this chinese guy must try to use HWINFO (click on summary), because only in HWINFO we can see now all right actually clocks at cores.
Printable View
this chinese guy must try to use HWINFO (click on summary), because only in HWINFO we can see now all right actually clocks at cores.
be patient, wait until NDA lifts....
update on leak:
translation:Quote:
續集….
沒想到被如此關注…質疑的聲音也一片一片的.請大家的心態保持中立,這顆並不是AMD的最強版或許有某些B ug 導致！所以此篇測試僅僅作為參考.因上面所選的2種CPU 分別都支持Turbo 功能（Intel 要稍強於AMD）.在上面的測試中分別都沒有關閉.為了盡量公平又把外設都統一了.BIOS下 AMD 關閉TC/ CIE /CnQ –Intel BIOS 下關閉TB/C3,C6/EIST/CIE
軟件更換Cinebench R11.5
Author never thought that this thread could be so noticeable...so do doubts. Please be neutral, this processor ain't the best from AMD or it might consists some bugs(causing low in score). Take this test with a pinch of salt. Both CPU taken for comparison support turbo feature (Intel is slightly better than AMD in this case). Benchmarks conducted had left turbo enabled. For the sake of equality, all parameters are unified, CPU from AMD has turned off Turbo Core/CIE/CnQ and for Intel side, it has TB/C3,C6/EIST/CIE turned off. (edited: left out of the keyword "turned off")
Benchmark software is now updated to Cinebench R11.5
http://i55.tinypic.com/dw85dd.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/b63s60.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/10zzjm8.jpg
According to an AMD document, the frequency can be as low as 500 MHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
The 980x is a heat producing monster. As far as I know, the new BD desktop chips will maintain the same basic heat profile, so it's possible but unlikely that they'd opt to spend the extra money for something not necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
It is, BIOS problem addition to crippled BD ES. Cannot give exact numbers but when BD gets released, AMD has nothing to worry about.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.Besides dude had to know that presenting fist BD score will get attention :).However as im understanding it, he done the tests his way and wont do them properly nor investigate the problem.Thats a pity.Quote:
Benchmarks conducted had left turbo enabled. For the sake of equality, all parameters are unified, CPU from AMD has turned off Turbo Core/CIE/CnQ and for Intel side, it has TB/C3,C6/EIST/CIE.
Benchmark software is now updated to Cinebench R11.5
Why would ES CPU's be retail packaged with a cooler?Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
It makes sense to me ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
You cannot expect someone to know everything...
I think his point is that it makes no sense for the guy to state both that turbo was on and turbo was off for the AMD system. It can't be both. There's no way for that to make sense to anybody.
Yeah I didn't mean that part of it.
It looks like he said turbo off for amd and turbo on for intel, but then he says the settings were equ :|.
Beats me.
Sounds pretty optimistic!Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
you know JF-AMD is looking at this thread, but cant look away because the thing is too much of a train wreck. lol
JF can look, but he's work is not to surf, or discuss with us about desktop performances, ...Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
He's working for server team, so ... i think he didn't care ... ;)
trust me dude deep down he cares, he may not say it. but he cares.
He cares about people not spreading FUD about super low performance of Bulldozer ;),this can lead to some other serious customers picking up the FUD chatter and asking him or AMD silly questions,all based on crippled ES.
It looks lost in translation to me, here's what babelfish got:Quote:
Originally Posted by NEOAethyr
I'm pretty sure he's saying that all such features are turned off on both systems.Quote:
For as far as possible fair unified the peripheral device under .BIOS AMD to close under TC/CIE /CnQ - Intel BIOS to close TB/C3, C6/EIST/CIE
It's a bit funny that we're quoting chiphell, and at the same time they quote us.:D
Its based on what i have seen with my own eyes and done with my hands :)Quote:
Originally Posted by h0bbes
You've driven a bulldozer :clap: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by richierich
this little baby?
http://www.imemc.org/attachments/oct...9bulldozer.jpg
those numbers are useless because bulldozer is almost certainly not that bad
if it is, well then
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEOAethyr
thanks for clarify it. The original text wrote both systems had all those features turned off!
Anyone knows if the guy is looking into his samples problems ? Its B0, so it should be capable of at least something besides booting.As it looks turbocore is ON ,maybe bios switch on his mobo doesnt work.
Maybe some DOS/linux benches ,like bandwith in memtest should work properly.
For example, my mainborad doesnt have proper turbocore implemented, yet when multi is set to auto, its ON, it gets disabled only when i switch to manual, but then CNQ is on which doesnt work properly also, so to disable it i have to disable it in bios plus in windows,but in dos it just doesnt work.Ill add that when turbo and cnq is on i get pretty abysmal scores, not total idle but frequencies are going all over the place on all cores and it gets maybe 60% of what it should.
I wouldnt be surprised if the reason for the low performance was due to something retarded like the IMC / L3 being extremely declocked along w/ amazingly low RAM speed.
...sooo what does this all mean:confused: that anyone who wants a high end cpu has no choice but should go with the 2600k:(...if not done already.
its even possible that once Bulldozer gets released Intel might increase the prices for the 2600 since currently theyre only 260euro which is pretty cheap for such a high end cpu...same as AMD did past year with the 5850/70 gpus
Should not belive everything you read online. We'll see at launch, but it does worry me a little. That they do not release any real benchmarks prior to the launch. It's like they have something to hide. Though i'm hoping thats not the case.
yes, like they hid k8. not showing anything b4 launch is usually a good sign @amd.
about bd performance: whaka whaka!
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAbenson
intel motherboards a lot more expensive than AMD's, so it's 50-70€ in budget than with an AMD same level of motherboard.
And the fact you change move often of motherboard with intel, is not a good invest for anyone.
Some my benchmarks with x6 1090T@ 2800 MHz, turbo off, core 0 set 2800 MHz, others at 1600 MHz. OS is 32-bit win XP. So, look at this...
Cinebench R10 6646points
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6...t2800mz.th.png
Cinebench R11.5 2.52points
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/955/c...it2800m.th.png
superpi 1M 47.5s
http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/1...1600mhz.th.png
Superpi with core afinity 2800MHz 28.937s
http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/2...2800mhz.th.png
superpi with core affinity 1600 MHz 48.8s
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6...1600mhz.th.png
Thanks for the tests Flanker! How about setting other cores to 800Mhz and let windows affinity at default(let OS bounce the threads of all 6 cores randomly)? Cinebench 11.5 score mimics the BD ES behavior,somewhat.
I can't believe anyone here would believe any of those benches resemble the performance of final silicone. AMD hasn't told us a thing about performance, but if you believe they'll release a chip that is 15 to 30% slower than a current Deneb/Thuban, then I have some beach front property in Arizona that I want to sell you. :)
For those interested,the chiphell poster had to delete/edit his original post.No more crippled Zambezi ES results :D.
So someone called him out, or AMD caught him? j/k
You can say that they're hiding something, but that doesn't tell us how fast BD actually is, unlike many here seem to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by G3XC
We don't release benchmarks before launch. How many times do we have to say that?
Sure AMD won't. But what's to stop someone with an ill-gotten ES from doing so? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
John we all know that but nobody can stop a guy from China posting results from obviously crippled Zambezi ES. After he did that we all had to deal with "omg it's so slow" pots. We are finally past the point of realization that particular ES was indeed crippled and not representative of real FX line(after all,it was so painfully obvious :p: ).
Wich is fair enough. Though could you explain to us not so knowledgeable why its done like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Well, that was a start i guess.Sad that this dude did nothing more.There are probably thousands of people who could shed some light on this architecture for us.Wonder whats stopping them at this point in time.Some of them obviously on this forum ;-).
When AMD doesn't show anything before launch people scream "What are you hiding? FAIL" and at the same time think "I have no patience or self control so I might as well act like AMD have done something wrong!"
If AMD would present the performance months before launch people would scream "Paper launch, STFU! Are you going to show us a Bulldozer chip made of plywood and screws too? Ep1c Phailllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!"
if somebody that has experience w/ BD and whos main pc is an sr2 rig says "amd has nothing to worry about",,, i too have no worries :)
I second that motion.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
" If apple says i don't need flash ... then .. i'm ok with that! " :D ehehehhe just reminds me of this quote :P ehehhe
But now, for real, i'm really expecting BD to be a great chip and be my "entrance door" once again to the green side ...
only difference is apple says it to benefit them ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
and the doors will be open :D
Yup, remember the official horn tooting on 3.0 GHz Phenom I ?? What a phenomenal FAIL ! :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Hi mate, so long doesn't see you in our local forum (chip)Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
Why no performanced leaked until now, it's like the barcelona mArch so much hype then blow away
Hi bro, glad to meet a fellow countryman, especially one who recognize you in a bonafide international forum like this. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by xlimit
CHIP forum just doesn't feel conducive and friendly anymore for me, especially from nVidia fanbois overthere who keep attacking my moderator credibility and moderating action simply because of my personal preference of ATi (AMD) :(, they can't separate my action as a moderator, and my personal opinion as forum member, but let's not getting any further of this OOT, i would be glad conversing with you through PMs. :)
Regarding the silence, it can mean both ways, but specifically on CPU, AMD seems to be more quiet when they had a winner (Athlon 64, aka K8) or decent offering (Phenom II) compared to when they had a flop (Original Phenom).
Theoretically you are right, one core (Single thread) can issue, execute, result 4 micro-ops meaning it could use all the FP pipes (2x FMACs + 2x MMX). But i find it very hard if it could sustain it in real world usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Who would that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
well, not many people with sr-2 rigs on here.. i'm one, but its not me...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=318Quote:
Originally Posted by JkS
It was with 6 cores randomly...Only Superpi I tested with 3 diferent setings (random, affinity to core 0 and afinity to core at 1600 MHz)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Hm, 800 MHz core will be hard, I would have NB down under 2000 MHz. But think, with 800 MHz will be to much bad score.
Hehe, maybe it was DrWho at Chiphell forum :rofl: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The point is that pure single thread fp performance is going to be higher than MT fp performance(divided by number of cores). On top of that comes turbo mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
Well again only for theoretical maximum, it would be very difficult to have 4x micro-ops from a single thread in order to feed all 4 FPU pipes.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Remember the design is been optimized for multithread/multitask and not single thread like Intel's Core architecture (per core).
You seem to have a pretty old version of HWiNFO32.
Few hours ago I released a new public Beta (1230) with more improvements for Bulldozer support..
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
How do you know for what workloads Orochi is optimized/designed? How about we wait and see how it does in real life workloads.Then we can say what AMD had in mind when they designed the thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
not saying the benchmarks are true, but why would AMD give out an ES to a guy who cant seem to figure out that the ES he's got is crippled ?
Crippled ES chips could be used to test early motherboard and/or bios compatibility. During early motherboard development phases the only question is "will it work" and not "will it work well."Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
Later they would want to issue non-crippled chips for stress and performance testing; but they can keep much tighter control of the non-crippled chips. (If this truly is an early crippled ES sample it is probably 6 months old if not older... because at this time I would expect non-crippled chips to be issued by now.)
Yes agree with above post. The ealier the ES revision the less likelly to be anything useful as an indication of final performance. But he could test it on some asus am3 boards and see if that will in fact work.
IIRC, the first ES K8 tests were quite bad. Didnt really turn out that way did it ^^
However, I dont expect BD to have the same impact, certainly not. Ill be happy if it is faster by 10 - 15% compared to 2600k in MT workloads. Lets see what happens
Cmon, were all smarter than this...Quote:
Originally Posted by AAbenson
Four K8 90nm cores @ 3.2 Ghz could beat these scores...
they are not meant to all be used at once. heavily mixed ints and floats in sse is not only rare, but also very slow. at least that is what i have noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
http://www.anandtech.com/Gallery/Album/754#1Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
i did not see any direct statement that it is designed for thread level parallelism but words like "sharing", "throughput", "scalability", etc. all suggest that multicore perf is a major focus.
They did show K8 before launch, there were also some previews if i remember correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Theres one:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/883/4
with real benches?
You said that AMD didnt show hammer, so thats a good sign that theyre not showing bulldozer.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
They did show various hammers on few occasions ,and showed whole platforms to the reviewers (the solo platform).Thats more than we can say about BD.I didnt say they showed numbers.However they were more open about things back then.
First Hammer numbers were obtained June 2002 by Tecchannel who got 1 hour with a 800 Mhz Hammer system, roughly a year before the Opteron release and 15 months before the A64 release.
http://www.tecchannel.de/ueberblick/...mer_prototype/
yes this is what i remember as well k8 wasnt a hush hush release but yea i remember the above quite well.... which is odd because i am perpetually stonedQuote:
Originally Posted by accord99
i hate to say this but this is alot more akin to the k10 release than the clawhammer
OK, now we know what everybody thinks of upcoming release. Now let's wait and see unless you have some real news...
Maybe... the majority of the users are "gamers" and not overclockers anymore ... ;) ehehhehe ( gamers usually stand for a brand and they defend it to the death! eheheh )
It's so sad to close your eyes to all the options you have ... it's like having your vision tuned to only see green or red or blue .... but not the 3 at the same time ...
Oh... did i say Vision? Sorry ... i wanted to say Vision FX tuned to only see green or red or blue ... ahahahhaha ;)
Hammer suffered severe delays due to issues with SOI and the memory controller VERY shortly before launch; that's why benchmarkes were available half a year bfore launch and not 3 months ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mars
that said amd got much quieter after the barcelona fiasco, remember that they showed off 3ghz chips a long time before launch; kept on talking how it's going to destroy C2Q???
i prefer them to be quiet until they release BD instead of talking about huge performance and clocks and disappointing at launch...
Did AMD ever say that Phenom would be able to beat C2Q? We have people today who thinks AMD said BD would beat i7 just because fake slides stated that AMD said so. I'm sure these people will call AMD liars if BD don't beat i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
Even if it managed large wins, if there were a few fringe cases where it didn't beat an i7 those same people would scream about how it's not any faster. When it comes to challenging Intel, a competitor's CPU would have to be undeniably devastating to Intel's current flagship in order for it to be viewed as even a legitimate equivalent.
This isn't specific to Intel or CPUs of course. It's just the psychological curiosity of brand leadership, perceived or real, and is rather intriguing.
There are a lot of hypocrites in here, fanboys complaining about fanboys lol.
IIRC, there was a gentleman from AMD who cherry-picked a single test of Barcelona and noted a 40% gain ...Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
The internets morphed this into BARCELONA IS 40 PERCENT MO' BETTAH.
Then came the TLB, and then the nOverclocking that wasn't semi-corrected until sb 710-50, ACC and the 'magic pins'.
Shortly thereafter the AM2+ 940/920 PhIIs came out.
And now here is a fanboy post complaining about fanboys that are complaining about fanboys. When will it end! :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
^lol
when fuggar requires that all posters in the news section add to their sig their fanboy statuses and reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
half of them are sane and logical and insightful, half are ready to explode on a thread and wipe away hundreds of posts as part of collateral damage
Pfft, more importantly look how far we have come in case design. From some beige box hidden from view in a cabinet to beautiful glass door glowing stages to show off our hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
If you really want to draw conclusions, lets look at K8s code name. "hammer" It smashed the competition. Now "Bulldozer". It will clean up the competition.
:shrug::up::yepp:
this was in 2002, we are 9 years later, don't you think they have the right to change how they will release their products ? And anyway if you read the article you will understand it was made after AMD have show the new K8 during the IDF ... ( lol AMD who was made presentation of their system in an hotel suite during IDF ... i like )Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
( anyway txs for the link, lol, when i think i have start to work on Autocad in the end of eighties, looking at this old anandtech screens have remind me some really old things about pc, damn hopeffuly i have not come down to the AtariST period, incredible how the things have change ) ...
Of course any corporation has the right to do the way they want it.I was merely explaining the fact that hammer introduction wasnt such a "hush hush" as some people think it was.There were plenty of info leading to official launch.And yes it was late, bulldozer is very "late" too.If i remember correctly first squeaks about BD were just a year or two after hammer launch.They stopped the project if i remember correctly, than modified and launched R&D again, and still first one was scrapped, first BD was supposed to be on 45nm ;-).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
In my humble opinion all this people talking about "what it means" when AMD is silent are wrong.Its just current company policy and doesnt have to do with any tactics or any logic.Their just silent.Thats it, it doesnt mean anything.
@Lanek ,and as for fanboy wars, you should check out my avatar and you mentioning Atari ST, we are obviously at war ... :-D
He must have had a "Guru meditation error".....
Amiga Forever!!! ;)
you are excused, you have got a commodore before ... :D this thread is completely derailling ..
So... no news about BD first screens?
We need to create a "BD second screens" thread :D ehehhe
done... check new sig...Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
LOOOOOLLLL stan ... that's not aggressive at all man ;) nice!!! ;) eheheh
if tricheese can have a flamebaiting avatar i can have a flamebaiting sig lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
Hummmm so when is BD scheduled to release?
thats for explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Would do more screens but, that b***h NDA wont give up. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
It was non-crippled chip, "was" because now its dead, yes i killed an BD.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
Must have been hard :yepp:
Roughly 5 weeks from now and we'll know how BD performs. :up:
990FX and the fastest 8 core BD I can get at launch. :up:
Will the server chips launch with the desktop chips?
"This chip will self destruct in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...."Quote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
rintamarotta,
ahahaha ...
" common baby one more mhz ... one more ... one ... * BAMMM * ... oh :banana::banana::banana::banana: ... "
- Phone rings -
" Hello, Rinta speaking. Ohhh hello Mr. warever from AMD that ownz my BD ... yeah ... the chip is ... ok ...errr working properly! Oh... you want it back? Welll... you know ... i think my German Sheppard just hate it ... and ... oh ... w8 ... the dog is over-volted ... sorry, gotta go! Cya! "
ehehehe
does your NDA prevent you from telling us how you managed to do that? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by rintamarotta
Yeah ... that would be cool to know :)
IF he is under NDA, hes violating it right now. and IF he destroyed a BD sample, hes in trouble (not such much for a validating sample).