Quote Originally Posted by Warwian View Post
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.
I did try too. 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.

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!

PS. Is the date 5th Feb, or 2nd May?

Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
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).
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.

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?"

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.
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.

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.
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.