still waiting for retail
still waiting for retail
Intel Core i5 6600K + ASRock Z170 OC Formula + Galax HOF 4000 (8GBx2) + Antec 1200W OC Version
EK SupremeHF + BlackIce GTX360 + Swiftech 655 + XSPC ResTop
Macbook Pro 15" Late 2011 (i7 2760QM + HD 6770M)
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014) , Huawei Nexus 6P
[history system]80286 80386 80486 Cyrix K5 Pentium133 Pentium II Duron1G Athlon1G E2180 E3300 E5300 E7200 E8200 E8400 E8500 E8600 Q9550 QX6800 X3-720BE i7-920 i3-530 i5-750 Semp140@x2 955BE X4-B55 Q6600 i5-2500K i7-2600K X4-B60 X6-1055T FX-8120 i7-4790K
I focus on the past because one data point doesn't make a trend. If this node and the next node both offer good gains in frequency when shrinking existing designs, I'd be inclined to say the trend has changed. Basing your prediction of a major improvement on a single data point when the last few before it didn't pan out the same way is being hopeful, not logical. Also keep in mind that I'm only talking about shrinks of an existing architecture and that I'm only commenting on node performance at introduction. AMD's processes always mature nicely. They just usually suffer a rocky start.Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Last edited by Particle; 06-29-2011 at 09:15 AM.
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Rule 1A:
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Rule 3:
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
I think it will not be based on core usage, but on power consumption.
Beep I know what you try to say, but AMD's 65nm process was bad, therefore it is bad to reference to it and extrapolate process improvements between nodes. On another hand 32nm process introduces Gate First and HKMG which somewhat balances things out. I doubt though it balances things enough for basing any clock improvement extrapolating AMD's 65nm->45nm transition. Besides we initially had 2.6GHz Agena to 3.0GHz Deneb! The difference you're referring to is for both mature processes. When BD launches 32nm SOI won't be mature enough to fully extract available performance. I expect close to 5GHz stable OC from BD style design on fully mature 32nm process after 2-3 design revisions. Initially I'm hoping to be able to clock 1 core towards 4.8-5GHz stable. All 8 cores @4.4GHz would be sweet for me as well. On air that is
Last edited by Lightman; 06-29-2011 at 09:20 AM.
RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W
RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU
SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
XBONE paired with 55''Samsung LED 3D TV
Bulldozer ES vs Core i7-990X gaming showdown
CPUs overclocked to 4 GHz, SLI Nvidia GTX 580
Have a look here, it is at the bottom of that page: http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/za...-zari?start=11
Don't speak Czech or Google translate too gritty? Look here: http://www.maltrabob.com/BDvi7.html
Considering that we are still talking about engineering sample, the results are not bad at all in my opinion.
Last edited by maltrabob; 06-29-2011 at 10:50 AM.
I wonder how many cores do those games use, if only use less than quad core then it's a good sign, because bulldozer module is not true dual core but somewhat weaker dual core, take the crappy ES bug especially frequency problem into account then Zambezi looks optimistic.
Ive got a feeling those games are gpu limited at these settings.Anyone has GTX 580 SLI to do a compare ?
Yes, but the ones above ~150 fps really start to show a difference.
AGAIN, OBR posted a Cinebench 11.5 stable screen at 4.67 Ghz. That thing has a GPU on the die...Beep I know what you try to say, but AMD's 65nm process was bad, therefore it is bad to reference to it and extrapolate process improvements between nodes. On another hand 32nm process introduces Gate First and HKMG which somewhat balances things out. I doubt though it balances things enough for basing any clock improvement extrapolating AMD's 65nm->45nm transition. Besides we initially had 2.6GHz Agena to 3.0GHz Deneb! The difference you're referring to is for both mature processes. When BD launches 32nm SOI won't be mature enough to fully extract available performance. I expect close to 5GHz stable OC from BD style design on fully mature 32nm process after 2-3 design revisions. Initially I'm hoping to be able to clock 1 core towards 4.8-5GHz stable. All 8 cores @4.4GHz would be sweet for me as well. On air that is
If it were stars alone on AM3+ I'd expect up close to 4.8 Ghz with some chips. Add four more cores? Okay, lets go with 4.6.
...
Last edited by BeepBeep2; 06-29-2011 at 03:32 PM.
Smile
Because they are clocked a lot lower
Wouldn't this be enough to indicate it's likely not a 'Dozer chip?
1.4750V default, 2.0750 overvolted?
EDIT: Nevermind, I see what he did. Was showing max voltage for each. I'm going to assume that 1.4750 is also just the ES chip pre-set voltage to make sure it's stable. At least, I'm hoping that's the case.
Last edited by Formula350; 06-29-2011 at 03:34 PM.
I like how this came up after someone finally made a speculation about performance being 20% better then phenom II.
HAVE NO FEAR!
"AMD fallen angel"
You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.
when will allll this NDA be lifted!?
tomorrow
Intel i7 3770K @ 4.5ghz
Asus P8Z77-V
8GB Crucial 1866Mhz CL9
AMD Sapphire Radeon HD 6970
Crucial RealSSD M4 128GB
2x WD Raptor X
Enermax Galaxy 1000W DXX
NEC LCD2690WUXi
Yamaha RX-V667 Receiver
Monitor Audio Vector 5.1
The NDA is under NDA. Good luck getting any information from AMD.
As quoted by LowRun......"So, we are one week past AMD's worst case scenario for BD's availability but they don't feel like communicating about the delay, I suppose AMD must be removed from the reliable sources list for AMD's products launch dates"
Where did you get this, today is Llano nda lift.As for BD, only krishna(or insert other deity here) knows.tomorrow
Ive been watching this thread andat many of statements and have to agree with chew "I've got an idea. Stop speculating and just wait for the real deal. " I sure hope we wont need a BD to get us out of the hole you guys have dug with all the speculating and need bridge to make our way out.
CPU: i5 2500K @4.5ghz/1.30v
CPU Cooler: Phantek
Mobo:Gigabyte P67-UD5-B3
MEM: Gskill RipjawsX @2164
PSU: Seasonic X1050
Graphics: SLI MSI gtx560 TFII/OC Edition
Monitor:27"HP 2710m x2
Drives: 2x PlextorM3 Pro 256gb SSD Raid0 /Ocz Vertex2 80gb SSD
VisionTek 120gb SSD/Kingston HyperX 240gb SSD/Verbatim 240gb SSD
Case: mod Rocketfish
OS's: Win 7x64 SP1
Mouse:Mionix Naos 5000
KB: Max Keyboard Nighthawk x8 Cherry browns w/ red leds
If your enjoying it now, just wait till its released..lots of shouting for who was rightIve been watching this thread and
Not to mention the denial of fact from those who were wrong but refuse to acknowledge it.
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
Thats why i sigged two extremes ;-).
I however think that the truth will lie exactly in the middle.
Erm... I pulled it out from my ass
Last edited by kam03; 06-30-2011 at 11:44 AM.
Intel i7 3770K @ 4.5ghz
Asus P8Z77-V
8GB Crucial 1866Mhz CL9
AMD Sapphire Radeon HD 6970
Crucial RealSSD M4 128GB
2x WD Raptor X
Enermax Galaxy 1000W DXX
NEC LCD2690WUXi
Yamaha RX-V667 Receiver
Monitor Audio Vector 5.1
If you are referring to BDtomorrow
survey say's XXXXXXXXX wrong.
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
I give up.
If Stars is "greater than 6%" better than previous stars, I'd expect at least 15-20% from Bulldozer would I not? Otherwise, Trinity would be a total waste of time in using Bulldozer cores for a measly 4% increase (if it were 10% faster) to be made up by 100 Mhz in clock. Not to mention Llano is L3 free, who knows what performance benefits that core would have with L3? 10%? ...oh wait, I'm not supposed to be logical.
/end my posting in this thread
Last edited by BeepBeep2; 06-30-2011 at 11:57 AM.
Smile
Tin hats.
Time to talk about some funnier stuff.
I took the time to modify some funny chops people did in another thread into a short narrative.
Last edited by chew*; 06-30-2011 at 11:56 AM.
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
I want not be bad, but...:-)
http://vr-zone.com/articles/sandy-br...012/12816.html
ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread
Yea, and Ivy Bridge surprisingly got pushed back to March 2012 too (read that a few days ago, before SBe delay was mentioned). Wonder if it has something to do with Intel using PowerVR graphics core, having problems getting it to play nice or as powerful. That's all I can figure given it's occured not long after Sabine platform launch, and then SBe happens damn near the same time as Lynx platform launched >_> Intel somehow misjudge what AMD's graphics were going to be capable of?
Would it be over optimistic to think maybe Intels spys in AMD have bought back some info on BD performance so revisions are needed by intel so in Jan they can regain the crown that BD may take when it comes out? Any way, where are the lines drawn between hopeful > optimistic > over optimistic
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks