1100T is actually looking better from price/perf. POV.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ
Can you explain why CB would report 8120 and CPU-Z would report 8130? I don't think these benchmarks are legitimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
What's 'reviewers guide'? If you're telling us that coolaler is something special, why they even have no NDA in hand.(NDA is not lifted)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
FlawleZ IT's funny how the lattest CPU-Z is still showing wrong info like TDP 174W but the core voltage is just 1.164V:shrug:.
Have you seen Radeon 6870/69xx launch slides? The performance comparisons(versus competing products from competitors and their own previous gen products),uarchitecture details,pricing strategy ,all made by manufacturer and sent to press as briefing material and guide for their own review .Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
And no,coolaler is nothing "special". Nor is vrzone for that matter. I'm just telling you that the level 8120 is showing in the leaks is close to what it will be showing when it launches. And this level is pretty dismal ,at least compared to all marketing talk we had and previous projections(by AMD themselves) that showed MUCH higher performance.
Bulldozer is supposed to be "multithreaded beast" . In benchmarks that utilize all the threads(or cores if you like),like cinebench for example,there is no sign of the beast. It's tamed. The "double-sized"(compared to K10) and "very-powerful" 256bit FPU ,even in single thread workload such as Cinebench10's single core test mode,is failing against Thuban's one core. It has even higher Turbo on its disposal in that case...
CB is reading the "Specification" string wich is the same in CPU-z, not the "Name". I think "Name" in CPU-z is gathered from a Database, and "Specification" is read from the CPU itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ
I've forgot them.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
BTW it seems, that you have something in common with those guys who satirized AMD running a platform with slides instead of a CPU.:shrug:
I dont buy AMD giving any material to reviewers until its ~week to launch. That is based on what Sampsa said about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Then my guess would be that they got material 12th and launch indeed is 19th.
I found a few posts by JF which you might find interesting, I think he was commenting the sandra benchmarks:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
I have no idea if they are even real, but I have good reason to believe that they are not representative. That is all I can say.
Quote:
First, how does anyone know if the results are real? How do we know if they even had an actual processor? And if they did have a processor, how do we know what level of silicon they had?
Secondly, there are some reasons why even if they did have a chip, I can feel pretty confident that those numbers don't represent actual shipping silicon. Can't get into that right now, but given a little time you'll see why.
The real problem is I can't say the results are fake because nobody on this board can say that. Only the person that posted them can say that. But, just stop for a second and think what if they are real. Do you know if the person who ran them optimized the BIOS settings? Do you know if they specifically had the latest BIOS, the latest drivers, etc.?
There is better probability that there is something wrong than not.
Quote:
I said that the benchmarks are "not representative", not inaccurate.
We just hit production on server processors. So are those benchmarks on final silicon? Highly unlikely. Are they using a final BIOS? Final drivers? OS optimizations? There are a ton of things that all need to be in place in order to get the best performance.
If I posted a benchmark showing the my product against an intel product but refused to give you the detail on the config, would you trust me? Probably not. But you would trust me if I gave you my score and compared to the best intel score that they ran, right?
There have been so many fake benchmarks, including those that were published before the first silicon hit our test labs.
Up until we hit production, none of the benchmarks could be considered representative. And, the only thing that we have publicly said is production on server (I cannot confirm if zambezi is in production or not - that is not my job.)
Once they are in production, even then, there are lots of variables that still have to be considered. So there are plenty that are not representative out there. Showing both lower and higher performance. Both sides of the coin seem to want to push an agenda. I recommend not trusting anything until launch.
If AMD does anything prior to launch, I would gladly confirm it and most likely would have a blog post as well.
These are from [H] and were posted in august, but there are quite a few hints there.
I think everyone should relax, there are so many fake benchmarks flying around no one can tell which one (if any) is true.
We do however know that IPC increases and clock is increased shouldn't that result in better performance?