Which slides are #23 & #26?
Probably this
Attachment 120497
and...?
(Let us really hope that the presentation is false now, because this marketing stuff is starting to get VERY embarrassing... I don't think any of you could disagree that)
Printable View
Which slides are #23 & #26?
Probably this
Attachment 120497
and...?
(Let us really hope that the presentation is false now, because this marketing stuff is starting to get VERY embarrassing... I don't think any of you could disagree that)
AMD wouldn't quote Intel prices in that context would they? I have never seen a company run any sort of screen like that which talks about other companies prices in this way. I mean, it just doesn't look right, almost like a communist propaganda flyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by hirsch
These slides are probably intended for "internal" briefing purposes (partner / sales).
I don't see how it's embarrassing.
A) from what I can tell, this slide deck wasn't even intended for the public.
B) they're obviously going to want to show Bulldzoer in the best light, as would Nvidia, Intel etc.
Reeeeally don't see the problem here...
Jup, 23 is the one with the 980X. 26 has not popped up in large yet:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TlcmyqpJlg...00/komplet.png
These are ALL slides but only tiny pics. Still you can assign the correct numbers to the slides from donanimhaber.
The problem with those slides is, that it is a whole new level of cherry picking silliness. To cherrypick benchmarks, I understand. But to change graphics card(s), competitor CPUs AND benchmarks, is just crazy. Twists and contorts everything.
Ok, let's say they are for internal use. So i suppose they made those to show how NOT to make slides, and how to look stupid :/Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
Aaronage, I am sorry, but these are new low. At least that's how I would feel if they showed me those.
Find it in your heart to ask yourselves this lol
If it were an internal slide would it really say "And that $800 doesn't buy much of an improvement."
And even more so, would an internal slide say "Save your money" ?
This is not professional marketing, if it is then AMD need to be ashamed, all I can see is some mid to low IQ guy sat in front of his computer thinking he is achieving something by doing this.:p:
And haven AMD always compared themselves to "the competition" never actually saying Intel or i7 etc
I really do not understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by james333
Over the years 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005 Intel always pursued the supremacy, leadership in computer chips. Always behind AMD, and did not care to keep selling processors at a price of U.S. $ 1000 when his performance was ridiculous compared to its counterpart AMD FX.
Today are some extra data that show that AMD FX returns are not complete. And it becomes a big scandal, trying to guess whether they are true or not. And if Intel is defeated or not.
Wow guys! it seems that you have shares in Intel, defend it as I would defend my business.
Let the reviews show us the reality, but we must admit not all sites are neutral. So the best judge the performance of the FX brand will be us.
Not a fanboy of Intel trying to hide under the argument of "Hey I'm a fan of AMD."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karossua
I think you misunderstood......
Also, as my message was quoted, are you saying it was fanboy-esque? If it is then you are again mistaken, sorry for you.
As for your second to last line - Excellent statement :up:
thanks for this, slide 25 says "AMD FX PIBs on sales starting in mid-October 2011"Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
and slide 26 looks boring since it says just 2 words
The slides are fake, and it really is sadly and insane that someone has so much sparetime to make these presentationslides. Note: those who has basic imaging skills should see what's wrong quite fast...
Also donanimhaber is like the other sides, that maybe has an early ES sample and make up some great stories.
Solus Corvus sent me an interesting PM today, I hope he doesn't mind I post it :p:
Here was my response:Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Quote:
Think about it.
A SB CPU that does 4.8 on air will do 5.0 on water. An X6 will do 4.3 on water if it does 4.2 on air.
I run pretty high end water, HK 3.0 LT with MCR320 + 3x GT 1850s and my CPU still only does 4.2. I bet I could get well over 4 Ghz on air. Note the phrase "well over". It is a term used to signify "not barely".
5.5 Ghz CPU-Z will mean about 5-5.1 Ghz stable. I bet we wont see any more than ~5.6-5.7 Ghz CPU-Z on water. Think about it, idle temps on a Corsair H80 will not be much different than your $350-400 WC setup (not more than 3-5c anyway) and on top of that, 3-5c will not get you 500 Mhz. Those chips he was talking about, those are pre-retail chips, final stepping. The same stepping will be going into the retail channel.
Expect no more than 5.2 Ghz stable on air with a gem chip, and maybe 5.4 with that same gem on water. I expect most people to be doing about 5.2 on water.
I'd be glad if they were fake, but they most likely aren't. They look very much like what you'd expect from an AMD brief.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
hey guys,
long time lurker finally signed up :)
one of my questions is how come amd is still stating that there 8 core will be $300 via there amd fx cpu contest rules?
so, please, tell us why are you so sure that it's fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
Oh, come on, it's so easy to think it might be fake when you see such a terrible job done :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokinhow
They've used the "OMG our platform costs $10000000000 less than the competition!!" line in the past, it didn't bother me then and it doesn't in this case. Sure, it's bonkers, but at the end of the day these slides are only going to viewed by us obsessive enthusiasts who know better :)Quote:
Originally Posted by james333
Could be wrong, but I'm sure we've seen slides like this leak out just before the launch of a new CPU/GPU in the past. Slides leak out, we question if they're authentic and then a few weeks later we see them posted along side reviews. If that's the case, they'll be a ripped a new one for making the mental 8150 vs. 990X platform cost comparison by reviewers :)
So still not that bothered by this lol.
I sure hope these benchmark slides are fake cuz only matching the 2600K in multithreaded performance would be an absolute failure. I remember someone saying 50% higher performance than an i7 950; Gulftown territory, which is considerably faster than Sandy Bridge quads.
Absolute failure?? Every other post seems to be saying this... And thats far from the truth.
If these figures and prices are true along with the overclocking advantage, there will be many people thinking twice before buying a "brand name" chip for more.
Thuban performance would be an absolute failure. I would honestly like to hear the reasoning behind the failure comments. (No flamming intended)
most of them are closeted intel fanboys that don;t want to admit it to themselves that they are in love with intel
it is approximate price mentioned there... "worth 300$"Quote:
Originally Posted by MaCkAtTaCk
LOL. I'm just surprised that these potentially fake slides have sparked so much heated debate. But, meh.....Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
what did you expect :)
i think they're fake but cant be sure..
Not for it to go on this long. But I guess the scant news on BD creates this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oese
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/l...df/slide-5.png
Hey, guys, wasn't it posted just a bit earlier? Isn't showing 3DMark11's CPU-based Physics Score as "3D Gaming" measure is even more cherry-picking, blatantly manipulative and simply laughable...? (BTW, why they're even concerned about gaming performance, since as you say "no one" use SB-E for that?) And who the hell cares about "Slide Show Creation"? Perhaps other test results was just lower?
Well I got called a pessimist today...Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
*buys 2600K*
im buying a fx-8100 because of the neat tin case it comes in and because i love the color red! :)
No news about opteron interlagos ???
The launch was normally scheduled for today ! :rolleyes:
Maybe it's not today yet in some places
That is 'woman logic'.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
They pluck their eyebrows out then draw them back on!
Attachment 120529
Buying things because of a pretty box or colour is woman logic, it's the kind of thing that leads to my car insurance being £8,000 less than my girlfriends or my computer not being a relic in a pink case.
Help fight against woman logic today!
Attachment 120530
^
^
^
fun
So if you wan't piledriver cores you have to wait until Q3 '12 (more like Q4?) or go with Trinity?
I never knew that people wanted specific cores in their systems :/Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
And by the way, if you want quantum flavoured CPU, you have to wait until 10 years from now
Well I just assumed that it's Piledriver that fixes Bulldozers flaws so it could be nice to have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
haha, So now we decided that BD has flaws and they need fixing? :D So according to this logic Intels 2600k and 2500K have flaws as well.
I really can't see which logic you believe I was using. But according to my logic theres nothing wrong with Sandy Bridge, it's the best X86 architecture ever sold so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
So if you assume those slides are correct, we can say that FX CPUs EVEN with their so called flaws are right next to that best x86 architecture.
Is interlagos launch in Q4? Well I could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanjean15
BTW, It's weird that we see slides about Zambezi before Interlagos cuz amd schedule Interlagos before Zambezi. Now no more interlagos news yet except some rumored sisoftware result and spec.
No, not at all. I say that this architecture have a hard time competing even in hand picked tests made by AMD themselves against mid-end processors of an older architecture not pushed at all. You can clearly see that Intel isn't pushing SB, it's capable of much higher stock clocks than it's running on, Intel has hardly pushed the launch of versions with more cores either. The three year old Nehalem architecture (wich launch was hardly hurried) is still superior to this latest "monster" from AMD. And that's on an older manufacturing process! And in this business 3 years is alot.Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
It's three years between the release date of Coppermine 733Mhz and Pentium 4 3.06GHz with HT. Not being able to beat a 3 year old architecture is a failure. It doesn't seem to be any IPC improvements to talk of either, something AMD promised us, an eightcore being beaten by a quad isn't success either.
What's funny is that people expect same behaviour from Server vendors.
Interlagos is already shipping, and will be launched some time in q4. launch shouldn't be important to us whatsoever, as CPUs will be integrated into systems by server builders, and I am 100% sure that none of you guys here have a decision to buy large quantities of those systems for yourself or anyone else. Those who do have a decision to make, are already briefed or soon will be, and they will have systems to test and validate long before CPUs are launched.
Are we looking at the same slides? take the one where there is several apps comparing fx with 2500/2600k. It slots right in the middle. I don't really see how is that a hard time to compete????Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
And do you buy a cpu for its IPC? What happens if that IPC is coupled with much higher clock?
But of course, maybe you are one of those strange people who will take FX cpu and clock it down to some other (competing or AMDs) cpus levels and make a whole article about how FX sucks.
I don't even know why I keep responding to such a trolling :/
Hard time to compete is when it loses, and it does. And that's against mid-end CPUs in handpicked tests. How can you call that a success? As I said, it gets beaten by Nehalem which is three years old. It's simply a flawed architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
And IPC is important since frequencies of 5GHz or above simply isn't reasonable, and even in these frequencies it would lose to 980x if we shall believe these numbers. And IPC is also important if AMD promised higher IPC, if it won't deliver that then it's flawed in some way.
And no, just because I see problems doesn't mean I hate AMD, THAT is flawed logic! I will probably buy bulldozer, and that's because I like AMD and it will probably be quite good from a price/performance perspective. I mean it positioned against 2500K/2600K which are very good price/performance. But me liking AMD is no reason for me to lie to myself, if there is problems I won't look away and pretende they doesn't exists.
Hmm do you have a source link for that? The underlying slide seems very basic, and I didn't see it @DH previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
if an improved version of what you want is right around the corner, you might just wait for it. theres no bad logic in that. even if BD is perfect, it sure will suck in 10 years from now compared to new stuff then. a flaw could be as simple as a bottleneck they didnt expect and thus fixed. and yes SB has flaws too because even that architecture isnt intels last one forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
Vishera = AM4 ?
Some important info by admin of semiaccurate
http://semiaccurate.com/forums/showp...postcount=1825
Quote:
A note to everyone who is arguing about whether or not the slides that have been floating the last 3 or 6 months are real or not. Do you not remember the last GPU launch?
Did we not warn you that there would be more fud floating the next time round? Did we not warn you that this is SOP for AMD at this point? No info out, only fud.
I'm kind of tired of reading the same arguments go roudn and round and am becoming very tempted to close this thread until closer to launch.
And yes, Drashek is right, we will know more by Thanksgiving because both sandy-e and bd SHOULD have launched by then. It's a fairly safe timeframe to guess at.
crap delayed till thanksgiving now! lol jk
man i feel like a kid on xmas the wait is killin me
troller is trolling. relax buddyQuote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
Donanimhaber has pulled out this article :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
Seems my former speculation is correct LOL. the NDA lifting maybe delayed to Nov, and final shipment would be at late Oct or early Nov.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
AMD is somewhat intentionally scheduled zambezi to the same timeframe of SB-E, even at the same day is not impossible.
Let me put it this way. There's no way those benchmarks are right. I'm not familiar with all of them, but I know for sure that POV Ray and X264 Pass 2 scale extremely well with more cores. In very well threaded applications, Thuban will just about match Intel's quad cores. In those two particular benchmarks, they're showing Zambezi performing slightly worse than Sandy Bridge. That's an octa core running slower than a quad core with almost half the die size. All I want out of Zambezi is to perform slightly better than Gulftown.Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrixhazune
If they don't actually start shipping product until the end of Oct or early Nov, then we won't see BD (retail anyhow) until mid December/January 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
yep further delay is not fresh thing then, but the rumored Oct.12 is becoming history.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Where did they say that? They said both Sandy Bridge-e and Bulldozer should be out by thanks giving so a comparision whould be possible then. He did not say that Bulldozer wouldn't be released even earlier than that. If Bulldozer is released October 12th and SB-e at thanksgiving then his statement is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
No one has been able to point out where I am wrong. If you want to call me a troll then you should be able to point out what's wrong with my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Exactly my thoughts! ^__^Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
X264 Bulldozer Development http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...46#post1528746
falseQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Which "tests" are you talking about, and by Nehalem, are you referring to the 980x? A processor which even gives the 2600k a run for its money in some tests (not overall)?Quote:
And that's against mid-end CPUs in handpicked tests. How can you call that a success? As I said, it gets beaten by Nehalem which is three years old. It's simply a flawed architecture.
Always keep an eye on motherboards manufacturers. :)
http://www.biostar.cn/app/en-us/t-se...s.php?S_ID=554
更新CPU代码，支持AM3+ B2-F / B2-G 步进CPU
B2-F ????:confused: B2-G ????:confused:
B2G was confirmed by anandshimpi few weeks ago, it is newer than B2F which was spinned in July or August. Looks like newer cpuid would be added in later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo²
I doubt BD will perform better than gulftown... that would be expecting to much. Even SB-E has a hard time passing gulftown zith double digits.
IIt would be more realistic if they can compete with gulftown in lowthreaded while having a small advantage to the 2600 in highly threaded.
yes but :Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler
I have access to a 2x16 core Bulldozer server, plus AMD is mailing us a physical system.
Yes, there will be XOP optimizations. Yes, they will help, at least a % or 2.
I would guess FMA will be much more important for X264 and any other codecs.
Obviously B2F wasn't good enough for Zambezi, so that is why it was delayed. But since Interlagos was needed by close partners at first, they could ship some bad chips to Cray and friends and call it a server launch. Even though nobody else is actually getting them. And we know two types of Zambezi have been leaked, the one they'll ship first, and a new one in Q1 2012. I'm guessing B2G is the first one they'll ship, and a B3 is coming which will replace it ASAP. The preceding text is complete and utter speculation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo²
it could be that server chips were doing just fine without the respin since they are using no where near the same clocks as consumer chips
I guess u missed my "lol jk" at the end of my commentQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
;-)
here, Opteron146 posted a schedule :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
is it around the corner? man, BD was supposed to be q2-3 of this year, and we are yet to see it released. So if piledriver(Vishera) is q3 next year, I don't want to laugh about it, but .... around the corner indeed :)
MicroCenter employee is stating to me they will be able to sell BD on the 12th of October.
Well, if AMD have the same release schedule with Piledriver that they are having with BD, I wouldn't expect it to be available next Q3.Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
edit: typo
Yep, after seeing BLT's shipments coming in on the 22nd (was it the 22nd?) I figured we were looking at a 12th of Oct release...Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
The main problem is the 32 nm process tech which is not matured enough and there is a capacity problem too. I think both of these issues will be solved in few months.Quote:
Originally Posted by sviola
It's always difficult to start a brand new microarchitecture on a brand new and complex (SOI + gate first HKMG) process tech.
Attachment 120555Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
:)
Mine says the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
--Matt
Would be awesome, finally a launch coming?
Hey Guys,
Here is test of my rig
If I understand the GREAT KNOWLEDGE that has been shared in here. :clap: The INTEL 4c/8t 2600 is doing 5.48, this is 4 REAL cores @ 4.00 and 4 (FAKE) SMT cores @ 1.48. The real cores are probably doing more but to make it simple math, Each SMT core is doing .37% additional work as compared to a real core. :shakes: If AMD's BD can do as chew said earlier (think of it as a 4c/8t proc) 4 real cores @ 4.00 and if each of the 4 CMT cores can work at 50% or better then I think AMD does have a winner. :shocked:
But back to my original thought, a PH II moved to 32nm process with some good optimizations should still have some life left in it's arch???? I think that my test shows that this arch can still compete if AMD can do a small respin on it.
Let the debate begin. :yepp:
And yes I am A AMD LOVER :cool:
MaddMutt
No.
Single thread on AMD "STARS" sucks.
True....
But more and more software are becoming multi-threaded.
Does this not make AMD's CPU's better????
There are no real + SMT cores in Intel's uarch'es. There are cores with SMT support.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMutt
Neither are real + CMT cores in Bulldozer. There are CMT-type modules.Quote:
If AMD's BD can do as chew said earlier (think of it as a 4c/8t proc) 4 real cores @ 4.00 and 4 CMT cores at 50% or better
I'm sorry, but this wording is just wrong and technically inappropriate.
Otherways, you're comparing it this way: x * 1.37 vs. x * 1.5
But, it really looks like this: x * 1.37 vs. y * 1.5 -- and we don't yet know the ratio between x and y...
Thank You,
This is why I STATED earlier about all this knowledge you people on this forum are freely sharing :clap:
I do not have a Intel system in my house but at work when I go to set the affinity on a program, it is listed as CPU 0 through CPU 11. It does not make a distinction between a real core and a smt one. It looks as if I have 12 cores in my CPU.
For some of us that do not have the full grasp, you are willing to explain it instead of flaming us.
This is why I joined :up:
MaddMutt
Win 7 and maybe Vista are aware of SMT. That means OS scheduler can take advantage when scheduling threads so that first it puts heavy ones to cores and then adds light ones to cores and SMT cores. Xp cant do that, basically that means Win7 can use SMT arch more efficiently.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMutt
Same could be done to BD. Depending on how Turbo works it could be best in games to put heaviest ones to other half of module and use other to run lighter threads.
Again, there are no "real" and "smt" cores here. :) Those are the threads (of execution) this CPU is capable of working on at the same time. Every two represents one core that runs two threads in SMT, the way most of resources are shared between these two threads, so they are slowing each other down. The benefit is that the slow-down is usually less than 50% per thread. The net value can be somewhere between ~90% (worst case) and ~140% (best case), depending on the task. If there are only one thread running on the core -> no slow-down. We can speak about primary and secondary threads here. (I don't think there are prioritization between them, though, HW wise.)Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMutt
In the other hand, Bulldozer has CMT based modules, where only certain resources are shared (there are almost two full cores - narrower than before, though), that means minimal slow-down. The net value here can be somewhere between ~150% and ~200%. So, there are less or even no benefit in running only one thread per module. Better yet, if there are no many threads to run, run them on less modules with elevated clocks, and shut down the rest. I think we are waiting for an update to Win 7 for this to work better.
Well, it's more useful, isn't it? :) I guess this forum (and some others) is not for the martial teenagers... :p:Quote:
For some of us that do not have the full grasp, you are willing to explain it instead of flaming us.
Interview yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlwIFFHrNW4
They are talking about the Middle East market and say FX processors will be available in October.
So, AMD shouldn't have done it this way, should have used Intel tic-toc strategy: new architecture on matured process, new process on matured architecture. Would clearly make things smoother. If they had transitioned ph 2 a couple of months ago to 32 nm, they could have improved its lifecycle a bit and now would be releasing BD with the process sorted out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
But, this doesn't matter anymore. Just waiting on BD to make a decision on which way to go for my new rig (and, I'm leaning for AMD this time).
You surely missed Llano .. that is K10@32nm.Quote:
Originally Posted by sviola
Do you have any documentation on this? Not denying just would like to know exactly how Win7 & Vista are able to discern between logical and physical cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
Attachment 120568
Power consumption looks very good considering it's 125w vs 95w TDP
I suggest taking that down. You cannot post stuff from that guy here on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
I know the guy is a monumental :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::b anana:, but I thought this was worth posting since no power numbers were leaked. I'll remove it if the mods tell me to.
But not meant to be released before Bulldozer, and with very large changes (GPU), so it's an simultanious Tick/Tock for both Llano and BD. They said they had BD ready for 45nm but delayed it for 32nm to put more goodies in it, I think they should have released a quad on 45nm aswell. But as it looks now they maybe skipped that since it wouldn't be able to compete with Phenom II at that time with only 4 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
heres another thing to consider, CB11.5 is rather weak on BD, thus its possible power consumption could be much higher if the chip was able to perform better at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
also CB11.5 has a HUGE range of power consumption spikes, trust me i did testing with it before. its not reliable with reporting consumption
From what I read, the process is still not matured enough to put out a new architecture on it (I read somewhere that there might be yeald issues with it), but these might be fake rumors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opteron146
By the looks of it, BD needed the smaller process to allow for higher clocks with the same TDP (it would have been bad for them to release BD, with these clocks on 45nm and have a TDP of 150+, specially on a marketed-less-power-the-better environment).
The rumors of yields might be correct, and if they are those rumors revolve around Llano.Quote:
Originally Posted by sviola
Bulldozer was designed specifically for power efficiency, and efficiency in die space. Or what most people on XS would call it performance/watt, the architecture has high clocks cause it was designed this way. I am quite sure AMD would've gone down the route of higher IPC/lower clocks if that would've been more beneficial.
Now die space, we can call that performance/mm2. The whole die seems to take up LOTS of space, but one Bulldozer module surely is quite small even for 32nm.
i think the high clocks thing could be to help market it. so few people know the IPC and so if they see 2 options and one is a few hundred mhz faster, they might pick that because they think its faster, even though it could be the same or even slowerQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
and the space for a module is small, but the chip as a whole is still big. which dosnt concern me too much personally. i think intel goes for as much space saving as possible because they are still most of the market and increasing revenue per wafer has a bigger impact than it does for AMD. most of that space is L2/L3 related, and with BD that extra space we still are quite curious about between the modules. i worry about the arguments people will have when the look at perf/mm2, since the module perf might be incredible, the whole chip perf might be very low compared to SB. it might not make a huge difference to end users, but it sure gives alot of fuel for a fire.
Very interesting Olivon. What source is that video from?
It would be great is that is a real video of BD like it claims and the CPU is running with turbo at 4.2GHz. Even with nearly all cores loaded it is still hitting really high speeds.
EniGmA1987 the source is OBR.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA
That bastard should be hunted down by AMD's commando.:ROTF:
I have a feeling that Bulldozer will be out right Before Thanksgiving ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
I think the original plan was to release it on a mature process: 45nm. But it seems it wasn't working well on that process. So, they had no choice but to take some risk...Quote:
Originally Posted by sviola
As it was pointed out already, they've did, with Llano. Although, the two projects were running parallelly, so I wonder if there was much new knowledge to transfer.Quote:
If they had transitioned ph 2 a couple of months ago to 32 nm, they could have improved its lifecycle a bit and now would be releasing BD with the process sorted out.
I think Llano has born rather because it would have been just too much risk to take if it was already with Bulldozer CPU cores.