# Bulldozer specs and pricing



## twilyth (Jun 14, 2011)

This is from youtube and I don't know who this guy is, but for people who are interested and don't mind some FUD with their "news", here you go.

This is for the 8100, 8110, 8130 and 8150P - apparently all are B2 or C0 steppings.

Maybe someone else will have the patience to transcribe the relevant info, but IIRC the 8150P will have a base clock of 4ghz and self-oc to 4.4ghz.


----------



## bucketface (Jun 14, 2011)

if true those are some massive stock clocks.


----------



## Wyverex (Jun 14, 2011)

Copy/Pasted / transcribed info from the clip:


All four will be AM3+ socket CPUS
They will have 4x2 MB L2 cache and 8 MB L3 cache and their HyperTransport bus will be at 3200 MHz

FX-8150P(C0) - 4.0Ghz, Max T.C 4.4Ghz, 125W (Unknown)
FX-8130P(B2) - 3.8Ghz, Max T.C 4.2Ghz, 125W (320$)
FX-8110(B2) - 3.6Ghz, Max T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W (290$)
FX-8100(C0) - 3.5Ghz, Max T.C 3.9Ghz, 125W (Unknown)

PS he says 95W for 8100 in clip, but in description, it says 125W


----------



## Fatal (Jun 14, 2011)

Those are some kick butt stock clocks I wonder if they will have any headroom.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jun 14, 2011)

Wyverex said:


> Copy/Pasted / transcribed info from the clip:
> 
> 
> All four will be AM3+ socket CPUS
> ...



I think this is correct, in sync with what AMD was mentioning. New stepping, C0 taking the highest clock.

I believe the 3.6Ghz is indeed 95W, as I have seen it mentioned in other err leaked slides. 

FOr me, the 3.6Ghz 95W and 4GHz 125W CPUs are the only ones out there, the pests in between are unwanted


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 14, 2011)

I wonder if there is any difference in overclocking between B2 and C0 steppings.
If there is you could get a FX-8100(C0) and oc it instead of getting a FX-8110(B2). Or vice versa if its the other way around.

Depends on price but the 8100 probably will be a lower price than the 8110.


----------



## Zyon (Jun 14, 2011)

Wow, that is some aggressive clock speeds by AMD to take on Sandy Bridge, let's hope the flagship 4ghz chip will prove its performance and doesn't cost a mortgage like the 990X


----------



## xenocide (Jun 14, 2011)

Something about a CPU line that starts at high clock speeds confuses me...


----------



## Anusha (Jun 14, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Something about a CPU line that starts at high clock speeds confuses me...


Then Sandybridge must have confused you as well?


----------



## twilyth (Jun 14, 2011)

Anusha said:


> Then Sandybridge must have confused you as well?



I think it's more the same kind of surprise you have were you to see a black guy playing hockey or a white guy who can dance (and issn't gay).

Wow, I offended 3 groups in one sentence.  Not a personal best, but not bad.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 14, 2011)

Anusha said:


> Then Sandybridge must have confused you as well?



Point me in the direction of the 4GHz+ SandyBridge CPU's...


----------



## Anusha (Jun 14, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Point me in the direction of the 4GHz+ SandyBridge CPU's...


3.4~3.8GHz in January is like 4~4.4 in September. XD
besides it is only one model. it is not my fault that Intel didn't make a 2700K, 2800K etc. people would have still gotten them, if they priced those two models at $500 and $700 range.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jun 14, 2011)

No point in 2700K and others alike. Whay we have now is mid and upper mid level Sandy Bridge. Intel will launch SB-E for LGA2011. That's where top performance will be. At a price...


----------



## Anusha (Jun 14, 2011)

Crap Daddy said:


> No point in 2700K and others alike. Whay we have now is mid and upper mid level Sandy Bridge. Intel will launch SB-E for LGA2011. That's where top performance will be. At a price...


hehe. bulldozer thread becomes a sandybridge thread all of a sudden. XD 

few things to consider would be, will SB-E be as overclockable as the SB? maybe the 4 core model would be, but i doubt the 6 core models will reach ~4.8GHz without some serious volts. but why pay a lot of money for the 4 core SB-E when you can get pretty much the same performance with 2600k. i don't think 4-channel memory would boost performance much. the real perks i see with the SB-E platform are for the multiGPU gamers. x16 PC-E 3.0 three way SLI with keplar based chips (which i will never buy, no thanks)

that said, i wonder how far BD chips will overclock to. if the 3.5GHz model clocks to same max OC speed as a top end model (say 5GHz, if that is realistic), it would bring back the real perks of overclocking (i.e. poor kid gets to match performance of the rich kid's CPU with *some* effort) 

man, these Handbrake High Profile HD encodes are running at 15fps with my i5. if BD can double that, that's all i need right now. 2600k, even with a 4.8GHzish OC would only do 50% better than mine.

p.s.
both BD (i mean, Zambezi) and SB-E won't have onboard GPU, right? that would suck! not for gaming or anything, i would like to see GPU accelerated encoding.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 14, 2011)

Look out for flyin intels, AMDs gonna be kickin their arses pretty hard!


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 14, 2011)

Anusha said:


> hehe. bulldozer thread becomes a sandybridge thread all of a sudden. XD
> 
> few things to consider would be, will SB-E be as overclockable as the SB? maybe the 4 core model would be, but i doubt the 6 core models will reach ~4.8GHz without some serious volts. but why pay a lot of money for the 4 core SB-E when you can get pretty much the same performance with 2600k. i don't think 4-channel memory would boost performance much. the real perks i see with the SB-E platform are for the multiGPU gamers. x16 PC-E 3.0 three way SLI with keplar based chips (which i will never buy, no thanks)
> 
> ...



PM me what settings your using for HB, I average 90fps when i encode from a h264 720/1080p 4gb file to 1800-2000mb MP4 keeping the same resolution.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 14, 2011)

All these numbers flying around Zambezi are very interesting... 4GHz... 19°C... 125W TDP... 8 cores... 1866MHz DDR3... ~$300...
NOW BRING ON THE ACTUAL PRODUCT!


----------



## Anusha (Jun 14, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> All these numbers flying around Zambezi are very interesting... 4GHz... 19°C... 125W TDP... 8 cores... 1866MHz DDR3... ~$300...
> NOW BRING ON THE ACTUAL PRODUCT!


or simply tell us if it would be better when overclocked than an overclocked 2600k.


----------



## seronx (Jun 14, 2011)

FX-8150P(B3) - 4.0Ghz, T.C 4.5Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8130P(B2) - 3.8Ghz, T.C 4.2Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8110(B2) - 3.6Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
FX-8100(B3) - 3.5Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)

Fixed

Komodo
Next year:
FX-8250P(C3) - 5.0Ghz, T.C 5.5Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8230P(C2) - 4.8Ghz, T.C 5.2Ghz, 125W ($320)
FX-8210(C2) - 4.6Ghz, T.C 5.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
FX-8200(C3) - 4.5Ghz, T.C 5.0Ghz, 95W ($290)

This how steppings work people

Phenom I was B2->B3
Phenom II was C2->C3

Special versions get the E0 model which signifies absolute max die space compactness

AMD always releases to B2 for each new architecture

B0 Q4, B1 Q1, B2 Q2, B3 Q3 -> C0 Q4, C1 Q1, C2 Q2, C3 Q3 -> E0 Q4

Year 0 > Year 1 > Year 2 ---> New Architecture


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 14, 2011)

seronx said:


> FX-8150P(B3) - 4.0Ghz, T.C 4.5Ghz, 125W ($320)
> FX-8130P(B2) - 3.8Ghz, T.C 4.2Ghz, 125W ($320)
> FX-8110(B2) - 3.6Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
> FX-8100(B3) - 3.5Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
> ...



5ghz stock non turbo, is this just an example of what you are explaining about stepping or..........


----------



## JATownes (Jun 14, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> 5ghz stock non turbo, is this just an example of what you are explaining about stepping or..........



I was thinking the same thing.  5Ghz stock frequency seems pretty optomistic to me.


----------



## seronx (Jun 14, 2011)

NdMk2o1o said:


> 5ghz stock non turbo, is this just an example of what you are explaining about stepping or..........





JATownes said:


> I was thinking the same thing.  5Ghz stock frequency seems pretty optomistic to me.



My answer on this it is possible GloFo technically by the end of this year should be developing a new(Not just HKMG, 3D Tranny equivalent) Fab process for 20/22nm for us to convert into

I made a oob boo boo

Corrected:

B0 Q4, B1 Q1, B2 Q2, B3 Q3 -> C0 Q4, C1 Q1, C2 Q2, C3 Q3 -> E0 Q4

Phenom K10
Year 0(New Architecture), Year 2(Die Shrink+Optimizations), Year 4(Die Compression) ---> Year 5 New Architecture

Is the correct 3 ticks then a tock

But the AMD Bulldozer path seem more like this

Year 0 (New Architecture) -> Year 1(Die Compression) -> Year 2(Die Shrink+Optimizations) -> Year 3(Die Compression) -> Year 4(Die Shrink+Optimizations) -> Year 5 (Die Compression) -> then finally NG Bulldozer

or it could be an accelerated version

Year 0 (NA) -> Year 1(DS+O) -> Year (DC) -> NG Bulldozer


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 14, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I think it's more the same kind of surprise you have were you to see a black guy playing hockey or a white guy who can dance (and issn't gay).
> 
> Wow, I offended 3 groups in one sentence.  Not a personal best, but not bad.



Next time try for 4. Pretty good though.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 14, 2011)

Anusha said:


> hehe. bulldozer thread becomes a sandybridge thread all of a sudden. XD
> 
> few things to consider would be, will SB-E be as overclockable as the SB? maybe the 4 core model would be, but i doubt the 6 core models will reach ~4.8GHz without some serious volts. but why pay a lot of money for the 4 core SB-E when you can get pretty much the same performance with 2600k. i don't think 4-channel memory would boost performance much. the real perks i see with the SB-E platform are for the multiGPU gamers. x16 PC-E 3.0 three way SLI with keplar based chips (which i will never buy, no thanks)
> 
> ...




   something wrong with your cpu or OS ? becuase thats pretty fucking slow for handbrake on a quad core although I have only been rencoding blue rays to mp4  I get well over 40fps on my stock clocked thuban.


----------



## Anusha (Jun 15, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> something wrong with your cpu or OS ? becuase thats pretty fucking slow for handbrake on a quad core although I have only been rencoding blue rays to mp4  I get well over 40fps on my stock clocked thuban.


There is nothing wrong with the CPU. Maybe it has gotta do with the high profile settings? I'm trying to reencode some movies which I already had ripped. Originally /fraps -> MKV, now MKV -> Mp4 for better compatibility. Should have done the Original src -> MP4 conversion in the first place. Oh well. That's what I am gonna do from now onwards.


----------



## xenocide (Jun 15, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> Look out for flyin intels, AMDs gonna be kickin their arses pretty hard!



Based on?

...

OH! Speculation, that's right.  It's pre-emptive to claim that AMD will be destroying Intel.  Especially considering anything critical of BD is immediately rejected as false, and everything beneficial to AMD _must_ be true.  Sure, there is a good chance BD will compete with SB, but remember, it _has_ to.  AMD cannot remain a generation behind Intel forever.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 15, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Based on?
> 
> ...
> 
> OH! Speculation, that's right.  It's pre-emptive to claim that AMD will be destroying Intel.  Especially considering anything critical of BD is immediately rejected as false, and everything beneficial to AMD _must_ be true.  Sure, there is a good chance BD will compete with SB, but remember, it _has_ to.  *AMD cannot remain a generation behind Intel forever*.



yet,kia,hundia etc are multiple generation behind other manufacturers and they are making plenty of money. Right now its a value market, and if bulldozer is a good value, its going to sell well in its various configurations at the vraious price points, but only if its a good value.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 15, 2011)

*yay i pissed an intel fanboy!*



xenocide said:


> Based on?
> 
> ...
> 
> OH! Speculation, that's right.  It's pre-emptive to claim that AMD will be destroying Intel.  Especially considering anything critical of BD is immediately rejected as false, and everything beneficial to AMD _must_ be true.  Sure, there is a good chance BD will compete with SB, but remember, it _has_ to.  AMD cannot remain a generation behind Intel forever.



chill dude


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 15, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> yet,kia,hundia etc are multiple generation behind other manufacturers and they are making plenty of money. Right now its a value market, and if bulldozer is a good value, its going to sell well in its various configurations at the vraious price points, but only if its a good value.



You have a point but $320 for the 8130p is $5 more than the 2600k. Luckily for me, I don't have any problems believing AMD can pull it off.



de.das.dude said:


> chill dude



Even though I don't believe the guy in the video has any clue of what he's talking about, congrats on pissing off an Intel fanboy.


----------



## seronx (Jun 15, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> You have a point but $320 for the 8130p is $5 more than the 2600k. Luckily for me, I don't have any problems believing AMD can pull it off.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I don't believe the guy in the video has any clue of what he's talking about, congrats on pissing off an Intel fanboy.



That is MSRP, It might be cheaper than that



You know the buy early, you get $20 off


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 15, 2011)

hmm clock speed indicates a lower performance degree than we had thought. I miss the days of when a 2.6GHZ athlon 64 could kick the crap out of a 3.4GHZ intel.


----------



## seronx (Jun 15, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> hmm clock speed indicates a lower performance degree than we had thought. I miss the days of when a 2.6GHZ athlon 64 could kick the crap out of a 3.4GHZ intel.



Nope it is still the same

if it was clocked towards i7 950 @ same clock speed it would be 50% more speedy or was it 25%?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 15, 2011)

seronx said:


> That is MSRP, It might be cheaper than that
> 
> 
> 
> You know the buy early, you get $20 off



That would be nice. 

I'm kind of hoping for a Crosshair V bundle on Newegg.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 15, 2011)

seronx said:


> Nope it is still the same
> 
> if it was clocked towards i7 950 @ same clock speed it would be 50% more speedy or was it 25%?



we originally though 50% but 25% might be more likely. Shoot even at 25% at the clockspeed they're showing that would be really impressive.


----------



## seronx (Jun 15, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> we originally though 50% but 25% might be more likely. Shoot even at 25% at the clockspeed they're showing that would be really impressive.



IPC doesn't increase at higher clocks

Instructions per Clock

---
Nehalem 1x 
SB 1.10x
---
K10 .75x
K10.5 .80x
Bulldozer 1.25x


----------



## zpnq (Jun 21, 2011)

seronx said:


> FX-8150P(B3) - 4.0Ghz, T.C 4.5Ghz, 125W ($320)
> FX-8130P(B2) - 3.8Ghz, T.C 4.2Ghz, 125W ($320)
> FX-8110(B2) - 3.6Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
> FX-8100(B3) - 3.5Ghz, T.C 4.0Ghz, 95W ($290)
> ...



Zambezi is only coming in 2 waves (as i understand it) komodo will be on a new socket and probably have a memory controller upgrade. am3+ is going to have very short life.

They were set to have the first wave released in july and the second in q4, first wave is delayed and i would assume so is the second wave.  Then in 2012 its a new socket with komodo and trinity, its likely they will have quad or tri channel memory controllers on both.


----------



## seronx (Jun 21, 2011)

zpnq said:


> Zambezi is only coming in 2 waves (as i understand it) komodo will be on a new socket and probably have a memory controller upgrade. am3+ is going to have very short life.
> 
> They were set to have the first wave released in july and the second in q4, first wave is delayed and i would assume so is the second wave.  Then in 2012 its a new socket with komodo and trinity, its likely they will have quad or tri channel memory controllers on both.



Ya, I noticed that

AM3+ might be B2, B3
FMx Might go to C2, C3 then the E0 for 5 Module

First wave was June, Second Wave was September
It was then delayed to
First Wave is August(Earliest), Second Wave is October/November(Earliest)


----------



## xenocide (Jun 21, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> congrats on pissing off an Intel fanboy.



Not an Intel Fanboy, unless supporting a company that makes a more powerful CPU instantly makes me a fanboy.  We've been over this, I owned AMD for a long time (Socket A->939) but since the era of the Q6600 I cannot see getting an AMD CPU since they are all re-hashes of the same design, with marginal performance increases.

My argument is not against AMD, it's against AMD fans that are claiming based on price and word of mouth that these CPU's will dominate the market.  What I'm saying is you cannot make such a claim without facts.  It wouldn't be acceptable for me to start yelling about how the HD6xxx series will obviously destroy the GTX6xx series would it?  We have no way of knowing, the same thing applies to Bulldozer CPU's.



Thatguy said:


> yet,kia,hundia etc are multiple generation behind other manufacturers and they are making plenty of money. Right now its a value market, and if bulldozer is a good value, its going to sell well in its various configurations at the vraious price points, but only if its a good value.



They are generations behind in quality, sure.  But they are also in a different market.  A car is a mode of transportation, and most of the examples you gave give excellent fuel mileage at a good price (albeit with absolute shit quality).  But are you also suggesting that if you could easily attain both for roughly the same price you would take a Kia over an Audi?  If the answer to that question is yes, you are _insane_.

Bulldozer has to be a good value, to maintain AMD's reputation, but it also has to be competitive.  If Intel all of a sudden cut the price on their CPU's $50 across the board, and were cheaper than AMD alternatives, while offering identical performance, would you still be harping on the importance of Value?

The main difference is this.  AMD represents mostly people that want acceptable performance at a great cost, Intel is for people that want the most raw performance, and where price isn't necessarily the prime concern.  Don't get confused though, because the value is still there for Intel CPU's.  As an example, I paid $200 for an Q6600 (and $100 for a mobo if it's relevant) right after the original Phenom CPU's came out to replace my AMD X2 3800+ setup.  Now, it might have been cheaper to go AMD at the time, but would it have been worth it since almost everyone that bought those CPU's replaced them (and their motherboard) within 2 years, while I kept my Q6600 for 3 years?

_To Recap;  I don't hate AMD, or want Bulldozer to fail.  I actually want the opposite, but I don't like people claiming Bulldozer will obviously be the best option right out the gates without any information to back such a claim!_


----------



## PaulieG (Jun 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Not an Intel Fanboy, unless supporting a company that makes a more powerful CPU instantly makes me a fanboy.  We've been over this, I owned AMD for a long time (Socket A->939) but since the era of the Q6600 I cannot see getting an AMD CPU since they are all re-hashes of the same design, with marginal performance increases.
> 
> My argument is not against AMD, it's against AMD fans that are claiming based on price and word of mouth that these CPU's will dominate the market.  What I'm saying is you cannot make such a claim without facts.  It wouldn't be acceptable for me to start yelling about how the HD6xxx series will obviously destroy the GTX6xx series would it?  We have no way of knowing, the same thing applies to Bulldozer CPU's.
> 
> ...



Nice job with this post. It explains exactly how I feel about the whole Intel vs. AMD argument. All I want from both companies is the best performance for my dollar. That's what I do with every product I buy. Does it make sense to do otherwise?


----------



## Rock N Roll Rebel (Jun 21, 2011)

every body is going to have these new cpu's when they come out but im going to be happy with my little phenom 2 940 for the next 5 years because im poor. lol


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> They are generations behind in quality, sure.  But they are also in a different market.  A car is a mode of transportation, and most of the examples you gave give excellent fuel mileage at a good price (albeit with absolute shit quality).  But are you also suggesting that if you could easily attain both for roughly the same price you would take a Kia over an Audi?  If the answer to that question is yes, you are _insane_.



   Your off your rocker, its not just about quality, its about features, and cheap cars come with less performance and less features, the comparison is valid. If AMD makes a product thats a good VALUE for its price point, it will sell.


----------



## seronx (Jun 21, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Your off your rocker, its not just about quality, its about features, and cheap cars come with less performance and less features, the comparison is valid. If AMD makes a product thats a good VALUE for its price point, it will sell.



You're off your rocker, It's not about quality, It's about how much features, "Bad Comparison." If AMD makes a product that's a good *Value* for its price point, it will indefinitely sell.

^Fixed
:shadedshu

i7 2600K
Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Tu...
$315

i5 2500K
Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Tu...
$220

AMD 8-core FX
-no link yet-
$290

AMD 6-core FX
-no link yet-
$240


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 21, 2011)

seronx said:


> You're off your rocker, It's not about quality, It's about how much features, "Bad Comparison." If AMD makes a product that's a good *Value* for its price point, it will indefinitely sell.
> 
> ^Fixed
> :shadedshu
> ...




   My point stands, if the performance "which is a FEATURE" is a good at that price point and it represents a good VALUE it will sell. 

   Economics 101. Unless of course brand recognition is poor and the product is not well marketed.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 21, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Not an Intel Fanboy, unless supporting a company that makes a more powerful CPU instantly makes me a fanboy.  We've been over this, I owned AMD for a long time (Socket A->939) but since the era of the Q6600 I cannot see getting an AMD CPU since they are all re-hashes of the same design, with marginal performance increases.
> 
> My argument is not against AMD, it's against AMD fans that are claiming based on price and word of mouth that these CPU's will dominate the market.  What I'm saying is you cannot make such a claim without facts.  It wouldn't be acceptable for me to start yelling about how the HD6xxx series will obviously destroy the GTX6xx series would it?  We have no way of knowing, the same thing applies to Bulldozer CPU's.
> 
> ...



You make some valid points, but for every AMD fan making baseless claims that Bulldozer will definitively destroy Sandy Bridge, I see more Intel fans claiming that it doesn't have a chance. And the funny thing is, the thread is always about Bulldozer. These types of arguments never occur in the Intel threads.

If you don't expect the AMD fans to rave about Bulldozer, in a Bulldozer related thread, you should reexamine the situation. They are excited and optimistic, and given that this is AMD's first new architecture in forever, they have every right to be.

I myself, have said on many occasions that I don't know what kind of performance to expect from Bulldozer, and I will be happy with something that beats Phenom II. My basis for not buying Intel has nothing to do with processor speed. Can I say it will beat Sandy? No. Can I say it won't beat Sandy? No. But I can say that I am excited to find out, and even if it doesn't, I will still be buying it.


----------



## repman244 (Jun 21, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I will be happy with something that beats Phenom II



+1

I only care about this, so I can upgrade.


----------



## twicksisted (Jun 22, 2011)

[speculation] The Stock speeds being so high is a bit worrying... could be a sign the chips are not as powerfull as expected so they needed to compensate with crazy high clock speeds... [\speculation]


----------



## seronx (Jun 22, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> You make some valid points, but for every AMD fan making baseless claims that Bulldozer will definitively destroy Sandy Bridge, I see more Intel fans claiming that it doesn't have a chance. And the funny thing is, the thread is always about Bulldozer. These types of arguments never occur in the Intel threads.
> 
> If you don't expect the AMD fans to rave about Bulldozer, in a Bulldozer related thread, you should reexamine the situation. They are excited and optimistic, and given that this is AMD's first new architecture in forever, they have every right to be.
> 
> I myself, have said on many occasions that I don't know what kind of performance to expect from Bulldozer, and I will be happy with something that beats Phenom II. My basis for not buying Intel has nothing to do with processor speed. Can I say it will beat Sandy? No. Can I say it won't beat Sandy? No. But I can say that I am excited to find out, and even if it doesn't, I will still be buying it.



IPC should architecturally be higher than SB

Making it beat Phenom II and Nehalem by default

It's a 50% Core Amount over Phenom II
and a 50% Core Performance over Nehalem

^The FX-8000 series
http://www.techpowerup.com/138328/Bulldozer-50-Faster-than-Core-i7-and-Phenom-II.html

It's not 50% faster as the article says

It's 50% bigger/50% faster some how this equates to 125% better 1.25x(Nehalem)



twicksisted said:


> [speculation] The Stock speeds being so high is a bit worrying... could be a sign the chips are not as powerfull as expected so they needed to compensate with crazy high clock speeds... [\speculation]



Nope, The high stock speeds are because it has less transistors

852M Bulldozer vs 995M i7 SB 2600K/2500K

^More room to factory overclock
---

LGA 2011 i7 Quad-core should have the same amount of transistors as Bulldozer(LGA 2011= No GPU)
i7 8-thread LGA 2011 has 3.6GHz stock and has a 3.9 GHz Turbo Boost
FX 8-core AM3+  has 3.6GHz stock and has a 4.0 GHz Turbo Core


----------



## suraswami (Jun 22, 2011)

Hope Bulldozer does well reasonably if not better than SB.

One thing for sure AMD fans keep AMD alive which inturn keeps CPU/GPU innovation alive, remember competition and threat got wonderful SB to the table.


----------



## theeldest (Jun 22, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> [speculation] The Stock speeds being so high is a bit worrying... could be a sign the chips are not as powerfull as expected so they needed to compensate with crazy high clock speeds... [\speculation]



Personally I would see high initial clock speeds as good execution of design. Let's face it, if AMD could have launched Phenom I or II with clockspeeds in the mid to uppper 3GHz, they would have.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 22, 2011)

theeldest said:


> Personally I would see high initial clock speeds as good execution of design. Let's face it, if AMD could have launched Phenom I or II with clockspeeds in the mid to uppper 3GHz, they would have.



That launch would have looked alot different from a performance perspective against products at that time.


----------



## seronx (Jun 22, 2011)

theeldest said:


> Personally I would see high initial clock speeds as good execution of design. Let's face it, if AMD could have launched Phenom I or II with clockspeeds in the mid to uppper 3GHz, they would have.





Thatguy said:


> That launch would have looked alot different from a performance perspective against products at that time.



I agree with both

AMDs K10 was broken and awful for the consumer

Compared to C2Qs

They had horrible performance, and people who went AMD had to live with it...Unless they had money to go from Intel Netburst -> K10 -> Nehalem

But, I sure didn't lol

Phenom II didn't really fix anything...It was still a horrible processor ya sure it performed better but it still couldn't beat C2Qs at the same clock...

Bulldozer on the other hand isn't K8 or K10 rehashed

Hopefully it's going to be a K7 for AMD and not a K10


----------



## Melvis (Jun 22, 2011)

seronx said:


> Phenom II didn't really fix anything...It was still a horrible processor ya sure it performed better but it still couldn't beat C2Qs at the same clock...



 Are you sure about that? everything ive seen shows this to be NOT true.


----------



## seronx (Jun 22, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Are you sure about that? everything ive seen shows this to be NOT true.



I went from a Phenom I to a Phenom II

40 GFlops to 55 GFlops isn't exactly the best improvement around(48 Gflops for 940)

K10 Phenom: (2.6GHz)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+9950+Quad-Core

K10.5 Phenom: (3.0GHz)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+940

Now watch Intel's progression 
Core 2 Quad
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q9650+@+3.00GHz

Nehalem
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+950+@+3.07GHz

I fixed the data on some cpus so if you quoted me replace the data

-----

Sure the improvement is needed but my GPU is still bottlenecked

500~ Passmark Pentium 4(HTT 3.0GHz) to 3000~ Passmark Phenom 9950 (2.6GHz) to 4200~ Passmark Phenom II 965BE (3.4GHz)
where I could have gone
500~ Passmark Pentium 4(HTT 3.0GHz) to 6000~ Passmark i7 950 (3.07GHz)

Phenom 9950 right when the i7 950 came out to, :\

And Bulldozer being 50% better/faster than i7 950/Phenom II X6 1100T(also has 6000 PM points) puts us at 9000~ passmark around SB(and if they upgrade Passmark to FMA4 capable you will see 200%, but if they add AVX you'll go back to 150%)

It's funny when people say 50%(.5x =1/2) when it is actually 150%(1.5x = 3/2)


----------



## Anusha (Jun 22, 2011)

seronx said:


> I went from a Phenom I to a Phenom II
> It's funny when people say 50%(.5x =1/2) when it is actually 150%(1.5x = 3/2)


just 50% != 150%
50% MORE = 100 + 50% = 150% 
you need that MORE in there


----------



## Melvis (Jun 22, 2011)

seronx said:


> I went from a Phenom I to a Phenom II
> 
> 40 GFlops to 55 GFlops isn't exactly the best improvement around(48 Gflops for 940)
> 
> ...



Your basing it all on 1 benchmark? 

I think you need to go look at all different benchmarks and see what happens then.


----------



## seronx (Jun 22, 2011)

Melvis said:


> Your basing it all on 1 benchmark?
> 
> I think you need to go look at all different benchmarks and see what happens then.



CPU scores



> CPU tests Mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, 3DNow! instructions and more



Basically it's an all round CPU Benchmark

It's a Real World benchmark so it is a lot better than Synthetic Benchmarks


----------



## largon (Jun 23, 2011)

FWIW, when I went from Q6600 to X3 720BE I actually saw a performance increase. Had two systems side by side, and X3 was faster. Both were running at 3.6GHz, DDR2-800 and a stock 8800GTS 512MB that I used in turns for both systems.


----------



## DanTheMan (Jun 23, 2011)

Man ol Man
This debate just gets thicker and thicker
Even though I plan on buying Bulldozer 8 core (rather it beats SB or not - I don't care) it will still be a hell of a lot better than the computer that it is replacing (old dual core). 

As long as AMD supplies me a chip that will do what I want to do with my computer for a reasonable amount money I will be happy. It doesn't matter if I'm 90%, 95%, or 110% better or worse than SB. I'm not out to win a race. 

For everyone who pushes their systems to the brink of failure just to squeeze out 1-2 fps and have a 1-2% better Overclock is just living on borrowed time.

All the speculation of BD being better or worse - PLEASE - just wait a few more weeks - when all those (real) benches with the correct CPU stepping surface. Then this discussion will have merit.

THANKS!

All I need is something to get me a decent framerate for BF3 (The only reason why I will be building a new system).  GAME ON!


----------



## twicksisted (Jun 23, 2011)

DanTheMan said:


> All I need is something to get me a decent framerate for BF3 (The only reason why I will be building a new system).  GAME ON!



If thats the reason for the upgrade, then you wont be needing 8 cores as games wont use 8 threads. Anyways i've already upgraded to SB so im not bothered either way, but I am looking forward to see its performance when its launched


----------



## Wyverex (Jun 23, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> If thats the reason for the upgrade, then you wont be needing 8 cores as games wont use 8 threads. Anyways i've already upgraded to SB so im not bothered either way, but I am looking forward to see its performance when its launched


It has already been confirmed that BF3 will support at least 6 cores   And DanTheMan did specify that he's getting a CPU just for BF3


----------



## seronx (Jun 23, 2011)

Wyverex said:


> It has already been confirmed that BF3 will support at least 6 cores   And DanTheMan did specify that he's getting a CPU just for BF3



8 cores and 8 threads

you only need an i7 quad-core and a FX-8K


----------



## Wyverex (Jun 23, 2011)

seronx said:


> 8 cores and 8 threads


Even better 
I've seen it in an old interview that they will be pushing the hardware and supporting *at least* 6 cores. I'm glad that it will be 8


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 23, 2011)

*If* it supports 8 cores, Bulldozer is going to own this game. Now bring on 7000 series cards and let's see if we can max it.


----------



## seronx (Jun 23, 2011)

Wyverex said:


> Even better
> I've seen it in an old interview that they will be pushing the hardware and supporting *at least* 6 cores. I'm glad that it will be 8



BC2 uses 6 cores
BF3 uses 8 cores but in reality it can support infinite amount of cores like Gamebyro/Creation and Unreal and Id Tech



Damn_Smooth said:


> *If* it supports 8 cores, Bulldozer is going to own this game. Now bring on 7000 series cards and let's see if we can max it.



Bulldozer should have the same performance as Intel, game wise(Intel compiler) for (8 threads)
(Bulldozer can fuel GPUs better with less threads(AMD FX 8 threads = Intel EE 12 threads)but only if the drivers and GPU allows it)

Kepler and GCN performance at high-end mainstream you can expect max single display resolution to be 60fps

with 3 monitors you will want a dual gpu


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> BC2 uses 6 cores
> BF3 uses 8 cores but in reality it can support infinite amount of cores like Gamebyro and Unreal and Id tech
> 
> 
> ...



Bad Company 2 only uses 3 cores effectively.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Bad Company 2 only uses 3 cores effectively.
> 
> http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i365/Damn_Smooth/BadCompany2cores.png



Intel Core i7-980X CPU w/o Hyperthreading

Crippling effects follow

They fixed the crippling effect with Sandy Bridge

Westmere i7 980 w/o Hyperthreading = Only 50% resources are used

and none of those benchmarks show 

MAX FRAMERATE


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> Intel Core i7-980X CPU w/o Hyperthreading
> 
> Crippling effects follow
> 
> ...



I don't understand what you are saying. Shouldn't it go up when they enabled more cores no matter what processor they were using?


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I don't understand what you are saying. Shouldn't it go up when they enabled more cores no matter what processor they were using?



It does look at the nvidia benchmarks

it rises slowly

This was done before DX11 got Multithreaded drivers

So, game scaling is whacked out



> Intel Core i7-980X CPU, HyperThreading and power saving states disabled;
> Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 motherboard
> 6GB G.Skill Ripjaw 1,600MHz CL8 memory, set to these timings
> 
> ...



and you also can tell sightly is that the GPUs are bottlenecking
(it's more of a cpu bottleneck(Drivers at the time were still only optimized for 2 Cores making it a GPU bottleneck))


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 24, 2011)

I get it now. Thank you.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> Intel Core i7-980X CPU w/o Hyperthreading
> 
> Crippling effects follow
> 
> ...



Because max framerate means nothing in a real world test. The lowest frame rate shows you what you can expect during the busiest moments (explosions, large numbers of people, dust effects, etc.) and average shows you what you should actual expect to see most of the time. The occassional high spot will not effect game play so it is pointless to me.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Because max framerate means nothing in a real world test. The lowest frame rate shows you what you can expect during the busiest moments (explosions, large numbers of people, dust effects, etc.) and average shows you what you should actual expect to see most of the time. The occassional high spot will not effect game play so it is pointless to me.



AVG is less important than Max

You want a GPU that has the least distance between Min and Max





(Apples-to-Apples eh? 384 "Fermi" powerful cores vs 480 Fermi Cores)

The average is only the product of min and max

the 570 has a better Max-minus-min score so it will be the GPU to get

The less distance = the more efficient

Min being most used
Max being least used

-----------
But that is the least important part

Max frame rates show if there is a bottleneck

(I can tell you right now the Max FPS in this hardocp is being bottlenecked i7 920@3.6GHz when they could be running an i7 2600K @ 4.5GHz)


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 24, 2011)

Sorry, I don't use any system that measures average frame rate as a pure calculation of the final product of min and max.  That is a mean value and not what I am looking for.

Some benchmark software takes average frame rate as the mean value. Most real world benchmark programs use normalization or sampling to create a chart of numbers (say whatever the framerate is at every 1 second) and use the entire list to calculate an average.

So you have a card that spikes up to 91 for a Max, but bottoms out at 32, but spends most of its time during the test/game between 50 and 58 FPS. Your way the average would be 61.5. The way its actual done is far more accurate.

Now using your own graph, if you do a product of the min and max for the numbers listed, you will quickly find that program is using something like my method, not yours, so that was a bad example.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Sorry, I don't use any system that measures average frame rate as a pure calculation of the final product of min and max.  That is a mean value and not what I am looking for.
> 
> Some benchmark software takes average frame rate as the mean value. Most real world benchmark programs use normalization or sampling to create a chart of numbers (say whatever the framerate is at every 1 second) and use the entire list to calculate an average.
> 
> ...




Pift, you're a joke

Min and max is all you need



AVERAGE means nothing






30(max - min) FPS vs 12(max - min) FPS

Less fluctuations = The best viewing ability

If you are watching a movie that went from 60 fps for 5 seconds to 30 fps for 5 seconds and back you would notice it over

60 fps for 5 seconds to 45 fps for 5 seconds and back


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> Pift, you're a joke
> 
> Min and max is all you need
> 
> ...



Um no TheLaughingMan is right. Getting an over all average measuring frames across the board is far more accurate.

Personally I do not care about highest frame rate. I want to see the lowest 



seronx said:


> If you are watching a movie that went from 60 fps for 5 seconds to 30 fps for 5 seconds and back you would notice it over
> 
> 60 fps for 5 seconds to 45 fps for 5 seconds and back


 Moves render different then video games do so your argument is null there.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Um no TheLaughingMan is right. Getting an over all average measuring frames across the board is far more accurate.
> 
> Personally I do not care about highest frame rate. I want to see the lowest
> 
> Moves render different then video games do so your argument is null there.



Movies render the same it just that its prerendered over rendered realtime

My arguments are valid



> Um no TheLaughingMan is right. Getting an over all average measuring frames across the board is far more accurate.



Less accurate as more fluctuations exist making it less valid

Fluctuations that are really big can lead to micro-stuttering

Single GPUs less framerate fluctuations = better quality
same applies to all gpu setups

----

Can we got off this and go back to Bulldozer?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> Movies render the same it just that its prerendered over rendered realtime
> 
> My arguments are valid
> 
> ...



I don't think you understand how film works. Its not about being Pre-rendered. Most movies up until recently were only 24fps. Seems much higher no? A game at 24fps would be jittery right? Well film multiples the frames giving the illusion of movement. This is why film is smooth at 24fps and games are not. So yeah your argument is null when it comes to film.

As for the frame rate you are also incorrect. See at one point in the game you could be at 100fps. The very next scene you could be at 20 fps 10 minutes later. What about the time span between? Do you just average it out between those high and lows? Or do you find the average frame per second of the entire span? Big difference.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I don't think you understand how film works. Its not about being Pre-rendered. Most movies up until recently were only 24fps. Seems much higher no? A game at 24fps would be jittery right? Well film multiples the frames giving the illusion of movement. This is why film is smooth at 24fps and games are not. So yeah your argument is null when it comes to film.
> 
> As for the frame rate you are also incorrect. See at one point in the game you could be at 100fps. The very next scene you could be at 20 fps 10 minutes later. What about the time span between? Do you just average it out between those high and lows? Or do you find the average frame per second of the entire span? Big difference.



100 and 20 fps <-- Micro-stuttering galore

Is an 80 fps fluctuation and the CPU or GPU is the bottleneck

24fps is pretty smooth if you have motion blur(Not as jittery) but it has to min out at 24fps

since most GPU can't get a min higher than 72 fps(the amount fps you don't need motion blur) you want the least fluctuations as possible


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> 100 and 20 fps <-- Micro-stuttering galore
> 
> Is an 80 fps fluctuation and the CPU or GPU is the bottleneck
> 
> ...



100fps to 20fps is...

A: An example.
B: Will not produce micro-shuttering if spread out which is why measuring the average frame per-second is more accurate. 

Also who says you need motion blur under 72fps? Did you just make that up?

As for the movie not being a valid argument I am glad you agree.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 100fps to 20fps is...
> 
> A: An example.
> B: Will not produce micro-shuttering if spread out which is why measuring the average frame per-second is more accurate.



1 second = 100 Fps 
1 second = 20 Fps
10 minutes = 300 times you will notice the immense jitter



TheMailMan78 said:


> Also who says you need motion blur under 72fps? Did you just make that up?





> 72p is a progressive format and is currently in experimental stages. Major institutions such as Snell have demonstrated 720p72 pictures as a result of earlier analogue experiments, where 768 line television at 75 FPS looked subjectively better than 1150 line 50 FPS progressive pictures with higher shutter speeds available (and a corresponding lower data rate). Modern cameras such as the Red One can use this frame rate to produce slow motion replays at 24 FPS. Douglas Trumbull, who undertook experiments with different frame rates that led to the Showscan film format, found that emotional impact peaked at 72 FPS for viewers. 72 FPS is the maximum rate available in the WMV video file format.



Movies are going to go from 24fps to 72fps
72FPS happens to not need a motion blur(Motion blur is created by the frame rate not the software, thus doesn't need Motion blur, lol so hard to explain this)



TheMailMan78 said:


> As for the movie not being a valid argument I am glad you agree.



I was talking about something else....more Youtube video than Cinema Movie


----------



## bucketface (Jun 24, 2011)

providing a graph over time & showing min, max and avg fps is prettyuch the best way to show performance in a given game. you want to avoid large rapid fluctuations in fps while maintaining as close to 60 fps as possible at all times. 

for example lets say gfx card A: min 30 max 120 with rapid frame fluctuations will give a "less smooth" experience than with gfx B: min 50 max 60. now lets just say that A gets a better avg, that doesn not mean you get a smoother experience than B. B infact appears smoother. 
thats what *seronx* is trying to say.. i think.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Also who says you need motion blur under 72fps? Did you just make that up?


72 fps is the highest framerate the eye can detect. anything beyond that and the eye physically can not tell the difference.

not that this has anything to do with BD.



caleb said:


> Anyways OT and I'm waiting for bulldozer with my new PC but from the hype about speculations and AMD being slow about I'm almost ready to go with i5.


if you can wait till late august then wait, if not go i5 2500k. hopefully bulldozer competes.


----------



## caleb (Jun 24, 2011)

stutter effect is not a strict FPS issue but its more related to video source+screen type specs. Anyways OT and I'm waiting for bulldozer with my new PC but from the hype about speculations and AMD being slow about I'm almost ready to go with i5.
I don't care if its good value for Dell to make enterprise class PC's with AMD cpu's. I want pure game performance for what I pay for and from the looks of it AMD doesn't have anything better in terms of FPS/$$.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 24, 2011)

caleb said:


> stutter effect is not a strict FPS issue but its more related to video source+screen type specs. Anyways OT and I'm waiting for bulldozer with my new PC but from the hype about speculations and AMD being slow about I'm almost ready to go with i5.
> I don't care if its good value for Dell to make enterprise class PC's with AMD cpu's. *I want pure game performance for what I pay for and from the looks of it AMD doesn't have anything better in terms of FPS/$$.*



i think i will kill myself.


----------



## moonlord (Jun 24, 2011)

FX8150P price will be 350+ with Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 mobo and 7XXX series this cpu will be great, i'm tired of Intel's supremacy.
http://wccftech.com/2011/06/05/amd-...tails-leaked-features-turbo-boost-upto-47ghz/


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

moonlord said:


> FX8150P price will be 350+ with Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 mobo and 7XXX series this cpu will be great, i'm tired of Intel's supremacy.
> http://wccftech.com/2011/06/05/amd-...tails-leaked-features-turbo-boost-upto-47ghz/



FX8150P will take the price of the FX8130P





bucketface said:


> providing a graph over time & showing min, max and avg fps is prettyuch the best way to show performance in a given game. you want to avoid large rapid fluctuations in fps while maintaining as close to 60 fps as possible at all times.
> 
> for example lets say gfx card A: min 30 max 120 with rapid frame fluctuations will give a "less smooth" experience than with gfx B: min 50 max 60. now lets just say that A gets a better avg, that doesn not mean you get a smoother experience than B. B infact appears smoother.
> thats what *seronx* is trying to say.. i think.



Yes, I can agree to that but I have a more prominent weird story

Crysis 1 on my Pentium 4 and a 8800GTS only was able to get 9-11 min-max fps on all high

Crysis 1 on my 965BE and a GTX480 was able to get 30fps avg (14 min/60 max) and it looked a lot worse subjectively compared to the pentium this was on all ultra



bucketface said:


> 72 fps is the highest framerate the eye can detect. anything beyond that and the eye physically can not tell the difference.
> 
> not that this has anything to do with BD.


Subjectively 72fps is the best

But the human eye in reality can see
about 2450000000 FPS but the problem is that our brain can't process that much frames for us, as people



bucketface said:


> if you can wait till late august then wait, if not go i5 2500k. hopefully bulldozer competes.



i5 2500k and i7 2600k is the way to go on cheap fps performance


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 24, 2011)

bucketface said:


> 72 fps is the highest framerate the eye can detect. anything beyond that and the eye physically can not tell the difference.



I think the air force did test showing we detect into the 200 fps range. I'm not positive but I think it's a sync issue. Like maybe the display refresh rate and the refresh rate of you eyes are out of sync. I think it takes over 500hz to get you an image that looks as smooth and real as say your reflection in a mirror.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I think the air force did test showing we detect into the 200 fps range. I'm not positive but I think it's a sync issue. Like maybe the display refresh rate and the refresh rate of you eyes are out of sync. I think it takes over 500hz to get you an image that looks as smooth and real as say your reflection in a mirror.



It's more or so that our eyes have a dynamic refresh rate

when nothing is moving the refresh rate can be low but instant the brain sees something it starts pumping up that refresh rate

That is why most people can't react to a punch that is instantaneous 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIf5XvFrBFo

time the amount of ns/frames before he reacted, the reaction is when he starts to move his hands after he had a natural reflex just telling


----------



## repman244 (Jun 24, 2011)

So by the looks of this thread I can conclude that Bulldozer will be priced at 72fps


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

repman244 said:


> So by the looks of this thread I can conclude that Bulldozer will be priced at 72fps



Yes, if it doesn't have a price of 72fps.....

I am going intel



I am joking of course


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> It's more or so that our eyes have a dynamic refresh rate
> 
> when nothing is moving the refresh rate can be low but instant the brain sees something it starts pumping up that refresh rate
> 
> ...



That video is amazing.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 24, 2011)

After doing searching NewEgg and Amazon top to bottom, I can't find lower voltage (1.5V) RAM running @ 1866 or 2133, that has a low heat spreader to fit under large coolers (like mine), considering the proximity of the CPU socket & RAM slots of the 990FX boards.:shadedshu
Need to find some to pair up with Zambezi when it comes out next century.
Anyone know of any?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 24, 2011)

Anusha said:


> There is nothing wrong with the CPU. Maybe it has gotta do with the high profile settings? I'm trying to reencode some movies which I already had ripped. Originally /fraps -> MKV, now MKV -> Mp4 for better compatibility. Should have done the Original src -> MP4 conversion in the first place. Oh well. That's what I am gonna do from now onwards.



This might fit your needs. Kingston Hyper X 1800 1.5v

http://www.valueram.com/datasheets/KHX1800C8D3K2_4G.pdf

I can't find where to buy it though, so sorry about that. If you look hard enough, it has to be out there somewhere.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 24, 2011)

Thanks Damn_Smooth, but that's slightly underspec'd. Need 1866 or 2133.


----------



## bucketface (Jun 24, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> I can't find lower voltage (1.5V) RAM running @ 1866 or 2133


http://www.gskill.com/products.php?c1=1&c2=3&c3=67
some of these are 1866mhz at 1.5v
i wonder when we'll be seeing 1866mhz at 1.3v?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 24, 2011)

OMG! There is so much stupid on this page it makes my brain hurt. Most of you have no grasp on how your eye actually works. Your eyes do not work like a camera. FPS is a condition of perception and the average human perceives between 60 to 75 FPS. If you really want to know how your eye works, click here.



seronx said:


> Crysis 1 on my Pentium 4 and a 8800GTS only was able to get 9-11 min-max fps on all high
> 
> Crysis 1 on my 965BE and a GTX480 was able to get 30fps avg (14 min/60 max) and it looked a lot worse subjectively compared to the pentium this was on all ultra



This is actually not possible. No comment.

And seronx you should look up what motion blur actually is because its not what you think it is.

If you did, you would seen this is a Bulldozer thread. If you wish to continue your discussion, please create a new thread about it.


----------



## theeldest (Jun 24, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> After doing searching NewEgg and Amazon top to bottom, I can't find lower voltage (1.5V) RAM running @ 1866 or 2133, that has a low heat spreader to fit under large coolers (like mine), considering the proximity of the CPU socket & RAM slots of the 990FX boards.:shadedshu
> Need to find some to pair up with Zambezi when it comes out next century.
> Anyone know of any?



1866MHz
2x4GB
CAS 9
1.5v

You have two choices from G.Skill (Red or Black).
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR...
G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 S...


----------



## theeldest (Jun 24, 2011)

Question on the memory I just posted (trying to to be too off topic):

How well/poorly would it work to use a set of Snipers and a set of Ripjaws together? (I like the idea of half red and half black for my color scheme)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

theeldest said:


> Question on the memory I just posted (trying to to be too off topic):
> 
> How well/poorly would it work to use a set of Snipers and a set of Ripjaws together? (I like the idea of half red and half black for my color scheme)



I have the new 990FX chipset with that exact same RAM. First question. How much RAM do you need. If you only need 4 gigs there is better RAM to be had then the snipers.


----------



## theeldest (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I have the new 990FX chipset with that exact same RAM. First question. How much RAM do you need. If you only need 4 gigs there is better RAM to be had then the snipers.



"Need" or "Want"?

8GB is the Need (ok, not really need, but it's cheap, so why not)
16GB is the Want. (ie: mine is bigger than yours)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

theeldest said:


> "Need" or "Want"?
> 
> 8GB is the Need (ok, not really need, but it's cheap, so why not)
> 16GB is the Want. (ie: mine is bigger than yours)



The more ram you have (Physical sticks) the more stress on the memory controller the harder it is to OC. It also makes for a slower system overall. 4gigs is more then enough for most people. 8gigs if you are a heavy multitasking of into things like Photoshop.

Personally for a gaming rig I would go with 4 gigs. And DO NOT mix and match ram types.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The more ram you have (Physical sticks) the more stress on the memory controller the harder it is to OC. It also makes for a slower system overall. 4gigs is more then enough for most people. 8gigs if you are a heavy multitasking of into things like Photoshop.
> 
> Personally for a gaming rig I would go with 4 gigs. And DO NOT mix and match ram types.



I've always been luck and can push my ram so the same clocks regardless of the amount of sticks in use.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> I've always been luck and can push my ram so the same clocks regardless of the amount of sticks in use.



You are also only running two sticks.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Must of forgotten to update my specs, running 4x2gb at the moment.

And my xeon 775 rig had 4x2gb as well although it's stock clock speed was lower.

*edit* Naw it was already in my sys specs.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Must of forgotten to update my specs, running 4x2gb at the moment.
> 
> And my xeon 775 rig had 4x2gb as well although it's stock clock speed was lower.
> 
> *edit* Naw it was already in my sys specs.



What Mhz and timings?

Also Intel is a different ballgame all together when it comes to memory.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 24, 2011)

Well it was a while ago but I could get my corsair sticks to 1800mhz up from 1333mhz.

These kingston ones don't overclock so well though and also max out around that level even though they start at 1600.

That's with two or four sticks installed.

I've always been an FSB overclocker though so I have to fiddle with the ram just to get my overclocks working as they should XD


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Well it was a while ago but I could get my corsair sticks to 1800mhz up from 1333mhz.
> 
> These kingston ones don't overclock so well though and also max out around that level even though they start at 1600.
> 
> ...



I'm thinking of DDR2. Nevermind lol


----------



## theeldest (Jun 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The more ram you have (Physical sticks) the more stress on the memory controller the harder it is to OC. It also makes for a slower system overall. 4gigs is more then enough for most people. 8gigs if you are a heavy multitasking of into things like Photoshop.
> 
> Personally for a gaming rig I would go with 4 gigs. And DO NOT mix and match ram types.



Mailman, that may be true, but the other thing to consider is which will have the greater impact on epeen--RAM OC or RAM amount?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 24, 2011)

theeldest said:


> Mailman, that may be true, but the other thing to consider is which will have the greater impact on epeen--RAM OC or RAM amount?



On TPU it will be more impressive with a solid RAM OC then amount. Any ass can buy tons of RAM. But it takes real skill to OC RAM.

Oh wow you have a Bentley! Big deal we have a member that has a Ford Fiesta with 900hp.....savvy?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 24, 2011)

since ya all so far off topic what do you reckon to be able to get 2x 2gig of watercooled ddr2 too in spd mailman?

and right back on topic im deffinately dodgin this round of bulldozer for the next one

A cos im skint due to ONECALLDIRECT car ins lmfao(1 call) stealing all my money literally

B because the Q4 maybe Q1 2012 bulldozer enhanced one is going to be stepping 3 at least and miles better 

C im now hopeing pciex3 will be out n buy able soon though unsure of AMD Chipset compatabillity(any news or info on that(pciex 3 AMD mobo)would be nice?)


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> OMG! There is so much stupid on this page it makes my brain hurt. Most of you have no grasp on how your eye actually works. Your eyes do not work like a camera. FPS is a condition of perception and the average human perceives between 60 to 75 FPS. If you really want to know how your eye works, click here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's totally possible you are just a person with no validity or understanding how things work


And guys Bulldozer!!!!!!

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/06/amd-fx-bulldozer-mobo-round-up-preview.html

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/06/something-tasty-huh.html

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-you-ready-to-be-bulldozered.html

http://obrovsky.blogspot.com/2011/06/motherboards-first-impressions-fx.html

















Have some salt guys!

Now for comparisons











he Photoshopped because the gap between

1   .   29s
is so huge compared to the real thing


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> And guys Bulldozer!!!!!!



is late


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 24, 2011)

theeldest said:


> 1866MHz
> 2x4GB
> CAS 9
> 1.5v
> ...





bucketface said:


> http://www.gskill.com/products.php?c1=1&c2=3&c3=67
> some of these are 1866mhz at 1.5v
> i wonder when we'll be seeing 1866mhz at 1.3v?



Thanks, but still too high. Need something like:





What the hell is with these guys anyway; why can't they just make the vertical fins (that they've fallen in love with putting) at least detachable?!:shadedshu
The only ones I've seen that look like they _might_ be detachable are the Corsair Dominators, but they cost far too much!
What would I pair my Bulldozer with?


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jun 24, 2011)

seronx said:


> It's totally possible you are just a person with no validity or understanding how things work
> 
> 
> And guys Bulldozer!!!!!!
> ...



So basically all of these screens are bullshit and we still know nothing. If he's going to Photoshop one thing, there's no reason to believe he didn't Photoshop the rest.


----------



## seronx (Jun 24, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> So basically all of these screens are bullshit and we still know nothing. If he's going to Photoshop one thing, there's no reason to believe he didn't Photoshop the rest.



Exactly but it registered as a news article that popped up before I posted my last post yesterday

http://hardware.digital.it/amd-bulldozer-prime-immagini-e-test-di-un-fx-8130p-8953.html

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,8...s-FX-8130P-samt-frischen-Benchmarks/CPU/News/

http://translate.google.com/transla...s-FX-8130P-samt-frischen-Benchmarks/CPU/News/

^this article says he hid 1 * <-- that digit 10-19 seconds

B0(ES) Old Bios
27.439 sec for 3.2GHz
B0(ES) New Bios
10-19 seconds for 4.635 GHz

B0 still affected by the Half-clocked FPU still


----------

