http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=759
:o
How does that to compare to say an Xeon X5570? I'd love to see Bulldozer benchmarked with 8 cores disabled, just so thread for thread and clock for clock comparison is possible.
sexy if true.
Funny how since quadcore everyone's saying "more cores doesn't matter" and AMD and Intel are just increasing the number of cores :D
Wow, very impressive.
wonder what these are gonna cost :rolleyes:
OT:
how does one get an ES chip exactly? i thinks they are planted by semi companies....i smell a conspiracy :hitself:
A leg and an arm, or perhaps also another body part of your choice as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by SinAugustus
Is that voltage real?? :eek:
I don't believe this for a second.
It's fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
Why would you say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
Seems to be a fake for me. Too soon for an Interlagos/Orichi ES chip...
Fake or not, there are some things that dont seem right.
According to the cpu-z screen there are two processors. That means 32 cores and 32 threads for that wprime score? And what about CMT or whatever its called?
i have some doubts too...
the 2 and the 8 of 28MB L3 look a bit far away from each other... photoshop?
and bulldozer was supposed to be an 8core chip, not native 16core...
seing a 16core mcm before the 8core shows up is weird...
double l1 cache sizes?
double l3 cache sizes?
28mb for 16 cores... on magny cours 12core mcm there is 12mb and cpuz only shows 10 as 2 are reserved for the snoop filter.
12 mb for 12 cores, here its 28mb for 16cores, assuming 4mb is reserved for the snoop filter that would mean 32mb, so 2mb per core L3 cache...
hmmm the numbers certainly make sense...
no, its mcm, 2 cpus on one package... same thing as on magny cours, itll show two processors but in the main window of cpuz itll show all cores and all cache...Quote:
Originally Posted by v0dka
if its a fake, its def a good one and not an amateur... the numbers seem about right from what i know...
but this is weird... why would they even bother with magny cours 12core if they have an improved 8core and 16core mcm sampling already... strange...
And yes, Bulldozer architecture suposed to have some SMT technology implementation, that CPUz shot doesn't shows any kind of multithreading cores.
It just seems impossible to me for too many reasons to list. This screams photoshop to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by LaMpiR
edit - reading that thread:
JF-AMD is an AMD rep that posts over at AMDzone.com.Quote:
Look at thisQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7678/wprime155b.jpg
now look at this
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9111/obero.png
The 10Mb also seems to be far apart and we know thats not a photo-shop. As you said the numbers add up very well huh :confused:
I think magny cours 12core is about ready while the bulldozer is a early sample aka maybe even a prototype "Stepping 0 :shrug:" The magny cours is coming 2010 and the bulldozer is coming in 2011. The silicon has to go through debugging, etc etc "AMD does not need another TLB bug in their brand new architecture :yepp:"
EDIT:- Just noticed there is something written after AVX, its not a comma maybe its AVX-A lol "AMD's gets a special AVX version just like SSE4a"
maybe
2 opterons 8 cores with 14MB of L3 each. But 14 seem strange too.
Then i think it's a single ship with 3 die with 2 die of 8 cores, and one die of L3 of 16MB with 2MB disable for redondancy.
Hello guys,
cpuz (even version 1.52.3) does not know any 32 nm AMD processor, so it is impossible that it displays "32 nm".
Besides, the cache associativities are missing ... and finally, the program would not display "AVX" in the instructions sets (it reads avx feature but does not display it).
:-(
it is a fake! if you look at all numbers in CPU-Z you can see that there is no space between them, only if there is a "1" because every number use 6 pixel and only the "1" use 4 pixel, so there is a space of 1 pixel to each side..
The 28MB L3 is fake, so the screenshot is fake.
http://www.abload.de/img/fake111ls2a.png
and you don´t need to be a photoshop pro... this is done in 2 min with paint..
http://www.abload.de/img/fakespco.png
@Chri$ch when did u get the i12 lol, that must really be able to run crysis...
Ya this does make the pic more questionable!!!! Hope s7e9h3n can check it up with his sources!!
This sums it up all that it's a fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
Wow, nice, Chri$ch. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chri$ch
Seeing this fake but interesting CPU, I want to make one myself, just for fun. :D
That's enough for me, really thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
after a few minutes i realised something strange in the line of the cache L2.
I agree the fake.
Shame its a fake. But 28 threads and 16 cores does sound too good to be true.
The AVX instruction set was the first thing that hit my eyes. CPU-Z can't even recognize AES yet.
And then the 28 MBytes Level 3 Cache, as Chri$ch pointed out.
Exactly, CPU-Z doesn't have that capability yet :rofl:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
The 28MB is probably supposed to be due to the probe filter being enabled. Nice guess though.
Also, John Fruehe says this is obviously photoshopped. Of course he can't say what's real and what't not, but I think his response would have been a bit different if it was real, like how he responded to Magny Cours getting out.
24 threads at 3.16GHz? Do want :D You messed up badly with the L1 Data Cache though :p:
Only in your wet dreams. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Come one people use your brain, 1 1/2 year before rumored release time?
That never was the case, if it would have benn September 2010, it would be far more believable. But not now. :yepp:
franck confirmed its fake... cpuz currently cant detect amd 32nm ;)
plus some other things, but i wont mention them to HELP people make a better fake soon :D
well originally bulldozer was supposed to be out EARLY 2009...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I hate to see it's fake lol.
really? then how would a real cpuz shot of a bulldozer 16core look like? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
Who cares!? It definitely needed a check before being posted as news :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
amazing that someone would go to this much trouble to do this lol
Fake shot is not the news you are waiting for, but its news nonetheless if it spreads around the net.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
Give it a rest people, its fake lets move on.
Not really surprised, it is coming from semiaccurate afterall.
No, its from the OCWB forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Why did OP link to Semiaccurate forums? i didnt bother clicking so i didnt know the primary souce.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Man ... Some people really like faking your application. May be we can make a CRC system of what is display and avoid anymore of those ... I ll call you tomorrow!Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
adding a CRC that can be check online out of a screen shot would stop those fake for ever.
It would save some pain for AMD and us to have to answer all of those crazy emails all the time. (For the screens that are not "certified")
Francois
yeah, something like the SPI validator :D
Hello François,Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
This is what validation is made for.
Serious screenshots include the validation ID :up:
If your connections would be good enough you can just fly to dresden and do whatever testing needed on Bulldozer :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
with enough paper signs off course :D