the lack of PWM and Chipset cooling is worryingQuote:
Originally Posted by Fatfool
these things are designed for cases with forced airflow not a huge enthusiast case without any directed ariflow :shakes:
Printable View
the lack of PWM and Chipset cooling is worryingQuote:
Originally Posted by Fatfool
these things are designed for cases with forced airflow not a huge enthusiast case without any directed ariflow :shakes:
Show me da dozer and I shall show you both processors in their sockets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
Bulldozer is just looking too awesome (in any case, even clock for clock) to waste cash on a second processor which will be vastly outclassed
Could have used one of those enthusiast heatsinks which blow downwards like the scythe shuriken.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
Good thing I swapped the stock chipset heatsink for a full copper enzotech one. Couldn't find one for the lower chipset (southbridge?) cooler though. :shakes:
I guess the circular one would work:
http://www.enzotechnology.com/images/cnb_r1_photo4.jpg
edit: nope, this one looks custom sized
No biggie, the forumers will find a way from active chipset cooling to a liquid cooled monster :ROTF:
I prefer mine silent.... hope it doesn't come back to haunt my ass in the future. :rofl:
Btw, notice the odd copper row at the top left corner of the board?
Some genius decided to forget to place a heatsink on. I'm improvising with some copper BGA heatsinks. They seem to be holding up for now but probably can't do so if I had another processor. I can imagine the look on a server admin's face when he drops in both processors without a care and it toasts itself :ROTF:
By the way, I can't get the temps on this board. There aren't any sensors whatsoever?! :shocked: Can't find it in the bios either.
Or perhaps the chipset is so new, I can't get readings on it. Anyone know of proggies that can monitor it.
Also, memtest86 throws up a ton of errors, too absurd to be true (I let it run and it kept of showing errors till it was like 2+gb and I shut it off)
Previous hot chips presentation video is now available online(HC 22,Aug 2010):
http://www.hotchips.org/archives/hc2.../session7.html
On the AMD side Mike Butler ,AMD Fellow,presented Bulldozer module and techniques AMD used to increase performance and perf./watt and decrease power and die area investment at the same time.
Interesting tidbit from the Q&A is the question about opportunistic prefetch of the cores and whether 2nd core's prefetched data in the shared L2 can be used by 1st core(answer was yes,constructive prefetch in L2 is possible). Also Mr Butler confirms 3 memory ops capability per core while there are only 2 visible AGLU units in the diagram(2 128bit loads and 1 128bit store per cycle per core). AMD was emphasizing their instruction and data prefetch and the aggressiveness of those. These features seem to be one of the major performance increasing contributors in the bulldozer module.
Lets bury for real that stupid war between overclockers and JF-AMD about 2P overclockable systems. Lets check the problem by type of potential buyers
First, you have the enthusiast gamers who build his own computer to be able to play crysis at high details. These buyers dont need 2P systems cause most of the game dont even need more than 4 core for decent gameplay and also game developpers don't want to make their game too much threaded if the majority of their potential buyer only have a 2-4 core cpu and a mid-range gpu cause that would cut their profits. So gamers dont need 2p overclockable systems
Next up, we have the extreme overclocker who can buy the best of the best and needs the best of best to stay competitive. Happily for the overclocking sport, 2p systems are bad in the benchmarks that is used in overclocking, cause if 2p systems would be doing good, it would limit again the number of people that can be competitive in this sports because the cost of the systems would rise alot. And less people who can be competitive means less fun for the top guys who when they get at the top, can never be took out from the top by a newcomer because its a very small amount of people that can buy the systems needed to get to the top and it makes it also not fun for new people to try to be competitive because the cost is way too high and they cant afford it. So the overclocking scene dont want 2p overclockable systems that can destroy overclocking world record easily.
Then we have the usual 2p systems users ( scientific, video editor, content creator and cad), happily for them, most of their normal software now use both the cpu and the gpu (cuda, mercury engine, opengl) so they don't need anymore the biggest amount of cpu power for a reasonnable cost ( a normal 2p systems cost somewhere between 5 to 10 grand while a 4p systems normally start near 15 grand) cause now they can also add some gpu power to cut down the waiting times for the work to be done( and for most of them doing more work in the same amount of time for more profits or faster research) and also mostly because they need 99% stability while gamers need about 75% stability and overclockers need 20-50% stability because they dont want to redo their work because of a unstable overclocked cpu even thought they dont need 99.999999999% stability of mission-critical 4p servers. Most of the potential buyers use their computer for their job, if the computer is not stable, they are just simply losing money. So usual 2p systems buyers dont need 2p overclockable systems.
After we have servers and as i said they need 99.99999999% stability something that a overclocked systems cant do and most of them need the most memory and the most cpu power they can get so they are mostly 4p systems potential buyers.
Finally, we have a very small group called The Crunchers, which wants the most cpu power, need about 80-85% stability, want low electricity usage, overclocking options because they dont need as much stability as the normal workstation buyer and some of them also need the most pci-e lane they can get for distributed computing projects that can use gpu powers. They are a though crowd to please and they are a small group of potential buyers, sure we would be happy to have 4p or 2p overclockable systems but we can also be very happy with 1p systems or just have the right connection for some unlocked es cpu.
So the only person that could ask for some 2p overclockable systems are crunchers and as JF-AMD said we are a too small amount of potential buyers for them to do some R&D and testing for a couple thousand of cpu sold to crunchers.
While i dont agree with some of your points (cuda isnt answer to everything).
Affordable 2P system for enthusiasts wouldnt cost that much.
That isnt changing the fact that on the Intel side, there is one ;-) .So again discussion is moot.And JF tells us also that high end single socket are useless, which is, well, only thing he can say considering AMD doesnt plan on having one.
While i appreciate JF`s many contributions to the forum and general knowledge he can bring to us.Fact is, he works for the company, so he MUST say what they expect of him and FULLY support current AMD strategy. Besides, affordable desktop 2P system is not what opteron salesman wants.
i'd have thought it is in AMD's interest to bring back the 4X4 platform , 2P desktops. even if 5% of users go for it it'll sell a lot of cpu's and make the performance difference which is massive in favor of Intel moot due to price of AMD CPU's,Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV666
Then there is always the Marketing opportunity to the "future proof" crowd.
You still dont get it ???Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV666
Desktop 2p systems with overclocking possibility with the unlocked multi that you guys ask means alot of money for testing,validation and R&D, sure its not as much as much as making a complete new cpu but its still a couple of millions dollars that amd must get back in profits. Also for the there is one on the intel side, you know that its a special one-off project made by EVGA and not Intel, its EVGA alone that decided to make a overclockable 2p xeon motherboard, i am pretty sure it has cost them a load of money in R&D and that they might still not be making any money from it but getting the R&D cost back from others revenues. Intel did nothing in this case, we were just lucky to have the possibility to overclock the bclk on those xeon and still you have to shell out 2 grand for 2 decent cpu with decent locked multi if you want to have any decent overclock. Also, yes i know cuda isnt the awnser to everything but both cuda and opengl will help alot in the future for typical workstation user as the industry standards software are starting to use them to get faster results.
And for high end single socket didnt i just proved in my last post the usefulness of them ? Overclockers, high-end gamers and crunchers all wants high end single socket, they might not be a big group alone but together they are enough to be worth the R&D.
As for affordable desktop 2p systems from opetrons, i guess you never looked at some amd 2p systems ??? a single socket lga 1366 will set you about 700$ here in canada for the cpu,mobo and memory while a 2p amd socket c32 rig could cost me about 900$, i find it quite affordable.
I believe he is saying that John is defending AMD NOT having a high end single socket system, which in many ways he is. You believe its worth having that type of system and I think everyone here in XS wants high end single socket AMD desktops. But John keeps emphasizing that will not happen any time soon. 8 core socket AM3+ is the best we will get period, and there wont be a product out to counter intel's socket 2011.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoro
I believe that is his frustration and of all of us really...
I fall into this category. Can't wait to get back to editing and encoding my videos. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by snoro
Still, At the price and performance of these C32 rigs, they could be marketed, without any substantial changes to the enthusiast (not overclocking, I mean more of DIY) crowd. (as in 'look at how this beats the 980x on price and perfromance!' and not 'zomg! look at how it can overclock and take all the benchmarks'.) after all, the boards have already been designed and produced.
but as JF has said, not profitable.
But Interlagos beating LGA 2011 :D... I am still not sure about LGA2011 and SB desktop...(Think, it will be later - Q4 2011/Q1 2012 as IB.
Actually they don't. They just need to flog them the same processors used for servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoro
I was talking about both the 2P systems and high performance 1P systems.In both cases i dont get it ;-).Quote:
Originally Posted by snoro
Because i just plainly dont believe that unlocking multiplier and modifying existing infrastructure (only the bios really, which im pretty sure they have internally for testing purposes anyway) would cost 5mil.
I DO get it why JF is defending his company tho.
AND 1P high performance systems (1366/2011 type of thing) which AMD isnt going for also.(Think G34 1P system for example to REALLY lower costs).
And as for the affordability, good point you can get 2P C32 system for 900$.
Which will be slower than 6Core @4.5ghz cheaper intel platform.On the other hand, if you could get these optys up to speed...
And as to the EVGA debacle, i really dont believe either intel or evga is losing money on these systems, and im sure intel had to give green light to evga, they wouldnt sell them chipsets if they didnt have the blessing.
And from what i understood from various JF comments, AMD is NOT going to give green light for such a project.
Anyhow, i just think i can summarize whole discussion.
AMD defenders say:
AMD is goin to lose money on it!
AMD attackers say:
Theres no logical reason they would!Intel ISNT!.
There is slim chance that bulldozer will be competetive even in its 8core form with 8core sandy/ivy bridge.Lets hope :up:
rav666, check how big intel is with its employers, R&D, revenues compared to amd.
come back to reality thanks
Reality check done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomasis
AMD did have Athlon mp boards(had one), AMD did have dual FX boards.
AMD doesnt need to do anything pretty much besides changing its approach to enthusiast market.
Check. :up:
Its companys policy and current market strategy, not inability to do so.
There won't be client 2P boards. Check.
If you want 2P ,buy 2P server class board with 2 Interlagos chips in Q3.They will automatically "overclock" with the new Turbo,so you don't need to OC it manually. You'll need a couple of grands though.
Don't get interlagos darn it.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Just get Valencia. Should be much cheaper.
Well he seems like uber enthusiast. Why stop at 2x8 cores,he should go all the way to 32cores(if he is that extreme) :p:
Actually what i would like the best is single processor interlagos platform that i can overclock :up:
Should serve me for 3+ years just like my AM2+ platform is :p:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV666
yes and it didnt turn out nice right .. and since then the recession and all ... how's that for a reality check ....
and amd doesnt have the same R&D budget that intel has ... want more ideas on why its pointless to argue about what jf-amd tells us ...
every project needs to be looked at from a financial standpoint .. R&D and ROI ... and everything ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV666
cant wait till amd releases a platform with 12 cores in a couple of years ???
what are the programs you are running that really need that much cores ...
maybe example superpi :D
And now they have quad and up chips and the market for those dual systems went away. You will not get what you are wanting from AMD, it makes no sense at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV666
Main problem with using available systems is low clocks.And high cost of a LITTLE faster chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
AMD offerings for some time now are non overclockable and have low powerformance (because of low stock clocks) in any but server applications, which limits its use a lot.
Who would buy such systems ?
Well i would buy high performance system from AMD, i would build a high performance workstation also for a graphics designer i work with.
There is market ,albeit smaller than it was.
Intel and apple proves that there is.
I pretty much said all i could, and put all my points some time ago in this and other threads.
On a side note, what i find worrying/weird is the fact that people seem to "defend" corporations when its actions are pretty much set against our (the enthusiast community) needs.
Once we the consumer demanded, and we often have gotten it (xtreme editions, FX series, BE editions and now K editions) are all a product of "we want more" mentality.
Yet now i see people defending the right of intel to screw us with sandy bridge anti overclocking design ,with disabling functionality (HT VT and so on) .Yea, they can, its their product.But to actually defend that aproach when youre part of a community that needs the opposite is absurd (for me at least).
Same goes of course for AMD "fans" , i say "fans" because i think that a true fan wants his team to excel and do extraordinary things ,not be mediocre.
We the consumers, and enthusiasts, should demand more, not less.We may be relatively small .but i really dont think our impact is small, i alone am responsible for hardware buys and configuration of dozens of people, and everyone of us is.And more, people here are more often than not people who make decisions in larger corporations.
You need one board, with one unlocked bios, with a one unlocked SKU to make many DIYers happy.
Thats politics, not engineering or money issue.
first things first, AMD is smaller than Intel, why this is important:
lets say that 2P/MCM overclockable workstations are 1% of the market, and an analyst did the math and found out making a system to fit that will only be profitable if the own more than 40% of that market. (bulls**t numbers for the sake of an example). right now the market share for AMD is much smaller, and its a very high risk to introduce something that is not going to profit unless there is a MAJOR jump in brands.
secondly there is still evolution in how servers are being used.
the main way to break down needs is a PC will fall into one of 2 groups. the most powerful machine you can afford that will not be used all the time, or the most power effecient machine that will cost the least over a long period of time. gamers clearly want high power because their electric bill will be 5% of their total cost, and a cruncher might be ok with a 2000$ 2P that saves them 300$ a month compared to client systems.
But what about the people who need more power than a desktop can offer, but dont need to use it every second of the day? those needs are starting to be filled by cloud computing and on-demand systems rather than forking out the cash for an excessive machine.
5 years ago, things were 5x different. what worked then may not work today, and todays solutions will be laughable in a few more years. were seeing gpu computing coming close to replacing multicore cpus, and i think were going to care ALOT more about single threaded performance with cpus and be capped around 4 cores for client desktop as the most optimal answer in cost/benefit for a very long time, with opencl offsetting anything parallel to the gpus.
If these WILL be FX branded, don't count it out. I wouldn't mind seeing a Classified SR-2 type board out for AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal