The first question I would ask you is why do you have to change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
The second question would be "is it worth changing before you have all of the data on both systems?"
I am not a client guy, but if you buy without knowing what both sides are really delivering then you take the risk. It's your call.
Hello John,Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Thanks for answering first :yepp:
First question :
I got an old P5B Deluxe board (4 years old), works really good, crunching 24/7 (until death certainly ...) but I need a new rig soon. I got the money (for one time :D) so I will be on buying something in 2011.
Second question :
That's always the same question dude :D
I'm already waiting for AMD's or Intel's responses, that's the game :p:
But, from one side, I know barely perfs and launch date and on the other side, I don't know perfs and launch date.
I can understand the secrecy game John, Bulldozer is a really important card in AMD's game, but it's a double-edged weapon.
A little bit of teasing will be good, no ? :D
I'd call that a miracle. I've never seen a stepping change gain 10% on any platform. Unless the stepping change allows you to clock your frequencies higher, the performance increase is not happening. Most stepping changes are minor tweaks to the core to correct deficiencies (errata), and to allow chips to run at lower TDP as the process matures. The only chip I remember that gained anything from a stepping change was the Athlon XP, Thoroughbred A to Thoroughbred B. But that was achieved by adding an extra metal layer to the silicon, not by core enhancements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
I have money now to spend on a new system. If Sandy Bridge totally cleans the clock of my X6 system, then I'll buy Intel if AMD refuses to release any performance data at that time.
anyway ... what i meant is that its possible for a company with 6 months ahead of its competition to take advantage of it ... so its normal that amd wont release info before the product release
Ahh JF..i'am happy to read that ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
Like i said before..so long i don't see any chess result i never buy a new system!
Intel or AMD can come with so many charts from there own benchmarks..they are useless for a customer with his daily program!
Don't get me wrong..they are all interesting..but useless to know if these new cpu's from Intel or AMD will be better for Chess!
JP.
If Anandtech showed us what SB is capable of 4 months before release, how can anyone expect a similar article about BD before February 2011?
huh? on the contrary, instead of adding more cache they used their transistor budget to refine the logic, ie better power management, better ht, integrate the memory controller onto the cpu...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomasis
yorkfield = 12MB L2 = 3MB/Core
bloomfield = 2MB L2 and 8MB L3 = 2.5MB/Core
Introducing SB EP,with massive 20MBs of L3 :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
ps For the record,I see nothing wrong in big caches.
What about a cache miss?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I can live with that. I'd wait until Feb '11 to see some numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
mats: amd IS NOT iNTEL, DO U NOT REMEMBER AT FIRST tHUBANS BENCHAMRKS? EVERY YEAR IS IT HARDER AND HARDER, THUBAN RESULTS WAS ABOUT 14 DAYS BEFORE LAUNCH, LOOK AT AMD GRAPHIC CARDS, DO U KNOW NOW ABOUT HD6900 ABOUT REAL PERFORMANCE? OR SIMILLARY SITUATION BEFORE YEAR WITH HD5000 ?? OR LAST DAYS BEFORE HD6800 LAUNCH? FIRST EBCHMARKS LEAKED ABOUT 10 DAYS BEFORE NDA.
they DO have a large cache option... but its not the default config...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
the basic sb config has the same l2 size and a SMALLER l3 than bloomfield...
but they reworked the cache structure and try to make it more efficient... whether it is idk, but i guess so... and again they didnt use their transistor budget on copy pasting more cache into the chip, but used it on logic, smarter power management, integrated a gpu, added avx etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
chess benchmark ???? what for ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
maybe bulldozer will have something to help with that ... since we dont know too much ... how will the amount of cache make sense to anyone ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
so amd copy pasted more cache and did nothing else to bulldozer???
share your info mate id like to know more about bulldozer before anyone else
Very simple..it's my daily program!
that didnt really tell me how a chess benchmark could do something on the daily part of your life ....Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
There is saaya and there is sayaa. Different people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
huh ... so 2 sayaa ????
i hope both dont have the same avatar
LOL
slower and worse perf/mm2;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
It cuts both ways. I am also taking a very heavy risk if I wait for a new processor from AMD to build my rig without having even an iota of knowledge about the product or even specific month of launch. Especially, when we know that Bulldozer was supposed to launch in 2009. wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by JF-AMD
The problem is that AMD is the only competitor of Intel and unfortunately we have pretty good idea about how Intel's next CPU is going to turn out. You can't keep enthusiasts, most of whom in fact care about AMD, in dark and just give them empty words to cling on. Intel is a tough beast to compete with but more secrecy from you guys doesn't really inspire confidence.
I sincerely hope some solid info is coming next week... no performance data but at least a working chip shown in public and a specific launch schedule.
If you are an enthusiast who cares about AMD, then you would understand why they must keep performance quiet until the right time.
idk why you guys just don't give up on getting performance data for now. amd wants to hold their cards close to their chests. most people wait till launch to gauge 2 equivalent platforms, then make an informed decision. amd will not lose out on much sales by keeping information as long as possible on performance and really look at their track record the last 3 or 4 years the more quite they are the better the part tends to be ;) just wait for the chip to come out guys and stop begging for benches as of now. they'll come when they come. I cant wait either :P but i understand amds position im gonna be upgrading sometime within the next year and i hope amd can compete or i might go intel for the first time :(
No, I don't. When a company is low on trust among the people who care about it, it can't just sit and think that bad times will pass. As I said earlier, I don't have confidence in AMD anymore unless I see some chips in action. And no, I am not an Intel fanboy. In fact, I am biased towards AMD because it's the underdog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
In technology, not only it is important to have market share (something AMD never had) but also mind share (something which allows AMD to compete against Intel and something that it has lost badly on CPU side of things).
If they really have goodies in store, they ought to show them. Just a peak of it or they should go back to labs and work and not give false hopes of a magical CPU with a "radically-different architecture".
Dude we are talking about 8 and 16 core products here.AMD's 8 core chip will have less total cache than intel's 8 core SB EP.No matter how you try to turn this around it doesn't fit the story that AMD somehow throws huge caches at problems while intel is sooo nice investing in logic improvements.That's just BS. AMD's 8 core orochi will have a less "per core" cache if you will,then intels SB EP (8 core) : 2MB/ core Vs 2.75MB / core.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Orochi 2module/4 core will have 8MB of total cache(4MB L2 + 4MB L3),again,less or equal total cache than SB 4C/8T models without iGPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatter
enthusiast are 1% of the market .... get real dude ... jf-amd isnt working for the client side first of all and 2nd of all even so he wouldnt spill details before his boss tell him to do so .... he has teams of lawyers who go through everything before he can say anything about a product ... its for corporate reasons .... so wait or go intel .. its as simple as that ..... and no begging will change the situation
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatter
LOL please mate ... get real ... amd hold their cards secretly so they can amaze us at the last minute .. theyve been doing it sincethe last couple of years and its been working nicely ... give em a break ... your part of a 1% of total sales market ...
be glad they even develop parts for our market ....
Yeh, like Phenom and Phenom II and Thuban... all of which pales in comparison to competitor's products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
First of all, I am not asking JF-AMD to spill reveal trade secrets. It's a not a personal conversation. But yes, I would like AMD (don't care if it comes through JF-AMD or an official press release) to tell us a little more about BD.
I know what corp comm is and I know what lawyers do. i also know pretty well what trade secrets are. But there is a reason why marketing and PR exists. Unfortunately, I don't see AMD using either of them. Mostly it's just stupid promises. Llano in Q4, 2010, Fusion in early 2010, BD in 2009... everything has been promised.
As far as your 1% is concerned, sadly that's all AMD has. Such is the hold of Intel that out there in the market, AMD won't survive if it's not for the 1%. At least, not in desktops.