That seem not fake,
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/10abad1...20be09c0e1.jpg
link for more info
Printable View
That seem not fake,
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/10abad1...20be09c0e1.jpg
link for more info
if cpuz is struggle'n that hard to read the processor, we wont get a proper read out until cpuid modifies the program which wont be until dozer is out...fail
edit: don't be shy to resize your images dude
1GHz turbo... aggressive clocking:D
... i just hope the 1.4v is not right,cause that would be bad:(
the SB gets easily to 4.5ghz at lower than 1.4v
Why a 32bit OS as well? kinda weird.
Intersted cpuz can't even see how many cores this thing has.
Looking forward to a task manager performance window shot. ;)
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/0ec3e8f...d3fa5d6775.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller
;)
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/0ec...d3fa5d6775.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Monkeywoman
More infos in AMD Zambezi thread too
I like the images to be big enough to read them though, but you can easily cut off all the surrounding desktop parts to make it smaller.
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
6 core huh? I was hoping to see 8. :(
They need to release ASAP. I'd even consider an AM3+ system for my server 08 set up. More cores, the better.
*CLICK* I posted that image URL only, then he posted a "large thumb" clickable to the normal size image :shrug: it was there twice...Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
I am trying so hard not to upgrade, waiting for this.
Yup can't freakin wait any longer.......AMD better bring it with BD.
VCORE is irrelevant because of the different manufacturing tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAbenson
BTW, did you know that W=V*A? :)
Here we go! :D
16GB on 32Bit OS? :confused:confused:
A lot of volts for very little Mhz (unless of course this is very early revision stuff going on here and CPU-Z does not understand the sensors).
I see a good competitor here to 2600K
John
Cpu-z needs updates...And this cpu is eng sample, not to be even post any detailed infos.
For now,please follow amd site for more REAL infos. Zpu-z is always *** when it comes to details as fresh hardware
HWiNFO32 should report much more on Bulldozer, however it seems the branding is still not finalized.
Only 3 useable as far as I can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
I just find it odd they'd have win 7 32-bit. 2.99gb out of 16gb is correct. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by soya_crack
Mumak has right...btw, nice to see Bulldozer :)
Well it will be a good example of what we can expect for at least 5 years I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by richierich
I am not partial to Intel, if AMD comes out with a competitive product, I will probably buy it.
Guess what?
http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...lldozerlol.jpg
Bulldozer rocking out at a stock speed of 333x11.5? Or something completely different? :)
Vdd is constant. Idd is not, thus your formula does not work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
the eq would be P=aCV^2f, where a is the activity factor. add static power to that for total power which also increases with voltage.
with that said, i still agree that it is extremely difficult to compare processes.
think, this 1.56 will be same fake. From 1.4. was a few fakes on the web...
New processors got programed rom, what voltage does it need to run what frequency, bla + bla + microcodes..
Nowdays mainboard dont support newest cpus, no correct microcodes inside mainboard flash. Not yet corect corect written ROM inside cpu.
Thats why HERE got strandge readings.
This is just plain aplha release of cpu (not much worth without microcode and even without proper mainboard)
i send a link, the most informations, are in the link ...
just folow, i think this is a real leak ...
http://pic2.178.com/64/641528/month_...41dac11333.jpg
5.0 on the WEI kind of sucks. I dont have high end hardware and I still get 6.0 on cpu(4400+) and 7.0 on everthing else. Maybe he is running on board video?
Mhhh those AMD doc infos look weird.2620 is listed several times with different default and turbo speeds? And only a 5.0 score?
my I7 920 @ 3.8Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrixhazune
6950 @ 1000/5600 with 1536 sahders
12gig of ddr3 @ 1666
SCORES A MASSIVE ........4.9
yes i really value what WEI has to say.....
you know why it scores that? because it takes the lowest score, and im running my OS on a crap drive at the moment.
What are the chances of Bulldozer making the current Sandybridge look like P4's? So close to release must hold.
Zero. Sandy Bridge isn't a horrible arch, so that scenario can't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadozer
You don't have to be horrible to get a kick in the nuts ;)
But yeah you are right, there is zero chance for that to happen, unless Zambezi can clock to 6ghz on stock cooler :D
http://hw-lab.com/uploads/hardware/c...chart_x800.png
Quote:
AMD Turbo CORE allows customers to tap into additional clock speed headroom by allowing the processor to rise up from the base clock speed up to the TDP level, automatically unlocking extra potential for the processor. Should the processor get too close to the power limit, it does automatically step back a bit to ensure that it is continuing to operate within the specified guidelines. This allows for significantly higher maximum clock speeds.
Some of the benefits of AMD Turbo CORE include:
· Up to 500MHz of additional clock speed available with all cores active. This means even with multiple cores active with full workloads, all cores can boost at the same time. For those customers that want to maximize their performance, they now have the tools to do it.
· Even higher boost states available with half of the cores active. AMD is not stating exactly how high processors can boost with AMD Turbo CORE, but obviously if there is room for up to 500MHz with all cores active, fewer active cores would obviously mean less power, and more headroom to recapture with AMD Turbo CORE. At launch you will see processors marketed with a base and a maximum frequency, base will reflect the actual clock speed on the processor and max will reflect the highest AMD Turbo CORE state.
· AMD Turbo CORE is deterministic, governed by power draw, not temperature as other competing products are. This means that even in warmer climates you’ll be able to take advantage of that extra headroom if you choose. This helps ensure a max frequency is workload dependent, making it more consistent and repeatable.
WEI take the lower score and give it as base score, if your HDD score 5.9 it will give 5.9 even if all your other score have 7.8 ( graphic, HDD, memory, CPU ) .. if the gpu used is a IGP and are not even recognise properly or don't have driver, im not suprised it will take a 4.9 ... Without saying i tend to believe some of the score are artifically linked with a certain type of hardware ..Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrixhazune
I remember that only SSDs could get a higher score than 5.9 or something
Yes need an SSD .... or maybe raid0 will surely give something similar...Quote:
Originally Posted by h0bbes
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5012/sansref.png
If i had let say a standard HDD and so 5.9 on HDD score, the WEI will be 5.9 on the main performance page..
Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
It appears we may be able to expect 1Ghz boosts in speed with Turbo Core (to 4100Mhz!). The interesting tidbit is that Turbo Core is dependent on power draw and not CPU temp. Overclocking while leaving this feature on will require motherboards with good power phases and stable, low voltages. On the flip side, with Turbo Core off the sky's the limit. This new uArch and process are certain to clock extremely well!Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
K8 wasn't horrible five years ago either, but a lot of people changed their mind when C2D was released three months later.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Well yes, my point was why waste 13GB of RAM?!? Would make a lot more sense to use a 64Bit OS with 16GB of RAM, or am I missing something?Quote:
Originally Posted by soya_crack
My guess is (and this is only a guess and speculation on my behalf) that the motherboard BIOS is not quite good enough yet so the system would be unstable with 16GB of RAM, perhaps even 8GB!
My only concern is that a lot of AMD fanboys are going to be upset when Bulldozer is released. Let us all be realistic. Bulldozer will be a very good competitor to the 2600K and this is going to be the first time in many years that AMD compete with Intel's current Generation.
We all know that each Phenom revision as been a generation behind where it should be, so Bulldozer is certainly the turning point, but it is not going to be the miraculous holy grail a lot of fanboys on other sites are hyping it up to be.
John
C2D was released 3 month after K8? Really?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
That or they only had a 32bit disc of windows to hand to do a fresh install and had already plugged the RAM inQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
I thought it was ~18months?Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
But eh, what do I know :confused:
Good point :DQuote:
Originally Posted by spicypixel
John
OMG you can't read? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Five years ago: April 2006.
Three months later: July 2006
@JohnZS: first a64 started shipping in '03, c2d in '06.
@Mats: yes, i cant read. thats why im posting here -.-
u have to admit, that it kinda sounded that way.
I thought the AMD K8 was released sometime in 2003 with the Core2Duo being Aug 2006?
But eh... like I said, what do I know :(
LOL @ myself for guessing ~18months when really I should have typed ~24-36 months... ah well...
John
My point was: Exactly five years ago people didn't think K8 was slow in any way, but only 3 months later C2D showed up and changed everything.
So the argument that an upcoming CPU can't make a current one look slow because the current one looks good for the moment doesn't really help us here.
In retrospect, K8 wasn't as bad as P4, and I don't think SB will be regarded as slow when BD shows up.
K8 was released April 22 (server) and September 20 (desktop) 2003, IIRC. However, I never talked about the launch date of the K8, you made that up.
Not really sure where you got the quote on the Turbo Core, but the last bullet was clearly a misleading point - "AMD Turbo CORE is deterministic, governed by power draw, not temperature as other competing products are." The so called competing products is actually power && current && temperature driven. If it is from marketing material, it is clearyly a clever wording trick to mislead :)Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
___Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Just over a month until release and we have almost nothing except the official information. Just some picture of a processor and some claims of a screen. I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing that we know so little so far.
Its a bad thing.
BTW lol at @Asrock.
Yea. This kind of silence so close to an AMD product release is typically a bad thing. Lots of information was available a month prior to HD5xxx and HD6xxx as well as the past decade of AMD CPU's. The only difference I'm seeing here is that AMD is doing an exceptional job keeping a secret this time around. Perhaps they didn't want to risk casting a dark shadow over their very good quarterly report a couple days ago? If Bulldozer's performance is not up to par, then holding the info until after their stock is adjusted according to their earnings is a smart play.Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
On the other hand, if the performance is huge.... I'd think the shareholders would want to add icing to their quarterly piece of cake.
Either way, the cake is a lie.
What happened when AMD released the Phenom? Lots of thunder and noise, signifying nothing. If I remember correctly, they were pretty quite on the Fusion launch.
I do not think this a bad move by AMD. A lot of people were expectig the 6970 to have 1920 SPs we saw how that turned out. All the hype and nothing came of that ad many people were disapointed. At least now with no rumors going around saying this will rock the Core i7 990x will not cause a lot of hype as was going on with the Agena launch. IMO AMD is doing a great job on keeping down the leaks as seen with the launch of the 6900 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
yeah your right xBanzai89> overhyper kill all their marketing work ...
The only thing i'm pretty sure, without 2600k performance at least, i'm not going to buy anything. ;)
I am pretty sure AMD is trying to keep competitors in the dark by keeping their BD a secret, it's a common business practice and it works. I am worried about whether its as fast as SB clock per clock. I am very itching to upgrading, and hope it was worth the wait.
And do you think Intel already doesnt know about the performance of BD?Quote:
Originally Posted by kazuyakun
Maybe that's why now they opened a SSD division :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by pipoo
yes, intel does not know how bd performs.Quote:
Originally Posted by pipoo
You're plain-hearted w0mbat :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Actually it's better to keep the things in the dark: many hardware forums and even general new technology" site " push technical informations without even knowing what they are talking about, thoses last years even someone who have just a console speak as he's a pro on the hardware technology ... ... a poor little info, as let say the speed of the CPU, can get a lot of discussion aimed by the preferences of the person on forums ... just tell the faster processors will be at 2.8ghz and you will get plenty of post in forums or some site who claim the BD is not faster of the I7....Quote:
Originally Posted by xBanzai89
Actually it's better to release the product and the informations at the same time, too little information can end in a total misunformation completed by rumors, false idea and AMD will need a 100 ppls team for go on site and forums trying to maintain a "Marketing " control of the upcomming products ...
Without saying so far we have enough of information of how look the new architectures, the modules ( Strong Threads ) etc etc ... in reality AMD just try to keep control on the release of the product..
I highly doubt that.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
If there are people out there under NDA, then I have no doubt that Intel knows everything about Bulldozer.
Wrong all types of projections were made in 2009 refined projections were made last year. There may not be a real BD in hand but simulations exist and they try and match real life BD will be all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
my gut tells me that if AMD had a "intel killer", then we'd know it by now. Since we don't, BD is probably just a nice upgrade for the faithful.
RussC
I think that both Intel and AMD have 'spies' in opposing camps.. Too much money involved not to do so.
yup, and I also think that Intel can simulate the perf based on some small piece of info.. they got it under control :)Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
my gut tells me it is not unusual for a chip to be kept secret until shortly before release. despite some of the conspiracy theories here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
I think they already hinted that the per-core performance has increased like 10-15%. They said it in some stupid riddle like, "We've acheived a 50% performance increase with only 33% more cores." So they might finally be somewhere between Core2Quad & Nehalem, but nowhere near Sandy bridge I7 2600k, IMO.
Its very naive to think intel doesnt have a ballpark figure by now.
They have so much money they can assign whole engineering department for this thing alone.And they probably did long time ago.
Plain corporate spying is pretty sure also.
And on top of that, BD samples are here for some time now, both companies work with the same server/mainboard/etc vendors.They both know much more about themselves than we do.
My gut tells me that 2500K`s relatively attractive price have come from exactly that, they wanted to pulldown AMD from the start.Intel prices are REALLY high when they dont compete.
That would mean high end desktop BD on AVERAGE should be around 2500/2600K performance.At least thats what my crystall ball tells me ;-)
We didn't know much at all about Radeon 6000. We did know alot about Phenom and Phenom II including som performance numbers, how did that turn out? We didn't know anything about Radeon 4000, not much about 5000 or 6000. It seems like less information from AMD means better performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Well, phenom I was hyped, but II wasnt.We had some decent amount of information about first hammer tho.but we didnt about first athlon.So i would say its random.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
It doesn't matter if BD doesn't match SB per clock,what matters is that it outperforms SB in real world workloads.Also what matters is power efficiency and clocking ability.In all of these categories BD will do great.
well, of cause intel & amd have some kind of insight and so can guess the performance of upcoming chips. but normally they dont know the real performance until launch/press nda.
They have more than a general insight "talking about Intel here" the only thing that prevents them to know the real performance of the chips is the clock speed and when that is set in stone very correct estimations can be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Get the feeling SB cheats ;) On the laptop I get 5.8 Aero and 6.1-6.2 on 3d graphics. On the desktop I get 7.5+ on a card thats more than 10 times as fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
TBH I don't think Intel is worried at all about BD.
With the new stuff Intel has up its sleave I am sure it will blow BD away.
SB is at a real sweet spot right now and prolly will be for some time.
But all that doesn't matter. If BD comes out as a pretty dicent CPU and a good price point then they will sell plenty of them.
Not at all that simple, even if you take the quote as fact. You could also see it as "50% more performance with 33 more threads" or "50% more performance with only 3/4 the cores" if you are to count a module as a core, and if you want to count that way you could just say "66.6% more performance per core". Bulldozer blurs the line significantly since each core is in between a full core and a hyper-threaded one. Four bulldozer modules vs. four hyper threaded sandy bridge cores may very well end up in bulldozers favor. My thought is that both companies will be close architecturally and it will come down to number of cores and clockspeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
so whats gonna happen to the propus and thuban cpus?
i can see these in bargain bins lol... snatch up a 1055t for $99 would be hella cool
This ES is rev. A1 - What will be the shipping rev?
I think BD will likely put them at a standstill for not falling behind too much. Much like phenom II vs core i7.
One thing i have noticed is AMD has really been touting the graphic ability of fusion/bulldozer. This I think is as as loud as AMD can get because of the performance of the CPU. What we have been seeing so far is AMD is clocking these processor rather high compared to the last generation. I think if bulldozer was really that fast, it wouldn't need to be clocked so high and it would be clocked alot lower to sell chips in the future. If I was AMD I would let as much information about bulldozer leak because at this point it is too late for Intel to respond and any sandy bridge sale at the moment is a bulldozer sale lost. I can imagine phenom chip sales are not the greatest right now with sandy bridge. It would have been best to show bulldozers performance being good when Intel had a bad press with the chipset recall. AMD has been known to take cheap shots in marketing lately when their competition stumbles so I am surprised they didn't take advantage of it.
We all know intels chips are all capable of reaching 4ghz but they don't sell it at that speed so that they can release future products with higher clocks as cheap R and D wise, product updates. I think since so much of AMD money is going into paying back the interest on outstanding loans, they might come out with something good, but nothing to make Intel really worry.
Fusion although a decent chip vs atom, isn't that crazy impressive considering it performs much closer to a netbook than a notebook. Atoms suckiness is what makes fusion look good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
.....bulldozer does not have graphics? i assume you meant to say llano right?
Yes because Intel continued to outsell A64 with the Pentium D at 3.xghz even though an A64 beat it because a consumer sees more mhz and thinks it is faster even if it really isnt. I have a feeling that cpu frequencies are going to creep up some because the architecture allows for it. This is why we see higher frequencies at later revisions that run cooler than lower frequencies of the earlier revisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Amd is changing the way a processor works (in their minds). As with the original A64 the platform (talking about the cpu layout) will need to mature some. The other side of the equation is that the software run on said platform needs to be optimized (read coded for more than 1 cpu).
We enthusiasts have to realize that AMDs strategy is the business side of things. What they look for is producing a product that 1 company will spend more money in 1 purchase order than all of us on here will buy in a year combined. AMD needs to stay profitable to continue making CPUs. I am ok with them concentrating on the business sector and letting us home users enjoy the rewards.
naive to think that some enthousiast solutions is the thing they are worried about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Fusion Bobcat = OEM = volume on low end (look at the amount of shipments already of fusion against there previous mobile market volume)
Fusion LIano = OEM = volume on mobile and desktop and even workstations(again total high volumes) and next gen of this APU with BD cores will be very important and already aggressive in schedule.
BD = server market increase
BD AM3 = enthousiast platform has been a modified server part for a long time now, few platforms have been ok, few have less.
You're just talking Fusion and Llano. That description doesn't fit Bulldozer since it doesn't have any graphics capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye
Intel is worried, they are selling unlocked cpu's at $220. They have never done that.
But they have, since the launch of Core 2, sold high performing and easily overclocked products in that $220-$300 price range and which has more or less forced AMD's desktop products below it. Such as the:Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
-Core 2 Duo E6400
-Core 2 Quad Q6600
-Core i7 920
-Core i5 750 and i7 860
While you are correct at the above chips being awesome chips, his point still stands about the unlocked chips. But then again due to the design of the current sandy bridge chips, I don't think they had any choice but to release the K chips at cheap prices, otherwise the enthusiasts would be pissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Oh no, not the enthusiasts. What would Intel do without this large, important, lucrative market :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by JkS
A large part of why Pentium D sold so well was because of 'brand loyalty'. Computers were really expensive in the pre-1ghz days... (i recall spending $600 on 1mb of RAM for my apple IIgs back in the 80's ) and those consumers who had heard about AMD upsetting Intel and beating them to the 1ghz mark, a good portion of those people held off from buying their chips because AMD taking the crown from chipzilla could have been just a fluke. I did the opposite though, and bought a 1ghz Athlon and did my best to convert my friends. Regardless of how good AMD's chips were, I wasn't that successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye4077
Yeah like Anandtech's 920 which doesn't clock an inch past 3.3ghz. Who'd have thought that intel's most cherished fansite reviewer would have the only intel cpu in existence that can't clock past 3.3ghz, never mind to 4ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
What are the odds on that. Almost unbelievable huh.
The profit margins on high end desktop chips are much higher than mainstream or budget. (yes... they pale in comparison to server chips).Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
Yea. It's hard to believe considering someone at Intel more than likely checked out the chip they were going to send to a prominent reviewer before it went out the door.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
I wonder if they over volted it or did something to hurt the chip. Or perhaps it could have been damaged by static discharge before installing?
Btw... has anyone here EVER damaged a component due to ESD? i've been building computers for 20 years and have never once had it happen. (famous last words.... like when i posted up that my Dell XPS M1530 was perfect and had no GPU problems. ZAP.... the following week it died :down:)
I had two core i7 920. One clocked at 4.4ghz and another at 4.66 ghz. Under water mind you. But I was talking about the sandy bridge processors those things are hitting 4.0ghz even under stock sometimes. Core i7(nehalem) are too much of a heat monster to clock to 4.0ghz under stock cooling. With non stock, core i7 clocks pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
Intel needed every mhz it could get when pentium 4 was against a64. It wasn't just for mhz marketing. Even with a huge clock advantage, p4 was slower than athlon 64. Intel sold better than a64 not so much for the megahertz difference as much as the Intel namesake. AMD has had the 3800+, 1800+ naming to hide the lower megahertz. People buy intel more and even if AMD bulldozer is a blockbuster and beats sandy bridge, it will probably never sell better than intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye4077
Bulldozer I thought had integrated graphic my mistake. It seems llano or the the one they have been previewing a bit, so why don't they show bulldozer now still.
So you've never had hardware 'just die 'after even a few or more yrs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
if you have then you don't know if was ESD damage or not
Quote:
Originally Posted by glen
agree here:yepp:
besides when released the Core 2 Quad Q6600 was much more expensive than the 2600k on release.
even the Yorkfield 9650 was 30bucks more expensive than the 2600k and it doesnt have open multiplier,the Extreme edition had open multipliers but the price was insane.
right now it seems that AMD will be in the same situation as with Zacate - basically about the same with the Intel offerings for that class
I second what you said and additionally its is no longer about CPU itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
What for do you need more CPU power in a mainstream to high end PC if youre not into rendering? Does windows and applications you use run that faster on a high end CPU to warrant the price increase?
In my opinion the current bottleneck is still graphics (especially visible in mainstream) and GPU offloading, that way I have a feeling AMD can address it better then Intel longterm.
:shrug:
Change thread title to "Intel fanboys comment on first Bulldozer screenshots" please.
Now, how long should we wait until we got something official that is the real Question! I need to see some result soon, i need a new Video editing rig.
Six weeks, probably less.
wrong:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
im being bottlenecked by my Yorkfield running at 4ghz while using a radeon 6950 2gig ram in some games like :BadCompany and TF2...gpu usage falls to between 40%-60%:( on some maps and FPS falls accordingly.
and this is only talking about online shooters...