Its a bad thing.
BTW lol at @Asrock.
Printable View
Its a bad thing.
BTW lol at @Asrock.
Yea. This kind of silence so close to an AMD product release is typically a bad thing. Lots of information was available a month prior to HD5xxx and HD6xxx as well as the past decade of AMD CPU's. The only difference I'm seeing here is that AMD is doing an exceptional job keeping a secret this time around. Perhaps they didn't want to risk casting a dark shadow over their very good quarterly report a couple days ago? If Bulldozer's performance is not up to par, then holding the info until after their stock is adjusted according to their earnings is a smart play.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
On the other hand, if the performance is huge.... I'd think the shareholders would want to add icing to their quarterly piece of cake.
Either way, the cake is a lie.
What happened when AMD released the Phenom? Lots of thunder and noise, signifying nothing. If I remember correctly, they were pretty quite on the Fusion launch.
I do not think this a bad move by AMD. A lot of people were expectig the 6970 to have 1920 SPs we saw how that turned out. All the hype and nothing came of that ad many people were disapointed. At least now with no rumors going around saying this will rock the Core i7 990x will not cause a lot of hype as was going on with the Agena launch. IMO AMD is doing a great job on keeping down the leaks as seen with the launch of the 6900 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
yeah your right xBanzai89> overhyper kill all their marketing work ...
The only thing i'm pretty sure, without 2600k performance at least, i'm not going to buy anything. ;)
I am pretty sure AMD is trying to keep competitors in the dark by keeping their BD a secret, it's a common business practice and it works. I am worried about whether its as fast as SB clock per clock. I am very itching to upgrading, and hope it was worth the wait.
And do you think Intel already doesnt know about the performance of BD?Quote:
Originally Posted by kazuyakun
Maybe that's why now they opened a SSD division :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by pipoo
yes, intel does not know how bd performs.Quote:
Originally Posted by pipoo
You're plain-hearted w0mbat :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Actually it's better to keep the things in the dark: many hardware forums and even general new technology" site " push technical informations without even knowing what they are talking about, thoses last years even someone who have just a console speak as he's a pro on the hardware technology ... ... a poor little info, as let say the speed of the CPU, can get a lot of discussion aimed by the preferences of the person on forums ... just tell the faster processors will be at 2.8ghz and you will get plenty of post in forums or some site who claim the BD is not faster of the I7....Quote:
Originally Posted by xBanzai89
Actually it's better to release the product and the informations at the same time, too little information can end in a total misunformation completed by rumors, false idea and AMD will need a 100 ppls team for go on site and forums trying to maintain a "Marketing " control of the upcomming products ...
Without saying so far we have enough of information of how look the new architectures, the modules ( Strong Threads ) etc etc ... in reality AMD just try to keep control on the release of the product..
I highly doubt that.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
If there are people out there under NDA, then I have no doubt that Intel knows everything about Bulldozer.
Wrong all types of projections were made in 2009 refined projections were made last year. There may not be a real BD in hand but simulations exist and they try and match real life BD will be all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
my gut tells me that if AMD had a "intel killer", then we'd know it by now. Since we don't, BD is probably just a nice upgrade for the faithful.
RussC
I think that both Intel and AMD have 'spies' in opposing camps.. Too much money involved not to do so.
yup, and I also think that Intel can simulate the perf based on some small piece of info.. they got it under control :)Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
my gut tells me it is not unusual for a chip to be kept secret until shortly before release. despite some of the conspiracy theories here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
I think they already hinted that the per-core performance has increased like 10-15%. They said it in some stupid riddle like, "We've acheived a 50% performance increase with only 33% more cores." So they might finally be somewhere between Core2Quad & Nehalem, but nowhere near Sandy bridge I7 2600k, IMO.
Its very naive to think intel doesnt have a ballpark figure by now.
They have so much money they can assign whole engineering department for this thing alone.And they probably did long time ago.
Plain corporate spying is pretty sure also.
And on top of that, BD samples are here for some time now, both companies work with the same server/mainboard/etc vendors.They both know much more about themselves than we do.
My gut tells me that 2500K`s relatively attractive price have come from exactly that, they wanted to pulldown AMD from the start.Intel prices are REALLY high when they dont compete.
That would mean high end desktop BD on AVERAGE should be around 2500/2600K performance.At least thats what my crystall ball tells me ;-)
We didn't know much at all about Radeon 6000. We did know alot about Phenom and Phenom II including som performance numbers, how did that turn out? We didn't know anything about Radeon 4000, not much about 5000 or 6000. It seems like less information from AMD means better performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Well, phenom I was hyped, but II wasnt.We had some decent amount of information about first hammer tho.but we didnt about first athlon.So i would say its random.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
It doesn't matter if BD doesn't match SB per clock,what matters is that it outperforms SB in real world workloads.Also what matters is power efficiency and clocking ability.In all of these categories BD will do great.
well, of cause intel & amd have some kind of insight and so can guess the performance of upcoming chips. but normally they dont know the real performance until launch/press nda.
They have more than a general insight "talking about Intel here" the only thing that prevents them to know the real performance of the chips is the clock speed and when that is set in stone very correct estimations can be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Get the feeling SB cheats ;) On the laptop I get 5.8 Aero and 6.1-6.2 on 3d graphics. On the desktop I get 7.5+ on a card thats more than 10 times as fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek