AMD Zambezi news, info, fans !

[Smartidiot89]

Thanks. I asked because the most important slide ,the one with application performance comparison, is somehow missing the model number for FX . It just says "FX",nothing else. WHich FX? 8150,8100? 6100 (I'm joking ) ?

Until we see the reviews all of this is still not official . But gives us a ballpark though. And by the looks of it it's not THAT awesome or anything special,but it's not that bad either. It's competitive enough with 2600K and it allows great OCing on air and even better on sub zero. For 245$ it is pretty good I have to say.

From past experience with these slides and briefings, I do believe that "FX" is infact FX-8150. I'd be more then happy if I was wrong though.

I think it looks good for a $245 CPU like you said. But it would've looked even better (in my mind atleast) if it was marketed as a Quad, not Octo-core

[FaYt]

But stil....when is the release......

[undone]

But stil....when is the release......

I think nobody can sure even amd itself.

[Smartidiot89]

I think nobody can sure even amd itself.

There's a date

[Lightman]

There's a date

Shame it's the date when I'm flying on holiday for a week! You guys will be playing with new hardware and I will be just reading about it instead of participating!!!! BAD TIMING AMD BAAAD!!


Move the date one more time by a week

[Smartidiot89]

Shame it's the date when I'm flying on holiday for a week! You guys will be playing with new hardware and I will be just reading about it instead of participating!!!! BAD TIMING AMD BAAAD!!


Move the date one more time by a week

[muziqaz]

Lightman, haha. Oh its on tuesday, hm, tuesday not good for me. i am off for holiday, can you move it to, say next wednesday? yeah

[dess]

Llanos bad overclocking abilities is due to lack of dividers and frequency locks. An unlocked Llano without graphics part would overclock much much better.

Don't think so. Not familiar with Ilano, but if it has the usual dividers/multipliers (as of K10), and one knows how to play with them, it shouldn't OC worse than with an unlocked core multiplier. The latter is just making OC easier. IMHO.

GF isn't in full 32nm production yet, a large part of their capacity is still 45nm.

Not because of lack of demand, that's for sure, but that the transition needs time.

And Llano is mostly laptop, and I don't have a hard time finding those.

There aren't as many as it could be.

And it's 15 different tests, but not different kinds of test. It all measures FMA4 performance, which is unfair against SB. So still handpicked.

Hence the title of the diagram.

So even if it perform worse than i5 in say games

Does it do?

Basically only an IMC and SSE2 was added.

And x64?

980X - 999.99 - 800 = 199.99

Umm the 8 core is only going to be 200 dollars?

What about the rest of the system...?

[charged3800z24]

Shame it's the date when I'm flying on holiday for a week! You guys will be playing with new hardware and I will be just reading about it instead of participating!!!! BAD TIMING AMD BAAAD!!


Move the date one more time by a week

Don't worry, I'll OC some for you too...

[BeepBeep2]

Don't think so. Not familiar with Ilano, but if it has the usual dividers/multipliers (as of K10), and one knows how to play with them, it shouldn't OC worse than with an unlocked core multiplier. The latter is just making OC easier. IMHO.

OC on Llano is a bit harder it seems than K10 / AM platform

[james333]

Ah no, this is getting difficult to read, I have been reading since page one and only commented a few times but I really want to make this point.....

I need to start by asking "how many years ago did AMD have a better chip than Intel?"

1999??

There is so much negative talk and speculation pointing towards how rubbish bulldozer will be if it cant beat sandy bridge. OK, it would be awesome to see an amazing SB killer but so many people are missing the point that AMD for so long have been miles away from Intel, it has taken AMD a year or two to catch up in terms of performance (as in AMD's 'current chips' always perform as well as Intels 2 year old chips...... I hope everyone will agree that a 2 year lag in terms of technology (running at the rate it has in recent years) is a MASSIVE gap.

The point I am trying to make is that if AMD equal or even get close to equaling SB then they have done an amazing job, jumping from 2 years behind to 6 months.

Wow, what an achievement especially for a company that has something like 10% of the corporate power of Intel.

Please stop getting into arguments about whether it scores 100 more points in a benchmark and appreciate the fact that AMD are back in it, we all love AMD on this thread and it is obvious so lets put our hands together for a company who will deliver at least on par performance with intels current stock at 50 - 25% less price (thats including the extreme pices of intel MBs)

Top job AMD, even if it is late, its a massive achievement to catch up 2 years and respect to you


Edit: I was aiming the relevance of this post to past posts, not the most recent that arent so pessimistic!

[spursindonesia]

So, these are real then, OK. From the buyer perspective, it offers decent value, like any other AMD's CPUs before, but from technical standpoint, while the concept is certainly interesting, promising stars and the moon, the end result (or execution ?) seems quite bad IMHO. If the diesize is around 250 mm^2, that might still be acceptable, but not as the current incarnation. Quite disappointed TBH.

[AKM]

How useful are the xop and fma instruction sets for desktop apps, and if they are, what are the chances that developers will bother optimizing only for AMD cpus?

[BeepBeep2]

Ah no, this is getting difficult to read, I have been reading since page one and only commented a few times but I really want to make this point.....

I need to start by asking "how many years ago did AMD have a better chip than Intel?"

1999??

Actually 2004-2005...and to be honest K7 did quite well vs Pentium III...

[muziqaz]

How useful are the xop and fma instruction sets for desktop apps, and if they are, what are the chances that developers will bother optimizing only for AMD cpus?

let's hope software devs will be approached by AMD representatives showing the potential of those new instructions. It is up to AMD themselves to kick some ass and push devs to try and optimise for those new instructions

[demonkevy666]

me every time im here now. >.>

[hirsch]

Ah no, this is getting difficult to read, I have been reading since page one and only commented a few times but I really want to make this point.....

I need to start by asking "how many years ago did AMD have a better chip than Intel?"

1999??

There is so much negative talk and speculation pointing towards how rubbish bulldozer will be if it cant beat sandy bridge. OK, it would be awesome to see an amazing SB killer but so many people are missing the point that AMD for so long have been miles away from Intel, it has taken AMD a year or two to catch up in terms of performance (as in AMD's 'current chips' always perform as well as Intels 2 year old chips...... I hope everyone will agree that a 2 year lag in terms of technology (running at the rate it has in recent years) is a MASSIVE gap.

The point I am trying to make is that if AMD equal or even get close to equaling SB then they have done an amazing job, jumping from 2 years behind to 6 months.

Wow, what an achievement especially for a company that has something like 10% of the corporate power of Intel.

Please stop getting into arguments about whether it scores 100 more points in a benchmark and appreciate the fact that AMD are back in it, we all love AMD on this thread and it is obvious so lets put our hands together for a company who will deliver at least on par performance with intels current stock at 50 - 25% less price (thats including the extreme pices of intel MBs)

Top job AMD, even if it is late, its a massive achievement to catch up 2 years and respect to you


Edit: I was aiming the relevance of this post to past posts, not the most recent that arent so pessimistic!

I don't know about you, but I see my self as an enthusiast. As an enthusiast I like "kick-ass-hardware", basically, I don't mind buying the very best, no matter the price - even if we are talking about $999.

And as an enthusiast AMD will disappoint me if Bulldozer not will delivery performance that is worth an upgrade over a Phenom II x6. I would rather see a chip at the price level of $500-$999 that out perform intels i7 processors then this comprimise in price/performance.

We want performance, but gets price/performance. IMO that sucks.

*Still I'm quite sure that I will pick up a 8150 at the release day, if it will be available *

(Based on what these slides and other leaks have shown so far)

[Manicdan]

I don't know about you, but I see my self as an enthusiast. As an enthusiast I like "kick-ass-hardware", basically, I don't mind buying the very best, no matter the price - even if we are talking about $999.

And as an enthusiast AMD will disappoint me if Bulldozer not will delivery performance that is worth an upgrade over a Phenom II x6. I would rather see a chip at the price level of $500-$999 that out perform intels i7 processors then this comprimise in price/performance.

We want performance, but gets price/performance. IMO that sucks.

*Still I'm quite sure that I will pick up a 8150 at the release day, if it will be available *

(Based on what these slides and other leaks have shown so far)

your not the market they were aiming for. their market was mainstream and highend. the chips that go for 1000$ are only like 2% of the income because of how rare they are sold.

[hirsch]

your not the market they were aiming for. their market was mainstream and highend. the chips that go for 1000$ are only like 2% of the income because of how rare they are sold.

And I respect that, but performance sells. Intel is a very good example of that.

[Manicdan]

thats just marketing, i have yet to see a single commercial about their 1000$ products, everything i see is about "second generation core i series being visually better"

[charged3800z24]

And I respect that, but performance sells. Intel is a very good example of that.

They sell caue that is all anyone knows, they sell cause every windows based software company has recomendations of Intel bla bla, or better in the hard ware requirements sheets (excpet some games now days). That's the only reason my company sells and install Intel, is cause "it said we had to"

[james333]

I totally see your point I was just thinking about market share and relative company strength. Think underdog fianally being able to keep up with the top shooter

[vvulture]

They sell caue that is all anyone knows, they sell cause every windows based software company has recomendations of Intel bla bla, or better in the hard ware requirements sheets (excpet some games now days). That's the only reason my company sells and install Intel, is cause "it said we had to"

^^ Well said... They sell because of their huge marketing budget. They have managed to brain wash and condition the masses of people into thinking that Intel is the only way.
Oh, and lets not forget their anti-competitive / illegal / bullying practices not so very long ago which gave them a huge market advantage.

[hirsch]

thats just marketing, i have yet to see a single commercial about their 1000$ products, everything i see is about "second generation core i series being visually better"

I didn't mean the performance of an i7 990x - just in general, they have the fastest low-, mid- and high-end CPU and as all of you understand that's why they rule the market and can have the highest price, so in the end, real performance controls the market.

(Btw, you should start looking at ESLs commercials, it's all bout Intels extreme stuff, but maybe that's because of the names of their tournaments )

--

I've a question, am I the only one that think it's embarrassing/funny/weird that they compare there new top model against a 1,5 year old processor that probably performs worse then the 2500k/2600k in the comparing games. Imo that make this (http://tof.canardpc.com/view/a53a68e...1068e8af28.jpg) slide worthless because if they would have compared it with the better performing 2500/2600 the slide would have looked very very different...

EDIT:

They sell caue that is all anyone knows, they sell cause every windows based software company has recomendations of Intel bla bla, or better in the hard ware requirements sheets (excpet some games now days). That's the only reason my company sells and install Intel, is cause "it said we had to"

And why you to think the situation looks like that?

The market (Intel) needs competition in stuff that matters to customers!

[Manicdan]

ok i dont plan on derailing a thread thats in the AMD section, so my last point is that the markets for low medium and high is set by prices, not the size of the chip. to say intel is better in all of them is no where near true, because AMD is always trying to offer better value (meaning perf/price).