Incredible how many times people have been told not to post OBR stuff but still they go on :shakes:
Printable View
Incredible how many times people have been told not to post OBR stuff but still they go on :shakes:
that is very interesting. the cores bebop and skedattle like they're on spring break, until the benchmark is set to 8 cores, when the cores clock speed goes down so much that each one is pegged at 100% doing work. it seems like that benchmark is a sketchy one for this testing purpose. I think you would prefer something that pegged the chip at 100% even when at 4.2ghz. but still, a very interesting video, even if it seems to be benchmarking the benchmarking app... or the operating system or the motherboard or the chip or whatever is doing the load switchingQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
the guy who posted that vid has as much credibility as a klingon
never trust a klingon!
I suggest to take a look at this: http://blogs.amd.com/work/2011/01/31...er-goes-to-11/Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
Power consumption increases as the amount of threads used increase.
Once the TDP has been reached, the turbo feature will stand down (-> return to the next highest performing Pstate which does not breach the TDP) until "headroom" is again available.
I recon a properly multithreded game such as Dirt 3 would be perfect to demonstrate the turbo feature on BD.
Windows XP is SMT aware, as is Windows 2003:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlawleZ
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...ad_Windows.docQuote:
This white paper provides information about support for the Hyper-Threading Technology (HT) in the Microsoft® Windows® family of operating systems. It provides an overview of HT, details of dependencies on BIOS, a description of the Windows operating system license model for HT, details of the support features in Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003 family, and guidelines for application developers on how to take advantage of the features and the performance benefits provided. This paper is intended for BIOS developers, OEM system manufacturers, and Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) that produce multithreaded Windows applications, particularly those that use processor affinity
This does not mean they were any good at it, Vista is also SMT aware but it also sucked. In windows 7, MS introduced SMT parking (a variation on core parking used in server class OSes): http://www.ditii.com/2009/07/23/wind...on-with-intel/
What this means is, that in lightly threaded applications, windows 7 scheduler attempts to schedule threads per physical core rather than scheduling threads that would share a core. The effect is actually pretty pronounced, as much as 20% performance can be reclaimed in some situations, at least in those that I have been able to measure. How effective this is in the larger scheme of things is uncertain to me, but it is a measurable effect.
I get the feeling SMT parking was just a needed bug fix for Intel CPUs with hyper-threading running Windows all along, but MS/Intel never got around to fixing it until Win7..... so of course the marketing dept will just call it a feature! LOL! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Did You Know?
http://www.amd.com/us/aboutamd/corpo...fun-facts.aspx
Well, during Pentium 4, choosing the SMT thread over a core was never a problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by ReKcOlNu
But when you have 12 threads and 6 real cores, I can see it becoming a problem.
Not much news, rumors or speculations in this thread anymore so close to launch. ;)
''Did you know that AMD's new 16-core processor codenamed "Interlagos" will offer the world's highest x86 core count?''Quote:
Originally Posted by duron
*sigh* Would have been nicer to see: highest performance, not core count as the bullet point :)
I agree, would be better if they didn't say anything at all. Now it just sounds like they don't have good performance despite the core count. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by muziqaz
this is true but only up to a point, for example, try running windows 2000 on a p4 with HT enabled like many companies did back then, you have to disable HT to get the performance to not suck, because windows 2000 tries to use both cores as real cores, and thus overloads the poor little intel netburst chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I know, most people back then wouldnt use 2000, but the fact is, I still to this day see companies holding onto 2k over xp or vista, and some are even holding out for windows 8(stupid cheap bastages, 7 would be a better move if you ask me....)
I have also seen 2k used with modern HT enabled proc's and its never pretty, mind this was for testing, but if you try and treat the 6 core cpu as a 12core, things dont work out to well in high load situations.
I have myself found as high as a 37% drop in perf when encoding using the x64 ogg vorbis encoder on all "Cores" even under 7, disable HT and your perf comes back....
I really hope amd's new design avoids such issues :)
http://translate.google.com/translat...ldozer-fx.html
Quote:
For those looking for some advice before the time about Bulldozer FX, here's one of our colleagues CanardPC over two weeks yet before the end of the NDA. How is this possible? Now comes the newsstands the new magazine CanardPC Hardware , with inside the test Bulldozer FX ... or almost!
In fact the test is not yet available, NDA forces, and readers can actually login from October 12 on a web page to discover the full review. The scores are not directly present in the magazine, but the buying guide of CPU if and CanardPC it evokes the FX-8150 and 8120, both versions expected octocores respectively 245 and $ 205.
Here are some selected pieces from the magazine of our colleagues to read it all for yourself and have access to complete test CanardPC from October 12, it will cost you € 5.90 at your newsagent.
"In the more upscale, FX processors based on the Bulldozer architecture we also disappointed: while they are still generally more efficient than their predecessors and allow AMD to approach much of the last Core i5 and i7 but their performance remains below expectations. Besides, as we announced already in our previous issue, if they can sometimes compete with Sandy Bridge in the applications of rough calculations, the results are in video games very far behind. Only overclockers (and fanboys) will find them a great interest given their predisposition in this area. "
"The AMD FX-8120 is probably the model of the new series" Bulldozer "that offers the best price / performance ratio. It is able to compete with the i5-2500K in most computing applications even if gross lags behind in video games. are nonetheless substantial overclocking capabilities and available at no additional cost. Faced with the old Phenom X4 980, this is a very good alternative. "
"Offered at a price slightly lower than the Core i7-2600K Intel, the FX-8150 is currently the most powerful model from the new architecture" Bulldozer "for AMD. Unfortunately, he fails, at best, that to match its direct competitor in some media processing applications and is always behind in games. "
Last time Dresdenboy checked and reported that these chappies don't have the latest AGESA code. God knows what else is amiss. In short, i'm not holding my breath to read their review and may be so shouldn't you. Not yet!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnieboy
Any which ways you cut it, 8150 competing with Gulftowns and keeping it right up with SB is no small feat. Yes, it may come out as people are saying it is, i.e. close but not faster than SB. Mind you, i have no chips, nor a clue, i'm just assuming people talking out of their rear ends may be correct. However, don't forget that the leap from Phenom II to SB is quite huge.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________
Note for some "will buy Intel" posters. This is a thread in AMD forum. Comparisons are inevitable, but trolling isn't! I think that sums up my rant!
Any word on native quads? If quads isn't to far behind octas at few threads I might buy one of those and overclock them. I think native quads could be quite cool, and be capable of high frequencies.
do you mean the 4100, or do you mean where the literally rebuild it without 2 modules, or where they turn off the extra "core" for each module?
Not to mention the price difference between fx-8150 vs 2600K (rumoured $245 vs $315 at newegg). So it's by far not the same price range.Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi
Quote:
Originally Posted by tifosi
There is no performance difference between 0.9x and 1.x Agesa code at all.
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by rog
There's supposed to be a native Quad-Core (2 modules) with only 4 MB L3 cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
good info, thank you. I think that sounds legit. it competes well but falls behind in games, where intel is usually the leader anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnieboy
now the final question becomes: can the normal overclock of a bulldozer make it faster than a normal overclock of a sandy bridge. probably 99% of 2500k can run at 4.2ghz. if 99% of bulldozer can run 5ghz or more on air, there might be a chance for bulldozer yet...
it that the only native lesser die ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
cool that is good news they should be lower TDP right,i thought there was only the x4 with two modules disabled like the FX4100 with 4Mb L2 and 8Mb L3?Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
the problem with a 2 module only chips is that you cant unlock it, for some of us that would have been the main selling point.
for AMD though it would be a great price/mm2 rather than turning perfectly fine chips into half working chips simply due to demand. and to be honest up to 4 cores (or threads, however people want to perceive it) is still all thats really desired from most people, and anything more just isnt worth the extra price.
i do hope that because they are built starting with just 2 modules, it can have some with a good yield that OCs like crazy and thus offering 4.5ghz or more in stock forms.
The official term for a "module" is a compute unit.
So please use it to avoid confusion.
:)
99% of 2500K can run 4.7 Ghz on air. Normal OC on water is 4.8 to 5.2 Ghz. (Those running 5.2 really pushing unsafe volts IMO)Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
If BD can run 5.2-5.3 I'll give it a fight in price to performance for overclockers.
I predict no more than 5.0-5.1 on air, 5.2-5.3 for those of us on water.
The whole goal here really is for AMD to beat what Gulfy can do in single thread, and based on game performance on AMD slides alone, it might be possible. After all, that was Intel's first 32nm chip, right? ;)
IPC doesn't seem to have increased, it actually seems to have decreased slightly...
But a 5% decrease in IPC with a 20% increase in clock speed is well worth it in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
5%? No its something in the 80-90% K10.5 IPC range. It means 10-20% decreased.
due to the shared resources IPC can be measured in 2 ways, and its important to know them both. in theory SB has decresed IPC if we try to compare a core + SMT vs 2 cores, and i think people are doing it here too. if gaming is using just a few threads, then IPC might look really good, but if crunching is using all 8, it might look really bad. no point arguing over IPC right now until we get all benchmarks released.
im still not convinced they will have a native quad part,even the leaked slides have all three FX4100 models showing 4Mb L2 and 8Mb L3 which means they are native 8 cores with 2 disabled Compute Units(just for The Stilt).but who knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
You get something wrong sir, 8150 have no more than 3.6Ghz while all core loaded, the video said that. 1100T has 3.3Ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
4.2 Ghz max overclock on Thuban vs 5.0+ max overclock on FX-8150Quote:
Originally Posted by undone
I said absolutely NOTHING about stock speeds.
Are you another one of those people that looked at leaked Cinebench results and divided by 8?Quote:
Originally Posted by rog
chew* stated something about SuperPi, a single threaded program gaining a significant amount when set to more than one thread...we will see where this progresses upon release/NDA release in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
The question is, does it work? You're sitting on a gold mine here, Fruehe. If it works, I'll order a dozen!
(sorry, just had to)
I'm understanding the increased use of the term "throughput" now. Now to determine what types of code will gain "throughput"....
Database, virtualisation, some HPC programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
Code that uses 8 threads and up ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
I mean for regular use. safe settings, and a large sample size of chips tested. my research done on other forums indicates 1.45v and PLL is sketchy, and 1.35v no PLL is safe max. under these settings, I don't believe 99% of 2500K do 4.7ghz. I am willing to be corrected by a large experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I hope hardware reviewers get this comparison sorted out in time for their bulldozer reviews. I don't want to read one review saying bulldozer is bad because it isn't fast enough to beat the 5.0ghz that 99% of 2500k reach, while another review says bulldozer rules because it beats the 4.0ghz that 99% of 2500k reach.
How much are the bulldozer 8c 6200 series likely to cost? If they aren't too much more than the consumer version 2p/4p would be pretty interesting. Since they go up to 3.7ghz in turbo mode you would be able to get a better balance of single and multi threaded performance.
I also think that, starting out all BD's will be made with 4 modules. AMD did this with the PH & PH II so that their yields where higher. If the 4 module FX 8xxx has a busted part, they can resell it as a FX 6xxx or a FX 4xxx. Remember when the first PH II x4's came out, we had PH II x3 with a disabled core, that we could unlock. Now that they have a mature process at 45 nm, they are now making true x2 and x3 parts that do not have disabled cores to unlock.
MaddMutt
MaddMutt: You have a point (just I don't think they have a native PhII X3 :) ), and given bad yields, I don't think we will see native less-than-8-cores from this Bulldozer iteration. Remember that it doesn't have to had broken parts to sell it as less-than-8-cores, usually they sell it as that when it doesn't fit in a given TDP class with more cores enabled.
Hmm, shouldn't the module also be official, as AMD itself called it that way in many slides and other places?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt
Why all need to learn another new term?
How do you set it to more than one thread? Do you mean running more than one instance?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Affinity in task manager I assume. It should be set to all cores by default so no worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by dess
Why would it be better if it jumps between the cores all the time? Shouldn't it be better if it's stuck to one core, while the rest can go rest, so that turbo can kick in?Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gappo
Or, is the turbo mechanism fast enough to make it irrelevant? Then, why it matters at all?
I think, if FX at 4.2 GHz in single is whoirse than Thuban at 3700MHz, here is some bug in chip (maybe too smal L1D or noit good optimized comunication between caches? Latency are bigger than K10, but not too much for this diferences...)
Correct, lately all roadmaps have shown the quad-cores with 8 MB L3 cache which indicates it's the same die so we will see what happens now. I know there was supposed to be a separate die for the Quads to begin with... Hex-cores would still be derived from Octa-core dies.Quote:
Originally Posted by radaja
This is a much lesser problem, for AMD. For all we know, Bulldozer won't be able to unlock :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
It that performance wuold be true it would be slower than the x6 overall....Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Given the max clockspeeds drops more compared to the X6 and it has a module overhead in multithreaded applications.... So i doubt your 'estimate' is correct.
overall not, overall in all tets is FX better than 1100t. I told only about pure single threads
you mean fx 8150p?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
It would be a fail if the 8150p < 1100t.
anyone remember this (december 2010) : zambezi performs 50% better than 1100t.
and we can read above "render performance is based on Cinebench R11.5"
Attachment 120656
and now?
watching the slides of donaninhaber we see in cinebench that
Attachment 120657
somoene lied..
It doesn't really look that far off TBQH. If we check the difference between the 1100T and the 8150, it shows the 8150 as performing 33% faster. With the 1100T lagging slightly behind the reference i7 950, it's hard to draw a solid conclusion from that first pic anyways. We also don't know how accurate that second slide is either. The subtext indicates that the numbers are AMD's own official results (and intel's own on the 3960x), but from where and with what system configuration?Quote:
Originally Posted by liberato87
--Matt
Interlagos November. So Zambezi at the same time?
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110930PD207.htmlQuote:
Meanwhile, AMD's server processor codenamed Interlagos will also have difficulty shipping on schedule and is expected to be delayed to November.
If zambezi doesn't come out until november I will genuinely cry :pQuote:
Originally Posted by undone
AMD lied saying that BD is an 8 core. In fact even now is lying. It is not.
Second, if BD is further delayed for an actual launch, on 12 octomber we should have at least a "paper launch".
Actually what we have now in the latest slides from AMD and what we saw from that first Scorpius slide is as different as night and day. Originally , the slide was portraying Zambezi as Thuban crushing machine,it was a massive 86% faster in legacy SSE code (C11.5) that supports 8 threads, a massive 50% faster in 3dmark 06 that is not so well threaded and a solid 15 to 20% faster in serial code such as PCmark TV and Movies benchmark. What we have now in all these previews and even "official" AMD slides that leaked is quite a bit slower Zambezi,a chip that barely can beat Thuban 6C in many workloads and that is on average just a bit faster than 1100T. It still has massive OC headroom though,but none of the advantages of new floating point unit is there any more. New FlexFP is now lagging behind one thuban core in many workloads,instead of outperforming it significantly. Something is not right. We can wait until launch for real benchmarks but probably we won't see much of a change .Quote:
Originally Posted by mattkosem
Old slides is probably based on CPU simulation, but in realworld scenario BD marchitecture behaves very different. Maybe some of advanced features are disabled because of serious bug, and there is performance penalty. I can't wait to see BD errata list. I can't believe in that the cache architecture is simple reason for low performance because they can simulate how much performance penalty came from smaller 16K L1D, and WT based cache policy. Hit rate of 4-way 16KB is only 1 or 2 % less than 64K 2-way. 2MB L2 has also much higher hit rate than 0.5MB L2. Maybe BD is better optimized for large data work sets.
Can you tell me that a non 8 core processor how can do 6.72x speedup in a multithreaded task?Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Attachment 120659
There are indeed only small diffs in the disassembled AGESA code. Did you perform tests?Quote:
Originally Posted by rog
The slide is from December 2010. Bulldozer taped out in Q2 2010. The data is most likely NOT based on simulations but on real hardware. The clocks on the initial steppings could be low but they can extrapolate performance of higher clocked models easily. The point is that by Dec 2010,the design was well pass the finish point and they were doing the sampling to partners. The only problem they may hit by that time is low clock,low yield or leaky parts with power draw issues(or any combination of those). If anything was wrong(design bug)they would have known it and figured it in all the performance expectations and hence that scorpius slide would have it too. That is why I think there is no performance problem but something else is going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
@ Oliverda
While the scaling is that of an 8 core chip, the single core performance is abysmal. Leaks point out to a single thread score of around 24% lower than one Thuban core at same clock. Either both fmacs are not utilized in single thread test or something else is the problem. 2x fmac should not be slower in legacy code than one Thuban core,especially since we know that fmacs are more flexible and can do any of the fp commands.
BD modules scales very well, but there is problem with very very low per module IPC. It is ~30% lower than K10.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Maybe data from slides was came from earlier time than Q2 2010. Maybe R&D team was thinking that some mysterious bug can be solved before launch. Maybe they don't know what's wrong with BD.... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
He wrote about running SPi on a module while allowing a 2nd thread to run on it and running SPi w/ only one core enabled on that module.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
that's exaclty what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
In the 1st slide, below the graph we see
"estimates and projections subject to change "
but "change" cannot be 100% to 0%
In CB it's - besides other factors - a 4 vs 6 FPU fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
I think amd engineers know that fpu are less, and the related consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy
So why they made a slide showing zambezi with DOUBLE performance of thuban in cinebench 11.5 if it can be even worse than thuban (due to fpu and other factors)?
How did they made that slide? they were drunk? we are not talking about an error of 5-10%, but we're talking about performance that had to be doubled and instead are the same. I cannot think they make such a big fail in prediction.
or we have to think that the leaked test are fake?
the two things are like night and day, as informal said.
I think that in CB code FPU is underutilised. Because of that, two integer blocks can push enough data to process with FPU and thread scaling is good. But I think, there is the problem with weak or narrow integer cores, maybe some serious L1D cache design flow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy
4 BD FPU's doing job pretty well comparing to integer blocks. There is more scenarios where BD shows weak integer performance.
Well the other thing, and the most likely thing is that R11.5 isn't limited by fpu power at all for BD. Given the scaling on the BD leaks, adding another thread on the same module doesn't drop performance of either thread. If you look at intel HT, it doesn't reach the scaling AMD gets while the fpu is also SMT like. (running 2threads on them is hurting performance of each thread dramatically)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresdenboy
So performance of R11.5 isn't limited by the fpu resources but by something else on BD. Would also expleain why the leaked sisoft and other benchmarks the BD is ahead of the K8like architecture in fpu on a core and clock basis.
edit: i'm with drfedja on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberato87
Please, these slides were obvious fakes already back then! There where several things that was clearly wrong. I told people not to trust them because I knew people would start accusing AMD of lying. I know you just staded that someone lied, but know people are at it again. Look at the post below.
It's an eightcore, it has 8 integer clusters and 8 FPUs, the only thing is that a pair of cores can borrow FPUs from each other and share some L1 cache and prefetch and scheduler.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
It's an 4 core, 8 integer clusters simple and plain.Quote:
It's an eightcore, it has 8 integer clusters and 8 FPUs, the only thing is that a pair of cores can borrow FPUs from each other and share some L1 cache and prefetch and scheduler.
More like a HT thing.
Intel Core quad aproach( to put 2 dual cores together) was more "true" core design than BD is now.
8 cores, o yeah...
My meaning, there is some problem. Multiefectivity between cores/moudles is good, score is whorse than in original slide, so problem could be in module or in core unit-more lower performance. I dont know which exactly problem, but...hope, will be fixed in Piledriver.Quote:
Originally Posted by liberato87
Or it is FPU limited but the processor fails to share FPU power between cores. So that all cores just got their own FPU and can't successfully borrow from the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by flyck
Now your make your own definitions, I can make the definition that CPUs are turds, and accuse Intel of lying then they're saying that their CPUs isn't turds. But that doesn't mean I'm right or that Intel actually is lying. You can only accuse AMD of lying in this matter if you make up your own definitions of what the truth is.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
According to the generally accepted definition BD is eight core. You can keep your definitions.
But out of curiosity. What defines a core to you?
One thing we know for sure now. 32nm production is not where AMD wanted it to be. Llano as a high volume product is eating a lot of capacity and it is yielding much under desired level. On top of that the production is shared between current 45nm and 32nm product lines . This is further more complicating the situation. Bulldozer is large die product and with all factors combined it's no wonder why AMD pushed it back to Q4. As for results maybe none of the results are true since AMD doesn't want to generate unnecessary hype around a product that it can't deliver in large quantities. They would devalue their current product lines and would be unable to supply enough of new products (both llano and server/desktop Bulldozer).
It was said before by, Chew, who is a better expert.
http://shareimage.ro/images/46bxz1j5kwflnu7fw04.jpg
Read also that PDF http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080209173.pdf See that pdf figure 3 what is a true core...A true core doesn't share L1 cache, FPU, prefetch with other core...
A core could have 2 clusters which share between them all this and work in 2 threads....
Anyway AMD 4C/8treads cpu beats INTEL 2500K quad would have sound better than...
AMD 8 core beats Intel 2500K quad...
You still haven't answered my question. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
the whole core argument started up again right here when you said thisQuote:
Originally Posted by xdan
fact is most of us dont care at all what AMD calls it, or what you call it, or what even i call it. most posts i say module and thread now just to keep people happy and not let them derail a thread with this marketing nonsense every day. since thread scaling gets better by having L3, does that mean the latest Athlons are no real quads? or does that mean Phenom is just somehow a better quad. and if so then maybe its possible to consider BD a octo core, but just not a very good one. we can skin this cat with more posts than this thread is, but in the end our answer will not make a single difference on the performance.
Did I just step into time machine and it send me few months back? How many times did we have that discussion about cores :/ getting really boring
This thread will be cyclical until AMD releases it.
4 cores with 8 threads, or 8 cores with 8 threads. Who cares, it's not like it will change the price, performance or power consumption depending on what it's called.:rolleyes:
that's what I am thinking too.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
there is some problem or someone lied (amd or the slides are fakes).
but.. BD was for q2, then step to "60-90 days" from 1st june.. now from q3 to q4.
I think amd knows the problems, if there are problems, and they have not found these problems yesterday..
So I hope that the problems, that are big if we have less performance than thuban, had been solved in this 6 months of delay.
If the performance are these, even if only cinebench (ok, this is only one bench but... it is deep under the amd estimated performance) is worse than thuban, IMHO amd should not release bd, even if this is price competitive, because every review will kick it because, the delays, the silence (last official statement "60-90 days from 1st june", then from q3 to q4 without ONE official word) the hype created by the "return of the fx comics" and the world record, will affect against amd.
And we are talking about the "top" 8 core cpu..
I cannot think the fx 4xxx should perform less than a phenom II 955..
But I remember that movieman talked about bulldozer like a winner.. I hope he's right.
When Movieman feels it's a winner I take it as doing very well in WCG/F@H. Meaning strong multitread performance with good power consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by liberato87
too bad folding@home cannot make use of AVX/FMA4/XOP instructions :(
But even if without those BD can excel in f@h I will consider it a success.
You know what it reminds me of?Quote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
http://www.gallien.org/serendipity/u...odoo5_6000.JPG
wow this thread make me check my 1055T is real 6 cores (Haha)
With how things are built now, I have just stopped saying "core" and only talk about total processing threads. It is just easier to keep track of then try to explain the differences in the architecture to someone. I tried a couple times, both times the people looked at me like "you lost me at the first sentence"Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
This seems to be the most sensible way of understanding the threaded performance of various CPU's with modern architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
There are no multiple slides there was just one. And no,it was not fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Bad news from SB-E side...
Intel will unleash SB-E even the non K i7 3820 at 294$, "oc gear" divider...
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/fc9...13d2cabdb8.jpg
http://www.nordichardware.com/news/6...-bridge-e.htmlQuote:
Core i7-3820. This is what the processor shows with the reference clock (BCLK) at 95, 100 and 105 MHz, with CPU Multiplier 36x.
Reference Clock Ratio 1.25x
95 MHz * 1.25 * 36x = 4 275 MHz
100 MHz * 1.25 * 36x = 4 500 MHz
105 MHz * 1.25 * 36x = 4 725 MHz
Referens Clock Ratio 1.66x
95 MHz * 1.66 * 36x = 5 677 MHz
100 MHz * 1.66 * 36x = 5 976 MHz
105 MHz * 1.66 * 36x = 6 274 MHz
I don't care if it is an AMD thread, this is a bad news for BD. Though competition...:shakes:
ok now your just trolling
Trolling? He is stating facts...Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
the thread title is zambezi news, not intel newsQuote:
Originally Posted by hirsch
I agree. If i wanted to learn about Intel news. I'd head over to the Intel forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://news.morningstar.com/articlen...aspx?id=396010Quote:
As manufacturing problems are resolved, we expect AMD's latest product cycle to continue to help the firm gain momentum against Intel in the microprocessor market.
the old story ended and new one's just start
This thread includes many posts that isn't all about Zambezi/Bulldozer. I'm sure that even you've said or state something that isn't 100% related...Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
And even if his post includes news about Intel - his own conclusion was that Bulldozer is gonna have a hard time competing against SB-e. I can't see how that's trolling.
this thread has MANY posts, +99% are about BD, none should be news about intel or any intel products. there would be more leeway if this was the news section, but its the AMD section, and should ONLY consist of AMD newsQuote:
Originally Posted by hirsch
lol :ROTF: :clap::clap: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by SBB
Hahaha, you are so lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
See it this way. He was showing information to make a conclusion about Bulldozer. Woho, can you see it now? His post was about Bulldozer.
Stop being such a hater, because, haters gonna hate. :(
What seems good or good?
-OC potential
-multithread performance (renderind in Blender, 3DsMax, Cinebenchs, POV-RAY, some encoding, decompression and compression....)
-power consuming
-price
And whorse?
-looks like single threads apliactions, some games
I think, with this price about 245-250$ will be good product.
You're right in the first time our good old troll friend. And you will be able to get the chepest LGA-2011 mobo for $400 maybe. Splendid. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xdan
int-EL now is more like a mobo maker than a chip maker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
i have nearly 100x higher post count than you, and so i probably have more experience with the rules. i dont hate anyone, im just making sure that people who enjoy coming here still enjoy coming here. posting things that can start up a flame war is the fastest way to get a thread locked, the fermi threads might be a little before your time, although rather new still, and were littered with so much crap that we banned any new fermi threads until real info came out. i fear that BD is getting really close to that level of intolerance and why you dont see many lasting threads about BD in the news. and why the conversation, and practically all the information, is now in the AMD section.Quote:
Originally Posted by hirsch
im actually a little confused on how you think im even hating, i only stated my observations. you shouldnt read so much emotion from my posts since i keep a rather logical perspective.
I'm sure that there will be some Asrock mb's at 200$. - Extreme6- Extreme 4Quote:
You're right in the first time our good old troll friend. And you will be able to get the chepest LGA-2011 mobo for $400 maybe. Splendid.
And it's not like BD "8 core" will work on a cheap mb 100$ either.
In overclocking it will need at least an 150$, 10phase VRM motheboard.
Memory it's not an issue for SB-E you buy 4*2gb modules.
Cause post counts matter alot ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Please, enlighten me from where you found this solid information :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
Why a 10 phase VRM-motherboard? Last I checked a 4+1 phase motherboard is more then enough for Sandy Bridge cause it's not even a powerhog overclocked. Who says Bulldozer won't be power efficient? Exactly, noone until the reviews are out. But obviously you have fallen for the marketing where bling-features and phases rocks our world :yepp:
Facts are LGA2011 will be expensive to make due to the high complexity the platform brings. Difference is Sandy Bridge-E and Bulldozer will play in different leagues in pricing, so this comparison really doesn't make much sense to begin with. Also, speaking of price, Core i7-3820 will be priced the same as Core i7-2600K so buying the more expensive LGA2011 doesn't make sense to begin with considering how stripped down/limited it will be. Now we're talking of silly expensive hex-cores for $583 and $999 to really justify the purchase of LGA2011.
EDIT: Let's stay on topic shall we? :D
blah blah blah. you just filled this thread with more irrelevant stuff than he did. look at how many pointless posts you just made. get your priorities straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
This is an AMD thread, in the AMD section. Most people here made informed choices to go with AMD, it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. Apparently, some people's lives are so pathetic they get their kicks challenging other people's choices. I buy it with my own money, I am happy with it.. :banana::banana::banana::banana: off.