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.
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.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
My Rig
PII955-C2 3.8GHz, 2.5MHz NB
GSkill 2x2GB DDR3-2400@900MHz
M4A87T Antec 900 Case, Custom Mods x5Fans
Custom Water Cooling: 15x12 3-Core Radiator
4xSunon 4.5W Fans, DD12V-D5 Laing Variable Pump
DD MC-TDX Water Block
700W OZC ModX Power Supply
GB HD6970OC2 Video Card
2x150GB Raptor Raid
What bs have I POSTED? please tell me?
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.
Last edited by Skratch; 05-21-2011 at 12:05 PM.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Nice to see some more response! Frequencies are serious business! :pI 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!
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.
Last edited by Warwian; 05-21-2011 at 12:39 PM.
Oh no, no THIS again...
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?
And?
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...
What I see is dual core for sub $100...quad for $180 and 8 cores at $300?...
Smile
I started, but then, there was too many posts with bs. So I gave up.
I dont see how you can make such assumptions before CPU's are released...No s***, this whole thread is based on speculation and rumors. Why not just delete every Bulldozer thread.
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.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.
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.
Those chips will be over 1200 each and wont be out untill late 2013 tho
Last edited by Skratch; 05-21-2011 at 03:33 PM.
if ivy bridge share the same infrastructure with sandybridge
the mainstream ones will be dual-channel (socket 1155)
the same goes with bulldozer / K10
IM talking about socket 2011
socket 2011 is not where intel and amd focus on
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.
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.
Last edited by Skratch; 05-21-2011 at 03:50 PM.
for cpus with iGPU, dual-channel is enough
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.
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.
Last edited by formula M; 05-21-2011 at 05:43 PM.
What are you talking about?
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
Last edited by Skratch; 05-21-2011 at 05:53 PM.
Why not just quit while you're still miles behind?
Not true. In fact at no time was BD "right around the corner" before now.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks