Page 8 of 48 FirstFirst ... 56789101118 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 1198

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

  1. #176
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,215
    Yes,in pure numbers it's around 26% (actual BD is 26% slower than what I anticipated in the chart). Most of it is due to lower IPC in fp/simd workloads.But Piledriver has at least a chance to remedy some of that. 5% on core improvements and a 4-4.1Ghz base clock and we are at 210 "pts" in that chart for Piledriver. Not bad but not as good as I hoped either. But that's life,things just don't turn out as good as we hoped.

  2. #177
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    145.21.4.???
    Posts
    319
    Severely off-topic, guys. If you still wanna argue about bdver1 pls go to other thread or submit new thread, this thread is for trinity. I'm frustrated now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oliverda View Post
    thx for the info. but B3 Zambezi is still bdver1.

    Of course we can expect a better Trinity according to this info.
    Last edited by undone; 11-22-2011 at 04:47 AM.

  3. #178
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6,421
    I do understand people cry about bulldozer. Look at the facts: it took AMD what, 4 years to develope this new uarch? After a 4 year wait expectations are sky high. You'd expect a product that has been tried, tested, optimized and enhanced as much as possible. You'd expect a product that can compete with Intel and something that is at least a whole lot faster than it's predecessor.

    What do you get? A cpu that runs blistering hot, comsumes more power than all the rest of the electrical devices in and around the house together and yet has an IPC that is lower than it's predecessor and not just by a small margin.

    How can you speak of a quality product after all that? Overall faster than Thuban? Someone forgot to give me that memo?

    Isn't it kinda rediculous we have to wait another timespan (god knows how long) for Piledriver to get what Bulldozer was supposed to be?

    Wake up and smell the coffee.
    Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z | FX 8350 | 2x4GB Trident-X 2600 C10 | 2x ATI HD5870 Crossfire | Enermax Revo 1050watt | OCZ Vertex 3 60GB | Samsung F1 1TB

    Watercooling: XSPC Raystorm | EK 5870 Delrin fullcover | TFC X-changer 480 w/ 4x Gentle Typhoon | DDC2+ Delrin top | EK 200mm res | Primochill LRT 3/8 tubing

    Case: Murdermodded TJ-07

    sub 9 sec. SPi1M 940BE 955BE 965BE 1090T

  4. #179
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Aland Islands, Finland
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBeep2 View Post
    Elaborate.
    You must be even more 'full of it', you insult other members as if you are better than everyone.
    Back yourself up, explain how I'm so 'full of it'.
    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?
    Asus Crosshair IV Extreme
    AMD FX-8350
    AMD ref. HD 6950 2Gb x 2
    4x4Gb HyperX T1
    Corsair AX1200
    3 x Alphacool triple, 2 x Alphacool ATXP 6970/50, EK D5 dual top, EK Supreme HF

  5. #180
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    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.
    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.

    The architecture is seriously broken, much more so than P4 ever was! And at the same time AMD has put so much pride and marketing in this that they can’t go back, they’re stuck with this mess for years!


    Ask yourself, when do you think this mess i solved? You can sell products with subpar performance given they are cheaper and/or cooler. That's what AMD did in the past when they was behind, with the Phenoms, Athlon X2, K6 and K5. Bulldozer can't even do that!
    Me being an AMD "fanboy" since K6 is now planning for Ivy Bridge to replace my Phenom II, the main reason I didn't like intel in the past was that they made inefficient processors with high frequency and power usage without the performance how do you thin BD or PD will stick up to IB in those areas?
    Last edited by -Boris-; 11-22-2011 at 05:25 AM.

  6. #181
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    169
    -Boris-
    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.
    can you show me some proof, because some parts are so wrong, mainly 2x performance per mm2, I really want to know how you got that and the same or higher frequencies is just a dream, its enough if you look at Llano with disabled IGP, that cpu can't break the 4Ghz barrier while BD is attacking 5Ghz and is made on the same 32nm process.

    p.S. I agree on higher IPC and perf/w is worse only on 4module but still on par with Thuban, the 3module and 2 module are better than anything else from AMD. Example Llano 2.9Ghz has the same power consumption as FX4100 but FX is a few % better.
    Even FX6100 has a higher consumption by just 4% but performs better by 15% the rest of AMD cpu has higher power draw.
    Last edited by TESKATLIPOKA; 11-22-2011 at 10:01 AM.

  7. #182
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hungary (EU)
    Posts
    1,376
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    Phenom II has higher performance per watt, twice(!)



    Bulldozer: 315 mm2

    Thuban: 346 mm2


    Just to add that GF's 45 nm process is capable for higher performance than the current 32 nm one.
    -

  8. #183
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden, Linköping
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    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.
    I am not going to say Bulldozer is great cause it isn't. Facts are it was designed with power efficiency in mind and something has gone terribly wrong with the architecture, and we won't know for sure if these problems can be resolved until we see Piledriver to be honest.

    And clocks aren't "near the roof" - far from it. AMD have for the past two quarterly results said explicitly they aren't happy with 32nm performance at GlobalFoundries and have overall been very open about it. Bulldozer was designed with high frequencies which shows as it retails at 3,6 GHz base. Llano was aimed at >3,0 GHz and reached only 2,9 GHz at launch and lets not speak of the mobile models. There are no problems releasing a CPU with clocks above 4,0 GHz and good power efficiency as long as it was designed for it (IPC usually gets cut then) which was a design compromise AMD did.

    The manufacturing process isn't good at all today, and AMD decided to launch a brand new architecture on an unproven manufacturing process (never done by AMD nor Intel ever before?). I will wait for Piledriver before I pass any judgment on the architecture as a whole. I don't expect it to rock anyones world, but it will most likely be better than K10 and Phenom II.
    SweClockers.com

    CPU: Phenom II X4 955BE
    Clock: 4200MHz 1.4375v
    Memory: Dominator GT 2x2GB 1600MHz 6-6-6-20 1.65v
    Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair IV Formula
    GPU: HD 5770

  9. #184
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus View Post
    Overall faster than Thuban? Someone forgot to give me that memo?
    Don't know about the memo, but how about every review available?

  10. #185
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,823
    I must say it again. No, FX is definetly not great product now, but simultaneously not bad product. SOmetimes looks good in practice, sometimes whorse. I think, new architecture can chance from forum users, we will smarter in enxt years, if Bullodzer was wrong step or not (Piledriver, Steamroller)
    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

  11. #186
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomasis View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by wez View Post
    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...)...

    Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
    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.
    Last edited by BeepBeep2; 11-22-2011 at 01:27 PM.
    Smile

  12. #187
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Piledriver View Post
    Don't know about the memo, but how about every review available?
    Look at the post above. Don't see it being any faster than Thuban, do you?
    Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z | FX 8350 | 2x4GB Trident-X 2600 C10 | 2x ATI HD5870 Crossfire | Enermax Revo 1050watt | OCZ Vertex 3 60GB | Samsung F1 1TB

    Watercooling: XSPC Raystorm | EK 5870 Delrin fullcover | TFC X-changer 480 w/ 4x Gentle Typhoon | DDC2+ Delrin top | EK 200mm res | Primochill LRT 3/8 tubing

    Case: Murdermodded TJ-07

    sub 9 sec. SPi1M 940BE 955BE 965BE 1090T

  13. #188
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus View Post
    Look at the post above. Don't see it being any faster than Thuban, do you?
    *pulls out WinRAR charts, CS5 chart and some random AES encryption chart comparing only Thuban and Zambezi as well as x264 chart, comparing only Thuban and Zambezi and 2500K, excluding the power consumption chart*
    (Because we all use these daily, all the time...I know I have to make archives everyday...)

    Sure it is!

    Too bad my games would all be slower :'(
    (*pulls out BF3 chart*)
    Nevermind!

    ...and my web browser...and my other single threaded programs, look at GIMP in the bit-tech review, just look at the iTunes and Lame chart above, I don't care if you can do that at 5 Ghz with BD it will still turn out slower than Thuban at 4.2. Look at Cinebench scores in single thread (oh wait, that is a bad representation of BD's performance...)

    I'm waiting for wez and Tomasis to chime back in again about how I'm so full of it, how immature I am, how insensible I am, they will go handpick benchmarks just like I did about BD's performance gains, however they are usually by a small margin (~10% like I said in my 'full of it' post) and do indeed take advantage of all 8 of BD's clusters because IPC is so bad.
    Last edited by BeepBeep2; 11-22-2011 at 02:45 PM.
    Smile

  14. #189
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,823
    u are rendering in single core mode? ,-)
    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

  15. #190
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden, Linköping
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBeep2 View Post
    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.
    I will reiterate what I said above: AMD have explicitly said they are not happy with GlobalFoundries 32nm performance and are working with them on fixing it. They've said this on quarterly reports two quarters in a row. Llano was supposed to launch at frequencies above 3,0 GHz and it did so at 2,9 GHz - the mobile models aren't even funny to describe. Llano isn't a train wreck like Bulldozer, but it confirms there is something wrong with the process - just like AMD's own words from people like Thomas Seifert.

    I think AMD's engineers knew exactly what they were doing when they designed Bulldozer, it's foolish to even question this. However the end result is bad, probably for many reasons but the architecture is in no manner "bad". The manufacturing process on the other hand is a dog at the moment. AMD decided to build an entirely new architecture on a brand new and unproven process, a very dangerous combination the semiconductor industry usually never attempts (also a strong reason for Intel's Tick-Tock scheme).
    SweClockers.com

    CPU: Phenom II X4 955BE
    Clock: 4200MHz 1.4375v
    Memory: Dominator GT 2x2GB 1600MHz 6-6-6-20 1.65v
    Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair IV Formula
    GPU: HD 5770

  16. #191
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,261
    Beep, OMG. cannot you read and think logically interpreting my post?

    Im not looking for what should be done or not.

    Honestly, do you think AMD cares about high end CPU for desktop users? That gives relatively small earnings per cpu in that nische market. What matters most are Brazo, Lllano and Opteron from economic viewpoint for AMD. Large volumes for large base of users that dont OC.

    I said BD is designed for Server environment at first hand. Check Cray machines that are equipped with Nvidia cards. Calculations are needed of combined BD and Nvidia hence double fpu of Bd or whatever it is. Times are changing and GPU take more use of calculations. So I assumed that the new uarch is designed for a few years forward with eventual software upgrades and workloads divided to different things.

    So the first gen is miss or luck with relatively small investments from AMD side and I dont need mention how much money one need put down for succesfull lower nm manufacturing like GlobalFoundries. Compare numbers with Intel investments in $$$$ It is very large sum. Ticktock sounds better and safer but such is reality when you have take a chance and try out it on new ground.

    Didnt I mention that complaining about desktop perf is understandable? It means no much comments about it from my side, it neither is great or fail rather a last resort for desktop after Opteron (likewise with Phenom). I'd get more use of new BD since I have 955, for my work I use Photoshop CS5, 3d rendering, after effects. It makes sense for me when I need 100% utilizition of all cores, not single thread perf. Myself I see BD as 4 core cpu with 8 threads so it is a leap forward when I upgrade it from 955. It'd be nicer if I save a few watts energy consumption but I can live with it. If you look at Phoronix Linux benchmarks, it confirms my suspicions how and what purpose the new architecture is designed for.

    If you are not happy, why not buy 2600k, it is not too late sell your Crosshair V

    I prefer constuctive attitude towards all things in life, it is waste time to write things when it is all in past anyway.
    Vishera 8320@ 5ghz | Gigabyte UD3 | 8gb TridentX 2400 c10| Powercolor 6850 | Thermalight Silver Arrow (bench Super KAZE 3k) | Samsung 830 128gbx2 Raid 0| Fractal case

  17. #192
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    MA.
    Posts
    1,783
    Not sure how anyone can blame GF for the architecture failure.
    Granted, they DO take up too much power, and it DOES heat up too much when OC'd....

    What else can be THEIR fault?
    How fast was it supposed to be, 6G? How was the performance of that monster OC that was on here, did it even compete with a 2600 or 990 at 4.5 g?
    At stock frequencies the draw and heat are fine, and this chip gets WHALED on, which tells me and anyone else paying attention that's it's IPC is weak.
    We still live in a ST world, regardless of what the geniuses over at AMD say.
    Zen2 Has brought AMD back!

  18. #193
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    MA.
    Posts
    1,783
    Not sure how anyone can blame GF for the architecture failure.
    Granted, they DO take up too much power, and it DOES heat up too much when OC'd....

    What else can be THEIR fault?
    How fast was it supposed to be, 6G? How was the performance of that monster OC that was on here, did it even compete with a 2600 or 990 at 4.5 g?
    At stock frequencies the draw and heat are fine, and this chip gets WHALED on, which tells me and anyone else paying attention that's it's IPC is weak.
    We still live in a ST world, regardless of what the geniuses over at AMD say.
    Zen2 Has brought AMD back!

  19. #194
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomasis View Post
    Beep, OMG. cannot you read and think logically interpreting my post?

    Im not looking for what should be done or not.

    Honestly, do you think AMD cares about high end CPU for desktop users? That gives relatively small earnings per cpu in that nische market. What matters most are Brazo, Lllano and Opteron from economic viewpoint for AMD. Large volumes for large base of users that dont OC.

    I said BD is designed for Server environment at first hand. Check Cray machines that are equipped with Nvidia cards. Calculations are needed of combined BD and Nvidia hence double fpu of Bd or whatever it is. Times are changing and GPU take more use of calculations. So I assumed that the new uarch is designed for a few years forward with eventual software upgrades and workloads divided to different things.

    So the first gen is miss or luck with relatively small investments from AMD side and I dont need mention how much money one need put down for succesfull lower nm manufacturing like GlobalFoundries. Compare numbers with Intel investments in $$$$ It is very large sum. Ticktock sounds better and safer but such is reality when you have take a chance and try out it on new ground.

    Didnt I mention that complaining about desktop perf is understandable? It means no much comments about it from my side, it neither is great or fail rather a last resort for desktop after Opteron (likewise with Phenom). I'd get more use of new BD since I have 955, for my work I use Photoshop CS5, 3d rendering, after effects. It makes sense for me when I need 100% utilizition of all cores, not single thread perf. Myself I see BD as 4 core cpu with 8 threads so it is a leap forward when I upgrade it from 955. It'd be nicer if I save a few watts energy consumption but I can live with it. If you look at Phoronix Linux benchmarks, it confirms my suspicions how and what purpose the new architecture is designed for.

    If you are not happy, why not buy 2600k, it is not too late sell your Crosshair V

    I prefer constuctive attitude towards all things in life, it is waste time to write things when it is all in past anyway.
    I wasn't complaining about Opterons though, I simply mentioned them once in reference to how badly they did in the anandtech review. They lost to intel's equivilents while consuming more power than the last generation and lost to the last gen 2/3 times.

    If their goal was many slow cores in a server environment why not just glue more on the old uarch?

    Intel continues to make single cores faster so it can use less of them or clock them down when they add more.

    EDIT:
    I'd like to note that you keep downplaying my intelligence as if my age is what causes my percieved stupidity. You've so far told me that I can't think logically, can't interpret simple one sentence posts, you've told me to "act more sensibly" even. All because "you remember that I am a child." Your own descrimination puts me a step down before I even say a word.

    You thanked a guy for trolling me. Get real.
    Last edited by BeepBeep2; 11-22-2011 at 04:54 PM.
    Smile

  20. #195
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    cleveland ohio
    Posts
    2,879
    why do you keep talking about IPC
    it's IPM LOL module shared L1 instruction cache people.
    HAVE NO FEAR!
    "AMD fallen angel"
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamekiller View Post
    You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.

  21. #196
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    MA.
    Posts
    1,783
    Module Smodule.
    I just prefer to call it slow doing what it is supposed to do>

    Compute.
    Zen2 Has brought AMD back!

  22. #197
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    MA.
    Posts
    1,783
    Module Smodule.
    I just prefer to call it slow doing what it is supposed to do>

    Compute.
    Zen2 Has brought AMD back!

  23. #198
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,499
    http://arstechnica.com/business/news...tastrophe.ars/

    We are all off topic, this thread was designed to speculate on Piledriver which is hopefully 40% faster if they can find 30% in the process refinement and 10% in the architecture by then.

    I guess 45nm improved about 30% since they launched Phenom II X4 940 so hopefully 32nm does that too. It needs to do it quickly.
    Smile

  24. #199
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    MA.
    Posts
    1,783
    I thought they refined the core AND the process got better?
    If they can do the same with BD it MAY turn out OK, I have my doubts.....but I'm hopeful.
    Zen2 Has brought AMD back!

  25. #200
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    West hartford, CT
    Posts
    2,804
    yeah Amd needs to do something stat.

    release b3 stepping asap

    or heck make yur top of the line bulldozer available for once lol

    man good thing u can still buy their phenom II line up otherwise they'd be SOL
    FX-8350(1249PGT) @ 4.7ghz 1.452v, Swiftech H220x
    Asus Crosshair Formula 5 Am3+ bios v1703
    G.skill Trident X (2x4gb) ~1200mhz @ 10-12-12-31-46-2T @ 1.66v
    MSI 7950 TwinFrozr *1100/1500* Cat.14.9
    OCZ ZX 850w psu
    Lian-Li Lancool K62
    Samsung 830 128g
    2 x 1TB Samsung SpinpointF3, 2T Samsung
    Win7 Home 64bit
    My Rig

Page 8 of 48 FirstFirst ... 56789101118 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •