AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

It's not as if you guys are entitled to information about it just because you want to know. They'll tell you when they're good and ready, and that is absolutely both their right and their prerogative.

---

Pretty much. Plus, he's here voluntarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

It's not as if you guys are entitled to information about it just because you want to know. They'll tell you when they're good and ready, and that is absolutely both their right and their prerogative.

---

Granted, but if AMD truly has something spectacular, it'd be a smart move to start showing off some performance numbers given the proximity to the release date. The amount of excitement seems to have really died down. That's not to say I'm neither excited or optimistic about it, just the silence does not look good. Intel moving SB-E to a 2012 launch date I think is the only thing helping right now, which if they are bluffing and release it when originally planned... Well, I'm just thankful the chances of that are slim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyck

:shakes::shakes::shakes:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

---

BD top chip at launch is going to be 10% slower on average than Intel's 2600K. I've said it and I stand by it. There has not been enough IPC improvements to overcome Intel's SB. It will do fantastic in
multi thread programs, but not so good in programs that utilize one or two threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JF-AMD

Perhaps everyone should consider that AMD did not release these benchmarks and they might not even be real. Nothing I have seen, to date, has been representational of actual performance.

---

Yeah, because the "actual performance" is lower than what we've seen. //Sarcasm Nothing to say otherwise from AMD so I'll assume horrible performance and not get any high hopes. LOL.... BD = failure if it's not as fast or faster than Intel 2600K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

BD top chip at launch is going to be 10% slower on average than Intel's 2600K. I've said it and I stand by it. There has not been enough IPC improvements to overcome Intel's SB. It will do fantastic in
multi thread programs, but not so good in programs that utilize one or two threads.

---

in what benchmark? single thread both maxing out turbo, 4 threads? 8 threads? overclocked or stock?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Yeah, because the "actual performance" is lower than what we've seen. Nothing to say otherwise from AMD so I'll assume horrible performance and not get any high hopes. LOL.... BD = failure if it's not as fast or faster than Intel 2600K.

---

How about you quit acting like you know everything and acting a fanboy. Wait until the damn product is released before coming to conclusions please.

Nobody went around talking about Conroe like you do Zambezi so I suggest giving it a rest, no? You might be suprised that AMD has a competitive chip, or maybe you are just afraid of AMD being competition.

1100T @ 4ghz scores the same as a 2600k stock in pcmark i think it is. we all know 2600k is 3.8 turbo at stock so how bad is 1100T again? BD is gona smoke them all. i use to think 6 months ago that BD would land between 2600k and 990x but i think different now.

all things being equal for even 1100T and 2600k gpu ram ect..... in games there is what maybe a 10fps difference... still dont see how that is getting smoked,killed, omg loook at that intel go.

heres a really good one >>> but i have a i7 .... ok. then they show you cpuz @ 4.5 and you see there cheapo ram (not that ram makes much diff on a 2nd gen i7) and some 5350 or a 450 or lower gpu and they think that there system is pWn or someother term they have learned.

ok done with my rant and letting out my AMD koolaid. LMAO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBeep2

How about you quit acting like you know everything and acting a fanboy. Wait until the damn product is released before coming to conclusions please.

Nobody went around talking about Conroe like you do Zambezi so I suggest giving it a rest, no? You might be suprised that AMD has a competitive chip, or maybe you are just afraid of AMD being competition.

---

I'm a fanboy of my wallet. I have no allegiance to AMD or Intel. I won't "give it a rest" until AMD releases some numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

I'm a fanboy of my wallet. I have no allegiance to AMD or Intel. I won't "give it a rest" until AMD releases some numbers.

---

Hey Beep, he is fully entitled to his opinion, as are you and as is everybody else.

Freeloader, you do come across like you are always throwing your dummy out the pram though.....

tell us what we don't know about BD

AMD reveals new details on upcoming Bulldozer chips
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/...e_skin;content

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkullCracka

all things being equal for even 1100T and 2600k gpu ram ect..... in games there is what maybe a 10fps difference...

---

lol probably less than that, it's the GPU that makes the difference. my P2 x6 runs every game I throw at it smoothly, even at stock 3.2ghz.
I rarely convert audio or compress files, or do anything very CPU intensive I mostly game, so if you gave me both systems with the same GPU I probably wouldn't even notice the difference.

Quote:

---

BD top chip at launch is going to be 10% slower on average than Intel's 2600K. I've said it and I stand by it.

---

Personally, I prefer not to put all my eggs in one basket. Makes for less of a mess later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

BD top chip at launch is going to be 10% slower on average than Intel's 2600K. I've said it and I stand by it. There has not been enough IPC improvements to overcome Intel's SB. It will do fantastic in
multi thread programs, but not so good in programs that utilize one or two threads.

---

What kind of logic is that?
-10% on average it cannot win any multithreaded application!
Because if it would win by 20% in multithreaded you won't reach 10% slower on average.

So you probably mean -10% on low threaded applications? Well guess what, AMD has 10-20% clockspeed advantage on anything using 2-4 threads. (which is the majority of the desktop applications). Even phenom2 with l3 at 2.6GHz would be competitive in those applications with that clockspeed advantage. So i see no reason why FX8 8150 wouldn't be competitive in those applications. It will be a different matter for the FX4 and FX6 which do not have such a clockspeed advantage between 2-4 threads. FX4 (~2%) (FX6 has 2-10% for 2-4threads)

I'm not worried about BD performance at launch at all. It will competetive in performance and price. But the high clock design could mean that AMD is hitting a performance ceiling pretty soon. How much further can they take the stock speeds? 5Ghz turbo? At one point they will have to start adding power through extra cache or improvements of the core itself. We know that a 2nd and 3rd generation BD are being prepared but it will be interesting to see what road they are going to take there. What we don't want is 4-5 years of AMD on the same arch with not much room for growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v0dka

It will competetive in performance and price. But the high clock design could mean that AMD is hitting a performance ceiling pretty soon. How much further can they take the stock speeds? 5Ghz turbo?

---

Bulldozer as 18 FO4 design will have 1,3x clock speed of Llano on the same voltage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

BD top chip at launch is going to be 10% slower on average than Intel's 2600K. I've said it and I stand by it. There has not been enough IPC improvements to overcome Intel's SB. It will do fantastic in
multi thread programs, but not so good in programs that utilize one or two threads.

---

Let's see:
2600K on average gets 213.4pts. 1100T gets 165.8pts. 10% slower than 2600K for 3.6Ghz Zambezi would mean 213.4/1.1=194pts. This in turn is around 16% faster than 3.3Ghz X6 Thuban according to the chart. Note that Zambezi has 9% clock advantage.
So basically you expect that Bulldozer design,which is a:
-whole new uarchitecture,with many bottlenecks from K8/K10 removed and better utilization of execution units,new redesigned int and fp pipelines,
-33% more cores,
-13% higher Turbo core clock : 4.2Ghz vs 3.7Ghz (which now runs across 4 cores and not only 3),
-higher default clock of 9% (3.6Ghz vs 3.3Ghz),
-somewhat higher IPC in integer/fp(as per AMD)
-better power management
to run slower than Thuban 1100T. Do you see the problem in your logic? Zambezi will not be only 16% faster than Thuban. Turbo core ALONE will get you there,disregarding the effect of 33% more cores or improvements in the cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Let's see:
2600K on average gets 213.4pts. 1100T gets 165.8pts. 10% slower than 2600K for 3.6Ghz Zambezi would mean 213.4/1.1=194pts. This in turn is around 16% faster than 3.3Ghz X6 Thuban according to the chart. Note that Zambezi has 9% clock advantage.
So basically you expect that Bulldozer design,which is a:
-whole new uarchitecture,with many bottlenecks from K8/K10 removed and better utilization of execution units,new redesigned int and fp pipelines,
-33% more cores,
-13% higher Turbo core clock : 4.2Ghz vs 3.7Ghz (which now runs across 4 cores and not only 3),
-higher default clock of 9% (3.6Ghz vs 3.3Ghz),
-somewhat higher IPC in integer/fp(as per AMD)
-better power management
to run slower than Thuban 1100T. Do you see the problem in your logic? Zambezi will not be only 16% faster than Thuban. Turbo core ALONE will get you there,disregarding the effect of 33% more cores or improvements in the cores.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the BD "core" smaller than K10 core? How much of a performance impact could that have (single threaded loads)?

It's not smaller. Llano core is 9.69mm^2 without L2. BD module is 19.4mm^ without L2. If you look only at integer cores then we have 3.84mm^2 for BD integer core and 3.3mm^2 for one Llano integer "core" (or part of the core that does integer execution). Also,if we look at a BD module without the second integer core and without L2 and compare it to one K10 core on 32nm we have : 15.58mm^2 vs 9.69mm^2.In this case (mimicking the scenario of single thread execution within the module),we have all the resources that are shared being used by this single core.This means using the much faster FPU and much better prefetching and branch prediction abilities of the frontend ,all for the single thread.

This is the last of OBR

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/08...monthyear.html

What happen with this guy? :confused:

who cares?

I belive that posting stuff from OBR is not allowed on XS..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cesariuth

This is the last of OBR

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/08...monthyear.html

What happen with this guy? :confused:

---

Attachment 119357

what different

B2 / C0 stepping

Yeah, he's pathetic, but PLEASE POSTING FROM THAT SITE!!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT HIS BS AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.
He's an attention whore and all you do by posting links here is helping him...

STOP MESSING UP THE TREAD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Update, July 27, 2011:

Something has been happening with increasing frequency that needs to stop: linking or referring to the work of banned members (whether that's to their posts on another forum or to a site/blog they now run). This is a forum-wide rule but is of particular concern in the News Section where first infraction = temporary forum ban and permanent News Section ban.

Some banned members leak early hardware benchmarks or roadmaps that may seem important, but when somebody has been removed from XS, they no longer have a right to have a voice on XS.

---

MODS: Isn't it possible to get certain URL's replaced with smilies, just like when i write :banana::banana::banana::banana:? Can't you just put that O-word on the same list?

i find it interesting that he takes a quote from this thread, then we quote him quoting this thread, lol