I need to see to believe.
But who knows they are taking this long for the release so it must be something good.
Printable View
I need to see to believe.
But who knows they are taking this long for the release so it must be something good.
this might be with two CPUs.
I'm hoping it's with a single quad core CPU.
DAMN YOU AMD HURRY YOURSELVES UP I HATE THE SUSPENSE. I NEED TO KNOW IF I SHOULD BUY A PENRYN OR A K10 NOW.
I think you might be onto something there....Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
We will just have to wait and see, even if they match intel it will make for good competition, and makes it all better for us as well.
Im excited either way. When new cpus come out things get very interesting in the community (and my bank account)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
Horse :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: imo
Of course they will, and AMD will make a much better chip later on too, and back and forth. Nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jass
From the way you put that though, it sounds like an intel fanboy statement to me...
I gotta say, i smell the BS.
Inq or no Inq.... Theo is a straight forward guy.
Do we need to debate this for the next 2 weeks? 100 people who don't actually know anything arguing whether or not someone else actually knows anything.
Kind of humorous if you ask me :D :rofl:
yesQuote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
Either way, sept 10th and more so sept 11 things are going to explode. I wonder if this was intentional?
If that is true AMD has got a winner on its hands again!
Something to consider is that since Theo's laptop was stolen, perhaps AMD gave the Inq permission to post the numbers and be in control of it before whomever the thief was posted what they found. (provided the thief could access his laptop and had any idea what is happening in the tech world).
Not saying this is true or not but seems like you havent realized that this is a 3GHz part probably cherry picked from many and far from mass production speeds.
We dont even know if a Quad will overclock to 3GHz on air at launch.
This is what i know:
K10 was going to beat badly intel if:
1 AMD delivered it when they planed to that is at least 6 months befor the 10 of sept.
2 AMD didnt have so many leakage problems and could get the CPUs at a decent clock speed at launch.
So Intel have had 45nm CPUs for at least 3 months now if they needed to launch them and they are only waiting for AMD and not that worried because with 45nm and 8-10% performance increase from Penryn core Intel can lower prices a lot and push the clocks speeds enough then comes Nehalem the real K10 fighter / killer
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
you really should sig that cause i'm pretty sure i've seen you post it before :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RyderOCZ
me agrees with ya
plus Theo has given us most of the info needed to replicate these results when the CPUs come out so we will know for sure whether he lied or not soon
i doubt he's go shooting himself in the foot though :confused:
This looks doubtfull, as this is just a reincarnation of K8. But, then again, it could possibly be true as well.
The way that I look at it, is this. The Inq is already known for BS. But, I would think that if they already knew that the legitamacy of their claims was being questioned, that they wouldn't drop this big of a bomb, and not be right.
If these results are true, then it is possible that AMD is trying to catch Intel off guard, and knock them on their a**.
wait a second... they got 30k score using windows vista???
also DDR2????
Indeed I believe this is finally it. K10 is here and Intel are cooked :)
:up: AMD......I ****ING LOVE YOU :up:
Don't be so quick, I think we should wait for verification from another source.Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLDNER-MOFO64
Also, intel won't be cooked, they've engrained themselves so deeply into the market (by whatever means necessary practically) that they aren't going anywhere. K8 whooped intel for 3 years and they easily survived it.
Theo was the guy who claimed AMD's 65nm K8s were going to launch at 3.2GHz, per "voices from the east". Never retracted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonelCain
The datapoints cannot both be correct, as 3dmark06 does not scale like that. (23.7K @ 2.5GHz, 30K @ 3GHz with 10% boost to GPU). That's a 26% score increase with 20% cpu freq boost and 10% gpu speed boost. Bzzzt. Wrong. So it calls everything into question.
Something else I picked out of this "article" to re enforce it's status as BS is...
Now, just how exactly is that possible? Anybody that knows how memory is handled will know. But is basically this: A 32bit OS only has 4GB total memory addresses. So with 2 512MB cards taking up the 1st GB that would leave Windows with an allocatable 3GB of system RAM, not 3.24GB.Quote:
the 32-bit version was installed in a system with 4GB of memory, needless to say the system detected 3.24GB, and benchmarketing commenced.
This is BS and it did exactly what the writer intended it to do: Stir up controversy and draw attention to their sad excuse of a site (the INQ that is)
Um, you obviously don't have 2900's. Nor do you know ANYTHING about how system ram is handled.:fact:
they take a mere 256mb of system ram, thanks. Vista Home premium, 32. Not EVERY memory address must be accounted for, really. Heck, 256MB 9800 pro's only used 128MB of vidram, at the beginning...
Guess you don't run dual cards, period, 'cause that's been the case for 512MB cards since day one.:fact:
Nevermind, my system right now has phys-X, 128mb, and removing it DOES NOT CHANGE THE AMT OF AVAILABLE SYSTEM ram. You gotta stop beleiving everything you read, man.
A 512MB card that windows only allocates 256MB of RAM to? I doubt it, and if that's the case then there is obviously something very wrong with them or the drivers. Because in order for windows to use or even know the memory is there, it has to assign it a memory address. If it's only assigning them 256MB each, then there is something clearly wrong with them. It is not possible for Windows to use un addressed memory, since if it's not addressed it doesn't exist to windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
And I do run dual 8800GTXs and in 32Bit XP it only shows a max of 2.5GB of RAM available when both of my GTXs are installed.
Sucks to be you, then i guess.
Open your MIND man.
(BTW, take no offense, none intended, however, i got 2900's, 6 of them, right here, and many systems w/ 4GB of ram. i know how things work, you, do not, as you have never had teh hardware)
Open my mind you say? I've run dual card setups for a long time, and every time in a 32bit OS windows allocates all of the memory that both video cards posses.Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
2 8800GTXs = 1.5GB of memory addresses
2 X1950XTXs = 1GB of memory addresses
2 7900GTs = 512MB of memory addresses
Or are you trying to say that only for me this is different?