AMD "Piledriver" refresh of Zambezi - info, speculations, test, fans

[BeepBeep2]

it reminds me that you are still a child can you act more sensible, please?

saying all time how AMD should to do, like you know better than all engineers of amd alltogether. Ironic?

It doesnt make any sense, get of the past and act in current reality. Top priority for amd is get a competitive Opteron. They fail or not, it is an opinion of everybody and it just takes time to optimize softwares and it goes quickier there in server environment. Complaining about desktop performance is understandable.

Let me show you some charts.

Desktop performance from four different review sites (what I've been complaining about)
IPC/Single Thread:






Gaming (CPU bottleneck):







Power consumption:
(what the is that?)



Even Phenom (I) took a step forward in IPC over 10%, added two cores over the architecture it replaced (at the expense of clockspeed/TDP), overclocked as well as the architecture it replaced and you all are considering it much more a fail than Bulldozer.

You know, it seems I am skewing results a bit, hand picking charts and whatnot.

Here's a good one. FX does relatively well in x264.

Now here is the accompanying power consumption chart.

Did I mention that FX's temperatures are through the roof? A lot of people are hitting 80c+ on air (unknowingly because the temperature diode is broken reading 15c+ low) overclocked...its rediculous.

Seriously, I have no idea why people are still crying about Bulldozer. Sure it's not the fastest chip,but at least it is overall faster than Thuban(sometimes a lot ,sometimes it's even slower). The good thing is that even in this worst case scenario when both design and process have some issues,it's quite a decent product. It just needs a price correction to be a bit more competitive from price/perf. POV.
Piledriver will improve on Bulldozer,Steamroller on Piledriver etc. The curve goes to the right direction so I don't know why some people are so pessimistic... If anyone thinks that AMD could have rode K10 on sub 32nm with 4+GHz clocks and 8+ cores with no changes to the uarchitecture itself is delusional.

Charts are above.
I never said AMD could have rode K10 in on 32nm with 4 Ghz clocks and 8 cores, that would beat even Sandy Bridge up by a large margin.
6 K10 cores, BD's memory controller on 32nm with 3.6 stock frequency and 4 Ghz Turbo, not doable?

Look over your posts and then tell me your not pulling stuff out of thin air. If not, then show us the "facts" you so boldly claimed?

Charts are above. They may be handpicked (you asked me to find them...)...

Because we are not too fond of turd polishing! It’s a botched architecture, you can’t just give it 50%+ higher IPC in the near future, and you can’t expect clocks to fix this when they already is near the roof here. SB is capable of the same frequencies and is so on much lower power usage and with much higher IPC, despite half the core count! Intel has more than twice the performance per mm² at much lower power usage, you can’t simply fix that with a few revisions. Phenom II has higher performance per watt, twice(!) the performance per mm² (taking processes in to account) and higher IPC and is capable of almost the same- if not the same or higher - frequencies on the same process.

^^
This is pulling out of thin air. Well, some of it at least. His comments in the middle about SB capable of same frequencies is true, much lower power usage is true, much higher IPC is true, despite half the core count is true. His comment about twice the performance mm^2 (sandy bridge only) needs to be checked though, but considering that Sandy Bridge has integrated video, we need to look at that closer and remove that part of the die from the equation.

As far as his comments about Phenom II, it does get higher performance per watt, more performance per mm^2 (pretend AMD released Phenom II X6 on 32nm, it would beat BD by far in a performance per mm^2 standpoint) but not by a factor of 2x. More like 1.4x. It also has 15-20% higher IPC...and who knows if they couldn't have gotten the same or better clocks on 32nm? The chip would run cooler, use less wattage and probably gain a few hundred Mhz headroom unless you really think that GloFo's 32nm is WORSE than their 45nm was.