By DonanimHaber:
http://i.imgur.com/qxRUl.jpg
Llano pricing is down right insane if its true 0_o
Printable View
By DonanimHaber:
http://i.imgur.com/qxRUl.jpg
Llano pricing is down right insane if its true 0_o
Jeez... that cheap? ...
Hmmmmm ... let's see how it goes then ... :P
Can anyone list? Image is blocked due to work.
Sure thing. Here you go:
FX-8130P = $320
FX-8110 = $290
FX-6110 = $240
FX-4110 = $190
wow...is any of them unlocked?
I wouldn't trust this info. 99% likely that this is just yet another rumour.
I suppose the top model should be unlocked. Guess this is the difference between FX8130P and FX8110 (that and TDP).
The top model is also a speed bump of 0.2MHz.
If the pricing is real, that slots the top FX8 inbetween i7-2600 and 980x? Thats would be pretty good for AMD!
RussC
It should be faster than a stock 980X, otherwise it's a flop... It's been out for over a year, and there are a bunch more Intel chips coming in Q3-Q4.
TDP:
97 W
96 W
95 W
125 W
Really?
But the prices doesn't surprise me at all. BD would have to be a lot faster than the 2600K and near future speed bumps to actually become much more expensive.
we already saw these numbers a few days ago.
the TDP numbers are like that because he used excel and it incremented them by 1, rather than pasting the 95 over and over again. thats what im betting atleastQuote:
Originally Posted by Mats
Or he is just trolling you guys since there is virtually 0 information around and the release date is close. Playing on the anticipation to get site hits, etc.
If these are in anyway accurate, it means two things.
1. AMD doesn't want to compete with 980X.
2. AMD believes that it's 4 module/8 core top end FX can at least equal the i7 2600K performance-wise.
lol. why does it have to be faster than 980x? so if VW releases a new golf 2 years after mercedes releases a SLK, the golf has to be faster than the SLK?Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
one word for you: price range.
Car analogies = instant fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
That's two words. I'll reply with two words as well: "lagging behind".Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
They manage to catch up just to get stomped by IB in mid range (possibly partially SB as well, it beats 980X in quite a few cases) and SB-E in top range.
So much for the BD hype and all those long years of waiting and development.
this information was not first post in DonanimHaber...is from http://diybbs.zol.com.cn/10/11_99045.html
So you start out with:
But based on this info you arrive at:Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
How about quiting the fanboy talk and wait for some real numbers, huh?
2600K does beat a 980x is some benchmarks. In those where it doesn't, BD is very likely to do much better. See Cine R10 numbers from OBR as an example. 980x stock beaten there.
If you look at average scores in desktop apps, 980x is just a tiny bit faster than 2600K(around 5% or less).This is because desktop workloads are not as parallel as server ones. If Bulldozer is faster than 2600K on desktop,in such "non-parallel" world,as its price indicates(320>295$),then it means it should be close or faster than 980x too.Just logic. Now,whether it will manage to beat or tie 980x in truly parallel desktop workloads,like WCG,rendering etc. is yet to be seen.
That's true. 980X doesn't make any sense at all for desktop/gaming rigs ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
As far as the pricing, I doubt the 8core would be that cheap, on release. :shrug:
All FX should be unlocked. Llano I wouldn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
no. im german, born in stuttgart (the cars was invented there, its home of mercedes & porsche) and living in munich (bmw). so car analogies = the best thing ever. everyone knows cars, so its easy to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
no, BD wont lagg behind. it depends what u r doing with it. server will rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Two more words would be trash talk, stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
the example though is not really matching. no one would expect that a car changes enough in 2 years to beat something thats worth +5x the price. cpu depreciation is like 50% a year, for cars its like 10% (until a certain point it becomes a classic and then prices go up)Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
i dont disagree with car analogies, but the pricing method for both is way too different. lets imagine if the next corvette that came out somehow stripped its weight by 1000lbs and kept its 50k$ price tag, and was faster than any lamborghini, does that mean it will reduce all lambo's prices down to 40k? no, because one is a production car and one is a supercar thats made in limited quantities.
with cpus, the size of the chip, and the process are the 2 biggest factors. 300mm2 on 32nm should be pretty close to each other (10-20% performance), just because a car costing 20k$ or 200k$ both have 3000lbs of steel does not mean they are built anywhere near the same way and can have vastly different performance (5x the horsepower)
How come the 95 wat version is cheaper than the 125 watt version. Usually it was the other way around
If the i7 2600k and top FX have similar price and stock performance, but intel keeps the best overclocking potential things can go bad. Their success on that price bracket will depend a lot on that.
Phenom I X4s also had great value @stock and were priced competitively to 775s, but the OC potential of a Q6600 was no match and current SB Ks set the goal very high. I hope BD can really dominate a 2600k in multitasking, so it won't depend on that.
Lower watt = Lower clockspeedQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler
Different clock speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Diggler
The 125W version is an unlocked part, you pay for that nowadays. :p:
125W version has turbo boost, that's all. All FX's are unlocked.
all versions have turbocore.
yeah, i dont think they are all unlocked, that would be dumb for them, great for us.
95w versions are more expensive if they also offer a 125 of the same exact thing, which dosnt seem to be the case here where the 125w version is higher clocked or other bonus feature, like being unlocked.
ive got some asus slides here, confirming the current naming scheme and the TDPs. sorry that i had to censor it.
On a side note: I believe I will build a new HTPC with one of the new Fusion chips:up:
surry i has speak no english long time ages agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
The correct way to say it is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
"On a side note: I believe I will build a new HTPC with a new Fusion chip."
Saying "one of the" is kind of redundant when you can just say "a".
Sorry... I couldn't resist... it was all too easy... like shooting fish in a barrel.
(BTW: I was just kidding... but on a similar note... I used to go crazy when I saw the word "Whenever" in government documentation instead of the word "When". Or perhaps the word "irregardless". I always cringed at that one too.)
By zooming in and studying the pixels it looks like the FX-8110 has a stock frequency of 3.6 GHz and a maximum frequency of 4.0 GHz through AMD's Turbo CORE. The FX-8130P is harder to make out but it looks to have a stock frequency of 3.8 GHz and a maximum frequency of 4.2 GHz through AMD's Turbo CORE.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Anyone more skilled than me in the pixel-studying arts that'd have a go?
The frequences all seem plausible though, but I guess we'll have to wait and see for sure!
You heard them from me first though!
You failed at reading the whole thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
I said IF BD (8 core) was slower than 980X (6 core) @ stock (I'm talking about heavily threaded workloads = 980X target workloads), THEN yes, it would be a fail, since a) it would not be able to compete in high-end with a CPU released over a year ago, b) it would be barely competitive in mid-range with SB and would be totally demolished by IB (just because SB -> IB clock speeds will be at least 20% higher thanks to 22nm transistors and 3D tech).
SB has really fast cores, but only 4 of them. Most don't need 8 cores when buying a mid-range CPU because it is simply too hard to find apps using so many threads. This is where the problem lies. IF BD's cores aren't quite as fast as SB's, THEN it will lose to it in most situations (games, for example). So that's it for mid-range.
Now we look at applications that can utilise a lot of cores. This is what 980X is targeted at. This is where BD has to beat it. That's what I'm talking about. IF BD can't beat 980X at heavily threaded workloads (and BD has more cores), THEN it obviously can't beat it at poorly threaded workloads, either (not to mention SB)! So no wins at all.
Thus it has to do well at least in heavily threaded workloads (so it's well received by servers and power users, although servers have other factors, such as performance per watt; not to mention SB-E coming in Q3 and targeted at the same market).
TL;DR: a) 4-threaded application: BD > SB (assuming) => 8-threaded application: BD >>> GT > SB. Unrealistic.
b) 4-threaded application: SB > BD (assuming); 8-threaded application: BD > GT (assuming) => 8-threaded application: BD >> SB. Plausible and would make sense. So yeah, it has to beat Gulftown. ;)
This is not fanboy talk. This is a very realistic approach. I own an AMD system, FYI.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
And I guess you totally missed me posting: "I wouldn't trust this info. 99% likely that this is just yet another rumour." No, oh, wait, you even quoted it. :rolleyes:
"How about quiting the fanboy talk and wait for some real numbers, huh?" :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
Sorry, man, but that's a terrible approach. Cars don't get evaluated purely by their performance and don't age in a remotely similar fashion to CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
That's pure speculation once again. I guess we'll see. You have to remember that SB-E is coming out in Q3 and we don't know much about it. And this will be the real competitor of BD in server space.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
So much hassle over made-up pricing. :rolleyes:
So can you tell us what's the difference between 8130P and 8110, except for TDP? Just clock speed? Then what does that "P" stand for? Unlocked part?Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
I believe BD should be able to clock pretty well. Weren't there a few mentions that the architecture should allow higher clock speeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlleyViper
On a side note, a problem with this pricing (even if it's true) and comparing it to the current SB and Gulftown pricing is that Intel has no pressure to reduce the prices at the moment. They can easily keep things overpriced for great margins (and they do).
This means that they can easily offer significant price reductions if BD is competitive.
We have to really wait till launch before we can assess the price/performance ratio and which manufacturer is better at it. I expect AMD to have a slightly better price/performance ratio in mid-range since they've stuck to this strategy in the past, though.
LOl,.. Nice! glad to see something other then bickering. Every CPU launch AMD section turns into a strange place. Some people get all over worked :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
I know when I type on here it is usually in a hurry and I don't take time to proof read nor care sometimes:p:... I an see how some mistakes can be made.
sigged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondacity
I thought all of the FX chips are going to be unlocked?
I did try too. :D While I am unsure wheter the 8110 is at 3.6 or 3.3 (the latter would fit into recent leaks), I am pretty sure 8130 is at 3.2Ghz, which is somewhat confusing. As for turbo, did you notice there are "+" signs? :) For 8110, I am pretty sure that's a +1.0GHz max. While for the 8130P I am seeing +1.2. A more powerful turbo would explain the TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwian
The problem is, those "+" are being blurred differently, the "1" following the first one is also different than the others. I am therefore calling this a FAKE! :rofl:
PS. Is the date 5th Feb, or 2nd May?
Maybe it isn't supposed to compete in high end? Why does a 320$ CPU have to compete with a 800$ orwhatitspricenow? Those Intel 6 cores are a giant ripoff in my eyes and I am sad people fell for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
As for being demolished, do you assume AMD's R&D department ceases to exist after releasing bulldozer? Will that be the last chip AMD ever releases to the market? It' not like they didn't left some space in the naming scheme for 8150, 8170, 8190, nor can't they start the 8200 series with enhanced BD cores in 2012, no?
"How about quiting the fanboy talk and wait for some real numbers, huh?" :up:
That's the problem. It's NOT that obvious. It's a new architecture, unlike anything we have seen so far and we already know there might be new and interesting approaches how single threads are being processed. Saying single threaded performance = multithreaded peformance / number of cores doesn't work when you have strong turbo modes and a very different architecture, how cores are being defined.Quote:
IF BD can't beat 980X at heavily threaded workloads (and BD has more cores), then it obviously can't beat it at poorly threaded workloads, either (not to mention SB)! So no wins at all.
Yep, I quoted that because I found it interesting to how much conclusions you arrived at after this 99% rumour info. "So much for the BD hype and all those long years of waiting and development." Yep, AMD is doomed. :rolleyes:Quote:
And I guess you totally missed me posting: "I wouldn't trust this info. 99% likely that this is just yet another rumour." No, oh, wait, you even quoted it.
I think its
8130P 3.2Ghz and 8110 3.3Ghz
darth your missing his point.If BD cant compete with something that came out 1.5 years before it(depending when we can get BDs)then its a fail.Looking at these prices it looks like the first run BD will go head to head with 2600ks.The only problem for AMD is intel will launch its ivy bridge chips right as BD comes out.
BD is late and almost a whole die shrink behind intel.
I don't like the cheap pricing (if true) - to me it indicates AMD feels their CPUs lag behind and must be priced lower, just like the x6.
I would at least expect an 8-core chip to be close to 980X in MT tasks. If we compare single threaded desktop BS on 6 and 8 core chips, it's a total waste of time and lack of subject understanding (or maybe just marketing).
I want faster CPUs darn it! I am still on a 3 year old (at least I think) C2Q for my work because it still gives me similar performance per GHz like Nehalem (and much higher than x6). grrrr /end personal rant.
If Zambezi is as fast as 980X in highly parallel applications, its single core will be slightly stronger than 980X.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
The pricing (if ture) is some what interesting...
LLano pricing is basically a AthlonII/phenomII with a corresponding HD55xx card...
If you look at the top moddel -> for 170$ you get a PhenomII 955 + HD5570 which is ~180$ on newegg
The real attractive parts are the dualcores, they don't offer any similar products that you can buy separatly and the pricing is very good.
Don't know what to think about BD.. that pricing would indicate its just a bit faster then a 2600k... which would make me a sad panda... but I wait for some performance numbers, maybe then it looks better.
remember the diagram:
http://morepic.ru/images/878997878678678678.png
so prices are correct
Why do the prices seems too good to be true. I mean llano is a repacked K10.5/K11 with a integrated GPU, since in most cases a dual core with HT can come very close to a quad core AMD, a quad core Intel will wipe any llano based cpu off the map. Now comes the SNB i3 and Pentium's, the dual core i3 with HT will come very close to quad core llano performance and SNB Pentium will lag behind a bit.
What is important to find out is the clock speed llano will come out with and also how capable the integrated GPU is. From what i was told quite some time ago its not super great there are bottlenecks and in certain situations they take a tool on the GPU.
In the end one has to decide upon a SNB+ AMD/Nvidia gpu or a llano...
it also depends on their Turbo implementation on LlanoQuote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
under heavy cpu loads they should be able to push a few hundred extra mhz because there is no load on the gpu -> i expect turbo core speeds over 4ghz on Llano
@w0mbat: Sorry to correct you, but Carl Benz started in Mannheim, not Stuttgart. ;)
It seems not only me have doubt on the Llano range. But the most strange thing is, look at the A75 board below, they even use the mid-range Llano to adopt in the multi-crossfire board, I'm curious since the Llano equip legacy K10 for not-enthusiast usage but unexpectedly to use it to play with muiti graphic card. It's too odd, since everybody doubt the Phenom quad core may be a bottleneck during mainstream game, but the unofficial & official information reflect it may be way better, than expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
http://motherboardnews.com/wp-conten...k990fx_a75.png
Fantastic!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Bulldozer will beat Intel's current cpu's in singelthread and perhaps the 980x multithreading. It's quite easy to understand when you look closer at the architecture. The front-end in Bulldozer is pretty big, which says it got a lot of horsepower. Also it must have to feed the double hungry integer units in the module. In the 4 module/8core BD, up to 4 threads the front end can easy get one integer unit 100% buzy in each module with maximum Turbo, which mean very good performance in 1 to 4 threads. What happens with more threaded workload? Yeah, intel's Hyperthreading deliver at most 30% better performance, and means 130% performance per double-threaded utilized core. BD will deliver 160% per double-threaded utilized module. Here we see 640% from a 8 core BD, and 780% from 980x. However, I think the scaling will be much better on BD, and also higher clocked and more aggressive Turbo. The most inportant is what we don't know, and that is how efficient the architecure is.
Worth to notice is that we don't now if the 80%/160% numbers from AMD in multithreading is correct, we don't now how aggressive the Turbo function will be, and much depends on how optimized the software is for Bulldozer. A lot can be rewritten and better optimized for this new design.
I have a hard time believing that because AMD is pricing its fastest BD (at launch)at 320 so there is no way they would sell it that cheap if it was faster than intels chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
you do realise that intel is coming out with 1000+ dollar sandy bridge extreme chips right? if BD will beat out 1100 dollar intel chips why would they sell them for 320.
back in the A64 days when AMD was faster than intel they put out 800-1000 FX chips becasue they had the performance lead.
also a note
the sandy extremes are only 6 core chips
I hope you are right because that will drop intels prices big time.
If AMD Bulldozer still can't beat Intel's current 6 core offerings that will be indeed embarrassing. Why can't they use hyperthreading like Intel does?
Nope. Not until Intel decides to sell that chip for 320$, to counter BD. Then it will be a fail. Or maybe a success, forcing it's competitor to sell at 1/3 of it's launch price? JF-AMD said something along the line, from memory, "we could make a chip twice as fast as Intel, but you wouldn't be able to afford it". Think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
8130P is a desktop aimed for mainstream chip. This means it has to compete in this area. In this area, there is a 2600K. The 2600K is very good at desktop tasks, which are lightly threaded. It's very unlikely BD will be able outpace an SB at these kind of workloads by such a significant amount, that would warrant an ridiculous price. Therefore, it will be priced reasonable. Why is it so hard to believe? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
IM not talking about the 2600k,you guys are thinking that that is the only chip its supposed to go against.What is the point of BD if its ment to only go up against a 2600k?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
I was talking about it being better than the 6 cores that were out way over a year ago.
AMD needs to start making faster chips as intel made 8 billion in the server market with there monsters that sell for 1200 each.
by the time BD is out there will be cheaper 6 core 22nm sandys that will be in its price rance and intel just listed the a new I3 to fit int he low 2 core market and that chip will have hyperthreading.
IM not hating but BD needed to come out 1.5 years ago to compete with intel first gen I5s and I7s
With this price list it looks like AMD is again right where they have always been compared to intel.An ok cheaper alternative that is good for normal use,but that is not going to make AMD any money.
I don't believe the prices. At least, the performance we think it'll deliver does not match the price (or AMD is very friendly to us deliver new super cpu's for good price). Because of what I wrote above, it must really shine in singelthreaded workloads, and also be great in multithreaded workloads. We have so many powerful news in the BD design, and what we can see, all the weaknesses from K7/K8/K10 is gone. The first thing I see is branch fusion and the massive front end. AMD had always earlier very powerful execution engines, but bad utilized. Also, we don't have to forget:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
according to AMD, Bulldozer is designed to be nothing less than "the highest performing single and multi-threaded compute core in history".
The 6-core Intel's have SMT and theoretically gets more performance than 8 core BD. But we'll wait and see.Quote:
back in the A64 days when AMD was faster than intel they put out 800-1000 FX chips becasue they had the performance lead.
also a note
the sandy extremes are only 6 core chips
I hope you are right because that will drop intels prices big time.
Many things we don't know yet. One thing is for sure, and it is that BD will be quite cheap to produce relative to it's performance thanks to it's high-density-design I think.
SMT is a great feature, and is proven in heavy parallell server workloads. One great example is the IBM Power 7 with 32 cores and 128 threads. Anyway SMT/CMP becomes more and more important in personal computing also, and the design of AMD's multithreading is a great combo of SMT and CMP and creates the best solution of both worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Detector
Intel's SMT (HT) uses about 5.5% extra transistors in the cpu and delivers at most 25-30%. Also it can perform worse sometimes because of the nature of SMT. A CMP or AMD's design will never perform worse because of a branch misprediction. AMD's design will use 12% more transistors and perform 80%, which means 160% from one core/module. If Bulldozer can perform this good with the shared front-end, then we have a new better chip-design for parallelism/thoughtput.
Now your in fantasy land... there wont be any 22nm hexacores before the end of Q3 2012. When we are lucky we will get 22nm qudcores at the beginn of 2012Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
sandy E will be 6 cores no? I think you are thinking about ivy bridge and by AMD time line I would say that intel could easily put out those chips if they wanted too,they are waiting for AMD to put something out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
The problem SB-E will face on desktop market is that not many applications will utilize that many cores/threads.So what if SB-E comes just 10-15% on top of Westmere 6C? That would also mean it will be 15-20% faster than 2600K. Is that a failure in itself then? What if top model Zambezi 8C is just 10-20% slower than 6C SB-E while costing 3x less?
Also in well threaded code I think 8C Zambezi will really shine ,so it won't be one trick pony(high Turbo core).
http://media.bestofmicro.com/U/F/288...10409intel.jpg
this road map shows sandyE 6 core for late 2011
@ Skratch: SB-E is not on 22nm.
Wow, you need to seriously sort your Intel roadmaps correctly, or soon some of you will start claiming Intel is going to have graphene CPUs by the time Bulldozer comes out. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
SB-E = 32nm, Q4 2011
IB = 22nm, H1 2012
IB-E = 22nm, H2 2012 (?)
"cheaper 6 core Sandy's" - that's an oxymoron. :P
Your math is wrong. It's 80% of what? It's 80% performance of the second added core, compared to the one already there, performing at 100%. So it's 180% in total. Or else, with your logic, an Intel SMT core would be tat 60%. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 2good4you
That could be said about Bulldozer too.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The real problem of SB-E on dektop market will be the price of the whole platform. MOtherboards are going to be more expensive than Z68, 4 quality ram sticks, etc... it's an enthusiast platform after all.
Excuse me guys Im off by a quarter.Point is 22nm is right around the corner and there is no BD out yet.
Not a problem. I have the same slide except uncensored.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
People will be quite surprised with the clock speed for the quad core.
i think most ppl here expect too much. so yes, maybe theyll be surprised---
Now that Perkam mentioned the slide wombat posted,I don't share the enthusiasm of some posters about 3.6-3.8Ghz clock speeds for 8C. It would be great,but let's be a bit more realistic ,shall we? :)
As for QC Zambezi,maybe a speed in line with current X4s,around 3.4Ghz + turbo .At least that is what I expect.
You got it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
BD is right around the corner and there is no 22nm out yet. And won't be for at least half a year, not quarter.
I won't, I expected 4.0 stock, but apparently the clockspeed starts with a "3". Impossible to tell what is the second number, could be both an "8" or "9". :)Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
The price of the quad is higher than the top-bin Llano, which is going to have at least 3ghz (or so I heard) and a GPU inside, so the quad has to be clocked quite a bit faster, preferably higher than current Phenoms, if only for marketing purposes...
I said 22nm 4th 2011 and its planned for 1st 2012,is that not a quarter off?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
btw people thought bd was going to be out in 4th quater 08 and its now 2011,what makes you think BD is right around the corner when there isnt even 1 leak of any final chip.
When do you think we will be3 able to build a BD setup?next month? yeah I doubt it.
If BD comes out strong what makes you think intel cant put out 22nm a quarter early?they are waiting for AMD to do something.
I find the we in your quote beyond hilarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
It's so obvious that you're just here to screw the thread up.
No.Original Bulldozer was a different design on a different process node,45nm. AMD cancelled the project and reused the design ,improved it and targeted it at 32nm. So 45nm "bulldozer" is not the same design as 32nm one.They are similar but not the same. Oh and the launch date for that 1st 45nm Bulldozer was never 2008,it was 2009 ,probably H2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
whats beyond hilarity that the second some one brings up intel that you cant compare them to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I have 2 AMD chips sitting right next to me bud.Just because Im running intel now dosnt mean I will never build something that is faster from the other camp.
The second someones tries to talk about AMD and there chips with a un baised to them they get called an intel fan boy.
You are posting in the AMD section, what did you expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
:shrug:
Oh no, not THIS again.... :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
While there probably won't be enough supply to saturate the market right from day one, at least we'll get hard numbers and the BS will stop.
This statement reminds me of a certain Sam from Oslo. He was so unbiased, he got banned from the News section. :rolleyes:Quote:
The second someones tries to talk about AMD and there chips with a un baised to them they get called an intel fan boy.
What bs are you talking about? ohh yeah Im sorry I posted that 22nm were coming out one quarter early.I guess Ill leave the thread because I might get baned,mind you I started over clocking and joined this forum right when it went online.
So? if you are so old. You should know better than post bs. Check your facts, then post. Good arguments are received well, yours were not good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
Bolded part. So? that does not make you unbiased or intelligent.
This statment is such a load of marketing BS scrap. If AMD could make faster CPUs then INTC, they WOULD, BUT THEY CANT. Evertime I see this its just horse poo poo.
RussC
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
What bs have I POSTED? please tell me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
what was wrong about what I posted?My arguments were not good? everything I talked about is exaclty what you want to say but wont.
This isn't Nvidia that they are competing with here. They need to do more than just be competitive with Intel as far as pricing goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by EnJoY
If these prices are true I have to admit that I'm pretty disappointed and will probably pick up a 2500k at some point or just stick with Lynnfield and wait for Ivy.
$200 for a dual core, yeah right.
One small point: Bulldozer has been "right around the corner" now for what? Three years?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
I meant everything that happens in every Bulldozer thread - speculations, doom predictions, shilling, unfounded enthusiasm, etc. After launch all will be clear - no more BS. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
This isn't marketing talk, the same is true for Intel. They do 10 core chips now, are you able to afford one? I am not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussC
Nice to see some more response! Frequencies are serious business! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
After reevaluating my propsed my numbers I've come to the conclusion that you might be right after all. What you posted here were my thoughts when I first looked at the picture. For example: when looking at the pixel coordinates of the 2s it seems likely that FX-8130P has a stock frequency of 3.2GHz. The coordinates for the 1s in the TC+1.0GHz also match other 1s. So it seems like you might be right indeed. But a turbo of up to 1.2GHz and 1.0GHz just seem very unlikely and it still does.
And why would the FX-8130P have a lower stock frequency than FX-8110 when it has a higher potential turbo frequency? (3.2GHz vs 3.3GHz)
And does the 200MHz turbo increase of the FX-8130P over the FX-8110 really justify an increased TDP of 30W?
I guess the FX-8130P might have a more aggressive turbo or something in the lines of that.
It also looks like the FX-6110 and FX-4110 have turbos of + 1.0GHz but they are harder to tell.
Oh no, no THIS again... :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
See post #72.
That's what I am thinking as well, ie. the +500mhz boost for all cores being used in more types of workloads. But it still doesn't make sense to have the stock freq lower on the higher TDP model - what If a worst case scenario power virus workload would be launched on both chips?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwian
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
That doesn't mean you understand the archetectual differences & what they mean to the end user.. none of your comments are based on fact. They all relate back to your bias on intel. You are not even being objective.
Ie: your ignorance isn't swaying anyone.
I dont see how you can make such assumptions before CPU's are released...:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
What I see is dual core for sub $100...quad for $180 and 8 cores at $300?...
I started, but then, there was too many posts with bs. So I gave up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
:rolleyes: No s***, this whole thread is based on speculation and rumors. Why not just delete every Bulldozer thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
I'm talking about bulldozer. I'm not interested in Llano. I want a desktop cpu faster than my current Lynnfield at a reasonable price and I doubt that a $200 dual core will perform as well as a slightly more expensive 2500k. I have my doubts that or Llano will perform as well as my current cpu.Quote:
What I see is dual core for sub $100...quad for $180 and 8 cores at $300?...
Okay let me know when you can come up with something worth arguing over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
I admit I messed up on ivy 22nm by 3 months,as there is so much speculation out there of when its coming out.
if you really want to go down this road you should read up on ivy bridge with quad/tripple channel memory.It will make current socket 1055 look like something from 2003.Quote:
Originally Posted by formula M
Those chips will be over 1200 each and wont be out untill late 2013 tho
if ivy bridge share the same infrastructure with sandybridgeQuote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
the mainstream ones will be dual-channel (socket 1155)
the same goes with bulldozer / K10
IM talking about socket 2011Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
socket 2011 is not where intel and amd focus onQuote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
just like socket FX and socket 603 on desktop
I know,we are going off topic.I was just brigning it up for the person I first quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by qcmadness
Its an option for the rich tho.I know I would never buy one of those,but its nice to know we have quad channel coming out.
Im out tho,Ill be back once we get some real samples out there to compare.
for cpus with iGPU, dual-channel is enoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
modern cpus do not require "much" bandwidth by means of aggressive prefetch (where intel is an industry expert)
going quad-channel is of a little benefits only
the major hurdle for amd to catch up with intel is the prefetch and caching system, where bulldozer is a complete redesign from k7/k8/k10. this will be the interesting points of bulldozer
I'm sorry.. but what does that have to do with your inability to see what's comming. People like you are only 1% of the people on earth who has a descision in buying what brand cpu the use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
Plus, You have an ultra-specific need...
Then.. you ignorantly apply your specific need/want onto everyone else, as if people need that. Your an overclocker.. guess what?.. the mini sytem I built for my mother... OC itself.
Wake up.. you even use Aero?
Intel is very good at many things, but you ignorantly bias your post so much, that u hav't even accepted what Fusion is. When u do, you'll still be in denial.
What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by formula M
ps yes Im an over clocker,when did xtremesystems turn into the apple forum?
and when did I mention anything about overclocking to begin with
Why not just quit while you're still miles behind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
Not true. In fact at no time was BD "right around the corner" before now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
You must be getting confused with Larrabee, which intel promised us over and over was "coming soon". I don't recall AMD making any statements to that effect about BD.
you are troll baiting me and I have done nothing but talk about the topic at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75