You mean you have several bulldozer ES?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Printable View
You mean you have several bulldozer ES?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Yeah, the specifiaction in CPU-Z usually never include that much codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
I wish :DQuote:
Originally Posted by undone
Ok, So AsRock confirms it, BD can work with AM3 boards. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomee
That leaves BioStar the only one left that hasn't said anything about what they are going to have out...
Though, I guess we can hold a contest to see which AM3 board goes up in flames the fastest with a BD installed. :rofl:;)
Kobaltrock:not with all AM3 boards! Its important! There is 2 conditions:
1)16MB big ROM flash
2)all mobo contacts for pin must be electricaly active
And there is not AMD support! I think, not only for me will be better new AM3+ mobo.
I don't have time to read the next 2 pages at the moment, but all this talk of "really, no 'Dozer bench leaks yet?!" makes me assume that no one has seen these? o_0 Which if not, is surprising I think >_>
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...er_linux&num=1
Granted, it's not the desktop variant, but from my understanding the 'Dozer CPU modules are going to be the same between everything. It'll just be small tweaks to certain areas (likely the HT Link for the SMP cross-talking [if you will]), but the only big big difference is the amount of cores the C32 and G34 have since they both have got over 1.25x and 2x the amount of pins available, respectively. Valencia might be able to run 10cores, but AMD probably figures they should keep it down to 8C(max) to make buying the G34 worth the investment :P Because we're getting 8C on 942pins with DDR3-1866 Dual Channel, and C32 is 1207 with the same :\ Those ~260 pins really all for the SMP Hyper Transport?
Speaking of HT quick... Why the hell is AMD upping the Link speed to gain a higher MT/s, instead of just friggen just using the 32bit that all our NB and HT have supported since it started getting used, ditching the damn 16bit?! *sigh*
From Wiki:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1303744528
Sucks when there is an available ability that doesn't get utilized! Th... that'd be like, disabling perfectly good cpu cores and selling it as a down-cored model of a the same CPU!! Oh... wait... NM :P lol But seriously, I don't get why they keep with 16bit when 32 is right there :|
Read this quick while posting:
My friend said his reads as a Phenom II FX something, which is in line with what the releases are going to be, even though his is an Opteron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
All I know is that the CPUID reads fine for this E350 Zacate on the Specifications line in CPU-Z 1.37 (rrrreally old), and a program called CPUMSR (even older). So CPU-Z doesn't care too much about that, but where my friend is getting that FX reading from, I'm not 100% sure. I'm trying to squeeze a CPU-Z SS from him :D
I'm not sure, but I think this was posted in the news last month, and the conclusion was that the systems had too different specs to be of any use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Something like one was running at 640x480, the other at 1920. One had twice as much RAM as the other etc.
Can't find the link..
Yes, the graphics cards and storage were also different. It was a useless bit of info.
Sure you guys have seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr7kr4kimeM
If you havent, some nice short videos restating things we already know :D
So I was poking around the ASRock eXtreme Tuning Utility, hoping to maybe figure out a way to edit it or add in an entry to get it to work with the E350M-1 board, first file I've looked in though turned up something of relevance to the thread...
Everything runs off XML files, which are for basically each individual board to state limits, MOSFET controllers (or whatever) and the sensor IO, among other things. For the 890FX-Deluxe3 that just came out, with AM3+ support, it says:
Looking down the list more and I see...Code:<Item Conf="890FXD5.xml" Name="890FX Deluxe5" Index="21" IesConf="L6717.xml"/>
So apparently the 990FX will either be such a minimally tweaked chip that it is, as some of the past SB have, just a drop-in for motherboard manufacturers. Or not at all and just rebranded as is what has basically been said/hinted at. What that means is, it would seem at least, is FlanK3r doesn't have to worry about any performance issues with the AM3+ boards that are out there right now. :) I mean, it's just speculation right now, but appearss as though at least one of ASRock's boards will be mostly the same as far as the finer details are concerned, since that profile to overclock everything points back to the 890FX D5. Likely will be layout and heatsink changes, just to mix things up. Especially considering the Deluxe4 and 5 show very litter difference in terms of component locations across the board, which only shows minor layout difference versus the Deluxe3. Biggest one is the change from VIA audio to Realtek :\ The only difference in the profile that I don't know what is for, is the "Index=##" part, which changes from 21 (890FX) to 45 (990FX) :shrug:Code:<Item Conf="890FXD5.xml" Name="990FX Deluxe4" Index="45" IesConf="L6717.xml"/>
Anywho... While I'm on the topic, I also came across some info on undocumented APU graphics models, their designation, Crossfire compatibility with a discrete card, and what Radeon model that APU+GPU Crossfire will be redesignated :up: That was in one of AMD's programs :D ('spose I should type up that info I was going to and publish it... Just cuz I wanna feel 'spechul' and get it online before anyone else! :rofl: lol)
EDIT: Can't say they're not coming out soon :D They've apparently gotten into the hands of someone who is providing the AIDA team with info, I suppose for the sensors and the like.
Quote:
AIDA64 Extreme Edition v1.60.1369 Beta
preliminary support for AMD K12 (aka Llano) processors
preliminary support for AMD K15 (aka Bulldozer) processors
I can pretend...
This is a fake image btw.
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/6559/bulldozer32.jpg
beep: why do u think (1.57.3, myabe better support)?
You should already know why :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
I so hope to god that Bulldozer performs remarkably well and go head to head with intel again, it would be such a welcome change in the microprocessor world. ~15% faster per core than K10.5 would make the 8 core BD very competitive indeed. Here's hoping its faster still :)
4x 2048???etc? Others, I dont really know :(
Nope, thats the correct cache structure, at least I think so, so keep guessing :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Where do you think I got that image from?
Eng sample name suggests it's 2.8GHz [3.6GHz Turbo] and faked pic has 3.2GHz :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Anyway I'm looking forward to next couple of weeks, it will be fun sorting fake info from somewhat legit one :yepp:
That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't display the Multi or HTT, so it could be overclocked for all we know :p: But 3220, according to what I'm seeing, is correct for 3.2GHz; 2.8GHz would be 2820.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
My guess is due to it not reporting how many multiples for the cache there are, IE:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
8 x 16KB
4 x 64KB
4 x 2048KB
But, I'm just basing that off what it reports for my Bobcat and in all likelihood isn't right :\
Unless it's that engineering samples show up as single core, and that is why it doesn't indicate their cache multiples, thus 8 then being incorrect...
(doubt the Processor #1 being shaded is your reason, as again my Bobcat's is and it's dual-core)
No, my pic shows a 3220 model number :) tech docs state that as a 3.2 Ghz CPU with 3.7 Ghz Turbo ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Here's that APU Crossfire and 990FX data I stumbled across that I said I would do a writeup about :)
http://pro-clockers.com/industryrevi...ain-sight.html
The specification really throws me off here, none of my AMD ES chips have anything which remotely resembles that. I look forward to seeing TRUE ES pictures :D
True, but lets assume current beta BIOSes are not allowing OC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
I was talking about this section of CPU name:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
ZD322046W8K44_36/28/20_2/8 A
This is my speculation, but to me it reads 3.6GHz Turbo. 2.8GHz Stock. I'm not sure how to interpret 20_2 and 8 A.
Once again my speculation :)
What sort of specifications are you referring to? (if you're allowed to say)Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Is it something that AMD can change in different ES chips so they can trace the source of leaks?
Week and batch maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
much info here also:
http://translate.google.com/translat...%2Findex6.html
Nice 2good4you :D Thanks :up:
You say in that thread that AMD officially have stated that one module is the same as one core that can run two threads simultaneously. Who's the joker at AMD who says such things? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
So what are the chances we could get a partial CPU-Z shot? One that only shows a bit of info, such as the biggest conflicting bits compared to the fake? :yawn: (lol Why is that emote called 'yawn'??)Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
True, but one must remember that the chips are running on current motherbooards. These are the C32, G34 and AM3/+ boards we all can buy right now, so crippling the BIOS would be weird. Not saying it can't be done, would just mean beta BIOS files made and sent to specific people, but that would also keep from testing the BIOS in a release-like environment. They could have it running perfectly stable, and then for some reason re-enabling the tweaking options 'breaks' things :\ Plus, it wouldn't be a stretch for someone to just slip in the AGEIA CPU info to a release BIOS to gain the CPU support :) Either way, my friend's Super Micro lets him OC his.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
I admit, that was EXACTLY something I was looking at too, but for whatever reason I had disregarded it! So I'm onboard with your suggestion :yepp: The only thing I figure 8 A, or the 8, is core count. A maybe being Single "chip", where perhaps B would be MCM dual 'chip': 8core + 8core for 16core Interlagos. Could also be A B C, for AM3+. C32 or G34 platform designation:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
This might be just a total coincidence... BUT:
20-2=18 -- 18x Multiplier: 18x200=3600MHz OR the "36" boost speed.
20-8=12, 12+2=14 -- 14x Multiplier: 14x200=2800MHz OR the "28" default speed.
:eek: lol Again, total guess and I don't see it holding water since it required the addition steps to get 2800MHz :P
(20/2)+8 also is the boosted 3.6GHz, but that leaves me with nothing on how to get the 2800....
[sarcasm]
:shocked: IIIII'VE GOT IT! hahah OK stick with me here!
The APUs run on 100MHz reference clock, so:
20+8=28. x100 = 2800!
((20/2)+8)x2=36. x100 = 3600! lol
[/sarcasm]
I want one of these boards so badly! :D
http://content.etilize.com/Large/1016944814.jpg http://content.etilize.com/Large/1018113804.jpg
Quad-G34, Quad Channel DDR3-32DIMM . . . . . . . Dual-G34, Quad Channel DDR3-16DIMM
2x PCIe x16@16! POWARRR!!! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3x PCIe x16@16! :drool:
http://www.directdial.com/dd2/img/it...225AGM4NRF.jpg
Dual-C32, Dual Channel DDR3-8DIMM
QUAD PCIe x16@16 :eek:
Yea someone I think misunderstood him lol 1 Module = 2 cores, capable of 4 threads (2 per core, similar to HyperThreading, but not quite). :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
(I'm agreeing with you BTW, Smartidiot, and expounding on what you said)
Of course I can, I'm not under NDA :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Apokalipse
The specification line in CPU-Z which reads "AMD Eng Sample, ZD322046W8K44_36/28/20_2/8 A" doesn't line up with ANY other ES I've seen.
Have a look at this though:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7...ldozerleak.jpg
Swiped from the Bulldozers first screens thread
Is it total die size that's 12% larger than a hypothetical 4 (standalone) core BD chip?
Or is it just the module itself that's 12% larger than a single hypothetical standalone BD core (not counting all other hardware, like IMC, cache, etc..)?
Congrats guys
You just speculated for a whole day over a fake photoshop I made in about four minutes.
^ lol run the bann hammer will hunt you down XD
Um... We know dude lol At least, I knew that's what was going on :ROTF: I was speculating as to what it exactly was you changed, and you still haven't said what is is either :(Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Oj101 beat me to posting the screenie too lol
My guess of cache multiples was actually right, though :O lol
You mean you are 2good4you ? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
:D
No,I think BeepBeep was referring to faked picture in this post.
Informal:
but what about this photo? Look at some infos...L1 data cache, diferent L2 (2048KB from Chinas vs 2MB here), black place in CPU-Z version looks not as example 1.57.x, but only 1.57 or older, too small for 4 chars.
All looks correct to me? L1 is 16kb per core (data), L2 is 64 per module (instruction), L2 is 2MB per module (L3 is per chip and varies dependently)) So 8 core = 8x L1 Data, 4x L1 Instr., 4x L2 :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Chinas shows what it does due to only reading one core, so everything is not a multiple and thought of a singular. This depicts 8 cores and so it references everything as such. EDIT: That is why it shows 2048KB instead of 2MB, it would run out of room trying to display "4 x 2048KB" :)
Yea, it's a 2-digit version number. So it'd have to be 1.XX, likely being either 1.57 or maybe a newer 1.58 (internal?). If it's an older picture, it might be an AMD release and so a special version? *shrug*
Hey FlanK3r mate ,just saw your post. The only weird thing in that screenshot is the L1 data cache associativity,it should be 4way not 2way.Everything else "seems" to be correct as far as I can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
yes, exactly... 4-way. And strange is "CPU-Z version 1.5x" 1.58 doesn relase and 1.57 show no correct number of cores. 1.57.x it can not be, because black area in CPU-Z is too small for example 1.57.3
from the cpu-z shot i posted @ sweclockers, I do not now much about it and comes from imageshack.
The official information about how we should see the core/module count is still the way I wrote. It is in many ways strange and in many ways not.
It should kick ass anyways because most apps is still singelthread or no more than dual/quad threaded.
I don't like to see a 4 module Bulldozer compared to an 8 core Intel. It's absolutely not a good comparison. AMD may have a 6-core Bulldozer ready, or an MCM for desktop like Interlagos as an anser.
Also like I wrote, one module is in almost all ways more like one core, than two. It shares _all_ except L1 datacache which is quaite impressive. It's very like Intel's Hyperthreading, but in a better way.
Then you need to take it with a grain of salt, and be skeptical of it's legitamacy, as it could be faked. All it takes to fake that is pshopping the screen shot, putting it as the desktop and hiding icons/task bar (or just end task on Explorer). From there, take a pic with the camera and submit to ImageShack :PQuote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
My reading seems to have led us to believe they will show up as two threads per core, but that would mean an 8 core = 16 threads. I don't see AMD going about it that way, so I might be understanding it slightly wrong, and it is 1 core = 1 thread, but each core processes as if it was two threads due to the split architecture. Still, I'm 98% sure ONE module = TWO physical cores, which is why an E350 Bobcat is dual core and only uses one moduleQuote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
I don't like the comparison of AMD to Intel either, but we've just got to look at it on the scale of performance. If it turns out an 8-threaded Intel performs as well as an 8core AMD, then what are we left to say? :\
Your best bet would be Valencia for desktop, as it'd be cheaper since you'd only be going with a C32 board instead of G34. It'd only be a max of 8 cores still, but hopefully the memory performance and HyperTransport can make up for that a bit :) If you've got the cash though, I suppose you could liken the 12/16core Interlagos like the Extreme i7 chips, and G34 to the x58 since the costs will be close.
Again, I'm pretty sure it's 2 physical cores, sharing only the 64KB of L1 Instruction and 2MB of L2 cache per module. The L3 is shared amongst the whole CPU, same as it has been so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
I'm very open to being correct though if I'm misunderstanding anything! I only want to spread the facts, not misconceptions (be that my own or read from others insisting they are facts). :up:
Woah, woah woah there are some wrong things in this post....(To my knowledge!) :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
E350 is Fusion yes...but it doesn't have this module thing going on. Core structure is closer to what we have seen in the past.
ONE Module in Bulldozer does include TWO (Physical, if you can call it that and) LOGICAL cores, yes...AMD has already stated, the 8 core Desktop model will include four "modules" ;)
Here is some more (fudge) to speculate on if one wishes to XD
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5561/orochie.jpg
Of course it can be, or it is some kind of shot saying very little. The info plus some details seems/can be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Like aero, and aero effect at the pointer and closingicon is lightening etc.
I did not wrote that and has never done.Quote:
My reading seems to have led us to believe they will show up as two threads per core, but that would mean an 8 core = 16 threads.
I don't see AMD going about it that way, so I might be understanding it slightly wrong, and it is 1 core = 1 thread, but each core processes as if it was two threads due to the split architecture.
Still, I'm 98% sure ONE module = TWO physical cores, which is why an E350 Bobcat is dual core and only uses one module
2 integer execution-cores per module=2 threads per module, and the floating point unit can execute 4x256-bit instructions in one cycle or 8x128-bit instructions in one cycle.
I have wrote AMD's latest official statement, and also my own opinion of the design, which cover a lot more than the execution-logic.
It will not.Quote:
If it turns out an 8-threaded Intel performs as well as an 8core AMD, then what are we left to say? :\
It's still up to AMD to launch a primary server part cpu for desktop use.Quote:
Your best bet would be Valencia for desktop, as it'd be cheaper since you'd only be going with a C32 board instead of G34.
It'd only be a max of 8 cores still, but hopefully the memory performance and HyperTransport can make up for that a bit :)
If you've got the cash though, I suppose you could liken the 12/16core Interlagos like the Extreme i7 chips, and G34 to the x58 since the costs will be close.
And still as I have stated, they share _all_ units in the module except the L1 datacache. The fetch, branchpredictor and all the schedulers are all shared.Quote:
Again, I'm pretty sure it's 2 physical cores, sharing only the 64KB of L1 Instruction and 2MB of L2 cache per module.
The L3 is shared amongst the whole CPU, same as it has been so far.
Some details are for sure still unclear. Bulldozer will (must) have a extremely powerful front end to decode and schedule for two integer execution cores.
It also have dedicated scheduler for floating point operations which seems good. Bulldozer will because of this statement shine in singlethreaded applications.
That's what I get then for having gathered most of info back in 2010 when they were calling them modules still :( I do admit to having created some self-confusion between Bulldozer and Bobcat modules. I had thought that a module of either was 2 cores, but Bobcat is only a single, which makes sense given the single core APUs. And yea, my terminology of "physical" is indeed not quite correct, which Logical should be actually used. My only reason for using it would be to more easily differentiate between a multi-threaded single-core (HyperThreading) and single threaded core-multi CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I was also under the impression current Bobcats were K10.5, but now I'm seeing it be referred to as K14. CPU-Z is in line with that, though strangely Windows7 is not, showing actually a family number of 20 for the E350 >_> lol That might be because of the Stars and in that time it's gotten corrected *shrug* It's hard when the manufacture isn't giving any info heh Not that I don't blame them though, just sucks for us lol
I'll shop you up a good one here on what I mean that it's easy to do. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
Didn't mean for it to sound that way, just meant that is what I've been reading the past few months on the net.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
Good info to know, thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
Orochi definitely has 8 cores,it's just the way they are organized(modules) that is bringing confusion.You have 8 very real integer cores and 8 very real 128bit fmac units.Those 8 fmacs are in reality 4 double fmacs(256bit) that are called Flex FP by AMD.One 256bit FlexFP can be allocated to one thread only(AVX or single threaded code),or it can be split into 2 and each dedicated to it's "parent" integer core(2 fp threads running in parallel in module).
Shared parts of the design are saving die space and increasing efficiency.This is why AMD can cram 8 cores with 16MB of cache(total size) in less than 300mm^2.
Pretty nifty stuff... :D Is it me or, maybe with the exception of HyperThreading, Intel not do much interesting designing stuff like that, instead concentrating on making stuff that "has more torque" (if you will)?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So I was digging into making that photoshopped CPU-Z image to show 2good, when I noticed something about the ORIGINAL... Wouldn't the "Package" line be blue like the rest of the labeled of filled boxes? Yet, it shows Gray, as if it was originally empty... :D
EDIT: While not picture since it's on a different tab, do we know if the CPU-NB on the AM3+ Dozers is going to be 2600MHz? I'd assume HT-Link as well, as it has mirrored the NB clock in the past, but could stay at 2000MHz I guess...
That image is fake, the word would not be gray if the line is filled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Its a really nice photoshop, but then again I could change the frequency to 3400 on my last photoshopped image and then proclaim its true.
You might think of it that way, but facts are AMD now and always have counted 1 module = 2 cores and they will in the future. The mentality has always been this way from AMD and you stated in that Sweclockers thread specifically that AMD officially counts 1 module as 1 core which is wrong. The top die on Bulldozer gen.1 will have 4 modules, 8 cores, 8 threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
But I agree on what you have said that comparing an 8 core AMD vs. 8 core Intel isn't "fair" not cause AMD took the module route. I never compare products like that, I compare it they way you should which provides the best bang for my buck? ;)
The info displayed is about in line with what I'd expect from 1.57 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
mabye only one reason, could not be fake is: it was CPU-Z 1.56 or 1.57 and sample was in AM3 board (not AM3+). But from my side, I thinking, its fake :). We can only waiitng for relase date :)
If it's fake it's the most accurate one to date ;)
I'd say Intel's design works in a "brute force" way, just pouring tons of resources into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Whereas AMD relies on being clever and more efficient with the resources they have.
Having the modules design allows more cores per die area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
Didn't someone say 8 core BD was about 1% larger than 4 core SB?
Which would mean Intel is forced to compete on a smaller node.
1 BD module(2 cores) is about 19.4mm2 while 1 SB core is 18.4mm2, both excluding cache. So as long as Bulldozer performs I would say AMD has a lead over Intel so that they have to compete with a smaller node as you say :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Apokalipse
AMD is REALLY holding it all back. No leaks at all.
Check out this totally legitimate screenshot:
https://sites.google.com/site/apokalipse/Norrissor.png
Chuck Norris was nice enough to design it himself
hehe, n1 :D
Hilarious, put a smile on my face this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apokalipse
on the contrary thought, all that space between modules does greatly factor into $/mm2 since the total size of the chip is larger. not sure what that extra space is doing though, so i have no idea why its important, needed, or wasted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
An 8-core BD shouldn't be much bigger then 20% compared to SB 4-core, and is most likely smaller than Intel's coming 6-core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Just a very good hunch I have looking at this un-photoshoped die :rolleyes:
is that the one from back in january-ish?
if i remember that right, if we just add cores + cache it came to like 250-275mm2, but its really going to be like 325mm2+
No this is an almost full dieshot, and it should be approx. 280-290mm2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
We discussed that on the last page, that it's fake. :\Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
(still in response to Flanker) Like I mentioned, creating that isn't hard, I'll go ahead and finish mine just to show that point. That's probably why they blocked over the L3 and version part, was more an amature job. Not that it was bad (or that I'm not an amature), but what sells it is how they went about presenting it!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2That image is fake, the word would not be gray if the line is filled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Its a really nice photoshop, but then again I could change the frequency to 3400 on my last photoshopped image and then proclaim its true.
AMD did it before, with the K7 and then again with the K8, beating Intel with more design thought vs the 'brute force' or 'pure horse power' method. I think P4 is a great example of that. Anyways, I think it is definitely time for AMD to shine again, and will be more impressive (and a good "gotcha!") if they achieve more performance with the smaller die size :) (OK, not 'die size', but per-core size)Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
I think Intel's biggest 'oops' with designing was actually ditching the development of their improved graphics core :shakes: Their current GPUs are obviously a lot better than their past iterations, but it's quite lacking compared to the AMD approach. The E350 might only have an HD5450 (if not completely, damn near), which performance-wise fits amazingly well with the E350, so I'm expecting Llano to really put the hurt on the i3; maybe even i5!
yes, but it was repost again as image....So we talking again about it :)
Yeah, there are many signs that Bulldozer will be an impressive chip and they've been working on it for what, half a decade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Those numbers are in Hex , 14 hex = 20 dec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
i.e. Phenom Family 16 (decimal 16 = hex 10)
Windows registry, Identifier string...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\DESCRIPTION\System\Cen tralProcessor\0
haha Yea, it's been awhile that's for sure. I'm honestly curious as to how much is original and how much has essentially been scrapped in favor of new architecture (though not necessarily from the ground up)... Would be quite interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by AKM
Well, ya learn something new everyday lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ReKcOlNu
Anyone know why Llano is being designated "12", when 'Dozer and Bobcat are 15 and 14, respectfully?
why not? Llano is not K10 and not is K15...
I've wanted to contribute to this thread since I started reading, but had nothing to add. Hope this is as intriguing/comforting to others at it was to me:
AMD release schedule
9 series chipset is due out on June first then. About time :)
... Because it's Bobcat with up to a HD5670 integrated, and an E350 (Bobcat) is K14? >_> That's why I put that info in the previous post lolQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
There's a Fudzilla article today, . I don't think I'm going out too far on a limb by saying...
990FXA-GD80 and 990FXA-GD65 are the same chipset, the 990FX and have the same number of PCIe lanes available on the chipset, so the 4 x x16 slots on the first board will be x8/x8/x8/x8 or some combo, and the second board will be x16/x16. That means little or no difference from the config of motherboards that we have now. Although perhaps they'll try to distance the x16 slots a bit more to accomodate triple width cards which are becoming more popular.
I don't think we'll learn much from distributors listings of the boards etc until reviewers get the boards with CPUs as it looks like much of the chipset features will be power management related?
I'd imagine it would be very similar to the current AM3 GD70 and GD65, so just a few options swapped out, but largely the similar.
I dont think so....Bobcat is still new architecture as new is Bulldozer. K12 Llano is redesign of Propus die (so K10.5).Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Leaked slides via Techreport:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20886
Original site translated via Google:
http://translate.google.com/translat...-sonuclari.htm
Well, some things definitely stick out, like the 2nd image showing under BD/FX: DX11 and Eyefinity. Thoughts? I mean, unless they're packaging a 6670 with every Zambezi chip sold, do the 3dmark scores hold? Bizarre to see.
Creative ways to make engineering look better by the marketing team, thats all. It seems the hope is that you dont scour the chart, just glance at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hieuhef
Tick, tock, tick, tock...
Code:AIDA64 Extreme Edition v1.70.1400
...
Preliminary support for AMD “Bulldozer” and “Llano” processors
:D
http://vr-zone.com/articles/first-pi...ard/12059.html
Looks like the 990 is starting to show its face. Anyone else imagine Thubans going on firesale clearance when Zambezi is finally release? $150 1100T anyone?
That might be the best looking motherboard I've ever seen and it's only a mid-range one!Quote:
Originally Posted by hieuhef
So, about the 9xx-series chipsets. What's actually new? What differs them from the 8xx chipsets? HyperTransport 3.1, "real" IOMMU support and SLI?
Any other noticeable features? I guess I'll have to wait for the official release heh.
I guess it depends on how cheap the early FX-4110 and FX-6110 will be. I'm not really sure how low-end those two really are. I expect the FX-4110 to land at about that price though which would make choice a bit harder. But six cores at that price would be hard to beat indeed!
Board looks nice, and the placement of the chipset seems to make more sence being closer to the rear case fan but those heatsinks sure don't look very effecient, hardly any fins. ?Quote:
Originally Posted by hieuhef
Thuban prices will depend on a lot of things, firesale is unlikely, they will just stop making them and then the price will freeze and most likely just go up as they get harder to find.
BTW, AMD just cut prices.
Here's a fresh example:
The i5 750 got replaced by the 760 which in turn got replaced by the 2500, but still, they all cost the same:
http://geizhals.at/?do_compare=+Verg...=580327#xf_top
Makes a lot of sense that the prices just freeze. You can still find an 8800GTX for $500 :rofl:
I am looking forward to the show that we'll be presented with, I imagine there are a few consumers like myself awaiting for the shoe to drop to figure which purchase they're going to make.
I love the Intel NIC in the CH V :p:
I can't wait to play with some new hardware again..;)
im too ,-)
Strange seeing asus use an X-fi chip for audio when they have their own line of sound cards.
lol It's not an X-Fi :p: It's just the same thing all the manufacturers use: X-Fi MB/MB2. It's a software suite that basically is some of the main goodies you'd get with an X-Fi card, but done in software on your CPU. There are exceptions for boards that actually do use a real X-Fi chip, most recently are the two higher end models of Gigabyte's G1 boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darakian
Wouldn't be the same card bundled with new Rampage III?
http://assets.vr-zone.net/11513/asus...rbold_nude.jpg
It has C-Media 6631 audio chip on it.
Oh, CH V would have also onboard audio, so called "X-Fi 2", I guess.
...ASUS has its own sound card and software division for those cards. What he was saying is that it makes no sense to market boards with the X-Fi brand and software instead of say Xonar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
Pretty much, yea. It doesn't really matter what codec the system has, it just is needing something to pass audio through to the jacks, since that's all the codec really does anyways; audio is processed via CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by I.nfraR.ed
I've seen it bundled with boards using C-Media, VIA, RealTek and Analog Devices codecs. My ASRock 890FX Deluxe3 has it, which uses a VIA VT2020. The ASRock E350M-1 has it as well, but it uses a RealTek ALC892 :)
That IS the onboard audio though, it's just been shoved on a PCIe card instead heh I'd prefer it if ALL board makers did that, personally!
Perhaps it is what he meant, but he said "chip" ;) Even if so, to have a Xonar equiv would likely cost most in R&D of the software than it does for the license of Creative's X-Fi MB. Though I really don't see why ASUS doesn't, given the fact the Xonar does quite a lot of it's stuff (for gaming) in software anyways since the C-Media chip the AV100/200 are based on doesn't have hardware OpenAL support, which is a bummer. Won't stop me from getting the XENSE if I the funds are available after 'Dozer comes out :D Showed the owner of the site I work at the picture and he requested the TUF and CVF, so I've got every appendage crossed on getting one to review!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
If anything, hopefully the MSI 890FXA-GD65 does support AM3+, like the silkscreening above the NB heatsink says... That way I'll at least have a board to use in the meantime!
30 days till Bulldozer!! :wiggle::woot:
(Assuming it comes out June 7th)
Advertising a competitors product does not make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
*shrug* Point of the matter is: Run with the default drivers and software to 'get by', or get the X-Fi MB suite that can help things out, and gain up to EAX 4, with possible EAX 5 with MB II package; not sure on it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Anywho, it's not SO much compary A is advertising company B's product, when it is more of a sticker. You don't even have to install anything X-Fi related and your sound will work fine. The MB Suite is more like WinAmp, giving the addition effects and what not.
Officially, it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Formula350
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=268039
Sweet deal! Thanks for the info :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
http://www.rumorpedia.net/wp-content...dbulldozer.jpg
http://www.rumorpedia.net/wp-content...dbulldozer.jpg
REal or Real Fake........... who knows. doesnt really show anything. but sub 8sec Spi.... that would be a first.
I just wonder why it still has SSE4.1A? (possible fake thought it was dropped for SSSE 3, SSE 4.1 4.2 no ?)
If it is fake, then Job well done... Best Fake i have seen then. We have close to 30 days and still not as much as a peep really. Something has got to come out that is real, right?
what does an X6 at 4.0ghz get for superPI and wPRime?
edit: i get 6.5secs for 32M and 203.2secs for 1024M (on my 1090t @ 4.0 ghz)
I donkt know, but if this is real, than my wet dream about Bulldozer performance is coming :D. Its more than I thinking. Superpi awesome, wprime awesome. What is gigaybte CPU-Z? Some special edition? Or some edition for Gigabyte testing?
tbone8ty: dont worry, this screen is too much optimistic! wprime is better than Gulftown 980x, superpi more better than sb 2600k!
If it is fake, I don't really understand why they'd make it.
Do they believe it will perform that well, and just want other people to believe it too?
Do they want to give people false hope, and cause people to be disappointed?
yes, its fake...Giga confirmed, this is fake