1Kurgan1Interesting that 2 of them share same frequency and different wattages (different turbo core clocks?). Also interesting that there is a 500mhz gap between top dog and 2nd rung.

H82LUZ736 and 8 mb cache speeds too.they only get 3.6ghz as highest speed also,Looks to me like the chips will be locked multiplier and unlocked multiplier.

H82LUZ736 and 8 mb cache speeds too.they only get 3.6ghz as highest speed also,Looks to me like the chips will be locked multiplier and unlocked multiplier.

1Kurgan1I don't see 2 different cache values. I see 2x 8120 processors, only difference is wattage.

theoneandonlymrkspecially since hes a mong and paid over odds for ol stut, wanna up Now.

calebQuote:
Originally Posted by theoneandonlymrk
specially since hes a mong and paid over odds for ol stut, wanna up Now.

huh?

H82LUZ73lets see did you guys look at the last 3 chips on that list ? 1x4 1x6 l2 by 8mb l3 also i think the 95watt ones will be locked but that's just me.The top 2 looks like a unlocked 125watter ,Must be for the volt bleed.

H82LUZ736 and 8 mb cache speeds too.they only get 3.6ghz as highest speed also,Looks to me like the chips will be locked multiplier and unlocked multiplier.

1Kurgan1I don't see 2 different cache values. I see 2x 8120 processors, only difference is wattage.

TheLaughingManAll FX chips will have unlocked multipliers. And 3.6 is not the top speed as this chart does not list the turbo speeds. Without confirmation the 125W FX-8120 will have a higher Turbo and use it more often since it has a more TDP to play with. If I recall, the rumor is 125W FX-8120 will have a turbo of 4.0 Ghz and the 95W will only go up to 3.6 Ghz. But I have no confirmation from AMD about this, just rumors. It could end up being a case where processors get listed as supported but never released or those will be for used for Dell, HP, and other desktop makers who use crappy coolers.

1Kurgan1I'm assuming the goal will be to make the 125W the better binned chips, but if demand is high on the 95W then they will have to use some of those. I don't use Turbo core anyways, lets hope they clock like the x6's, because I love how my 1055 has always clocked like it's big brothers.

[H]@RD5TUFFhow is this news :wtf:

cadavecaBecause it's the first actual confirmation of Bulldozer info, from a real and verifiable source?;)

[H]@RD5TUFFYay confirmation of stuff we already knew . . . reviews please!

TheLaughingManIt is much much faster than your Core 2 Quad in your rig description.

[H]@RD5TUFFIs it now source ?:shadedshu obvious troll is obvious

bear jesusCome on, surly they will beat the core 2 quads.... if not then AMD is pretty screwed and failed very hard :laugh: but yes a pointless statement until there is some proof either way.

[H]@RD5TUFFI would hope it was but AMD never misses a chance to fail, so I am taking the view of proof or it's not true.

bear jesusIf bulldozer can't beat the core 2 quads then it would make perfect sense that the delay was AMD trying to clock them higher and explains the idea of adding in water coolers as they had to clock so high the stock cooler would always fail... i could see it happening :laugh:

Honestly i expect bulldozer to just make me give my money to Intel but i agree with the proof, only reviews from respected sites will allow me to part with my money no matter who the money is going to.